Abortion

@Zetetic11235,

The topic of abortion is clearly loaded with the same range of emotions that are embedded within the individual (baby) that is at risk from the procedure. Although the topic can be argued from various points of view, everyone respects and understands the concept of seniority and the rights and privileges that are extended. The consideration process pertaining to abortion leads the discussion as far upstream towards the head-water issue as humanly conceivable. Based on this approach, the evolutionary process needs to occur unhindered from the short-sighted influence of constrained minds, and the puny reasons that drive them. The ability to have the cognitive pursuit of self-interest indulgence comes directly from the evolutionary processes and the subsequent achieved intellectual benchmarks, and nobody has the individual right to impede the very procedure that provided the ability to exist (its kinda like I want to receive, but NOT give). The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge, and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution, and the inherent unpredictable direction the process will take the development of the Human Being.

2 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

So what do you propose? That once the zygote is formed, nothing shall be done to impeed on its progression towards becoming a fully developed human infant unless a life of more established value(the mothers) is at stake? Or that we simply risk allowing the birth of the child, since abortion gurantees one death, and keeping it allows for the possibility of both beings to live, but also both to die? It is not unheard of for the mother to die with the baby during child birth if there are certain complications.

The problem with this topic is that our lack of control of the situations make it quite difficult to be objective. We could play this on probablities in order that we minimize average loss, I am all in favor of that. Take into consideration the probability in each circumstance and take what ever measure is most likely to give the best outcome, or perhapse an acceptable outcome if likelyhood for it is very much higher that the chance for the best outcome. If we form the system taking the best outcome as both lives preserved, and the worst both lives lost, the second worst, a motherless child, as it intrinsically increases the chance of the child to be successful and normal, the second best a live woman and dead infant, as we keep a know value in lieu of an unknown. This seems like the most reasonable ranking keeping life to be most important outcome.

If we could manipulate the outcome based upon the probabilities we could assign a likely success rate to the child given its circumstances and determine which is the best outcome that we could near guarantee, and order their likelyhood. It might work, it might not. All of the measures are pretty subjective though, and statistics are not well used as the possible variables cannot all be properly accounted for.

I think as a rule of thumb, there should be minimal federal government interference. Allow the states to decide and repeal Roe V Wade. The federal government is a sprawling beurocratic behemoth, it would be best to allow certain populations to allow or disallow the choice. This way you can choose to live whith the laws which you can live with.

There is a caveat for this also, it builds regional tension. The more decentralized a government, the more differences there are among its constituent parts, and the less cohesive it is.

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

nobody has the individual right to impede the very procedure that provided the ability to exist

Does this mean we do not have the individual right to use birth control either?

[quote]The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge[/quote]That's absolutely 100% incorrect. The determinant of evolution is the ability of an individual to reproduce. Individuals with less reproductive fitness will make a lower genetic contribution to subsequent generations. Fertilization is NOT the major determinant or "leading edge" of evolution, because the selective forces only BEGIN to operate at this point.

[quote]and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority[/quote]Seniority is not a concept in evolutionary biology.

[quote]as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution[/quote]You may be attempting a poetic use of the word here, but come on, evolution is not omnipotent. It is constrained by the large but FINITE number of DNA sequence variations that are compatible with gestation, life, and reproduction.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Allow the states to decide and repeal Roe V Wade. The federal government is a sprawling beurocratic behemoth, it would be best to allow certain populations to allow or disallow the choice. This way you can choose to live whith the laws which you can live with.

Well, first of all, as I'm sure you know, a state cannot repeal a Supreme Court decision. But be that as it may, if every state except West Virginia decides to ban abortion, then people will just go to West Virginia to get the procedure. That's exactly what has happened with gay marriage -- gay couples who want to marry travel to the state where it's legal. When the Bush administration put all kinds of restrictions on NIH funding for stem cell research, California introduced its own intramural funding for it -- and guess what -- scientists began to move to California to do their research. That's what happens when states differ in some policies.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes, I am fully aware of all of what you are saying, I hold the libertarian view that fedral government should be far more strictly limited than it is and I think that the grouping of people in different states due to more customized law structure is good. I think that the federal government should only regulate what only it can regulate, it shall keep all people on basic equal terms, it shall take care of the interstate, provide a military, take in federal taxes according to reasonable federal need, and avoid social matters. Furthermore, I think that the most libertarian, in view of the anti-central paranoia that many of the founding fathers had, interpretation of the constitution should be the only one considered.

There should be no federal limitation of rights where no rights of others are interfered with in the actoins commited. There should be no federal intervention in school, nor in consumption of goods/services of any type whatsoever! A sprawling governmental behemoth with overtones of plutocracy is what we have now, its tendrils reaching into every facet of human life! If West Virginians don't want abortion, the people who want an abortion can move to new york and live under New York Law. The social issues must be made only and directly by the people who live in the state. A grand forced unification of values by government intervention is oppressive. A bare bones federal government is the only acceptable kind in my view, and such a government shall hold no role in abortion laws, drug laws, sex laws, social issues such as gay marraige or anything of the sort! To force group of people by law to subject themselfs to the will of the minority is just as oppressive as allowing total majority rule.

To invtervene on a social issue, to force upon anyone a social quota to further a social agenda, liberal, conservative it doesn't matter, is tyranny. It is not the government's place to promote social tolerance. It is the place of the poeple to tell the government what it shall do socially and the place of the government to accept that.

If we simply realized that it is tyrannous to force social laws and quotas upon the people, the issues would dissolve and majority rule would take its rightful place in social matters.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

There should be no federal limitation of rights where no rights of others are interfered with in the actoins commited.

So the anti-abortion perspective could argue that the rights of the unborn are threatened without regulation. And the pro-choice could argue that the rights of women are threatened without protection. That brings up a more general problem with strict adherence to the Constitution -- you can rationally make many contrasting arguments based on your interpretation, and still remain faithful to the text.

Quote:

If West Virginians don't want abortion, the people who want an abortion can move to new york and live under New York Law.

Or they can live in West Virginia, drive 8 hours to NYC to go see an opera at the Met, have sushi at Blue Water Grill in Union Square, have an abortion, and drive home.

Quote:

To invtervene on a social issue, to force upon anyone a social quota to further a social agenda, liberal, conservative it doesn't matter, is tyranny. It is not the government's place to promote social tolerance.

So are you opposed to civil rights? Women's suffrage? Labor laws? Public health? Can you imagine this society? Are you happy to accept a society in which it is perfectly legal to exclude blacks from education, jobs, equal pay, health care, etc?

Quote:

If we simply realized that it is tyrannous to force social laws and quotas upon the people, the issues would dissolve and majority rule would take its rightful place in social matters.

The majority is actually pretty ignorant and dumb most of the time, and it is often willing to accept terrible societal prejudices until the victims get it together and advocate for themselves.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

The majority is actually pretty ignorant and dumb most of the time, and it is often willing to accept terrible societal prejudices until the victims get it together and advocate for themselves.

Which is why, initially, only land-owning white males over 21 could vote. Keep the masses out of the process.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Yup. Without federal protections for people who are too female or too black or too uneducated or too handicapped or too poor, the power in this country would collapse into a small elite oligarchy -- kind of like the plantation communities in the antebellum South. And what is worse for individual liberty than for it to only exist in the hands of the very very few and privileged??

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Isn't that the truth. I'm a huge Jefferson fanboy - but there are clear problems with his political philosophy.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

There has to be a better balance, the federal government too often circumnavigates the will of the people. Look at the bills which have been shot down when congress has tried to sneak them in behind our backs thanks to internet leaks! Where does tyranny of the majority end and tyranny of minority begin? When I must hire a set quota of peoples with certain racial profiles to keep my business? How often must the trust of the people be abused by spending our tax dollars on wellfare for noncitizens who are then defended by the ACLU in our courts?

Besides, do you not think we live in a bit of an oligarchy anyway? Look at the number of skull and bones buddies and 3rd cousins are vieing for their turn at the White House. Look at who is a member of the CFR or the TRILATERALCOMMISSION and look at the history of these groups. Also, don't forget the Bilderberg group. Look at who has the money to fund the campaigns for these mediocre hacks.

The way campaigns are funded is corrupt. There is no way an intelligent person of low-moderate income or even moderate wealth could campaign! The two party system has quite a successful strangle hold on the entire proccess.

The time is long gone when the citizen statesmen were in it for duty to their country. You fear living in some sort of oligarchy where the rich are the ones in power and the poor can never hope to lead? Take a look around.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

I'm not idealizing our society. But it's a hell of a lot better than it was 100 years ago. You think corporations run America now? Do the names Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt ring a bell?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm not idealizing our society. But it's a hell of a lot better than it was 100 years ago. You think corporations run America now? Do the names Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt ring a bell?

