Evolution and Abortion....

[holyorders]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.



Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest". That means that the species that is stronger, more adaptable, quicker, ect. will grow further on and evolved. Therefore without the strength and fecundity of nature there would be no growth and would end up being extinction.


Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake. Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....


Any comments?

 

[Abbadon]

Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....

Uh, yeah. Dolphins and certain species of monkeys and apes and stuff have sex just for pleasure, sometimes even homosexual sex.

(I'm probably going to be told to provide evidence.

Go to the zoo, watch the monkeys, watch the dolphins.)

 

[Lycaenidae]

Humans aren't the only species that practice infanticide. Now, I don't consider abortion infanticide. However, it was very common for ancient peoples to leave defective babies in the wilderness. Offspring aren't always good. If the cost of raising the offspring would put undue strain on the parent(s) rendering them unable to have more offspring, it is likely that the parents will abandon/kill the offspring on the chance that they will be able to have more and healtheir offspring later.

Overpopulation is not a fallacy. It happens when the carrying capacity of the environtment is exceeded. You need to pick up an introductory ecology text. I have no idea what your next sentence means. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

[holyorders]

Humans aren't the only species that practice infanticide. Now, I don't consider abortion infanticide. However, it was very common for ancient peoples to leave defective babies in the wilderness. Offspring aren't always good. If the cost of raising the offspring would put undue strain on the parent(s) rendering them unable to have more offspring, it is likely that the parents will abandon/kill the offspring on the chance that they will be able to have more and healtheir offspring later.

Overpopulation is not a fallacy. It happens when the carrying capacity of the environtment is exceeded. You need to pick up an introductory ecology text. I have no idea what your next sentence means. Perhaps you could clarify?

I meant that contraception/abortion stifles the evolutionary purpose of a species- to make new babies in abundance for survival success.

And for every animal that practices infanticide they breed at least 5X-10X over to make up for the loss. (Somewhat hyperbole)

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.

No, it's not. Evolution isn't a moral imperative - it's a scientific observation. It's descriptive, not proscriptive.

Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest".

Darwin didn't coin the term "survival of the fittest".

Now if pro-abortion

I've never heard anyone who is "pro-abortion". I know of many people are pro-choice.

people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species.

Yup.

See the hypocrisy?

No. There is no hypocrisy. I don't have children and don't want to. So what? That's got nothing to do with the truth of evolutionary theory, or with my acceptance of it.

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake.

What argument of overpopulation?

Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....

Yes, lots. Do some research. Dolphins, several species of ape, at least.

Any comments?

Stop trying to make evolutionary theory out to be something it's not.

 

[psychedelicist]

I meant that contraception/abortion stifles the evolutionary purpose of a species- to make new babies in abundance for survival success.

Survival success is not always more=better. Right now when we still have enough resources to supposrt our species, yes, more=better. But when we run out of enough resources to support the population, it is better for success to start lowering the population somehow- be it just having less kids, or killing off the less fit (or letting them die on their own)

 

[Lycaenidae]

I meant that contraception/abortion stifles the evolutionary purpose of a species- to make new babies in abundance for survival success.

And for every animal that practices infanticide they breed at least 5X-10X over to make up for the loss. (Somewhat hyperbole)

Your last statement is untrue. Also, there is no purpose behind a species and there is no purpose to evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.



Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest". That means that the species that is stronger, more adaptable, quicker, ect. will grow further on and evolved. Therefore without the strength and fecundity of nature there would be no growth and would end up being extinction.


Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake. Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....


Any comments?

Evolution doesn't rule out behaviors counterproductive to passing on one's genes. It just says that with such counterproductive behaviors will not survive in the long run. Consider the Shakers. Their celibacy lead to their sect dying out, but it didn't prevent them from existing for a time. Evolution only dictates who wins the game of passing on genes. It doesn't include a moral imperitive to play the game.

However, limited abortion and contraception may not be unproductive evolutionary strategies. Organisms balance two competing interests when reproducing. Having more offspring gives one more chances of passing on one's genes, but it also prevents one from giving as much support to the development of each individual offspring. Many organisms (including humans) favor having a few children at a time so that they can focus their resources to the survival of just a few. In this case, abortion and contraception could allow a woman delay childbirth until she is best able to support the child and to prevent pregnancy while her infant or toddler still requires much of her attention.

Many social animals have sex for pleasure. Sex aids in forming bonds between members of a group and in avoiding conflicts.

 

[gwenmead]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.

Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest".

Source, please?

Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

No. To the contrary...

My limited understanding of evolutionary theory is that part of the process involves self-balancing, if you will, of populations of species. That is, when a species multiplies to the point where its environment can't sustain it (i.e., food sources run out, generally), the species will somehow limit its population until resources bounce back. It might mean that the strongest specimens survive and fight successfully for whatever resources are left; it might mean die-offs; it might mean a period of change in fertility so fewer animals are born for a couple of generations. I'm no zoologist here, so I don't know all the possible mechanisms making this happen. But I've seen it work over the years in my own locality, with relationships between orca, seal, and salmon populations.

This implies to me that it's actually advantageous for species to self-limit in certain circumstances. If resources run out, animals that refuse to curtail their reproduction somehow and instead keep "breeding like rabbits", as you put it, doom themselves to extinction. (Or at least run the risk of doing so.) Even during times when resources are not limited, it would make sense to me that controlling the population growth rate would help prevent resource depletion, and hence prevent extinction. In other words, it doesn't make sense to have every member of your population popping out offspring.

So I don't understand how self-limiting of reproduction is selfish at all. I don't know if other species can *consciously* limit reproduction; but humans can. Food for thought: maybe celibate religious orders are a means of limiting population. More food for thought: maybe so is birth control. Maybe so is abortion. Maybe so is infanticide. Maybe so is the conscious choice to remain childless.

Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....

Well, humans certainly do. As do Bonobo chimps. As do dolphins.

Those are a few of my thoughts, speculations, opinions, etc. Fwiw. Thanks for reading.

 

[FSTDT]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.

Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest". That means that the species that is stronger, more adaptable, quicker, ect. will grow further on and evolved. Therefore without the strength and fecundity of nature there would be no growth and would end up being extinction.


Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake. Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....


Any comments?

Just one: evolution is not a moral theory. Dont treat it like one. The second you treat evolution like it has anything to do with prescribing the way people should behave makes everything you say afterwards incoherent.

 

[holyorders]

When did I add any morals to evolution. It is simple folks.


Not having children/Killing children/protohuman/etc. = Disfunction of evolution.





People should note that when I was talking about animals having sex I mentioned for pleasure ALONE. This means that the animals would entirely and purposely miss out on the procreative aspects of sex. I always knew that animals had sex for pleasure but not singularly so.

 

[holyorders]

Evolution doesn't rule out behaviors counterproductive to passing on one's genes. It just says that with such counterproductive behaviors will not survive in the long run. Consider the Shakers. Their celibacy lead to their sect dying out, but it didn't prevent them from existing for a time. Evolution only dictates who wins the game of passing on genes. It doesn't include a moral imperitive to play the game.

However, limited abortion and contraception may not be unproductive evolutionary strategies. Organisms balance two competing interests when reproducing. Having more offspring gives one more chances of passing on one's genes, but it also prevents one from giving as much support to the development of each individual offspring. Many organisms (including humans) favor having a few children at a time so that they can focus their resources to the survival of just a few. In this case, abortion and contraception could allow a woman delay childbirth until she is best able to support the child and to prevent pregnancy while her infant or toddler still requires much of her attention.

Many social animals have sex for pleasure. Sex aids in forming bonds between members of a group and in avoiding conflicts.

Life without survival diminishes any chance for evolution to occur. This is not a moral statement.

 

[holyorders]

According to evolution all life started as microscopic organism...then into several evolutionary stages of fish, reptiles, birds, and so on. (A rough picture)


Lets say that all the birds desired to destroy all their procreation abilities. Wouldn't that mean that mammals would not of had a chance to exist. Perhaps a new species would spring up but that means that the birds were weak and their record of life would be a mere speck of dust in time.

If people want to exist into the future for a possibility of future evolution they have to both procreate and survive.

With abortion/contraception their is no survival or procreation. (Not a moral statement. Just a fact)

Evolution = Procreation + Survival

 

[holyorders]

And another thing. There is specific evolutionary design to protect proto-creatures/fetuses/etc. The reptiles and birds lay eggs specifically to have the chances of survival and procreation to me more successful. With mammals there is that keen advantage of the ability for the mother to carry their own young in to escape danger and to be fitted into a bodily frame evolutionarily supported to protect the pre-born. The natural law or "law of the jungle" does not support abortion.

Natural law is a pagan ideology BTW. (Plato and Aristotle)

 

[Phred]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.

Can't wait to see how you justify this one...

Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest". That means that the species that is stronger, more adaptable, quicker, ect. will grow further on and evolved. Therefore without the strength and fecundity of nature there would be no growth and would end up being extinction.

No, that's incorrect on so many levels. Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." That honor goes to British economist Herbert Spencer. Darwin did use the phrase in the fifth edition of "Origin of the Species" but gave Spencer full credit.

The concept of natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" does not refer to a species, but rather to an individual. Those best adapted to their environments would be most likely to breed and thus their genes would be "selected" to move on to the next generation.

If you don't know what you're talking about... don't.

Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

There is no hypocrisy that I can see. But I understand the Theory of Evolution, you don't.

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake. Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....

There are a limited number of resources. When there are so many people that all the resources are being used up, then there is a problem with overpopulation. That's not a fallacy, but rather a reality. We see what happens with overpopulation all the time in nature. Just ask the folks in Wisconsin about white-tailed deer. But... I suppose this sort of naive commentary is to be expected. You haven't made a factual statement yet.

Any comments?

Just that responding to this nonsense is five minutes of my life I'll never get back. I would hope that at least one person reads this and discredits your entire post.

.
​

 

[tcampen]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.



Darwin believed and coined "survival of the fittest". That means that the species that is stronger, more adaptable, quicker, ect. will grow further on and evolved. Therefore without the strength and fecundity of nature there would be no growth and would end up being extinction.


Now if pro-abortion people kill their fetuses/proto-humans/younglings/life/etc. then that means they selfishly want to end their species with themselves rather than breed like a rabbit/rodent/insect (multiply like crazy) so to insure the survival of the species. See the hypocrisy?

The argument of overpopulation is a fallacy BTW. If one believes in evolution it would mean moderation, not stifling procreation (contraception/abortioon) for sexual pleasure's sake. Do any animals actually have sex for pleasure alone? I wonder....


Any comments?

Your analysis fails to understand evolutionary theory, and then innaccurately applies your misconception to modern human existence. Mixing these concepts simply makes no sense.

And on what do you base the argument that overpopulation is a fallacy?

Oh, and just so you know, chimps have sex for pleasure. They even regularly touch. hmmmmmmmmmmm. But not that that has anything to do with anything.

 

[Lycaenidae]

According to evolution all life started as microscopic organism...then into several evolutionary stages of fish, reptiles, birds, and so on. (A rough picture)


Lets say that all the birds desired to destroy all their procreation abilities. Wouldn't that mean that mammals would not of had a chance to exist. Perhaps a new species would spring up but that means that the birds were weak and their record of life would be a mere speck of dust in time.

If people want to exist into the future for a possibility of future evolution they have to both procreate and survive.

With abortion/contraception their is no survival or procreation. (Not a moral statement. Just a fact)

Evolution = Procreation + Survival

Doggypaddle to the shallow end of the gene pool...seriously, read a book.

variation + heredity + differential reproduction = change over time

Evolution is not a ladder. Mammals did not come from birds.

 

[Lycaenidae]

And another thing. There is specific evolutionary design to protect proto-creatures/fetuses/etc. The reptiles and birds lay eggs specifically to have the chances of survival and procreation to me more successful. With mammals there is that keen advantage of the ability for the mother to carry their own young in to escape danger and to be fitted into a bodily frame evolutionarily supported to protect the pre-born. The natural law or "law of the jungle" does not support abortion.

Natural law is a pagan ideology BTW. (Plato and Aristotle)

What are you even talking about? Reptile and bird eggs are they way they are to prevent desiccation, not to protect the young from predation. If you look at the eggs of animals that reproduce in an aquatic environment you'll notice they are much more flimsy and jelly-like. If being placental is such an advantage, why are there so many more egg-laying animals than viviparous or placental/marsupial animals? Humans aren't at the top of some evolutionary ladder, so our traits aren't automatically superior.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

According to evolution all life started as microscopic organism...then into several evolutionary stages of fish, reptiles, birds, and so on. (A rough picture)


Lets say that all the birds desired to destroy all their procreation abilities. Wouldn't that mean that mammals would not of had a chance to exist. Perhaps a new species would spring up but that means that the birds were weak and their record of life would be a mere speck of dust in time.

If people want to exist into the future for a possibility of future evolution they have to both procreate and survive.

With abortion/contraception their is no survival or procreation. (Not a moral statement. Just a fact)

Evolution = Procreation + Survival

Mammals didn't evolve from birds.

I don't really see what your point is. Most here agree with you that complete use of contraception and abortion is counterproductive to an organism's ability to pass on its genes. Yet, you continue to belabor your point as if there is something people are missing.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

And another thing. There is specific evolutionary design to protect proto-creatures/fetuses/etc. The reptiles and birds lay eggs specifically to have the chances of survival and procreation to me more successful. With mammals there is that keen advantage of the ability for the mother to carry their own young in to escape danger and to be fitted into a bodily frame evolutionarily supported to protect the pre-born. The natural law or "law of the jungle" does not support abortion.

Natural law is a pagan ideology BTW. (Plato and Aristotle)

You say you understand that survival of the fittest is not a moral imperative, but your statements don't make sense if you are not putting moral weight in this principle.