[extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!Filmateleven.

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 6 20:50:39 UTC 2005



--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> It's the same reason I don't bother
> on
> > opining on whether tampons are superior to
> maxipads. I
> > say leave the woman business to the women.
> 
> Same reason?  Why, you must be independently wealthy
> or something.

I earn a living doing what I love to do which is
researching whatever scientific problem strikes my
fancy. I also have as many material possessions as I
care to keep track of. Does this make me independently
wealthy? In my opinion it does.

> Because - assuming you are fertile - if you should
> find yourself the party 
> to woman's pregnancy - 

This is a big if. I have never had a problem with
condoms failing me and I don't think I would ever
"accidently" conceive a child. Things like that are a
choice for me. 

> she will then decide for you
> (whether you like it or 
> not), and if a child ensues from her decision - it
> is *you* who will be 
> responsible for forking over a good deal of money
> for the child's rearing 
> and welfare.

If the child were mine, chances are it was on purpose.
Even if it wasn't on purpose, if it was mine, I would
be happy to pay for the child's support. If I wanted
to concieve a child, I would discuss it with my
partner. If she was not ready for a child, I would not
expect her to have one until she was ready. If she
simply did not want MY child, then I would find a new
partner. If she tried to pass someone else's child off
as my "accident", I would know since I can run a DNA
paternity test on the child myself in about 4hrs.     

> This is, of course, also assuming she
> is one of those "old 
> fashioned" types who believes in observing this
> particular privilege women 
> have had in past year - and takes you to court if
> you object to her decision 
> to make you pay.

If the child was mine, she would not NEED to take me
to court. I own up to my actions, mistakes or
otherwise.

 
> It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for
> women.

I don't disagree with this.


> > 4. Biologically speaking an umbilical cord is the
> most
> > extreme form of welfare yet devised and some women
> DO
> > have children for the express purposes of getting
> more
> > free money from the state.
> 
> >From the state?  Do a majority of women depend on
> welfare to rear their 
> children?  Do you know how difficult it is to get
> welfare? (a great deal of 
> this goes to blind people and people who have
> various disabilities, by the 
> way)  Do you know how financially compromised those
> women are who may need 
> to resort to welfare to help rear their children? 
> You don't really believe 
> in "welfare queens - do you?"  Please, get serious.

Believe in them? We are not talking about angels here.
I have met a mother and daughter two generation family
of welfare queens. Of course they did not make enough
money off of welfare so they supplemented their income
by selling chrystal methamphetamines. They lived the
hell's angel/biker lifestyle, and had several children
each from several different men none of whom they were
married to. Not that it matters, but they happened to
be white too.   

> (Did your mother work 
> for a living?)

She died when I was 12 but she was sort of a
homemaker. So yes she worked but the income came from
my father.

> 
> > 5. Violent sociopathic criminals tend to have
> troubled
> > childhoods wherein they are neglected, unwanted,
> and
> > abused. So I ask, "are we sparing them in the womb
> > only to put them on death row when they turn 18?"
> 
> What a sweeping generalization.  I wouldn't know
> where to begin with this.

There is actually an economist who shows that violent
crime dropped in the ensuing decades following Roe vs.
Wade, so this "sweeping generalization" is not mine
alone.
 
> 
> > 7. The guys who blow up abortion clinics probably
> > don't get laid often.
> 
> And they probably have milk in their refrigerators
> ... so your point is ...?

My point was that I don't have a point. Are you trying
to bait me to get me to choose a side and join the
memetic melee? Nice try but I have more important
things to do. Having an abortion is wrong but so is
having an unwanted child. Which is the lesser of the
two evils? You would be better off asking someone who
has a more accurate moral compass than me. In nature,
a mother that can't support her offspring will often
kill them, not in the womb, but in the nest after they
are born. That is the law of jungle. I will leave
society's laws regarding abortion to the women and the
legislators to decide.



The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list