28th January 2003, 10:21 AM
First, a very cynical comment by me regarding conservation. Isn't it very egotistical for us humans to assume we and we alone in the animal kingdom have the ability to destroy the world? Those giant flesh eating ants in africa seem like they could do it too...
Second, my REAL opinion on conservation. I actually think we should be concerned about nature at least enough to not burn the whole frickin' planet down. Do I think our current pollution is bad enough to do that? In actuality, no I don't. There is a cycle of life specifically for absorbing the stuff we toss out of factories (which as has been pointed out, is tossed out by nature anyway on a larger scale). It involves rain and red tides. Tiny critters (wow, I sure sound like an ignorant red neck here, but hear me out) eat this stuff and eventually multiply massivly until the water color changes. After this, other life forms come along and eat them up, multiplying themselves. The only major concern is that we may be causing more red tide than the ocean can can eat up. Oh yeah, and "save the whales", except in Japan, because I figure the whales need to LEARN to avoid us.
Oh, it seems the inspectors found some hidden missle places. That comic I found funny, because it does indeed point out the stupidity of the public (sorry, again with my cynicism), but the difference between "the moon" and a fellow with secret missle bases is that the moon has no mind of it's own or anything like that, and is run by predictable laws of nature. Science alone prooves that it's orbit is far too stable to ever crash into Earth. In fact, considering it's HUGE distance from the Earth, it's likely to actually be flung away when the orbit decays (really, the distance is NOT like this capital O and lower case o here (O o) but rather much farther, like these letters (O o), with only it's size convincing many people it's like, RIGHT outside the atmosphere). However, on the other hand we have a person who is pretty much known to be a control freak who WILL attack when he thinks it's needed to keep his power. Finding hidden missle bases is enough to proove that (I will admit, finding some nice proof is something I actually wanted to have done before war started, even though I also thought he deserved to be overthrown anyway).
As for abortion, that's a hair trigger issue with pretty much everyone. I'll basically point out the two logical flaws I find with thinking the right and wrong of it should be left to the individual. First off, when should it no longer be a right left to the individual? As in, when should a parent no longer get to choose when to kill off this undeveloped human? Humans are not fully developed into clear thinking adults until their teen years, and not fully developed physically until about 20 years of age. When a fetus is born into baby stage (why not go ahead and agree with your classification? Doesn't hurt me), it's still not near complete. The only difference is that instead of depending on nourishment from the womb, it depends on nourishment from other food sources. Mentally, it's still not nearly fully developed. Half the human brain is just framework for data during the first year of birth. The other half is purely instinctual. Higher thinking and such are not capable. In many ways, some might say they are not cognitive humans. So, why can't someone have the right to decide for themselves if killing their own born babies of up to 5 years of age is right or wrong? Why should the courts get involved in this moral choice? They are undeveloped after all.
As for the other flaw, this is it. I see a flaw in anyone using the argument "that moral decision should be left to them" without a decent argument as to WHY it should be left to them. The whole idea of laws is that there ARE some moral decisions that should NOT be left to the individual. The general consensus is that the individual choices of morality should be available in the "hurts no one" scenario. I think that the idea that abortion hurts no one is pretty much untrue. Before pointing out they aren't humans, remember you can say the same thing about born babies since they aren't fully developed either, and in fact have very little cognicience for a while.
Oh, and here's a tricky subject. What about rape and life threatening pregnancy? Rape I'll have to be pretty much a jerk about and say "there's still adoption". I know it sounds cruel to say that a woman should carry around a part of the evil person who raped her for 9 months, but she doesn't HAVE to think of it like that you know. That evil person is seperate from the life form gestating inside her, and to think of it as linked is something that could bleed into other opinions. She may think of herself as a part of him, somehow linked by that terrible action, when in fact she is not at all. She could put this link to other people during certain situations. It's a harmful way of thinking really, for her mainly but also for others. Should she think that this undeveloped fetus of a human is a part of that man, then what if for some reason she still has it, and even raises it? I think you can see how that kind of mindset could really hurt that relationship. As for life threatening issues, this is like something you see on "a very special episode" of ER or Star Trek or something, where the doctor has to choose who will live or who will die. It's just as tricky a subject as deciding if this person in VERY bad shape should have everything done even though the prospects are low, or if they should give up the ghost and their organs given to this other person who would die without that organ. Very tricky, and perhaps this should be dealt with on a per situation basis just like those situations.
