Hi Jane,
 > AF> Why are you so against natural selection?
 > AF> Natural selection will also eliminate those tawdry sex tourists
 > AF> Jane..i.e. at least the unhealthy ones...although it is amazing
 > AF> how many Germans (for example) have travelled to places like
 > AF> Thailand for many years for one purpose only and have never
 > AF> contracted anything (except an empty wallet) despite refusing,
 > AF> or even being requested to, take precautions. ;-)
 > Because it lacks any logic.
 If you claim that natural selection is illogical it would seem that you
 have a very poor regard for the laws of Nature.
 > I have taken care of infants who were
 > premature but otherwise would grow up and be very healthy adults, IF
 > they got the kind of care necessary for them to survive.
 For every premature infant in the U.S.A. there are millions of
 perfectly healthy infants elsewhere who could all survive the
 famine conditions prevailing in their countries merely by sharing
 the money which the rest of the world spends on PETS (not to
 mention candy, ice-cream, tobacco and alcohol etc.). OTOH (despite
 how sad it may seem to some) the very fact that these children are
 not all surviving merely means that they were born in the wrong
 place at the wrong time...i.e. natural selection. The fact that
 we are helping unhealthy mothers to have children certainly has
 nothing at all to do with natural selection. Such actions are
 the initial steps down a road which will eventually lead to
 widespread genetic manipulation and even cloning in some countries.
 > I have taken care of full term babies who were born to mothers that
 > smoked pot and looked as though they needed to be re-baked.
 > We could do a lot better than your methods.
 Notice you failed to mention what we could do a lot better and how
 the consequences of such actions would lead to a better world than
 that ruled by Nature and hence natural selection and the survival
 of the fittest.
 Alan
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------