Some liberal males still try to insist that even in this ever more complex society, females still have no need to be intelligent and evolved. They try to shove down people's throats that females only need to be hot sperm receptacles.
So if a baby factory is hot,
is that going to teach your kid manners? is that going to teach your kid to plan well and to be financially responsible? financially pragmatic? Is that going to teach your kid to take care of herself?
Is that going to teach your kid to be a productive member of society? Is that going to allow your kid to grow into a good human being who contributes positively to society?
The best arrangement for the health and well-being of society is the standard two-parent home, the nuclear family. In most cultures and societies around the world, the bulk of raising the children and maintaining the household is the responsibility primarily of the mother. The maternal parent is the one who teaches kids to read and count, teaches them manners and respect, helps them with their homework. She is also the one who cooks food and maintains everyone's schedules. The father tends to work a job outside the home to support the family and also has the task of maintaining security, upkeep, and protection of the home. The family is benefited best if both parents are intelligent and educated.
another argument:
echoed in http://www.audiowebman.org/love/articles/dan_quayle.htm
... that is complete BS to compare a human child to young of another species. a human child needs immense social rearing and training. A human child cannot fend for itself, and a human infant certainly cannot. it cannot arrange its own shelter,
The human brain takes an enormous amt of body's oxygen, nourishment, and blood supply. I read and learned more about this, and I quickly realized that it makes sense. Homo sapiens has the largest brain, in proportion to body mass, of any animal on the planet.
We are more evolved. It makes perfect sense that our brains would require this much sustenance and support.
The pregnant mother cannot handle more than two fetuses at once; maybe at most three fetuses at once. When there is more than one, each individual fetus suffers. Each one rarely reaches a birth weight above four pounds.
A similar analogy exists in the instance of a woman constantly getting pregnant one right after another. The human body cannot feasibly sustain that many pregnancies. The body needs time to recuperate and replenish its resources. It also needs time to raise the current born baby, possible through breast-feeding.
There are also basic concerns like simply taking care of the baby. The mother will not be able to devote the time and attention necessary to growing a first baby if she soon becomes pregnant with another one. Changing diapers, feeding it, bathing it, getting it to adapt to a sleep schedule, keeping it alive.
This is all common sense. Humans make a voluntary, willing, conscious effort to do this. We voluntarily make an effort to invest time in a child if someone brings one into the world -- because that is the right thing to do.
Human parents do not simply make a kid and then cast it out of their minds, setting it out to the wild, letting it roam around and be fed to the wolves. We are not lower animals. We are Homo sapiens.
This is what I mean as an example among other things, that humans have transcended the basal biological evolution that still rules and dictates animal behavior. Humans have gained consciousness. They have gained the ability to consciously decide for themselves whether or not an action is morally right. Humans know that it is not okay to just stop caring about a biological child once it is born.
Lower animals think that they have fulfilled their biological duties of simply creating an offspring unit. They think they have fulfilled their roles in this universe. They merely act on the biological part of continuing the species, with no regard for the life, health, well-being of that offspring once it is hatched. They simply bring forth offspring into existence on this planet, and they think that is the extent of their responsibility. Well, to be more accurate, they don't think, at all. Not about the responsibility of raising children, not about how to raise children, not about the consequences of engaging in the act of physical reproduction.
Human beings are not like lower animals. They must invest all of that energy, effort, time of growing a baby into one baby at a time. To create the most optimal offspring. Create one baby, then invest intelligence, hard work, patience, into turning that one baby into a good person. Raise that baby into a human being, using human traits that have transcended the basal minimum requirements of mere physical contribution alone.
"The human body is not meant to carry litters." Interesting analogy. I feel that this ties in excellently with the fact that humans have to raise each child as an individual human being.
We are a socially-oriented species. We grow and survive by *learning, not by instinct. A child cannot reach a few years of age and then suddenly have instinct kick in to be able to hunt down its food. This learning must be contributed by both the female and male parent.
So if these so-called evolutionary psychologists try to insist that a human male parent can simply sire a child and then skip town and call this "evolution," they are hopelessly ignorant. Here's a hint: if dogs and pigs and gorillas do it, then it is probably not evolution.
