Have you ever browsed a sperm bank catalog? It's a real meat market. You get lists of men by height, weight, profession, ethnic background, etc., and if you like that 6'1" red-haired Lithuanian stockbroker, click, and he's in your shopping cart. They ship direct to your doctor (residential delivery costs extra), and they even have a return policy.
Of course, if you're anything like me, you look at the list and can't help but think, "What a bunch of wankers."
Still, it's a tragedy when you learn that they've been wiped out in a tragic refrigerator accident. Oh, my dear Scots-Irish ski instructor with type A+ blood! Alas, poor Asian medical intern with a fondness for reading! Say it isn't so, O+ African American lawyer and theater fan! So much potential life lost…when's the memorial service?
P.S. There is a real tragedy here: men undergoing cancer treatments with risk of infertility also lost deposits. That part isn't funny at all, and I imagine there is some emotional trauma involved.
- Log in to post comments
Wankers indeed. I should know, my donations helped me through my first stage of grad school (also known as the hungry stage).
I tested it out by asking for a blond-haired, blue-eyed caucasian and came up with a German (go figure!) English major with cystic fibrosis mutations who likes hunting, fishing and golfing.
We live in a very strange world.
What I like is the abbreviations of occupations. A random search turns up, four items down, a Finnish-Honduran PolySci/Theatr Stud. Shouldn't we take that occupation category for granted?
Marge: "101 Frozen Pops." [turns the page] A Nobel Prize Winner! An NBA All-Star! Ooh, one of the Sweathogs!
Selma: I checked. It's not Horshak.
Not funny, but hardly tragic. Adoption is a time honored way to become a parent if one feels having children is necessary to fulfillment. Adoption arguably makes a bigger contribution to society as well.
No Rh- donors at all? I feel discriminated against.
For biologically understandable reasons, most people want their children to be their biological offspring. Someone who has saved their sperm as insurance against losing their ability to produce sperm obviously fits into that category. Thus, it is tragic in a very real sense for someone who is suffering from cancer to lose that insurance, and it isn't made any less tragic by the fact that some people aren't able to empathize with those who have different views than their own. Perhaps such people who do better to accost people with children in the street and berate them for having naturally born children rather than adopting; at least those folks had a choice.
I'm not sure it is entirely "biologically understandable reasons," not after all the natalist propaganda in the media these days, especially after the advent of all these new technologies which will allow previously infertile people to have their biological offspring. I think there's a heck of a lot more culture in the mix there than you're giving credit for, which is why I'm doubly pleased when I hear about someone adopting.
I think the double standard is kind of glaring, especially since a lot of the people who'd argue that the pressure to have one's genetically own children is primarily biological are often the same people who like to talk about how human beings aren't creatures of instinct at all.
Speaking as an adoptee myself, I'd like to say to those guys, "Sorry it happened to you, but if having children is something you're really desperate for, there are still lots of options."
Interrobang writes -
'I'm not sure it is entirely "biologically understandable reasons," not after all the natalist propaganda in the media these days, especially after the advent of all these new technologies which will allow previously infertile people to have their biological offspring.'
With you, Interrobang (at least, sort of). Okay, I'll take the sensitivity training but for now, I just have zero sympathy (and not much more in tolerance) for people who refuse to adopt. To me, if I truly have the resources for child raising, then, as a responsible and contributing member of society, I am obligated to adopt some vulnerable person.
Don't want to adopt? To me, that's a sign that I really don't have appropriate resources for child raising.
"But then, when would we get to have our own children?" When there are no more vulnerable persons to adopt. Might help some people to feel 'motivated' to include the vulnerable in their 'family planning'. Sorry if I sound harsh but this is an emotional issue with me.
Teach me a better attitude.
Thanks, Interrobang!
Assisted fertility treatments are often times much less costly than adoption.
Domestic adoption is expensive and is full of legal entanglements that have to be avoided so that one is able to legally keep the child.
International adoption is even more expensive with the low end being ~$12,000 and the high end upwards of $30,000+
If you are not a legally married couple (or are not allowed to be a legally married couple) your adoption options are even more limited. When society makes it as easy to adopt as it is to get pregnant (even with assistance) then I think more people will adopt.
