Evolution and Abortion....

[b4uris]

Okay, I apologise beforehand. i still haven't figured out how to include who wrote what when quoting.

Evolution isn't a moral imperative - it's a scientific observation. It's descriptive, not proscriptive.

I agree; however, reality is what it is,not what one wants it to be. To make moral judgment one must take into account the context of the action and the aspects of reality it is related to. Evolution would be under that umbrella.
That being said I also agree with you this isn't a good argument against abortion. Sometimes it can be beneficial to a population to reduce its birth rate when resources are becoming scarce.

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

Yeah, as in pro-choice to kill a new human life.

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

I also think having sex for pleasure alone is banal, to say the least, but that has nothing to do with animals doing it or nor. After all, it is humans who are moral creatures.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I agree; however, reality is what it is,not what one wants it to be. To make moral judgment one must take into account the context of the action and the aspects of reality it is related to. Evolution would be under that umbrella.

No, it wouldn't. Evolution is amoral. it has no moral content, just like gravity.

Yeah, as in pro-choice to kill a new human life.

No, as in pro the woman being able to choose what happens to her body.

I also think having sex for pleasure alone is banal, to say the least,

Poor you

 

[WaterGoddess]

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?

Evolution and abortion are two seperate and unrelated issues. Evolution is the idea that something gradually progresses to a better and more complex form of itself. Evolution does not mean that we should "multiply like crazy" and evolution does not advocate that. The definition of evolution is "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

Abortion does not stop or hinder that. One could argue that abortion entirely fits with the idea of natural selection which evolution talks about. Evolution occurs if a woman aborts or not, since evolution is not dependent on one individual person to continue. So if a woman aborts today, evolution isn't hindered since somebody else will not abort today, or will give birth. Even if a woman aborts and then later on when her situation improves, decides to get pregnant and have a baby, evolution isn't impacted at all. The baby she does have will be a small step in advancement of the species, even though she decided to terminate a pregnancy before it became a baby.

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?

Lions, dolphins, monkeys, kangaroos, mice, rats, and many (most?) marsupials and rodents have all shown evidence of having sex for pleasure alone and not procreation. All animals have demonstrated a means of self control over offspring, usually post-natal control, but still control. Humans are no different.

Again, evolution does not mean moderation or "breeding like crazy."

 

[FSTDT]

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

So you're trying to tell us that in your opening post when you used phrases like "selfishly want to end the species", "hypocrisy", etc you are not loading your opening post with moral statements?

But, in any case, if you arent trying to make evolution into a moral theory, then undeniably you are trying to make evolution into a lifestyle choice in the same way that going on a diet might be a lifestyle choice - can you see the nonsense in that?

 

[loriersea]

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?

You seem to be assuming that people who support legal abortion (as opposed to illegal abortion) do not reproduce. That is entirely wrong. I support legal abortion, and I have a son. I've never had an abortion. Most of the pro-choice people I know are also parents.

Most people, at least in modern western societies, limit childbirth in some manner. And, I think there are evolutionary reasons for that. Having more children does not mean having healthier children or healthier families. Limiting childbirth to the number of children you can financially and emotionally support to a level you consider satisfactory makes sense, especially in the contemporary world.

 

[loriersea]

Yeah, as in pro-choice to kill a new human life.

Or, to think of it another way, as in "pro women having safe, legal abortions that won't kill them or leave them infertile" versus "pro women having dangerous, illegal abortion that may kill them or leave them infertile."

I am anti-illegal-abortion. I am anti-back-alley-abortion. I am anti-women-bleeding-to-death-helpless-and-scared-while-their-young-children-watch-in-horror. That is much different than being "pro-abortion." One could argue, by the same semantic token, that people who think abortion should be illegal are also "pro-abortion," but it's just illegal, dangerous abortions that they support.

 

[AtheistPerson]

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?

Note: Your not supposed to make a topic on abortion unless your christian

My Answer: Well first off i wouldnt see how the baby would develop faster otherwise i can see what your getting at.

 

[holyorders]

Or, to think of it another way, as in "pro women having safe, legal abortions that won't kill them or leave them infertile" versus "pro women having dangerous, illegal abortion that may kill them or leave them infertile."

I am anti-illegal-abortion. I am anti-back-alley-abortion. I am anti-women-bleeding-to-death-helpless-and-scared-while-their-young-children-watch-in-horror. That is much different than being "pro-abortion." One could argue, by the same semantic token, that people who think abortion should be illegal are also "pro-abortion," but it's just illegal, dangerous abortions that they support.

Huh? Since when do pro-lifers support back-alley abortions? Pro-lifers are against ALL abortions.