So if a baby factory is hot,
is that going to teach your kid manners? is that going to teach your kid to plan well and to be financially responsible? financially pragmatic? Is that going to teach your kid to take care of herself?
Is that going to teach your kid to be a productive member of society? Is that going to allow your kid to grow into a good human being who contributes positively to society?
The best arrangement for the health and well-being of society is the standard two-parent home, the nuclear family. In most cultures and societies around the world, the bulk of raising the children and maintaining the household is the responsibility primarily of the mother. The maternal parent is the one who teaches kids to read and count, teaches them manners and respect, helps them with their homework. She is also the one who cooks food and maintains everyone's schedules. The father tends to work a job outside the home to support the family and also has the task of maintaining security, upkeep, and protection of the home. The family is benefited best if both parents are intelligent and educated.
another argument:
echoed in http://www.audiowebman.org/love/articles/dan_quayle.htm
... that is complete BS to compare a human child to young of another species. a human child needs immense social rearing and training. A human child cannot fend for itself, and a human infant certainly cannot. it cannot arrange its own shelter,
The human brain takes an enormous amt of body's oxygen, nourishment, and blood supply. I read and learned more about this, and I quickly realized that it makes sense. Homo sapiens has the largest brain, in proportion to body mass, of any animal on the planet.
We are more evolved. It makes perfect sense that our brains would require this much sustenance and support.
The pregnant mother cannot handle more than two fetuses at once; maybe at most three fetuses at once. When there is more than one, each individual fetus suffers. Each one rarely reaches a birth weight above four pounds.
A similar analogy exists in the instance of a woman constantly getting pregnant one right after another. The human body cannot feasibly sustain that many pregnancies. The body needs time to recuperate and replenish its resources. It also needs time to raise the current born baby, possible through breast-feeding.
There are also basic concerns like simply taking care of the baby. The mother will not be able to devote the time and attention necessary to growing a first baby if she soon becomes pregnant with another one. Changing diapers, feeding it, bathing it, getting it to adapt to a sleep schedule, keeping it alive.
This is all common sense. Humans make a voluntary, willing, conscious effort to do this. We voluntarily make an effort to invest time in a child if someone brings one into the world -- because that is the right thing to do.
Human parents do not simply make a kid and then cast it out of their minds, setting it out to the wild, letting it roam around and be fed to the wolves. We are not lower animals. We are Homo sapiens.
This is what I mean as an example among other things, that humans have transcended the basal biological evolution that still rules and dictates animal behavior. Humans have gained consciousness. They have gained the ability to consciously decide for themselves whether or not an action is morally right. Humans know that it is not okay to just stop caring about a biological child once it is born.
Lower animals think that they have fulfilled their biological duties of simply creating an offspring unit. They think they have fulfilled their roles in this universe. They merely act on the biological part of continuing the species, with no regard for the life, health, well-being of that offspring once it is hatched. They simply bring forth offspring into existence on this planet, and they think that is the extent of their responsibility. Well, to be more accurate, they don't think, at all. Not about the responsibility of raising children, not about how to raise children, not about the consequences of engaging in the act of physical reproduction.
Human beings are not like lower animals. They must invest all of that energy, effort, time of growing a baby into one baby at a time. To create the most optimal offspring. Create one baby, then invest intelligence, hard work, patience, into turning that one baby into a good person. Raise that baby into a human being, using human traits that have transcended the basal minimum requirements of mere physical contribution alone.
"The human body is not meant to carry litters." Interesting analogy. I feel that this ties in excellently with the fact that humans have to raise each child as an individual human being.
We are a socially-oriented species. We grow and survive by *learning, not by instinct. A child cannot reach a few years of age and then suddenly have instinct kick in to be able to hunt down its food. This learning must be contributed by both the female and male parent.
So if these so-called evolutionary psychologists try to insist that a human male parent can simply sire a child and then skip town and call this "evolution," they are hopelessly ignorant. Here's a hint: if dogs and pigs and gorillas do it, then it is probably not evolution.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment