Abortion Evolution connection?

[coyoteBR]

Some more problems with your numbers, Dad:
- Catholics are currentelly the greatest christian group of the world; they have no problem whatsoever accepting the Theory of Evolution and are against abortion.

- People do not always do their chooses rationally: "if I believe A, I must therefore, reject B". Many are against abordion and pro-death penalty, two contraditory stances regarding respect for human life, and have no problem with it; if they can think this way in 2 close word views, let alone evolution and abortion, that have very few - if something - in common (you probably are thinking about so-called social darwinism )

 

[dad]

Why wouldn't I?

Well, why wouldn't someone support killing some portion or all of mankind, I guess is a big question. But your opinion is noted.

Less humans. More humans isn't a good thing considering the sustainability of the earth.

Well, that is a phoney position, first of all, because countries need people, and what the birth rate would be, they simply have to import from other countries. No choice. So, there is not less people. It is a law of nature, really, that the people are needed to sustain the country, or farm, or whatever. If a farmer has no kids, he simply has to hire the help. They have to come from somewhere.

 

[dad]

Some more problems with your numbers, Dad:
- Catholics are currentelly the greatest christian group of the world; they have no problem whatsoever accepting the Theory of Evolution and are against abortion.

Right, but I qualified the OP by "Since most evolutionists .... are atheists, or non Christians, .."
So, I mean aside from Christians. One would assume most of them do not support abortion.

...Many are against abordion and pro-death penalty, two contraditory stances regarding respect for human life, and have no problem with it;

Like me. I say that those that do really vile and violent things, especially to kids, should die. But I have a problem with that these days, the governments are so wicked, that I can't trust them to apply the concept truly and justly. I mean justice is turned on it's head. Someone like Jim Baker gets an original sentence, if I remember, of something like 40 years! (reduced later, if I remember)-while child molesters, and killers might get less.

if they can think this way in 2 close word views, let alone evolution and abortion, that have very few - if something - in common (you probably are thinking about so-called social darwinism )

I think we have a right to life, and all, as long as we don't abuse it. Young kids, and the unborn have not abused anything. They ought to have a chance.

 

[Bork]

While I am still on the fence with evolution (micro is obvious, macro will take some reasearch on my part), I think humans in gernal are preventing/stifling their evolution. To my knowledge we are the only species that wholey changes our physical surroundings to fit our needs, and we readily abort fetuses that can be "progressing". I only raise this point to state that I think we inadverntly transcend evolution with our cognitive superiority... hence I think we do unnatural things.

So, I don't think evolution and abortion are necessarily tied together. Also, I would actually expect an atheist to support life, as that is the being's "only chance" at life.

 

[dad]

dad, I neither support, nor am I opposed to abortion. What a woman does with her own body is none of my business.

Norm

Really? Wow, OK. What if she takes the body, and whacks off your member? Or straps a baby nuke on a backpack, and sets it off in a city? Or if she runs around with a machine gun, firing at school kids??? No limits for females?? Strange.

 

[dad]

I am pro abortion, but this has nothing to do with my acceptance of the evolution theory.

How do you know that? If it is a logical concequence of thought, maybe it could be?

But I guess like any belief, there is good and bad people that share it, to some extent Look at the famous guy recently that got caught with a male prostitute, when he preached against it.

 

[dad]

Well, no. Her rights stop when she tries to do harm to me. The question becomes is an embryo human? As far as I am aware, Roe v Wade settled that in the USA many years ago.

Norm

No, that did nothing of the kind. The principle in that case runs around, if I heard right, preaching how bad abortion actually is now. Like they say, over half the people that enter those clinics die! And a great many later commit suicide, and have medical problems, and complications as well!

 

[dad]

A convoluted way of saying 'Evolutionists are godless heretics'. Nice start dad.

Well, they certainly are godless, otherwise they would not be atheists, no? I think most of them boast, and glory in that, as fine and dandy, and desireable. As for abortion, as I said, I assume most Christians are against it. So we are talking about the rest of humanity here, and a lrge percentage of evos, I have thought.

I'd contest this.
1) Abortion is not a worldview. It is a medical procedure to prematurely terminate a human offspring before germination has completed. Usually abortion is not allowed after 20 weeks, since it is legally considered human.

Well, those who view the world in a way they can knock off babies as they wish and chose, and see fit, as the whim might be, can be said to have a worldview. King Herod decided to terminate some offspring as well, and Christians know who inspired him. Pharoah gave the order to terminate some offspring as well, and Christians know who inspired him. Whatever modernity is assigned to the 'procedure' Christians know who inspires it as well!