Second, my REAL opinion on conservation. I actually think we should be concerned about nature at least enough to not burn the whole frickin' planet down. Do I think our current pollution is bad enough to do that? In actuality, no I don't. There is a cycle of life specifically for absorbing the stuff we toss out of factories (which as has been pointed out, is tossed out by nature anyway on a larger scale). It involves rain and red tides. Tiny critters (wow, I sure sound like an ignorant red neck here, but hear me out) eat this stuff and eventually multiply massivly until the water color changes. After this, other life forms come along and eat them up, multiplying themselves. The only major concern is that we may be causing more red tide than the ocean can can eat up. Oh yeah, and "save the whales", except in Japan, because I figure the whales need to LEARN to avoid us.
Oh, it seems the inspectors found some hidden missle places. That comic I found funny, because it does indeed point out the stupidity of the public (sorry, again with my cynicism), but the difference between "the moon" and a fellow with secret missle bases is that the moon has no mind of it's own or anything like that, and is run by predictable laws of nature. Science alone prooves that it's orbit is far too stable to ever crash into Earth. In fact, considering it's HUGE distance from the Earth, it's likely to actually be flung away when the orbit decays (really, the distance is NOT like this capital O and lower case o here (O o) but rather much farther, like these letters (O o), with only it's size convincing many people it's like, RIGHT outside the atmosphere). However, on the other hand we have a person who is pretty much known to be a control freak who WILL attack when he thinks it's needed to keep his power. Finding hidden missle bases is enough to proove that (I will admit, finding some nice proof is something I actually wanted to have done before war started, even though I also thought he deserved to be overthrown anyway).
As for abortion, that's a hair trigger issue with pretty much everyone. I'll basically point out the two logical flaws I find with thinking the right and wrong of it should be left to the individual. First off, when should it no longer be a right left to the individual? As in, when should a parent no longer get to choose when to kill off this undeveloped human? Humans are not fully developed into clear thinking adults until their teen years, and not fully developed physically until about 20 years of age. When a fetus is born into baby stage (why not go ahead and agree with your classification? Doesn't hurt me), it's still not near complete. The only difference is that instead of depending on nourishment from the womb, it depends on nourishment from other food sources. Mentally, it's still not nearly fully developed. Half the human brain is just framework for data during the first year of birth. The other half is purely instinctual. Higher thinking and such are not capable. In many ways, some might say they are not cognitive humans. So, why can't someone have the right to decide for themselves if killing their own born babies of up to 5 years of age is right or wrong? Why should the courts get involved in this moral choice? They are undeveloped after all.
As for the other flaw, this is it. I see a flaw in anyone using the argument "that moral decision should be left to them" without a decent argument as to WHY it should be left to them. The whole idea of laws is that there ARE some moral decisions that should NOT be left to the individual. The general consensus is that the individual choices of morality should be available in the "hurts no one" scenario. I think that the idea that abortion hurts no one is pretty much untrue. Before pointing out they aren't humans, remember you can say the same thing about born babies since they aren't fully developed either, and in fact have very little cognicience for a while.
Oh, and here's a tricky subject. What about rape and life threatening pregnancy? Rape I'll have to be pretty much a jerk about and say "there's still adoption". I know it sounds cruel to say that a woman should carry around a part of the evil person who raped her for 9 months, but she doesn't HAVE to think of it like that you know. That evil person is seperate from the life form gestating inside her, and to think of it as linked is something that could bleed into other opinions. She may think of herself as a part of him, somehow linked by that terrible action, when in fact she is not at all. She could put this link to other people during certain situations. It's a harmful way of thinking really, for her mainly but also for others. Should she think that this undeveloped fetus of a human is a part of that man, then what if for some reason she still has it, and even raises it? I think you can see how that kind of mindset could really hurt that relationship. As for life threatening issues, this is like something you see on "a very special episode" of ER or Star Trek or something, where the doctor has to choose who will live or who will die. It's just as tricky a subject as deciding if this person in VERY bad shape should have everything done even though the prospects are low, or if they should give up the ghost and their organs given to this other person who would die without that organ. Very tricky, and perhaps this should be dealt with on a per situation basis just like those situations.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)