The abortion paradox

[Risakisa]

Any sort of debate on this is entirely pointless, especially here. But I like to argue my point.

 

1. Abortion is murder. Pure and simple. It's a human life that's being ended. You can try to twist the definition of human to exclude whatever part of humanity you wish to get rid off, but I don't really care. You can argue why it's ok or beneficial, which I do, but it still is what it is.

 

2. Abortion has a positive eugenic** effect. While the obvious benefit of reducing genetic defects is there, it's a minor one; the main benefit is that the people who have abortions will, obviously, breed less. And thus the maladaptive* opinions that they hold are selected against, and eventually out. Being pro-abortion is, I reckon, associated with a whole host of other opinions. I won't comment on those opinions, but I reckon that the adaptive ones will remain long enough, whereas the maladaptive ones will ensure a quicker removal.

 

In other words, because pro-abortion opinions are maladaptive, and correlate with other maladaptive opinions, allowing abortion will lead to those people being more likely to have abortions and thus self-selecting against themselves, genetically.

 

While I think it's pretty gross, it is accurate. Much like starvation, it's a self-solving problem. The way mother nature solves this problem is, as is her way, incredibly callous and brutal. But it's A way.

 

*"Maladaptive" means "something that lowers evolutionary success", ie something that makes you have fewer successful offspring. Abortion is, by definition, maladaptive. This is not a moral statement, but a factual one.
**Thanks, austrian painter, for making people think eugenics is synonymous with evil and genocide and what-have-you. I really need to find a better term that people can understand while not triggering their knee-jerk reactions.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Risakisa

[Guest deleted34304850]

 

 

 

no humour, just pity.

To the best of my knowledge, a woman cannot reproduce by herself. Sure, there are methods that don't require a man to be present.... artificial insemination, for instance, but, aside from that, no, a woman CANNOT reproduce on her own.

I know its hard for you to read what people write, before you laughably try to turn whatever topic it is into a republican/democrat argument, but go back and look at what I originally responded to again. Here's a clue for you "develop a fetus". I'm quite certain that the female is built to do exactly that.

You decided that "develop a fetus" = "reproduction". Maybe you too should pick up a book? Or is that too left wing for you? clown.

 

Ah, dancing with semantics. I am pretty sure his intent was to imply that a woman can't get pregnant by herself. You are the one doing the 'creative interpretation' here, to denigrate someone elses intelligence to make yourself feel better about your self. Have you considered therapy for your inferiority complex?

 

not semantics, accuracy. there's a difference. wanna engage with me? be accurate. its not hard. clown.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

no humour, just pity.

To the best of my knowledge, a woman cannot reproduce by herself. Sure, there are methods that don't require a man to be present.... artificial insemination, for instance, but, aside from that, no, a woman CANNOT reproduce on her own.

I know its hard for you to read what people write, before you laughably try to turn whatever topic it is into a republican/democrat argument, but go back and look at what I originally responded to again. Here's a clue for you "develop a fetus". I'm quite certain that the female is built to do exactly that.

You decided that "develop a fetus" = "reproduction". Maybe you too should pick up a book? Or is that too left wing for you? clown.

 

Ah, dancing with semantics. I am pretty sure his intent was to imply that a woman can't get pregnant by herself. You are the one doing the 'creative interpretation' here, to denigrate someone elses intelligence to make yourself feel better about your self. Have you considered therapy for your inferiority complex?

 

not semantics, accuracy. there's a difference. wanna engage with me? be accurate. its not hard. clown.

 

Wanna engage with folks here? Try and follow the topic. Dipstick.

[ScytheBearer]

Any sort of debate on this is entirely pointless, especially here. But I like to argue my point.

 

1. Abortion is murder. Pure and simple. It's a human life that's being ended. You can try to twist the definition of human to exclude whatever part of humanity you wish to get rid off, but I don't really care. You can argue why it's ok or beneficial, which I do, but it still is what it is.

 

2. Abortion has a positive eugenic** effect. While the obvious benefit of reducing genetic defects is there, it's a minor one; the main benefit is that the people who have abortions will, obviously, breed less. And thus the maladaptive* opinions that they hold are selected against, and eventually out. Being pro-abortion is, I reckon, associated with a whole host of other opinions. I won't comment on those opinions, but I reckon that the adaptive ones will remain long enough, whereas the maladaptive ones will ensure a quicker removal.

 

In other words, because pro-abortion opinions are maladaptive, and correlate with other maladaptive opinions, allowing abortion will lead to those people being more likely to have abortions and thus self-selecting against themselves, genetically.

 

While I think it's pretty gross, it is accurate. Much like starvation, it's a self-solving problem. The way mother nature solves this problem is, as is her way, incredibly callous and brutal. But it's A way.

 

*"Maladaptive" means "something that lowers evolutionary success", ie something that makes you have fewer successful offspring. Abortion is, by definition, maladaptive. This is not a moral statement, but a factual one.

