[mermaid]
> First of all, I apologise for the delay in replying.
[walpurgis]
No problem, no rush, thanks for replying. :)
[mermaid]
> I was a little
> distracted by the re-run of the old rabid discussion about Israel's
> murders.
[walpurgis]
Why argue? Both sides are wrong.
> [Walpurgis] The problem illustrates the solution - children must be
> given/allowed access to resources and the tools that bring solutions.
>
> [Mermaid]Not all of them. Some have the capability to find their
> solutions and some are simply not equipped cerebrally or intutively.
> This is when good parenting skills help to recognise the true
> capabilities of a child. After all, parenting isnt something that ends
> after labour.
[walpurgis] a fair point - I should have said "some children" - now *I*m making
generalisations! :)
> [Walpurgis]And what of your delight at their delight when they
> discover something new, something enjoyable?
>
> [Mermaid]This sounds like tree huggers telling me that they thought a
> flower is a miracle of nature. Doh! yea..it only happens several
> million times around the world in a day.
[walpurgis] not really. Its the same point you can make about anyone you love -
whether they're a child or adult, however you relate to them. A loved ones joy is
your joy.
> [Walpurgis] If kept away from their genitals enough, females won't
> even know about/be able to locate their own clitoris - the issue may
> well be one of knowledge again, rather than desire.
>
> [Mermaid]I agree. But I would also like to point to you that women's
> libido is often scattered by other distractions like childbirth,
> family, feminism, pedicures and pussy deodrant.
[walpurgis] all of these bar feminism seem unnecessary, even superfluous to the life
of a woman. If these factors are enforced in some way, they are part of the dynamic
of oppression and should only be accepted reflectively. Though woman have
choices about family etc today, they is still pressure to shave your arm-pits and pop
out kids. I'm sure you already realise all of this though! :)
> [Mermaid]Definitely not poison!! But I would suggest that you wash
> your hands anyways...:)
[walpurgis] there's nothing dirty about urine either, it just smells.
> [Mermaid]Hmm..A foetus, being a mass of tissue, IS property. It
> belongs to both the egg and sperm donar. I used to hold a position
> that its the woman's sole right to decide because 'its her body' etc
> etc....until someone asked me...very sensibly, i might add....if it
> was an fair situation when the father has no right in deciding if he
> wants his spare sperm turn into a brat. I now believe that a woman has
> the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but she does not have
> the right to bring into this world a life without the permission of
> the father of the child.
[walpurgis] I sympathise with this position, but given the status of woman today, I
think that the final say should always be hers. Certainly, this may frustrate or ruin
many men, but they should have been aware of the risks of conception during the
sexual act, and that their sperm may result in unwanted and contested gestation. If
said man has a meaningful relationship with a woman, if they know each other, if
they have discussed abortion etc., they should be able to work out this issue. This
makes for more responsible and safe relations. However, there should be options
for men (and women) to cut all ties with an unwanted child in these instances.
Biology doesn't define parenthood, social relations do.
[walpurgis] When we have a situation of gender equality, then men can have an
eqaul say in what happens to their sperm. Until then, women need this extra
leverage so as to avoid the pressures that consign them to the status of mans'
property. Women need this extra power.
[walpurgis] On the flip side, women have the right to abort anytime, for whatever
reason, IMO, not matter how (seemingly) frivolous. The sperm "owner" can voice his
opinions, but cannot, under any circumstances or for whatever reason, enforce
gestation. In our current social climate, women must have absolute control over
gestation that occurs within themselves* and there need be no apology, regret or
guilt after termination. (* note that gestation will soon be possible in artificial wombs,
which will complicate this issue considerably. I have some thoughts on this matter,
but am already straying off-topic).
> [Mermaid]Right! If a child grows up believing that he doesnt owe any
> gratitude for the food, shelter, clothing, education and life he has
> gained from his parents, then his parents probably deserve an ingrate
> like that for raising an child with no values. No, the child doesnt
> not owe anything to the parents. Yes, he is probably an asshole.
[walpurgis] This is a matter of circumstance. If the parents treated said child like shit
(as well as clothing, housing etc), then why owe such parents anything? They were
probably assholes.
> [Mermaid]Nobody HAS to have annual physicals. But it is useful, isnt
> it?
[walpurgis] Yes. But having an "expert" tell you whether you are fit to have children
is yet another example of people giving away power over their life to some new
judge whose decision will be morally and ideologically informed. Then again, it
might be a good thing to have such an institution, so long as there was constant,
rigourous, honest and free debate over what informed the institution and so long as
taking part in it remained optional (as you say). (Personally, I'm able to make my
own decisions/analysis of my social relations.)
> [mermaid] It is probably not worthwhile or
> possible as a 'compulsary' procedure.
[walpurgis] if it were compulsory it would soldify more state power over the lives of
individuals.
> [Walpurgis]Financial status will leave a lot of poor people childless
> (having money isn't a virtue, there are poor people who have close
> loving family lives).
>
> [Mermaid]And having poor parents who cannot afford education or proper
> health care is a good thing. There is only so much love can fulfill.
[walpurgis] the problem is not the parents or family, but the socio-economic
structure of the state that doesn't provide free and good healthcare and education.
> [Mermaid]Sometimes I feel that people have children for a hobby or
> because they want to 'find meaning in their lives' or just to prove
> some goddamned point based on their choice of sexuality. Sometimes, it
> is the parents themselves who abuse their children right from the time
> they decide to be a parent for all the wrong reasons. I wonder if
> there is any point at all in bargaining with them to provide a better
> childhood for children.
[walpurgis] I too feel this suspicion. Requiring vulnerable other people to care for so
as to give life meaning is *existential exploitation*. By this I mean that a person
must invest emotional time and energy into those that need help, so that they can
feed from their gratitude, the praise of others, or their own contented conscience
and thus understand themselves as valued, valuable and meaningful. In a strange
way, children can become a motivating factor for living (and working). This is why
parents want to exert so much control and also why they respond very negatively
when their investment doesn't result in dividends.
Walpurgis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.noumenal.net/exiles
Take the following two scenes enacted in a shopping mall, say, or on the street or in the park: in the first
an adult is striking a screaming child repeatedly on the buttocks; in the second an adult is sitting with a
child on a bench and they are hugging. Which scene is more common? Which makes us uneasy? Which
do we judge to be normal? Which is more likely to run afoul of the law? A society, I believe, which
honors hitting and suspects hugging is immoral.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexuality.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT