Opinions on abortion

[tendomentis]

That's okay. I see you as attempting to justify 'because I don't want to, and I don't want anyone else to either'.



If one can distance themselves from their biological and/or cultural predisposition to prefer abstinence, one can see sex for what it is: a biological function with many purposes. Otherwise you're just being led by the nose by either your natural - but rare - biochemistry, or your cultural bias.

Frankly, tendomentis, I see you as just as much an apologist for abstinence as you see me as an apologist for sexual activity. And I don't think abstinence is a feasible position in the abortion debate. Oh, it's a valid one: but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And possibly (probably, IMO) never.

You're making the assumption that I don't want sex simply because I'm arguing a view point that prioritizes impulse control over sexual activity.

That not only makes your assumption wrong, but makes your comment somewhat insulting at the same time.

Don't assume that just because I don't value sex more than I value the progressive evolution of our species as a whole or my own impulse control that there is something wrong with my bio-chemistry. That's simply rude, and has no bearing on this discussion. It's simply you making an incorrect assumption that "because he doesn't want sex like I want sex there must be something wrong or different about him". That's hardly professional or objective.

To put it delicately, "alchoholics know the consequences of over-drinking the best", and the same could be said about this situation. Recovering alchoholics still WANT to drink, but they value better impulse control over their natural desires.

Next time, don't make assumptions Seshat. It only served to make you look uninformed and unprofessional in this debate.

Let's try to keep this debate as professional and objective as possible without resorting to vague assumptions and subtle insults, shall we?

[AFPheonix]

Please note, I didn't say that the availability of abortion prevents new birth control technologies from being developed, I said it prevents our species from developing a NATURAL solution to the problem through the process of evolution.

I think that line of reasoning is a bit absurd, coming from the point of view as a humanist. What are we to do in the millions of years that pass waiting for some potential mutation to occur in great enough numbers that it is selected for? Allow women who will not survive child-bearing to die because their genes were not selected for?

What if we applied that argument to, say, cancer? Should we not treat our cancer patients in the hopes that one will show promise of some mutation that will prevent the spread of cancer cells?

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

[tendomentis]

I think that line of reasoning is a bit absurd, coming from the point of view as a humanist. What are we to do in the millions of years that pass waiting for some potential mutation to occur in great enough numbers that it is selected for? Allow women who will not survive child-bearing to die because their genes were not selected for?

What if we applied that argument to, say, cancer? Should we not treat our cancer patients in the hopes that one will show promise of some mutation that will prevent the spread of cancer cells?

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

So, your stance is "let's do it now by whatever means possible, long-term consequences and short-term side-effects be damned"?

To me, not only is that view short-sighted, but it is actually more cruel. Besides, I never said that women who would die in child-birth shouldn't have the option to abort. THAT I actually feel is not only justifiable, but is efficient. If the woman dies in child-birth, the infant statistically doesn't stand a much better chance. Better one should die than both.

My application of allowing natural evolution to determine a solution applies to situations where the pregnancy/child-birth is unwanted/inconvenient and natural evolution of our species is supplanted by unreliable artificial means merely as a tool of "convenience" to prevent the natural result of sexual activity.

[tendomentis]

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

On a side note, perhaps the greatest use of these "giant noggins" that we developed would be to have the cognitive ability to recognize areas of our physiology that need adaptation through natural selection and encourage it.

By using our intellect to fight against natural evolution and not work with it, we are fighting against the very thing that allows us to fight against it.

Pretty stupid for a species with "giant noggins".

[AFPheonix]

On a side note, perhaps the greatest use of these "giant noggins" that we developed would be to have the cognitive ability to recognize areas of our physiology that need adaptation through natural selection and encourage it.

By using our intellect to fight against natural evolution and not work with it, we are fighting against the very thing that allows us to fight against it.

Pretty stupid for a species with "giant noggins".

And yet, we fight against natural selection every day, in many ways. We use vaccines to prevent against disease, we use planes, boats, and cars and spread our genes, regardless of how fit they are, to every corner of the earth, we develop better fabrics to stay warm or cool in climates we were never meant to be in. Why are you choosing just this one issue to rail against?

[Seshat]

Next time, don't make assumptions Seshat. It only served to make you look uninformed and unprofessional in this debate.

I leave our relative posts to display to third parties which of us has made more assumptions about the other, and how each of us looks.


As for the evolutionary impulse control: I'm a genetically poor specimen. I have chosen not to have children for that reason. Also for others, but primarily for that reason. My husband is also a genetically poor specimen, and has made the same decision. For us, contraception and abortion, though artificial, are means for assisting appropriate human evolution. And yes, there have been times when I've fought with my impulse and fought with the 'but a baaaaaby...' feelings. But my intellect points out that it would be cruel to curse a child with my and my husbands' genetic deficiencies.

We human can use our large noggins and technology to further human evolution. I suppose I'm in favour of selective impulse control, and don't see a reason why sex-for-bonding should be restricted merely because sex has an additional function.

[tendomentis]

And yet, we fight against natural selection every day, in many ways. We use vaccines to prevent against disease, we use planes, boats, and cars and spread our genes, regardless of how fit they are, to every corner of the earth, we develop better fabrics to stay warm or cool in climates we were never meant to be in. Why are you choosing just this one issue to rail against?

Simple. I don't want to get TOO far off topic. Do I have issues with the other ways that humanity subverts our natural evolutionary progress?

Sure do.

But I'll rant on that in another thread at another time.

For now, this is the issue at hand.

[tendomentis]

We human can use our large noggins and technology to further human evolution. I suppose I'm in favour of selective impulse control, and don't see a reason why sex-for-bonding should be restricted merely because sex has an additional function.

I have no problem with human innovation and technology, just so long as it doesn't subvert our evolutionary progress. A whole slew of recent studies is showing that in going to such great technological lengths to keep our species disease free, we're reducing our long-term resistance to newer diseases and diseases that we have been previously immune to that have evolved around our immunities while we have been using artificial means to resist them.

Technological innovation at the expense of our natural evolution hurts our species in the long run, and humans are notorious for valuing the short-term over the long-term.