I will be praying for you.

 

[WaterGoddess]

Huh? Since when do pro-lifers support back-alley abortions? Pro-lifers are against ALL abortions.

I believe she's trying to point out that abortion will always be a choice, regardless of how legal it is. So by being pro-choice, she advocates safe, legal abortions where the life and health of the mother is in minimal danger. By being anti-abortion, people unintentionally (usually unintentionally anyway) advocate illegal abortions where not only the supposed "life" of the fetus is ended, but the undisputed life and health of the mother is seriously compromised too.

 

[Exhausted]

I believe she's trying to point out that abortion will always be a choice, regardless of how legal it is. So by being pro-choice, she advocates safe, legal abortions where the life and health of the mother is in minimal danger. By being anti-abortion, people unintentionally (usually unintentionally anyway) advocate illegal abortions where not only the supposed "life" of the fetus is ended, but the undisputed life and health of the mother is seriously compromised too.

Too true. People need to think about the consequences of the laws they want passed.

 

[AtheistPerson]

Huh? Since when do pro-lifers support back-alley abortions? Pro-lifers are against ALL abortions.

I will be praying for you.

My old church said that your insulting someone if you say that evil phrase just to let you know.

 

[loriersea]

Thank you, WaterGoddess and Exhausted. That's exactly what I was trying to say. We know that women will have abortions no matter what the law says. Before Roe, many women had abortions. If abortion is made illegal, many women will continue to have abortions. In countries where abortion is illegal, many women have abortions. Abortion appears to be one of those behaviors where legality has little impact on incidence.

If someone honestly wants to reduce the abortion rate through comprehensive sex education, economic reforms to make raising a(nother) child a feasible option for more people, and access to safe and effective birth control, I have nothing but respect for them. If they provide material and social support to young pregnant women so that adoption is a workable option for them, I have nothing but respect for them. But, when we are talking about wanting to outlaw abortion, we are talking about a situation in which we would be condemning millions of women to unsafe, dangerous abortions. Any knowledge of history would make that very clear. To push for making abortion illegal is to be pro-illegal abortion. If you think that at least many hundreds of thousands of women having illegal abortions each year, which are far more dangerous than legal abortions, is accepable if it reduces the abortion rate a bit, then that's fine. But that is the position you are taking.

The reason I said that originally was because you were making the assumption that being in favor of legal abortion means being pro-abortion. That is not true. There are a good number of people who believe that abortion is morally wrong but nevertheless believe that abortion should be legal, because the harm done to women when abortion is illegal is also morally wrong. There are many people who think drinking is wrong, but they think drinking should be legal. I think drug use is wrong, but I'm not convinced that the criminalization of drug use hasn't done more harm than good.

 

[Alarum]

With all due respect, the OP has conflated Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Humanity, as a species, has reached the end of any form of natural evolution. We're at most a century, and possibly less then half a century away from being able to manipulate our genetics ourselves, without worrying about any slow-paced change.

 

[Cirbryn]

With all due respect, the OP has conflated Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Humanity, as a species, has reached the end of any form of natural evolution. We're at most a century, and possibly less then half a century away from being able to manipulate our genetics ourselves, without worrying about any slow-paced change.

No, the OP is definitely confused about how evolution works, but social Darwinism was the idea that society shouldn't help the poor or underprivileged because they were genetically less able to compete and so should be weeded out of the gene pool. That's not what the OP is advocating.

And humanity is hardly at the end of natural evolution. It's just managing to adjust the selective pressures. For example, in countries where obtaining food is relatively easy, the drawbacks to growing tall have been lessened so average height has increased. Our technology has also vastly increased the carrying capacity for our species, which has allowed us to grow exponentially and has thereby lowered many selective pressures. It doesn't matter so much if you can outcompet me if there's still room for both your progeny and mine. When we reach carrying capacity again that's going to change.

And it's highly unlikely that gene manipulation will be available to everyone, or that it will be used for anything other than obvious genetic disorders. So it's not going to have much impact on competition among alleles with subtle costs and benefits (meaning most of them).

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Evolution and belief of abortion is a contradiction.

1. You are mixing terms. Belief of evolution means that someone believes evolution occurs. Yet you don't take 'Belief of abortion' to mean that someone believes abortions occur. If that were the case, even pro-lifers would have 'belief of abortion.'

2. Evolution is a description of something that happens. Abortion is an action. They have nothing to do with each other. Someone could not believe evolution and be pro-choice. Someone could also believe that evolution occurs (or that the theory is an accurate description) and also be pro-life. Neither is a contradiction.