2) Evolution is not a worldview. It is a biological phenomenon predicted and later empirically observed.

That observation extends no further than a creation trait, the rest is pure imagination.

3) Any connection between abortion and Evolution is a non sequitur, since they are totally unrelated.

Says you, that is a non sequitor.

One's position on the morality of abortion is not a boolean value. There are those who oppose abortion in all forms, and, presumably, those who support abortion up to and including 40 week babes.

Of those, however, we are not talking about Christians. We generally oppose it, period.

For example, I myself support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion up to a certain time (~20 weeks), after which the baby should be considered human and be allowed to live.

Well, what if you decided that no challenged kids should live, no blind people, or with two or more limbs missing? Would that make it right?

Again, it is nowhere near as simple as you attempt to make it. Human morality is based around the precept of free will, and that using one's free will to impeach anothers is morally bad (thus seperating gift from theft, murder from euthanasia, paedophilia & rape from consensual adult sex, etc).

Bad, unless they can't defend themselves?

This line of inquiry, however, will lead to a complex discussion on the nature of morality.

Such is life.

As for the polls... well, it's as self-explanitry as you can get. Just type your topic title, your OP, select that you want a poll, choose the number of options, select 'post', then type in the questions and sort out the options. Simple!

I did figure that out a bit late, but thanks for the tip.

 

[Kahalachan]

I am pro-choice before the brain is significantly developed and pro-life afterwards.

 

[dad]

While I am still on the fence with evolution (micro is obvious, macro will take some reasearch on my part),

I never did delve too far into those terms, so really don't know what they are. I suspect I believe in the macro bit, in spades, in our past, starting from created kinds.

I think humans in gernal are preventing/stifling their evolution.

If we were created, how much evolution really is there to worry about? If not, then you probably are not as much on the fence as you think!

To my knowledge we are the only species that wholey changes our physical surroundings to fit our needs,

Hey, beavers do a pretty good job there. Maybe a lot of other things. But maybe you are detecting that we rule, as God ordained.

and we readily abort fetuses that can be "progressing".

No, that is murder. And only some of us do that.

I only raise this point to state that I think we inadverntly transcend evolution with our cognitive superiority... hence I think we do unnatural things.

We do 'unnatural' things alright, but we can't blame evolution, or 'transcending' it!

So, I don't think evolution and abortion are necessarily tied together. Also, I would actually expect an atheist to support life, as that is the being's "only chance" at life.

Good point, but remember, it is not 'their' only life they are destroying, it is someone elses. That might come a little easier.

 

[BoneVulture]

I never did delve too far into those terms, so really don't know what they are.

Noted.

 

[dad]

I am pro-choice before the brain is significantly developed and pro-life afterwards.

This is a statement, I think, that the brain is the big thing. The very heart of man, and definition of life, and what we are. Christians see the bigger thing I woulf think, as being the spirit, the 'heart'.
Personally, I see the brain, as sort of a harddrive, that gets input and instruction from many things, but largely, by inspiration. In other words, spiritual.
So whacking the unborn, because their little brains are not yet fully developed is simply murder.
If a kid goes to a dentist at three years old, does the dentist whack out all his or her teeth, because they are not yet 'fully developed'. Would a doctor do a hestorectomy, or whatever it is called, because the inside was not fully developed? Would they lop off a stunted growth arm, for the same reason? Would they say a child could never ever recieve a university diploma, because they are not yet developed mentally for that? No. There is a time for everything, and children, born or unborn are equipped with all they need to develop one day.
I mean shoud they nuke undeveloped countries?

 

[Pesto]

While I am still on the fence with evolution (micro is obvious, macro will take some reasearch on my part), I think humans in gernal are preventing/stifling their evolution. To my knowledge we are the only species that wholey changes our physical surroundings to fit our needs, and we readily abort fetuses that can be "progressing".

I doubt abortion will have any large effect on current human evolution. Yes, with each time someone is born, that is one more opportunity for a new trait to be introduced into the gene pool, but, ignoring the obviously non-viable fetuses, the decision is going to be completely independent of the genetics of the child.

I only raise this point to state that I think we inadverntly transcend evolution with our cognitive superiority... hence I think we do unnatural things.

