david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/21/83)
> Who has advocated eating our young? Who has advocated weekly street fights? >Homosexuality as a form of birth control is preferable to these methods because > under the former no currently existing people are harmed in any way. If you > are concerned about the "rights" of a non-existent zygote, you have carried > the abortion debate a little bit too far. Why don't you rant this way about > people who advocate the rhythm method or other forms of contraception? Your > argument is equally valid concerning those. Have you forgotten your original article? I guess I don't understand why you cited the "rat experiment" (which I would still like to know more about) in the first place. Were you simply trying to explain possible causes for homosexuality? If so, then forgive me for dragging you into an existing debate. If, however, you were attempting to justify homosexuality as a means of birth control (as it appeared), then why cite the rat experiment as justification, and then mention the other disgusting aspects of the experiment? The rats eating their young did not help the homosexuality case; although I agree with a fellow in another article who warned against drawing such parallels from rats to humans. More on this in another article. At any rate, the discussion concerns the nature of homosexuality, NOT birth control/abortion/right-to-life/etc.
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (11/27/83)
--------------------------------
Who has advocated eating our young? Who has advocated weekly street fights?
Homosexuality as a form of birth control is preferable to these methods because
under the former no currently existing people are harmed in any way. If you
are concerned about the "rights" of a non-existent zygote, you have carried
the abortion debate a little bit too far. Why don't you rant this way about
people who advocate the rhythm method or other forms of contraception? Your
argument is equally valid concerning those.
Dave Norris:
Have you forgotten your original article? I guess I don't understand why
you cited the "rat experiment" (which I would still like to know more about)
in the first place. Were you simply trying to explain possible causes for
homosexuality? If so, then forgive me for dragging you into an existing
debate. ...
--------------------------------
STOP! Dave Decot != Laura Creighton! The first paragraph is from me,
Dave Decot, and was my only submission on this topic since the rats discussion
started. My "original article"? I never discussed rats on the network.
I was wrong to attribute an argument (that the zygotes not formed because
of homosexual activity had "rights") to you, but it seemed that you were
equating homosexuality with your violent "proposed" methods of birth control.
I was pointing out that your equation also applied to other means of birth
control if it applied to homosexuality as such a means. I am sorry if I
did not sign my article.
Pleased to have my text confused with Laura's,
Dave Decot
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)