Domestic adoption is expensive and is full of legal entanglements that have to be avoided so that one is able to legally keep the child.
Wrong. That's only true if you insist on adopting an infant. If you're willing to adopt an older child (just a couple years old makes big difference), your options open way up, the expense gets much lower, and the legal entanglements actually are often less. As a person who adopted a child who really needed someone, I have zero sympathy with people who freak out and go through all kinds of extraneous procedures to get a child yet who refuse to adopt. There are thousands of children out there languishing just because they aren't Healthy White Infants -- if you'd rather be childless than adopt, to me that says you didn't want to be a parent that much.
Thanks, Dlanod...
You have been much more gracious probably than I deserve. However, I have not been explicit enough. When I am talking about adopting 'vulnerable' people, I am not referencing only babies, children or young people. I mean ANYONE, whether they are eight days, eight weeks, eighteen or eighty-eight. I am a bit like AndyS, above and I hope I am somewhat in sympathy with Interrobang. However, my attitude (at least, for now) is that "until there are NO more vulnerable persons" who might benefit from the resources that I have to offer, I am committing a crime to reproduce whether or not I 'need' fertility treatment.
Dlanod, I am not accusing you but I grow weary of those I perceive to be 'pro-natalists' using every opportunity, every excuse to breed (and to encourage still MORE breeding) when there are AMAZING numbers of vulnerable persons who remain unclaimed. When we leave vulnerable people unclaimed (who want to be claimed), we as a society are headed down a slippery slope. I think that's part of the reason we are in the mess we're in with terrorists and such.
Do we worship our own fecundity? Are we unwilling to make ANY choices based on the needs around us? Yes, I know, this is all very subjective and opinionated (am I foaming at the mouth yet?) but I think we have allowed the pro-natalists FAR too much leeway and influence. Tolerance? Okay, I'll try but I want some REAL efforts on the part of those who would reproduce to put first the needs of the people who are already here. What's rational about ignoring the persons who are already here?
Whew! Thanks, Dlanod! Thanks, AndyS! Thanks, Interrobang! Thanks, PZ!
Yeah, What George Cauldron said! (Thanks, George!)
Assisted fertility treatments are often times much less costly than adoption.
Often adoption is much cheaper. I have friends who dropped $30K on three years' worth of fertility treatments. The adoption I did was MUCH MUCH MUCH less than that, I assure you.
I'm not sure it is entirely "biologically understandable reasons,"
Do you see the word "entirely" in my post anywhere?
I just have zero sympathy (and not much more in tolerance) for people who refuse to adopt.
Neither PZ nor I said nothing about refusing to adopt. What's wrong with you people, that you respond to strawmen that have nothing to do with what people write? What makes you think that the men who lost their sperm in this accident will refuse to adopt?
What's wrong with you people, that you respond to strawmen that have nothing to do with what people write? What makes you think that the men who lost their sperm in this accident will refuse to adopt?
Speaking of strawmen, where exactly did anyone say "obviously none of these men who lost their sperm in this accident will ever adopt"?
Tom wrote "I just have zero sympathy (and not much more in tolerance) for people who refuse to adopt." Who, other than Tom, said anything about people refusing to adopt? What we're talking about here is people who prefer to have biological offspring, and specifically people who lost that option due to an accident at a sperm bank. There's no indication that anyone refuses to adopt, and many people who can't have biological offspring do so. Thus, his comment is addressed to a strawman. Duh.
And, if by "refuse to" Tom actually means "choose not to", and apparently that is what he really means, then he has "zero sympathy (and not much more in tolerance) for people who" "have the resources for child raising" but choose not to adopt, and so he has zero sympathy and not much more tolerance for a very large segment of the human race. It's a mighty damn arrogant position to take. As I said, "some people aren't able to empathize with those who have different views than their own".
It's not always about couples. Single women with some form of reproductive disease may opt for artificial insemination so they can have a child while they are still able. I have endometriosis and it's a race against the clock regarding when will Mr. Right come along vs ordering sperm. Since adoption options for single women are slim, shopping with cryo bank is the next best (and affordable) option. Seriously, I'd figured this group would have more compassion than this.
I hope this won't effact my order of Stephen Colbert's Formula 401
Seriously, I'd figured this group would have more compassion than this.
Adoption is very compassionate.
People, please, some people find artificial insemination annoying...but we should all agree that sperm death is deplorable, and there's no justice in it.
I'm am not anti-adoption at all, but unless someone comes up with a pill to turn off broodiness in women (which is incredibly depressing, life altering and *&^%ing unfair) I'm planning to have at least one child of my own, assuming I can. We may then adopt someday.
I'm am not anti-adoption at all, but unless someone comes up with a pill to turn off broodiness in women
Actually, in my experience the broodiness turns off once the woman actually gets deep into parenting, tho this is an entirely anecdotal observation...
Tho I agree that while it's going on, said broodiness (good word for it, BTW) is amazingly overwhelming and all-consuming.
I'm not trying to bash people who have their own kids, I'm mainly just responding to what I consider to be some very ill-informed, negative beliefs about adoption, which unfortunately are very common.
Wanting to raise a biological child != refusing to adopt.
Nor does not wanting to adopt = not having the resources to be a capable parent.
There are people out there who are so wedded to biology that they simply should not adopt. They would be perfectly fine parents to their biological offspring, but have too many underlying negative beliefs and attitudes to be good parents to adopted children.
Also, I firmly believe that people should adopt because they want a child (sometimes a specific child), not because they want a rescue project.
Adoption isn't for everyone. Period. If someone wants to do fertility treatment, they shouldn't be excoriated for it, nor should someone who decides to be childfree. One's family building approach is a highly personal decision, and my way isn't Tom's way isn't George's way isn't Dlanod's way.
Dealing with the realization that you can't have biobabes can be quite difficult. Yes, it's a pronatalist society out there. Most people get preggers without any difficulty; we're surrounded, from the get-go, by friends and family who have kids of "their own". We see the women swell up, we hear the tales of birth and babyhood, women are confronted with the biology of potential childbearing once a month (usually). My DNA "wanted" to be replicated, but just couldn't hack it, even with help. And, frankly, it's just wrenching to be in that position.
Some people in that position decide to adopt. Some of those adopt from the state. Some adopt via private adoption. Some through agencies. Some adopt internationally. Each of these options presents its own pluses and minuses. Each of these options appeals to different people for different reasons. No matter how you adopt though, someone, somewhere, will tell you you did it wrong.
Some people in that position decide to live childfree. Someone, somewhere, will tell them they are "selfish", and they will have people question their humanity and love of children.
Some people in that position will continually try further fertility treatments. Someone, somewhere, will tell them that they're selfish for not solving society's problems with abandoned children because they have fucked up reproductive organs.
People who have three or more children are regularly approached by total strangers who ask them, "Don't you know what birth control is?!"
People who have one child are asked, "Why are you being so selfish for not giving your child a sister or brother?!"
The whole reproductive options debate is tangled up in my mind with the right to choose. If someone doesn't want to adopt, it's no skin off my teeth. It's not up to me, or George, or Tom, or Dlanod to tell that person what to do with their life.
Um. This has gotten long. I'll wander off and rant elsewhere...
I wonder if it strikes anyone else as ironic that this little, yet quite passionate, debate is occuring on a science blog that specializes in hammering away at religious nonsense. I mean, it is rationality, reason, and objective knowledge which are held up as primary ideals among PZ and nearly all of the commentors, yet in the face of a large number of children needing parents apparently the best the pro-natalists can do is cry "it's instinct, I need to breed because of my biological heritage." Does anyone think the world is underpopulated?
Hi, AndyS!
The pro-natalists will beat you to death for even hinting around about overpopulation. I would try to describe their agenda to you but that's mostly presumption on my part. Presumption is a habit I'm trying to break, starting
TODAY. Ascribing a motive is not the right approach (but I think they are up to no good). But I SO hope you are around for a while.