Evolution does not say that it is a necessity for all creatures to support it. Evolution has no plan, has no goal, has no design. Someone can abort or not... neither 'supports' evolution. The highest good of evolution is not the propogation of species. Rather, evolution proposes that species that continue to exist are more likely to be ones that are good at propogating.

 

[Cirbryn]

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?

This single paragraph has so many incorrect or unsupported assumptions it's hard to know where to begin. Let's see:

1) Most pro-choice people aren't "pro-abortion".

2) Killing a fetus does not mean a person wants to selfishly end her species with herself. That's so completely ridiculous it's hard to even know what else to say about it. People have abortions because they aren't ready to have or raise children, not because they want to end the species.

3) The population of our species was at about 4 billion when I was born and it's now approaching 7 billion. The one thing that actually could end our species is continuing to breed like rabbits. All the wars over oil and other resources, all the pollution and crime and loss of habitat and increasing land prices that we find are problems now are only going to get worse until our population stops growing. There is almost no social problem afflicting us that isn't made worse by the need to constantly provide food and living space and energy for more and more and more people.

4) Unfortunately, the above problem is not something that is contrary to evolution or that evolution can fix. Adaptations don't evolve for the good of the species, they evolve because they increase the inclusive fitness of the individual. Like all tragedies of the commons, what's good for each individual may not be good for the population as a whole. That's why prarie dogs and lions have evolved to kill unrelated young. That's why lemmings (and possibly humans) over-reproduce to the point where their resources are completely depleted and then die in mass emigrations and starvations.

5) Abortion under particular circumstances can be evolutionarily advantageous. If I can abort young I can't provide for I'll be better able to provide for the young I already have, or intend to have eventually, thereby increasing their chances of competing effectively. In the Australian outback, weather is highly unpredictable, so red kangaroos have evolved the ability to practice triage on their offspring during droughts. Often a kangaroo will have a joey beside it that still needs protection, another unweaned young in the pouch, and a fetus in the womb. When droughts hit, they first spontaneously abort the fetus, because that's the one in which they've invested the least effort. If the drought continues their milk dries up and the young in the pouch die. This allows them to put all their dwindling resources into keeping alive the joey at their side, in whom they've invested the most effort to that point, and who has the best chance of reaching adulthood if it can survive the drought.

6) The fact that things like the above happen doesn't mean abortion is either moral or immoral. Morality isn't (or shouldn't be) based on what is "natural". Suggesting that people who accept both abortion rights and evolution are hypocrites is way out of line.

 

[Alarum]

And humanity is hardly at the end of natural evolution. It's just managing to adjust the selective pressures. For example, in countries where obtaining food is relatively easy, the drawbacks to growing tall have been lessened so average height has increased. Our technology has also vastly increased the carrying capacity for our species, which has allowed us to grow exponentially and has thereby lowered many selective pressures. It doesn't matter so much if you can outcompet me if there's still room for both your progeny and mine. When we reach carrying capacity again that's going to change.

The height versus nutrition thing is hardly evolution. Take an average American kid and malnourish them and they'll end up short too. Yes, certain strains of humanity are shorter then others, but evolution hasn't adjusted are height at all, merely diet.

And it's highly unlikely that gene manipulation will be available to everyone, or that it will be used for anything other than obvious genetic disorders. So it's not going to have much impact on competition among alleles with subtle costs and benefits (meaning most of them).

Right. I remember that article in Scientific American about how they found how to turn on and off muscle growth in cows with simple gene therapy. How much selective pressure is there going to be when anyone can get the muscles of a professional body builder with a little gene therapy? Technology goes to the elites first, yes, but gene therapy will be used for a whole lot more then correcting a few diseases (using it to correct diseases alone is like having the sole use of the electric motor being mechanized wheelchairs).

 

[billwald]

Yes, it is obvious that this thread confuses evolution and social darwinism.

It should be obvious to anyone who understands the concept of evolution that sentient beings (ergo humans) don't "evolve" but (theoretically) rationally choose their mates.

 

[AirPo]

Huh? Since when do pro-lifers support back-alley abortions? Pro-lifers are against ALL abortions.

I will be praying for you.

Pro lifers want abortion to be illegal. Making abortions illegal will lead to back-alley abortions. Therefore prolifer are pro back-alley abortions. It's very simple. Just apply your logic to yourself.

 

[AirPo]

The height versus nutrition thing is hardly evolution. Take an average American kid and malnourish them and they'll end up short too. Yes, certain strains of humanity are shorter then others, but evolution hasn't adjusted are height at all, merely diet.

With respect to the individual you are correct, but with respect to populations you are incorrect. Since evolution happens at the population level, not the indivdual level, a change in average height of the population certaintly has an evolutionary aspect.