|
Post by jethro on May 17, 2006 14:43:36 GMT -5
...I don't try to couch my posts at all, it is not who I' am... Then I would suggest that you start. You knowingly offending other forum members will NOT be tolerated. You can start all the threads you want. But, you will have to tolerate differing opinions. ETA: Before I get any whiny PM's about how this should have been dealt directly in a PM...this applies to others as well. Kindly be respectful to the opinions of others. Not everyone has to agree to your way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on May 17, 2006 15:09:29 GMT -5
I was an only child & I loved it That's great, kawaiidragonfoe. Not everyone is like you. I was simply responding to your question concerning why some people wish to have more than one child.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on May 17, 2006 15:20:41 GMT -5
The point is if we were sitting around having this discussion if it were 100 years ago because in vitro & embryo implantation wouldnt be available.
I believe that the scientists ared also mostly to blame for this also, they played god (basically) & tramped on everything evolution has worked so hard to build. I think this is the reason we have so many birth defects & mental illnesses, because people who shoudnt (as nature governs, & she makes no mistakes) have children arent willing to take no for an answer! So any scientific medical advance that prevents an individual from dying of a disease should go untreated because otherwise we're messing with the "natural" course of evolution? What if these people fall victim to a disease before they've had children? Is that "nature's" way of saying they should be removed from the gene pool? Should we stop vaccinating children and never give them antibiotics if a wound gets infected? Withhold insulin from diabetics? Just let nature/evolution take its course? That strikes me as absurd. But, it's definitely a point of view. I'll give you that. However, I wonder if you'd be so cavalier about ridding the gene pool of "weaklings" if it was you or someone you loved who needed to use these scientific advances in order to get well. Additionally, let's not forget that just because people have birth defects and mental or emotional health issues, does NOT mean that they don't contribute meaningfully to humanity, or that our species would be better off without their contributions. And, what if all these scientific advances are a part of "nature's" plan for our evolution?
|
|
rangerhm
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 59
|
Post by rangerhm on May 17, 2006 15:27:05 GMT -5
So Kawaiidragonfoe821, do you and your family partake in any sort of modern medicine? Take any antibiotics? Aspirin? Ever break a bone and have to have it set? God forbid you or a member of your family got cancer, would you take chemotherapy or radiation treatment for it? If you had heart disease would you have an angiogram and a stent put in if need be?
All of these are treatments were not around 100 years ago and people died of infections, broken bones, cancer, heart attacks, etc. Nature's way as you put it. Yet, with the advent of modern medicine, we keep these people alive. So should we revert back to the good old days and let those people die as well??
Also, with the advent of modern medicine and better pre-natal care, the rate of birth defects in this country is at an all time low. I don't know about mental illnesses, but if you are correct and it is on the rise I really doubt the increase in infertility treatments are to blame.
Could you expand on your definition of who "shouldn't" have children. Who gets to decide? The government? This would be a VERY scary place to live if the government had a say in who gets to reproduce and who doesn't...we have and are continuing to fight wars to protect our rights to individual freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 17, 2006 15:28:56 GMT -5
The point is if we were sitting around having this discussion if it were 100 years ago because in vitro & embryo implantation wouldn't be available.
Since when was this the point? Since you say, I guess. However we aren't talking about 100 years ago. I can see why you aren't for other's company; you don't seem to be for other's anything. Scientists - oh my that statement of yours had me doubled over in laughter. What a naive and one dimensional view of science. However, if that is your view, then how can you espouse the "science of evolution". You are going to pick and choose what discoveries are and are not "natural" according to your life views? I think you are just posting things like this to be contrary and hostile for the fun of the argument. I think this because you are totally inconsistent - you have been on the energy issue at any rate. Totally irreconcilable stances. I won't deal with someone who just spouts off things to have a debate - I only want to deal with someone who is honestly giving an opinion or asking for input. You have (to my grumpy old mind) an upstart & disrespectful attitude.
|
|
|
Post by pyramid on May 17, 2006 15:52:19 GMT -5
I think everyone is misunderstanding Kawaiidragonfoe821's posts because of her blunt, cavalier manner.
Maybe I can shed some new light into this conversation? I myself do not believe in many forms of conventional medicine myself BUT, I will not try to force others to believe my way. It is my individual way of living and thinking. I do think many modern ways of medicine are "against nature" but am not going to judge anyone because they think differently from me.
I'm being a bit vague on purpose as I'm trying to diffuse and redirect the situation. If I am instead adding flame to the fire, forgive my intrusion and I will say no more.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on May 17, 2006 15:57:58 GMT -5
Actually, I think kawaii has been very clear in her position. I am simply taking her argument to a logical extreme in an effort to get her to further elucidate her views.
pyramid, have you ever considered that the fact that human beings have evolved in a way that leads them to make scientific advances in medical (and other) fields may be part of "nature's" plan? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by pyramid on May 17, 2006 17:07:12 GMT -5
Your question is too broad a territory for me to give a simple yes or no answer, yet my instant reaction is no. Now how to word my explanation is another issue. Could you reword the question? Maybe I can work from "the bottom up" to answer. Again, I'm not speaking for all of society, I'm soley speaking for myself.