Hi, OmegaMom! Hi, George Cauldron!
OmegaMom, yours were exactly the words I needed to read but to be honest, I'm glad truth machine got to me first.
Hi, truth machine!
You tagged me on at least four points: ignorance, arrogance, lack of empathy and tilting at a straw man. I plead guilty to at least those four charges. And thanks for being so gentle. I probably deserved a lot worse.
From my point of view, if I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem. For me - or any other modestly intelligent person - to do anything other than to "adopt" (at least, until all of the vulnerable people are taken) is simply unconscionable. So, my presumption was that when people are storing sperm (OR eggs), they intend to substitute reproduction for the adopting they could be doing. That - to me - amounts to 'refusing to adopt'. However, I agree, presumption isn't fair. And I also agree, my own ignorance, arrogance and lack of empathy are DEFINITELY part of the problem.
OmegaMom...
Do I want people to have the choice to reproduce? Yes, for sure and if necessary, I will give myself defending that privilege for them. Ultimately, however, adopting may be about just exactly maintaining our privilege to reproduce!
And it's just going to be my prejudice - for a long time to come - that if I am above the poverty line (financially, emotionally, intellectually, socially, etc.) I am obligated (and privileged) to be a rescuer. Yes, there are LOTS of other ways, possibly even more helpful ways, to be a rescuer of vulnerable people. To me, however, adoption is among the best ways for those who already want to be parents or those who want to claim the vulnerable.
But I've asked you to understand my prejudice, so I think the least I can do is to try to understand the prejudice of the pro-natalists (and I sincerely mean, "I'll study this") and also of regular folks who just want to reproduce.
truth machine...
Is reproduction the choice of millions of people all over the world? Yes, indeed, it sure is. And for years, lots of people in many parts of the world thought the earth was flat. Careful and reasoned thinking helped the human race escape the flat-earth attitude (at least for a while) and our civilization has been better for it. And yes, I do intend the comparison between pro-natalism and flat-earth thinking. (Arrogance? Guilty as charged!) Am I lumping people who just want to reproduce in-together with the pernicious pro-natalists? Well, my question is "just what does it take for regular people who are NOT pro-natalists to see the desparate need all around us?" NO, I don't intend to be mean about this but do we even have EYES?
But believe it or not, OmegaMom has helped me to see something that could be my saving grace: there actually IS a treatment for the disease of pro-natalism: humble compassion and empathy (some of the very things I need to learn) for those who are already here. And yes, I must learn and practice humility, compassion and empathy before I can teach compassion and empathy to others. You guessed it: I've got a lot to learn. And no, it really is NOT about me.
Now, this wonderful episode has helped me to see that I have an urgent personal agenda around adoption. A part of my obligation is to gather with other like minded people and promote adoption (as opposed to pro-natalism) without becoming just another group of thugs trying to get our way by beating up on people who don't see things the same way as we do. If adoption truly is a concept superior to pro-natalism (and for now, I say, "it most definitely is") then rational minds may, um, adopt the idea. ;-)
George Cauldron (or anyone), if you hear of such a group already extant, please try to publish the info. I will do the same for my part. The pro-natalists aren't going away anytime soon. Reason and determination (mixed with humility, empathy and compassion) may, however, help to counter the infection they're spreading.
TZ, if you ever read this, thanks again. I've still got a long way to go but thanks for letting me come to class. You have an awesome group here. I will try to mind my manners until I grow up a bit.
Thanks AndyS! Thanks, OmegaMom! Thanks, truth machine! Thanks, George Cauldron! Thanks, Interrobang!
Sorry, PZ!
George Cauldron (or anyone), if you hear of such a group already extant
Um, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you -- what kind of group, exactly? A pro-adoption advocacy group?
Yessir...
And I will probably be embarrassed by them being right under my nose... but hey, gotta start lookin' :)
Shucks, there's gotta be a thousand of 'em. I just need to get off my duff and make some connections. The responsibility, I believe, is mine... :-)
Tom,
Go for it. There are many pro-adoption groups out there, but none that I know of that take the more dramatic (and rational) step of saying as you do: don't breed until the we have parents for the parent-less. There are also groups that advocating for childless couples and singles in the spirit of bringing the world's population down to something sustainable. So you might be the person to bring those groups together in a sane and rational way.
Good luck.
I don't really know about what pro-adoption groups are out there -- I know what group I did it through, and I know what it's like to do it, but I never got into the 'politics' of it. But 20 minutes of creative googling should get you a good sized list.
Is reproduction the choice of millions of people all over the world? Yes, indeed, it sure is. And for years, lots of people in many parts of the world thought the earth was flat.
Choice and belief are in different categories.
And yes, I do intend the comparison between pro-natalism and flat-earth thinking.
That's an "is/ought" fallacy. It's also just plain dumb to think that the majority of people will some day stop breeding the way a majority of people no longer believe the earth is flat. But enjoy your delusions; they seem relatively harmless.
And that has nothing to do with your own desire to adopt, which is admirable and not delusional. As AndyS said, go for it and good luck.
Hi, truth machine...
Thanks again for engaging with me.
You write: Choice and belief are in different categories. Agreed. However, are choices not influenced by beliefs? And, if you're saying that beliefs do not necessarily influence choices, then your insight is even more valuable.
However, I 'guess' about why people make unhealthy choices: incomplete and inappropriate information. Uninformed beliefs. Why did people choose to believe the Earth was flat? Inappropriate and incomplete information.
How was that incomplete and inappropriate information overcome?
Rational thinking and rational demonstrations of more complete information (over and over and over again).
Why do people choose to ignore the needs all around them and insist on reproduction?
Inappropriate and incomplete information (at least, I hope that's the worst problem).
Can you and I influence the beliefs and thereby the choices people make? Perhaps, with rational thinking and with rational demonstrations of evidence (over and over and over again).
You write: It's also just plain dumb to think that the majority of people will some day stop breeding the way a majority of people no longer believe the earth is flat.
You may be misinterpreting what I am saying. Stopping the majority of people from breeding is not the point here and I apologize if I have made that inference. Again, overcome flat Earth thinking with rational thinking and rational demonstrations of appropriate (and unadulterated) evidence (over and over and over again).
Convince a majority? Well, time and appropriate science overcame 'flat Earth'. Maybe you're underestimating the influence of good science. Convince increasing numbers of people (over time) that it is in the best interest of all of us to first care for those who are already
here. THAT is the end of the 'flat Earth' thinking that I want.That sort of rational behavior could result in some reduction of breeding More hopefully, that particular 'end of flat Earth thinking' will lead to our balancing our population with the resources available.
Will I be around to see it? Maybe not. But do I want there to EVER be an end to reproduction? No. That's a very special privilege and that's a choice I want to honor for everyone.
But again, acknowledging my bias, it just seems totally irrational to store eggs or sperm or to pursue fertility treatments when there are vulnerable people to be claimed all around us. With your help, I may learn to think and write more concisely and effectively.
Hi, AndyS...
The vote of confidence is encouraging. You write ...take the more dramatic (and rational) step of saying as you do: don't breed until the we have parents for the parent-less (But I think you say it much better than I have, to this point). Am I to be a leader in this? Okay, I'm willing but I hope you and truth machine and George Cauldron
and others will help me stay the rational course. As you might guess, this is a VERY emotional issue with me, primarily because I have been beaten up so badly by the pro-natalists and I tend to get a bit 'un-rational' and unsympathetic. Obviously, beating them up (or even just beating up on poor ole' regular breeders) is not going to win friends and influence people.
Sorry guys... want to go to work... more later...
Thanks!
Tom,
I think this issue is one where the rubber meets the road for the militant atheist readers of this blog -- and perhaps for PZ too. You are raising a purely ethical issue which can be informed but not answered by science. I think it would be very interestering if PZ elevated this to a blog post to encourage a focussed discussion.
