Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I've always been extremely annoyed by how both sides of the abortion issue typically refuse to acknowledge each other in any fashion.  They state their point and turn the other side's points into character attacks instead of trying to address them.  I know this happens on any subject, but none as consistently as abortion.

[GlyphGryph]

I have more sympathy for the "it's never alright to abort" people than the "it's only okay to abort in cases of rape and incest" people, I got to be honest.

[Reelya]

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

Hey did you know that doing aerobics classes = being in the Hitler Youth.

Yeah, yeah I know the goals are totally different, but "but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was."

[kaijyuu]

I've never quite understood the "incest" part of that, unless it's ALSO rape. If you've got a consensual thing going on, I'm not sure why they would deserve an abortion more than any other couple.

[Reelya]

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

[Bohandas]

"only in cases rape or incest, or for the life of the mother".

Can we, at least agree that the inclusion of incest (consentual incest mind you. If only nonconsentual incest were meant then there would be no reason to list it when you have already listed rape) on this list is assuredly a eugenics thing? I am at a loss to find a reason why incest should be an extenuating circumstance equal to rape that isn't at the very least in the spirit of eugenics.

EDIT:

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Reelya]

No, that doesn't really count as eugenics either. If avoiding avoidable birth defects is eugenics, then cleaning up "agent orange" or ddt residue, or dioxins is also "eugenics".

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.

Eugenics core idea is that "some" people have genes which are superior, whilst others have inferior genes. And we should favor the first group to breed, whilst discouraging the second group.

Anti-incest laws recognizes that everyone has mutant recessive genes which are harmful if you have 2 copies. It's avoiding there being people with 2 copies of these genes, by spreading out the gene pool. There is nothing in the incest laws which actually facilitates elimination of the recessive genes or changes the mix of genes in the population.

In fact, if incest was encouraged, more people with those harmful genes would die out, because the symptoms of the bad genes would appear more often, thus culling the gene. Which would create a long-term change in the gene pool, hence eugenics. The ban on incest doesn't reduce the amount of recessive genes, it just hides their negative effect, which effectively stops them from being weeded out.

[kaijyuu]

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs

[Karnewarrior]

I dislike how they always talk about "when life begins".

Uhh, life began before conception. I belive the sperm and egg cells were alive, no? But that doesn't mean having a date with Jill means you're a mass murderer that would make Stalin drop his cigar.

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

[kaijyuu]

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.

More specifically, we're discussing when personhood begins, which can theoretically be before sentience. If sentience is the qualifier for you, that's fine, but it's not everyone's qualifier (which is why this is such a thorny debate).

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

What indeed.

[SalmonGod]

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

What indeed.

That sounds like a typical joking thing a parent would say to his kid.

Otherwise, this is only unusual in modern day.  Many earlier cultures didn't consider someone a person until they survived infancy, since enough didn't that it was impractical to invest too much in them emotionally, or even until they were capable of tending to their own basic needs.

[Reelya]

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.

[GlyphGryph]

It's not Eugenics if you aren't doing it in an attempt to improve the species. Period.

Killing black people because you don't want them in your neighbourhood isn't eugenics, even if the side effect is a lower local black population.

Not wanting to bring a child into this world with severe genetic abnormalities is eugenics either, for the same reason - at least not usually. There's no evolutionary goal here, and motivation is what makes eugenics.

And your whole argument is based on what is essentially the worst logical fallacy anyways - that since some parts of eugenics methods are wrong, this is wrong if its eugenics, even if it doesn't contain those parts.

Its a fallacious argument at it's core. Eugenics isn't even inherently immoral. (Though any implementation likely to get societal support, it seems, will be.)

Even IF there was a social agreement not to have genetically aberrant babies to improve our gene pool... just because this is eugenics, how is it wrong? Is it wrong if, instead of abortions, we do it with sperm and egg selection? Because if we've got a movement going pushing sperm and egg selection to improve our species... that's eugenics, 100%. But would it actually be wrong?

In essence:
The argument that abortion is wrong because eugenics is a failure on pretty much every conceivable level. Please try again.

[kaijyuu]

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

* kaijyuu shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.

Calm down there buddy you're starting to put words in my mouth.

I don't "know better" than the experts. I've just never been convinced by the data that's been shown to me. Maybe I haven't seen the right stuff yet. The statistics I HAVE seen show an increase in genetic diseases, but it generally takes a few generations to surface a noticeable amount.

And re: the culling thing, I was worried you'd latch on to that word. Use another in its place that's more accurate to you, if you like. I'm not arguing it's eugenics.

[Lord Shonus]

Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution.

The argument against abortion is that it is murder. I know a few people who, despite going out of their way to to rant and rave against anyone that dares to profess the idea that a god might possibly exist, believe that abortion should carry the death penalty, just as murdering a child should. The fact that the view is most prominent among religious groups does not mean that the argument that fetus=baby biblical in nature.