Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
    The first and foremost obligation of the state is to enforce the legal obligations incumbent in a parent. There are not regularly patrols by agents of the state to assure that, parens patriae, all its kids are in bed and safe. Private citizens, individuals, walking around on the street, have no positive duty to act in that child's interest.
    is that really how the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, Public Law 105-89) works? One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, said, "We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. ... It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together."

    I was expecting something a bit more earnest than "well, since not all forms of life reproduce sexually, sex isn't for reproduction". What about in those species that do reproduce sexually? What other reproductive options does a dog have?
    Dogs evolved from ancestors that reproduced asexually. The interesting question (to biologists) is why sexual reproduction (which is less efficient in terms of reproductive output) might have evolved and in many taxa become the sole means of reproduction. The most persuasive answers involve the selctive advantages conferred by recombination, which is greatly facilitated by sexual reproduction.

    That's a joke, right? Unless natural selection works by sending the genetic traits that enable superior survival into later generations by sending them as an email attachment, we are in fact talking about reproduction. Survival of the fittest; if someone were to ask "survival to do what", that's your answer -- reproduce. The thing that the fittest survive to do, is reproduce.
    Not a joke. You're completely missing the point, which is that natural selection has neither point nor purpose. It's not "for" anything. The fittest don't survive in order to reproduce. It's simply that if they survive more and reproduce more then it is logically the case that there will be more of them.
    Last edited by hayes62; 12-02-12, 05:36 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      It takes to the *second paragraph* to see how little that legislation has to do with any point relevant to this thread anyone could care to make. Unabashedly out of context attempt to dress that law up as something it isn't. You seriously find in that act a basis for arguing that the primary responsibility for the health and well-being of children under the law is with their parents?

      Not a joke. You're completely missing the point, which is that natural selection has neither point nor purpose. It's not "for" anything. The fittest don't survive in orderto reproduce. It's simply that if they survive more and reproduce more then it is logically the case that there will be more of them.
      Let's simplify this -- is reproduction the instrumentality by which traits are inherited (the variation and change in species thereforom resulting being called 'evolution')?

      If yes, your not actually arguing with me on this for any genuine reason. If no, then how precisely are those traits inherited?
      sigpic
      Banner by LRae12

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by BloodyHell View Post
        Describing this stage as a grouping of cells does make it easier to exterminate, I'm sure.
        I wouldn't say so, necessarily. I think in some cases the knowledge of exactly what a baby is and needs is a very clear picture of why a person might choose to terminate. Hinging an anti abortion argument on the idea that the person who chooses abortion is misguided and doesn't understand they are ending the life of a sort of baby is kind of simplistic, imo.

        I suspect many people who choose abortion go in eyes open. These are a group of cells that have the potential to become a person. You can describe it as cells, or as a potential person, but it doesn't change the fact that the cells/potential person cannot exist without the uterus, and I believe the owner of the uterus should be the only one to decide upon the occupancy status of said uterus.

        Comment


        • #79
          * All contraceptives should be free and available to everyone in the world. That would prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies and a lot of abortions.


          * The morning after pill should be free and available to everyone in the world. This isn't an abortion.


          * With such circumstances as rape and incest abortion should be free and available to everyone in the world.


          * Then there are those who don't want to have that child, can't afford that child, etc. Should we force the mother to go through with the pregnancy? Including the expense?

          - Then what happens? The mother -- or the State -- gets the father to pay child support for a child he didn't want, or the child gets adopted, or the child -- in the United States -- goes into the foster care system.


          * Abortion should be legal during the first trimester. And it should be free and available to everyone in the world. It only gets murky during the second trimester http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-li...t/art-20046151 and after.

          Comment


          • #80
            *jumps into the discussion*

            In The Netherlands, where I'm from, abortion has been legal for some time. I think you can get an abortion here up until 12 weeks of pregnancy. In my opinion, abortion should be legal. A child about 12 weeks old isn't fully developed yet, therefore I could never see abortion as murder. I do think that, especially in the United States, where teen pregnancy is a greater issue than here in Holland, there should be some more focus on sex education for teens. Plus: free or at least low priced contraceptives should be available to avoid teen pregnancy - and abortion.
            The reason I'm talking about teen pregnancy here is because I think teens shouldn't have kids yet, unless they are capable and financially equipped to raise and support their kid. Also I think (though I don't have any statistics to support me here) that abortions occur mostly among teens that got pregnant.
            So when do we destroy the world, already?

            Comment

            Working...
            X