**Thanks, austrian painter, for making people think eugenics is synonymous with evil and genocide and what-have-you. I really need to find a better term that people can understand while not triggering their knee-jerk reactions.

 

You must live in El Salvador, because El Salvador is the only nation which has laws which define abortion as murder. But in El Salvador, a miscarriage or stillbirth will get you 40 years in prison for "aggravated murder of a child".

 

 

El Salvador’s abortion ban jails women for miscarriages and stillbirths

 

A Teenage Rape Survivor in El Salvador Has Been Jailed for 30 Years

 

Pregnancy and the 40-Year Prison Sentence: How "Abortion Is Murder" Became Institutionalized in the Salvadoran Judicial System

 

Mothers of stillborns face prison in El Salvador

Edited February 2, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[JimboUK]

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

[HeyYou]

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

Precisely.

 

My take on it is, don't think abortion is ok? Don't have one. However, do NOT try and press your views on everyone else.

[ScytheBearer]

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

 

You ignore the third option. What a pregnant woman does in privacy is nobody's business, and nobody has a say in what a pregnant woman chooses to do. MYOFB

[JimboUK]

 

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

 

You ignore the third option. What a pregnant woman does in privacy is nobody's business, and nobody has a say in what a pregnant woman chooses to do. MYOFB

 

 

Isn't it? if one believes life begins at conception then that person would be unlikely to see a difference between killing a child in the womb and killing it when it's five years old, and few people would say "it's no ones business" if a mother killed a her five year old child. Of course if one doesn't believe life starts until the unborn is viable then yes they would say it's none of their business. This is why these "debates" are pointless, no one is right or wrong, it all opinion or belief.

 

People are free to express their opinion but on this subject it rarely stops at that, instead we have people trying to push their opinion onto others and generally being unpleasant, I'm surprised this thread is still open, they usually get locked for reasons I just stated.

[Perraine]

 

 

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

 

You ignore the third option. What a pregnant woman does in privacy is nobody's business, and nobody has a say in what a pregnant woman chooses to do. MYOFB

 

 

Isn't it? if one believes life begins at conception then that person would be unlikely to see a difference between killing a child in the womb and killing it when it's five years old, and few people would say "it's no ones business" if a mother killed a her five year old child. Of course if one doesn't believe life starts until the unborn is viable then yes they would say it's none of their business. This is why these "debates" are pointless, no one is right or wrong, it all opinion or belief.

 

People are free to express their opinion but on this subject it rarely stops at that, instead we have people trying to push their opinion onto others and generally being unpleasant, I'm surprised this thread is still open, they usually get locked for reasons I just stated.

 

I'm with JimboUK on this one.

It's a pointless debate which has no chance of ever being productive because everyone has their own perceptions or opinions of at least ONE of the core principles involved, so it can NEVER be resolved, or I believe, even sway anyone's opinion.

 

 

 

@JimboUK - You probably know this already, but ad-hominem and no true Scotsman are Scythebearer's go to debate techniques, I've yet to see them make any real arguments in any of their posts, so I believe I'll join HeyYou and add them to my ignore list, as reading poorly aimed insults and false narratives are not what I believe this sub-forum's original intent was.

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

 

I've don't see the point in these "debates", there are no facts to debate, if one believes life begins at conception then not having a problem with abortion would be odd, it you believe it starts later then it's understandable that one might not have an issue with it.

 

You ignore the third option. What a pregnant woman does in privacy is nobody's business, and nobody has a say in what a pregnant woman chooses to do. MYOFB

 

 

Isn't it? if one believes life begins at conception then that person would be unlikely to see a difference between killing a child in the womb and killing it when it's five years old, and few people would say "it's no ones business" if a mother killed a her five year old child. Of course if one doesn't believe life starts until the unborn is viable then yes they would say it's none of their business. This is why these "debates" are pointless, no one is right or wrong, it all opinion or belief.

 

People are free to express their opinion but on this subject it rarely stops at that, instead we have people trying to push their opinion onto others and generally being unpleasant, I'm surprised this thread is still open, they usually get locked for reasons I just stated.

 

I'm with JimboUK on this one.

It's a pointless debate which has no chance of ever being productive because everyone has their own perceptions or opinions of at least ONE of the core principles involved, so it can NEVER be resolved, or I believe, even sway anyone's opinion.

 

 

 

@JimboUK - You probably know this already, but ad-hominem and no true Scotsman are Scythebearer's go to debate techniques, I've yet to see them make any real arguments in any of their posts, so I believe I'll join HeyYou and add them to my ignore list, as reading poorly aimed insults and false narratives are not what I believe this sub-forum's original intent was.

 

An ad hominem accusation as an ad hominem. And you accuse me of using ad hominems as a go to. Hmmm. Do I sense a bit of projection?