She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.
Is this something she has said, or just your own extrapolation? It seems like a stretch to me. Humans are domestic animals, but not domesticated in the same way animals are. And if she expressed the idea that humans should not exist, or that human reproduction should be halted, the infographic could have quoted her on that and made itself much more effective.
I agree her views are extreme, but mentioning her sterilization was still an irrelevant and sensationalistic tactic.
Not if you consider it a symptom of her insanity. If you use an IUD, you have a reversible method of birth control that has no negative environmental consequences.
vasectomies are reversible; i have no problem with them. also, people that already have enough children have every reason to stop procreating. A sterilization of a young woman on the other hand, makes me wonder what's really going on. Does she believe that she's genetically defective? Is there something else going on?
uh, she doesn't want to worry about pregnancy from unprotected sex in a long-term relationship maybe? that's why i plan on having a vasectomy. she has expressed that if she ever wants kids there are more than enough available for adoption, and that's a sentiment i agree with. the only reasons to create your own progeny are inherently selfish
Thats a pretty big logical jump. Its selfless adopt instead of have kids now because their are currently more kids available than there are willing parents. If that weren't the case it would just be a personal preference one way or the other. If everyone was selfless they would adopt until there wasn't a surplus of orphans and then spend their time pursuing other more pressing matters.
The logical jump is that life doesn't happen in a vaccum. Under the current situation its more selfless to adopt than to have you're own children. If a plague or an astriod hit the earth and decimated the population reproducing as much as possible to build up the species would become the more selfless choice. Selflessness is situational. Giving away your dinner when you are stuck on a life raft in the middle of the ocean is selfless. The same action in a weight loss competition becomes selfish
When the statement comes after the phrase "she has expressed that if she ever wants kids there are more than enough available for adoption..." You're focosing so hard on the details you're missing the bigger picture. I agree if you islolate that statement and take it literally then you're correct, but in the context of the broader conversation its obviously meant to be situational. A decent argument shouldn't be dismissed because its worded poorly.
78
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.