Population dynamics and individual experiences

March 25, 2002

Bracketing two POTENTIALLY confusing factors,1) the morality of abortion2) the mistreatment of some by otherslet's consider ONLY ONE ASPECT the pure LOGIC of a highly complex situation:Postulate:What we don't know we can't use to base our claims (because we don't know its truth value either way).Reasonable thought about an observation.The mistreatment of some (who claim a position) of others (who deny that position) is not, in itself, the position. (That logical position, or belief, could be held by others in a way which does NOT involve mistreating those who do not agree with it.)From a purely logical perspective, killing preborn infants COULD be morally undesirable, regardless of how pro-abortion persons are mistreated by SOME (hardly a large number of aggressive persons) PROFESSED anti-abortionists. (We know that some folks seem to act out aggressions for numerous unrelated and sometimes conflicting "reasons.")Observation, confirmed by social sciences:As population increases, as in cities, the incidences of aggression increases in number.This observation has been made of both human and nonhuman populations.Reasonable thought about an observation.Reducing the RATE of population increase MIGHT be defensible, given the reasons presented for justifying the desirability of this option.The most effective means of population growth reduction is total abstinence.Potential sociological data, based on extensive observations of many concerned observers:The majority of those who most vocally claim that abstinence from sexual involvement is not a viable option are those advocating both abortion and sexual involvements. (They don't want that position for themselves -- or others.)Many married religious persons bear more than two children, thus more than replenishing themselves, and during their lifetime increasing the overall human population, not by two, but by more than two (since these births occur BEFORE their deaths).Many children who are born experience developmental problems.Most children born in the developed world are or become nonvegetarians, which supports the killing of nonhumans for food.Not all vegans are consistently respectful towards others in speech, behavior, or attitude.Many influences (confluences) influence the personal behavior of persons in groups, including the way they're treated.Few vegetarians (regardless of their motivation for adhering to vegetarian diet) deeply understand the personalities and decisionmaking of nonvegetarians, nor are they prepared to effectively influence nonvegetarians towards vegetarian diets.Much Internet and in-person discourse is at best moot, and may be not only a waste of time, but counterproductive. Interactions between vegetarians, or exclusively between or among vegetarians, may not be exempted from this characteristic.What we do is part of the social dynamics of human populations. If we cannot get along with one another, then being vegan is NOT (in itself) the TOTAL solution to all the world's ills.msc(who wishes that vegetarians could spell and use grammar and punctuation effectively)

vegicate1 <simonpjones wrote: Edith,I think if you knew the facts about the lady in Ireland you will probably find that the story is more British propaganda,If you seriously believe that a women would be sent to prison for twelve years after wanting a abortion, after being raped,your seriously mislewd I've nothing against british or any body per say, but the history of british imperialism stinks like most societies, Britain still, like other demon societies revel in war and domination and slaughter,So please don't use a lie to blame those who are trying to stop abortion from being as exceptable as war and killing,I wonder would you encourage your son or best friend to go to war to kill or be killed?SP

Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®