Is Life Worth Living?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Eidolan, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. Eidolan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    Thinking about an issue from a first person perspective does not mean that only one person is thinking and talking about it. People can discuss issues from a first person perspective. I asked the question because I want to see what other people think.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Sorry Baron, you probably have gonorrhea (aka the clap) not syphilis. And get that treated! If not for your sake then for Fluffy and Philbert. And have them tested too.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Well it does seem easier to let human babies push out naturally, than to push them back in.

    And a natural function of human life, is to produce more human life.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Oh was that your argument ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And so we should, as mindless drones, do what we were programmed to do ?
    But wait.. you are not just saying let people carry out their natural bodily functions, you actually want them to reproduce faster than they would naturally.
    Sick.
     
  8. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Seems like we should just start cloning them prontalist. Be more efficient, to get the numbers you are looking for, anyway.
     
  9. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    One of many, an expression of favoring natural elegance there.

    Yes, in the matter of human reproduction that benefits so many people who couldn't be born otherwise. Keep the door to life wide open. Let the womb be a "busy place." Respect the body's natural reproductive rhythms, and not obstruct its natural attempts to acheive pregnancy.

    But wait.. you are not just saying let people carry out their natural bodily functions, you actually want them to reproduce faster than they would naturally.
    Sick.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, reproduce faster, depending on what you mean by "naturally." I do think a larger proportion of the world would enjoy becoming sexual active, and so more people may actually be ready to marry while younger. I do think more people should be welcome to start reproducing closer to age of puberty, marrying as young as 16, 17, 18, 19, more natural teenage pregnancies, within responsible marriage of course. Some people actually are ready to marry before age 20, with their parent's blessing. And let the babies keep on coming until they just don't come anymore.

    While of course mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public, babies should be moved on to solid food as they become ready, so that mothers can move on towards conceiving the next child.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Either you think you are some sort comic troll or you are a scary freak.
    I haven't decided yet.
     
  11. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Wow. Let me get this straight.

    So women should be making babies from their first period to menopause?

    I mean that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, that's what he wants.. humans into infinity, women degraded to breeding machines.
     
  13. Eidolan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    What?
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes.. That's what Pronatalist is promoting.
     
  15. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Cloning? Cloning doesn't appear to be the way that God or nature would have for humans to be breeding.

    One practical argument for continuance of making babies, "the old fashioned way," and not so much by cloning, is if we are to just let the burgeoning billions of babies push their way into the world naturally, welcoming populations to swell naturally to accomodate so many, don't you suppose it would help, if the people generally look unique from one another? If we had some mad scientist proposing we clone massive sudden "armies" of people, wouldn't clones look identical, and thus seemingly excessive and "redundant?" Does armies of "redundant" looking people, help along my pronatalist arguments? I think the property of so many human bodies being uniquely identifiable, having faces that look somewhat different, makes it just a bit easier for people to see the immense and sacred value of each and every human life. Yes, there are natural "identical twins," but they seem to be fairly rare.

    Also, were the additional billions to arrive "suddenly," don't you suppose it could be a massive sudden "shock" to the system? Already, some places throughout the world have certain housing and water shortages. More people is great, but were the people to come gradually, as with the old natural way, then there should more easily be ample time to prepare and ADAPT. When people have babies, they have an idea that within 2 decades or so, they shall somehow need for additional housing to be built by then, well unless they think it would be wonderful and cozy, for their children to themselves be having still more children, underneath their own roof? Sure, why not have several pregnant women at once, under the same roof, provided one's home is "big?" I'm not saying that children must always move out of their parents home, before taking a mate and starting to breed themselves, as obviously cost concerns and other delays could sometimes cause children to start their families sometimes while still in a parent's home bedroom, as I saw somebody I know do for a short while. One of the daughters of a family at my old Church, married, and had a baby, before she moved out of her Dad's home. But that should be quite understandable, as it was a family of 8 children, 2 having already moved out, a custom built large house for their large family. But then they took the house next door, so I suspect her Dad had a hand in helping them to get such a nicely located house, waiting until a neighbor was ready to sell.

    Yes, I am suggesting the natural flow of human life, unhindered. Of course there should be some restraint upon how fast more and more people are added to the world, but I only expect it to be the natural lax restraits I see in my Bible. Marry first, and take responsibility for and care for and provide for and love all one's children. Puberty to menopause? Pretty much, and I am for more people marrying young. But many people won't know who their mates are to be, at the age of puberty. And probably many of them, and/or their parents, may, especially in developed countries, want to wait a few years, before plunging into marriage. Yes, I do think more people should marry young, as somebody on the Philippines prolife forum I often visit said, during their "raging hormones" years, and not waiting so long as to already be losing interest in sex. But that could be age 17, 19, early 20s. Yes, I do think some "teenage pregnancies" are quite legitimate and understandable, as many are to people age 18 or 19, who happen to be married.

    If "true love waits," does it wait, and wait, and wait? Didn't Newton say that to every force, there is an equal and opposite reaction, speaking of physics? Well if people then must "wait" until marriage for sex, then the "equal and opposite reaction" would seem to be, that "waiting" until marriage for sex, sometimes can also "pull" marriage to occur at younger ages. That's fine, if they are ready and know who to marry. I do think a larger porportion of the world's "huge" and growing population, may enjoy being sexual active, if they do so responsibly, meaning to commit properly into marriage, and promise not to leave their mate, and not to run off on their duty to help with any children that may naturally result.

    I am quite concerned that the awful myriad of side-effects of shoddy experimental Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, is being seriously under-reported. What is menopause for anyway? Maybe that's nature's signal, that there comes a time, after faithfully and responsibly reproducing, that it's "enough" and it's the younger generations turn now to do the reproducing.

    Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? When I was younger, I thought the best method of "birth control" would likely be that which seemed the most convenient and natural. Aha! There is a most natural and elegant method. How about, the "no method" method. What could be more natural, than welcoming babies to come as they come? The heathen worldly people want "unlimited sex without the 'burden' of 'unwanted' children." To which the more moral or spiritually-minded person may counter, "Well how about unlimited sex welcoming any babies that naturally come along?" More people to experience life. Welcoming the natural flow of human life, or "all the children God gives." No need for married couples to argue on how many children to have, if they decide to trust God for the number, or however many is however many. It worked well for our ancestors. What could be a more natural and elegant means of naturally "spacing" babies, than an already occupied womb, and natural breastfeeding until babies can move on to more solid food?
     
  16. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Actually, I apparently was not the first, to think of such ideas. Humans into infinity?

    Some time ago while googling the internet, I found some painting, of a couple of humans embraced upon the ground into the recognizable lovemaking coitus position upon the ground, and out from behind them streams a narrow stream of people, which in the distance naturally mushrooms and blossoms into a vast and endless crowd all around them, perhaps possibly watching them make love.

    Sort of like some Adam & Eve representation, which over the generations, eventually "explodes" into the "burgeoning billions" of people now alive today.

    I thought it actually a rather beautiful painting, but if I had one, where should it go, it being a sexually erotic portrayal? In the bathroom or bedroom? Would anybody think it a good painting to buy and display somewhere? If so, where?

    And why is human breeding supposedly degrading? Isn't that more what the contraceptive pushing pushes for? A lack of respect for human procreation. Motherhood is actually a very honorable occupation. Isn't there a saying that the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world?

    And why are women supposedly degraded into breeding machines anyway? Ye old double standard? What of the fathers? Are they also "breeding machines," or is it just "macho" for men to have baby after baby, and only the mothers are to blame?
     
  17. Dr Hannibal Lecter Gentleman and Cannibal. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
  18. AlActor Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Life is worth living if you have a goal in mind. If not, then life become boring, sad, slow, pointless.
     
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Some days you feel like a nut,

    Some days you don't.
     

Share This Page