We may have many medical advances in technolgy but we also have many more diseases and health problems so, medical technology and advances aren't all it's cracked up to be. (IMO.) I think the more we interfere with the nature, the more havoc we wreak upon mankind. Lives are being extended but there are still people who die of common diseaes and rare diseaees because no research money goes into treatment, cures,or prevention. Billions are spent on Cancer and AIDS research but little is spent on other diseases.
To attempt to answer the question, I think we live in an over-medicated society. We think we need a pill for every little ache or sniffle. The body becomes dependant on these medications instead of the immune system fighting off disease. By taking so many medications, we pollute our bodies and weaken our immune systems.
Of course, this is my individual opinion. I guess you could call me a naturalist. Of course, there are some diseases and injuries that require immediate medical intervention. I would prefer to seek out the most "natural" course of treatment as possible. I won't take cold medicines or pain medicine. I think sometimes doctors try to play God. Cloning is a great example.
I recently had a surgery and refused any blood transfusions or blood products, autthenic or synthentic, during the surgery, much to ire of my doctors. I essentially gabmled with my life. Had I started to profusely bleed, I would have died without blood. However, my belief is so strong that I acepted the outcome of the surgery as my fate. Obviously, I lived. LOL! There is something I wish I had known about beforehand: You can donate your own blood to yourself ahead of time in case you need it. I prefer that route as it is my own blood and more "natural".
My father is a doctor and we are always at odds about medicine and treatments. He thinks I am ridiculous, I think he is as well.
I realize this is probably not the answer you wanted but, hopefully this is a start.
I am also regretting my descion to post this as I press "Post Reply". It's a tuchy, sensitive subject, and my beliefs are hard to understand and even that much harder to explain.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on May 17, 2006 17:32:54 GMT -5
Oh Pyramid, I hear what your saying. I too, think we take pills to easily. As for Cancer and such. I remember when I was a kid the man next door, had a growth on his side. I saw it grow through the years. The doctors where always badgering him to have it removed. It could be cancer they would tell him. He felt if they cut into the growth he would be dead within a year. He is about 90 years old today living happily with his daugher. While my mom-in-law had a growth, lump they operated and she was dead within in 3 years.
Sometimes I do think it is best to leave some things alone. and sometimes I think with all of our medical progress, we are just prolonging death, and its harder on us….. but it easy for me to say that now. I haven’t been diagnosed with any dreadful disease. Like my nana said. 'You fight to live, when you know your dying."
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 17, 2006 17:53:59 GMT -5
Thank you Cassie & Pyramid for being able to read between the lines of my posts, yes they are blunt & cavalier in their manner but that is the only way I know how to be I can't be anyway else because I was raise to speak what I really thought, not to sugar coat it because others are overly sensitive.
Troubling th the mod's with private messages because a topic is becoming too close to your heart or becoming too much of a sensitive topic is petty, if you don't like this thread then don't read it.
To answer your question, yes my family has taken, antibiotics, aspirin & such but we don't believe in chemotherapy, I myself thinks that it is worse then the disease. I' am a smoker, I know that one day I will probably die of an illness related to smoking & thats ok with me. I' am not afraid of death, I think that we have invented all these treatments because we as a society reject death as a part of life.
|
|
|
Post by Criminal Mastermind on May 17, 2006 18:03:04 GMT -5
"Troubling th the mod's with private messages because a topic is becoming too close to your heart or becoming too much of a sensitive topic is petty, if you don't like this thread then don't read it."
are you trying to get banned?
|
|
|
Post by Major Hathaway on May 17, 2006 18:13:34 GMT -5
i was only troubled with one pm about this and it wasn't a complaint about you or your thread - so don't presume to think you know what my motivations are or what other members here are thinking.
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 17, 2006 18:21:50 GMT -5
I am not trying to be offensive to other members or trying to start a fight, I' am merely debating in the only manner I know how; straight forward & bluntly.
I, however feel no hard feelings towards them for their views, no matter how I may come across.
I just would hate to be banned because I' am merely exercising my right to free speech. Again I' am NOT out to attack anyone or shun anyone's beliefs, but I do have the right to disagree with them.
Thank you, Major Hathaway for seeing that I indeed mean no harm or ill will to any one.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 17, 2006 18:25:34 GMT -5
It is not the topic that I am sensitive to - it is your stated ideas which are mutually exclusive & to hold them at best you are deluding yourself and at worst you are running a game on this board.
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 17, 2006 18:33:57 GMT -5
It is not a game, It is a debate. It is not meant to string any one along or single anyone out. My beliefs are mine alone, you dont see me thrusting them onto anyone else (if it seems that was it was not my intention). I dont condemn anyone for having a child the scientific way, but I do have the right as a free American to disagree & debate accordingly.
|
|