Our ability to reason does definitely remove some of the selective pressures that other species are subject to, but that won't stop evolution. It will just take it in a new direction.

So, I don't think evolution and abortion are necessarily tied together. Also, I would actually expect an atheist to support life, as that is the being's "only chance" at life.

I would say that atheists do support life, but thier views on what life is are probably going to be very different from those of many Christians. I personally don't view a fertilized egg as human life, but that's a discussion for another thread, and forum.

 

[Pesto]

I never did delve too far into those terms, so really don't know what they are.

"Microevolution" refers to small changes, where "macroevolution" refers to large changes. The terms don't really have much meaning in terms of the actual science, but an example of microevolution (a small evolutionary change) would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or moths becoming darker due to predation of lighter varieties. An example of macroevolution would be the transition from H. habilis -> H. erectus -> H. sapiens.

I suspect I believe in the macro bit

I doubt it. Hopefully, this should demonstrate why you shouldn't discuss subjects you know little to nothing about.

 

[Pesto]

Well, they certainly are godless, otherwise they would not be atheists, no? I think most of them boast, and glory in that, as fine and dandy, and desireable. As for abortion, as I said, I assume most Christians are against it. So we are talking about the rest of humanity here, and a lrge percentage of evos, I have thought.

Accepting evolutionary theory does not make one an atheist. How many times do you need to be told this?!

 

[Ondoher]

Since most evolutionists (those that not only accept some evolution, but 'nuthin but, from the pond on down') are atheists, or non Christians, I think(??)

You think incorrectly. Atheists are a small minority. Christians are a large majority, in the US at least. Polls put acceptance of evolution in the US anywhere between 45 and 55%. That means that most of those who accept evolution are not atheists, and are probably christians.

 

[dad]

"Microevolution" refers to small changes, where "macroevolution" refers to large changes. The terms don't really have much meaning in terms of the actual science, but an example of microevolution (a small evolutionary change) would be bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or moths becoming darker due to predation of lighter varieties. An example of macroevolution would be the transition from H. habilis -> H. erectus -> H. sapiens.


I doubt it. Hopefully, this should demonstrate why you shouldn't discuss subjects you know little to nothing about.

Terms and concepts are different things. You say that the terms you mentioned really do not apply to science anyhow, so what is it you think I am missing about not much caring about those particular terms that much???? If they don't apply to the bible, and they don't apply to science, they really are not that important.
Now, as to what you think I can discuss, or might believe, I should straighten you out there. If there was say, the one tiger on the ark, as an example, that then evolved into the 34 species, or what ever it is that now exist, would not that be the macro?? That is what I think happened, whether from the tiger, or even possibly from different cats?? But that is subject to evidence. But certainly no man could ever evolve from anything in any time! Not the spirit, and the majestic destiny, and free will! That needs to de given of God.
And if you knew what you were talking about, you might know that.

 

[dad]

Accepting evolutionary theory does not make one an atheist. How many times do you need to be told this?!

Well, I don't see anything in the quote you gave that says such things?? What are you talking about? Accepting evo theory all the way to the imaginary pond makes one deceived, not atheist. Atheists are just more prone to it, not having the wherewithal to avail themselves of God's protection from it, and the truth of the bible to actually believe.

 

[Pesto]

Terms and concepts are different things. You say that the terms you mentioned really do not apply to science anyhow, so what is it you think I am missing about not much caring about those particular terms that much???? If they don't apply to the bible, and they don't apply to science, they really are not that important.

They are only important in that they are used all too often by creationists when trying to discuss evolution.

Now, as to what you think I can discuss, or might believe, I should straighten you out there. If there was say, the one tiger on the ark, as an example, that then evolved into the 34 species, or what ever it is that now exist, would not that be the macro??

I think most people would put that in the micro category. "We started with tigers and still have tigers," is a common phrase used with microevolution.

 

[Pesto]

Well, I don't see anything in the quote you gave that says such things?? What are you talking about? Accepting evo theory all the way to the imaginary pond makes one deceived, not atheist. Atheists are just more prone to it, not having the wherewithal to avail themselves of God's proection from it, and the truth of the bible to actually believe.

Then please look at it again in context.

A convoluted way of saying 'Evolutionists are godless heretics'. Nice start dad.

Well, they certainly are godless, otherwise they would not be atheists, no? I think most of them boast, and glory in that, as fine and dandy, and desireable.

Accepting evolutionary theory does not make one an atheist. How many times do you need to be told this?!