Aedes.

You have a point, but it does not make it anymore virtuous, the fact remains corporate power is international, it is the way the world is divided up. If one wants to entertain the thought that ones country is in fact a demorcracy that is quite alright with the powers that be, it keeps the public entertained. But then again, why is a coporate state bad if it functions to the betterment of the population as a whole? Was government in the states really ever accountable to the people, maybe a very long time ago. Funny this arises under the consideration of abortion, why its positively revolutionary!!!! This must be reported!!:rolleyes:

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

it does not make it anymore virtuous

Except that now we have antitrust laws, labor laws, universal suffrage, civil rights, minimum wage, social security, medicare, the veterans administration, etc. We have a country in which there are protections in place for people other than monopolists, mobsters, and klan leaders. Not so in 1900.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Except that now we have antitrust laws, labor laws, universal suffrage, civil rights, minimum wage, social security, medicare, the veterans administration, etc. We have a country in which there are protections in place for people other than monopolists, mobsters, and klan leaders. Not so in 1900.

Aedes,

Yes, I believe your quite right, although your country still does not have government medical care does it? The last I heard they were still against it because it was leaning towards them dirty commies, or least those socalists Canadians. At anyrate, yes I believe your right it is a better situtation today.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

although your country still does not have government medical care does it?

You mean other than Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the Veterans Administration, and various smaller programs (i.e. provision of antiretrovirals to AIDS patients)?

Our federal budget in 2008 includes $386 billion for Medicare, $209 billion for Medicaid and SCHIP, and $39 billion on the Veterans administration. Of the mandatory spending mandates in the federal budget nearly 1/3 is for provision of health care.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes,

I guess what I meant was blanket coverage by the government, after watching your democratic primaries I am fully aware this is not in place in your country. In Canada if your a citizen your covered automatic. The states just seem to have an aversion to taking it all the way, and making it a basic human right. Co**** I here they pay their doctors so much over there that little is left for the rest of the villagers!:perplexed:

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

TheRedMenace, Smile

Having flash backs to your prison experiences?:shocked: That acid in the sixties was something wasn't it?

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

Clearly the whole point I was trying to make is... without the brain, the fetus is just a lifless peice of flesh...

So the cut off point must be before the brain develop's to a stage where it is aware of it's self and it's pain that it's self feel's.

So it's very easy to find out at what point the part of the brain that is responable for that function is formed... therefore the cut off date should be atleast one weak before such part of the brain is formed (just to be on the safe side)

(even tho I dont support abortion...I think it would be wise for them to conduct there practice's humainly, and by regulated standerds, for it's there "free" "will" "choice" to choose to due such or not to due such...)

Child birth is very painfull... unplaned thing's can happen... but it's more unwise to force another person to have a football "slowly" shoot out there **** over an unplaned event...

(I'm not going to address the comment's that where posted about my post, at least not in this thread, if anyone would like to talk more about the information that come's into the brain then is concouisly precieved by the brarin, please make a new thread to talk about such in another philosophy section, I will fix that little mis understanding.)

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

No0ne wrote:

So the cut off point must be before the brain develop's to a stage where it is aware of it's self and it's pain that it's self feel's.

So from your perspective there is no moral dilemma with abortion per se (i.e. ending a life). The moral dilemma is inflicting pain? That's a legitimate point of view, but if it could be proved that abortions could be performed without any pain to the fetus, would that make it ok now?

As for self-awareness, that is completely and wholly unmeasurable in a fetus. It doesn't just come down to this or that structure in the brain.

Quote:

So it's very easy to find out at what point the part of the brain that is responable for that function is formed...

It's not so easy. The ultrastructure of the brain forms very very early. That does not mean it's functional in remotely the same way as it is later in life. The brain changes a LOT over the course of the first post-natal year, to say nothing for the 40 weeks of pre-natal life. Much of the neocortex isn't even myelinated at the time of birth, so the mere fact that the infant brain has the same structures as an adult brain doesn't make it functionally the same.

Quote:

even tho I dont support abortion...I think it would be wise for them to conduct there practice's humainly, and by regulated standerds

I agree. But that should be true for everything in medicine.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Does this mean we do not have the individual right to use birth control either?

That's absolutely 100% incorrect. The determinant of evolution is the ability of an individual to reproduce. Individuals with less reproductive fitness will make a lower genetic contribution to subsequent generations. Fertilization is NOT the major determinant or "leading edge" of evolution, because the selective forces only BEGIN to operate at this point.

Seniority is not a concept in evolutionary biology.

You may be attempting a poetic use of the word here, but come on, evolution is not omnipotent. It is constrained by the large but FINITE number of DNA sequence variations that are compatible with gestation, life, and reproduction.

Well, first of all, as I'm sure you know, a state cannot repeal a Supreme Court decision. But be that as it may, if every state except West Virginia decides to ban abortion, then people will just go to West Virginia to get the procedure. That's exactly what has happened with gay marriage -- gay couples who want to marry travel to the state where it's legal. When the Bush administration put all kinds of restrictions on NIH funding for stem cell research, California introduced its own intramural funding for it -- and guess what -- scientists began to move to California to do their research. That's what happens when states differ in some policies.

There is a multitude of reproducing couples who practice birth control, but still contribute to the process of evolution by having multiple children. Birth control and reproduction can clearly co-exist, so your point is simply moot.

The selection process when viewed in isolation produces absolutely NOTHING. The evolutionary process requires the consummation of the fertilized female egg, and the subsequent successful birth. While the selection process tends to favor partners with superior attributes (which is completely predictable), this is no guarantee from the Natural World that the offspring will benefit from the superior genetic material (i.e. both parents are professional athletes, yet their child cannot make the sports rooster of his or her high school), additionally there are situations related to genetic material that appears to produce outcomes that are contradictions to empirical predictions (i.e. both parents have 115~120 IQ's, but their offspring has 150~155 IQ).

Omnipotent= Having UNLIMITED influence or authority.

Please provide another example of a process from the Natural World that influences and shapes the changes among all species other then the concept of evolution, and why would you not view this process as omnipotent.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

There is a multitude of reproducing couples who practice birth control, but still contribute to the process of evolution by having multiple children. Birth control and reproduction can clearly co-exist, so your point is simply moot.

So then you're clearly saying that birth control is only ok if the couple in question also has a child. But for people who just want to have sex without reproducing, that is somehow wrong.

Furthermore, LACK of reproduction also "contributes to the process of evolution". Evolution, in the most simple terms, is change in allele frequencies at a population level over time. If one couple chooses not to reproduce, or if they have 50 pregnancies and abort them all, they are STILL "contributing to the process of evolution" by virtue of NOT passing their particular genotype to a subsequent generation.

Quote:

The selection process when viewed in isolation produces absolutely NOTHING. The evolutionary process requires the consummation of the fertilized female egg, and the subsequent successful birth.

So what? The evolutionary process also requires cellular metabolism. But the factors that actually influence evolution all have to do with the likelihood that that fertilized egg will some day pass on its genes. The fact that you've gotten a fertilized egg has ZERO bearing on evolution in and of itself.

Quote:

yet their child cannot make the sports rooster of his or her high school

...and on his farm he had a sports rooster, ee-i-ee-i-o... Very Happy

Quote:

Omnipotent= Having UNLIMITED influence or authority.

Evolution is limited by the finite number of genetic permutations that can produce viable offspring, and by the constraints that our environment puts on us. There are environmental conditions, like inside the magma chamber of a volcano, that cannot support any life at all. Sure, there are gram positive bacterial spores that can weather very harsh conditions, and there are archaebacteria that live at near boiling temperatures in fumaroles; but you said "unlimited" -- and there ARE environmental conditions that can make life impossible (at least insofar as we understand it based on what evolution has produced to this point).

Quote:

Please provide another example of a process from the Natural World that influences and shapes the changes among all species other then the concept of evolution, and why would you not view this process as omnipotent.

Evolution has produced a shocking degree of complexity and diversity, and it's allowed organisms big and small to exploit an immense diversity of niches. Yes, it shapes all organisms. But it is not OMNIPOTENT, which etymologically means "all powerful".

If what you mean to say is that evolution is "omnipotent" because no other force shapes changes in species over time, (i.e. evolution)... that's a self-referential, i.e. circular statement. It's like saying that plate tectonics is omnipotent when it comes to continental drift. I mean evolution is what it is -- it's a process that operates within certain biological / chemical / physical and statistical constraints.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know