Maybe you could try to frame the issue concisely. Here's a first take:
There are a lot of vulnerable people who have no family structure to support them: parentless kids and old people are two groups that standout. Their welfare is looked after by the government, charitable organizations, or no one at all. To keep the argument simple, let's just consider the first group, parentless children. Each couple thinking about creating a family of their own could choose to adopt one of these vulnerable people instead of procreating. That's an ethical choice. Do I need to have my genetic endowment passed on? It's possible to satisfy that urge and still adopt; I could have one child of my own and adopt another. The government could be lobbied to support this in the tax code: You get a tax credit for the first "natural" child you have and a tax penalty for every subsequent one. You also get an extra large tax credit for adoption, perhaps with special consideration for adopting a child with medical problems.
We live in a very pro-natalist society in which there is a lot of pressure brought to bare on young married couples to reproduce, to create the grandchildren to play with and spoil. Creating a new variant of that pressure that encouraged adoption at least in the case of the second child would serve a very good purpose and seems to me a great cause to support. You can have the children and grandchildren and, at the same time, take care of an entire class of vulnerable people who basically have no advocate.
Why did people choose to believe the Earth was flat?
People don't choose what to believe. Try choosing to believe something you don't and see how it works out. One can choose to alter one's beliefs by becoming more informed, but that's not a matter of choosing some belief.
That sort of rational behavior could result in some reduction of breeding
Yes, it could, but that's not the sort of thing you were saying earlier. However, you've noted that you're learning things, so congratulations on the shift.
truth machine,
You don't really want to posit that do you? I mean, what are you left with?
AndyS-
Wow! Now, yours is the sort of clarity I want to emulate. However, would we be guilty of social engineering if we enacted tax pressures / rewards such as you describe (and is social engineering even the right terminology here)? Perhaps we would be guilty. But I can't see (yet) how that would be any worse than the current status AND we would be making real attempts to deal with (at least) the issue of parentless children. Okay, so we don't get it right in the first set of standards. Begin revising the standards, informed by advocates for the vulnerable people.
You've helped me to get started thinking about categories of vulnerable people... who is most endangered... who might be most benefitted by adoptive younger couples... adoptive older couples.... adoptive communities of people... hmmmmm...
sigh Maybe I'm asking too much of science and rational thought.... maybe my own thinking is still too muddled but I really believe you're on to something. This could be real legislation.... I wonder if someone over in Europe has already done this... got some digging to do... wonder if there is a state, right here in the good old USA that has something like this.... need to make some calls...
But can't you just hear the pro-natalists now? "You guys are anti-motherhood, anti-child, yadda-yadda-yadda". At least, that's the way they have always attacked me before. I also need to do some research to uncover evidence to show whether their hidden agenda is what I suspect it is (ruthless greeed).
Okay and, I confess my (irrational?) fear regarding ANYONE trying to legislate who gets to breed but unless we elect another spineless congress (or state legislature), maybe that issue could be mitigated as well. NO! I don't want to punish people for wanting to reproduce but I DO want to reward people as much as is reasonable for being willing to adopt (and no, I STILL do not want to encourage people to store eggs or sperm when they could be adopting).
AndyS, this is awesome. Thanks for the structure. Now, you have also taught me that sometimes, a blog can continue into archives.... I want to continue this but I am unsure of PZ's protocols.... you've been here longer than me... guide me on this?
truth machine-
You and I may just have to agree to disagree on this. For now, I think people do choose what to believe. I will grant that we often are influenced (heavily) by our heritage and our surroundings but I believe - at least for now - that we do ultimately choose, for ourselves, what we believe.
However, I'm here to learn and I'm ready to entertain other possibilities.
If you're saying that many times people are given bad information and, from that, make bad choices (that they didn't fully recognize) or that they simply choose not to make better choices.... yeah, I can go with you on that.
I also think there are elements of society that do not want everyone to have all the information they need (and I think that PZ is doing a great job of exposing some of them). I hope to become more of a 'scientist' and less dependent on my gut (for thinking). Am I misguided to want to help people overcome 'flat Earth' choices?
Probably, I have to let go of some of my own choices that were influenced by bad information.
Okay, both of you, please guide me about how to continue this... I have a LOT of work to do on this... this could take some time. Yes, the responsibility is mine but I could sure use some rational guidance from you guys. There are just a WHOLE bunch of bright people involved with this blog... I wish we could engage a group of them on this....
Thanks, for hanging with me on this. I will be checking this channel unless PZ closes it.
Thanks, AndyS! Thanks, truth machine!
Tom,
Why don't you -- after you calm down a bit ;-) -- create a blog of your own on Blogger or one of the other free services and start honing your position and gathering data? Once you have a series of posts, start promoting your blog and see what happens -- you'll find some like-minded people out there.
As far as this blog goes, I don't think PZ shuts down commenting on old posts, but people do stop reading them.
All the best.
AndyS-
Ooops... was I foaming at the mouth again? Sorry. sigh It's one of the few things I seem to be good at. Again, I think you have good insight. Another, whole separate blog might be a great place to explore this. And, even if I am not in immediate commenting contact with you and truth machine or George Cauldron, there is SO much I can learn just from reading other commentors on PZ's blog and engaging with them.
"The pursuit of disciplined and rational thinking in the exchange of ideas..." HEAVENS! What a way to discourse! How, how.... SUBVERSIVE!! People could actually...(gasp) could actually LEARN things!! Their thinking could.... EVOLVE! (Perish the thought!) But what would become of the Amurika we know? ;-]
Please help me again... is it impolite for me to include the name of my blog in some comment on PZ's blog... in the event that I see the reproduction topic come up again? Scientists and other rational thinkers are just the sort of people I want to engage.
To me, this adoption thing is HUGE... maybe almost as big as the controversy around evolution. (Hmmm, can humans evolve to the point of so valuing the well-being of the vulnerable that we would re-prioritize adoption before reproduction? HMMMMM!) Is there evidence to help us infer about the effect this might have? How would we gather that evidence? lol, wonder if Bill Gates could give us a grant? :-]
Yup, the moving finger, having writ, moves on... may be time to let this go, at least here. Thanks again, AndyS! Hope to hear from you on that new blog of mine. Let me know if you can guide me about how to spread the word.
Do both. Create your own blog and stay in touch with relevant existing ones. You can comment on other blogs and include a link to a post of your own that's relevant to the thread. But you have to get to work and produce some original written material -- otherwise you are just another manic-depressive in the manic phase going on about your favorite topic in the comments of other people's blogs. :-) There may be some utility to that, but it's not what you want to accomplish.
AndyS-
Indeed! Okay! Sounds like a plan to me. Thanks for the guidance. Hope to have some comment-worthy stuff posted soon. Hope you can visit and help me keep my thinking rational, logical and on target. If you hear from George Cauldron or truth machine or OmegaMom or any of the rest of the crew that contributed here, tell them also that I said, THANKS!
C'Ya!
"People don't choose what to believe."
You don't really want to posit that do you?
Of course; it's a clear fact, and I just challenged you or anyone else to choose to believe something you don't. Did you try?
I mean, what are you left with?
Uh, choice, belief, and everything else. I don't understand the point of your question.
You and I may just have to agree to disagree on this. For now, I think people do choose what to believe.
No, I'm not going to agree to your making a foolish and obviously false claim. I asked you to choose to believe something you don't. Just pick some possible belief that you don't have. Ready ... set ... go! Ok, do you believe it now?
Truth machine,
I choose to believe you are doing more than playing word games. So, in picking "some possible belief that [I] don't have" the possibilities are inifinite -- the set of all possible grammatical sentences in the English language for example. Any number of those are going to be plausible statements that I can, quite contentedly, choose to believe. The last clause in the first sentence of this paragraph works. A moment ago I thought you were just playing word games. I now choose to believe you are not.
I suppose you are going for some sort of Zen koan approach to insight; maybe you can come down off that mountaintop and explain a bit more. Are you working from a pure non-dualist, materialist model of the brain where beliefs are physical states and the concept of self is an illusion? If so, how very Buddhist of you. But that doesn't work so well in ordinary conversation with the common understanding of words like "I," "choice," and "belief."