# Pro or Con: Abortion



## koreancuber (Mar 30, 2010)

I know you guys have seen a lot of controversial threads, but this is for my debate class. So, are you guys pro or con on the topic of abortion and why?


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Mar 30, 2010)

Poll plox. I'm not going to enter this conversation, but I'd think it'd be much better to see which choice is more popular when statistics are right there.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Mar 30, 2010)

At first, I thought you were watching Dan Brown again...seriously, even I think he's being stupid lately.


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

Pro choice is not the same as pro abortion.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

I think it should depend on the circumstances of the people involved, the circumstances of the pregnancy and the wishes of the families.

For example, if a girl was raped and left pregnant an abortion should be allowed. Likewise if a condom broke and other methods of contraception failed.


----------



## koreancuber (Mar 30, 2010)

I should've made a poll. Can a mod make a poll for this thread?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> Pro choice is not the same as pro abortion.



This
But I am still pro abortion


----------



## dbax0999 (Mar 30, 2010)

pro-death


----------



## TheBB (Mar 30, 2010)

I'm pro not beating dead horses.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

TheBB said:


> I'm pro not beating dead horses.


Implying that this issue is finished.


----------



## brunson (Mar 30, 2010)

I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 30, 2010)

brunson said:


> I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.



THIS!
Yeah yeah!

(It's almost kinda like eugenics, and would prevent super stupid people from raising super stupid children!)


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

Pro-life. Killing innocents is wrong.


----------



## Johan444 (Mar 30, 2010)

brunson said:


> I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.


What does that have to do with this subject?

On topic: I really can't see any situation at all where giving birth to an unwanted child is a good idea.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.
> ...


How would the unwanted child feel about that?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...



It wouldn't, because it would be aborted


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Pro-life. Killing innocents is wrong.



Well I say holding a woman's reproductive system hostage because a clump of cells has more rights than she does is wrong, but everything's not as black and white as you make it seem. What if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy? What if the pregnancy was the result of rape?


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> I think it should depend on the circumstances of the people involved, the circumstances of the pregnancy and the wishes of the families.
> 
> For example, if a girl was raped and left pregnant an abortion should be allowed. Likewise if a condom broke and other methods of contraception failed.



Agreed.
If they knew they were gonna have one, then they should face the consequences and _not_ get an abortion.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 30, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > I think it should depend on the circumstances of the people involved, the circumstances of the pregnancy and the wishes of the families.
> ...



If abortion is legal everytime a condom breaks, the rate of condoms being reported broken is going to absolutely skyrocket in this country.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

I wasn't saying that. The couple should have to still pay for the procedure.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> I wasn't saying that. The couple should have to still pay for the procedure.



Nobody is saying they shouldn't. But if abortion was only legal in cases where condoms failed, you would just see people reporting broken condoms.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 30, 2010)

Actually, I think I changed my opinion. If a girl was raped and conceived a child, then, for sure, they could just have the kid and then give it up for adoption? Surely better than death?


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > Pro-life. Killing innocents is wrong.
> ...


The clump of cells would be a human being. Killing the child to save the mother would send the message that one human being is more important than another. That's like saying let's kill people from third world countries because they suck resources and are endangering the health of the world. Regardless of how the child was conceived, the child still has rights as a human being and human life should be protected from the _moment of conception_. It's human life, not just a clump of cells.


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 30, 2010)

I am pro life. It is when a girl gets raped and gets pregnant though that I think it just depends. One of my friends is also 100% pro life, she had a pregnancy scare this summer and told the potential father that even if he didn't help her she would still have the baby.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > rickcube said:
> ...


Consider this;

Girl is raped at 10 years old, and just happens to get pregnant. What would you do? 

1: Force her to have the child because the ball of cells could become a child. Every life deserves life, right?

2: Allow her to abort the child, thus allowing her to live her life free of the burden of an unwanted child.

In my opinion having a child that young would destroy the mother's life as well as the unborn, unwanted child's life too.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Mar 30, 2010)

I'm against abortion except for certain situations such as rape.


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > rickcube said:
> ...



Wait, so if carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger a girl's life, you would rather have both mother and child die than save the mother?

The clump of cells could be come a person, but what's so special about the moment of conception? You could argue that a sperm could fuse with an egg, so preventing it by using a condom is wrong because you're preventing a human life from forming. I can understand if you say abortions shouldn't be allowed beyond a certain point, when a fetus has started developing a nervous system, but the moment of conception is a pretty arbitrary line to draw. If you want to think of it as a human life, it should at least have a central nervous system.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > rickcube said:
> ...



What, exactly, differentiates human life from a clump of cells? And wouldn't letting the mother die and the baby live (or possibly both die) send the EXACT SAME MESSAGE?


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



I think that's the key issue. Is the life within the womb a child? I believe that it is. It's a human that is developing. It is genetically different than the mother and therefore is a different person.

As far as number two, abort is equal to kill. That pretty much says that one would kill the child to free the mother from the burden of an unwanted child. In my eyes, that's murder.



LewisJ said:


> What, exactly, differentiates human life from a clump of cells? And wouldn't letting the mother die and the baby live (or possibly both die) send the EXACT SAME MESSAGE?


A different 'clump of cells' having a unique DNA. Who's to say that the mother is going to die for certain. The mother and child should both try to be saved. If the child is intentionally killed in the process, I believe that that's wrong. If the child in unintentionally killed while trying to save the mother, I would say that that's not as bad.


----------



## Edmund (Mar 30, 2010)

Pro-life.
And what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? I see no difference.

Adoption is always an option for a mother.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 30, 2010)

Edmund said:


> Pro-life.
> And what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? I see no difference.
> 
> Adoption is always an option for a mother.



Pro-abortion would imply wanting to kill ALL the babies while pro-choice would imply wanting a choice to be possible.


----------



## Edmund (Mar 30, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Edmund said:
> 
> 
> > Pro-life.
> ...



The mother dying due to child-birth is very rare with modern medical procedures and as far as rape goes adoption is an option and there are plenty of groups that will help poor mothers who decide to keep their child.

Also is it just me or have lots of threads that will obviously lead to fighting popped up more than usual?


----------



## TheBB (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> TheBB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pro not beating dead horses.
> ...



Not finished, just discussed to death. Hooray, let's repeat the same arguments again. The only debate more beaten to death than this one is that evolution vs creationism thing.



Edmund said:


> Pro-life.
> And what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? I see no difference.
> 
> Adoption is always an option for a mother.



These terms are so stupid. So I think abortion is fine, am I now pro-death? Excuse me while I jump in front of a train then.

I don't go around subjecting women to forced abortions. That's the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Again stupid terms. It's not like pro-lifers are necessarily pro-slavery.

Bottom line is, I'd like to live in a world where people can make mistakes without having their lives ruined, or at least heavily derailed, because of it. This isn't always possible, but at least in this case it is.


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

Rape is a traumatizing experience. You say adoption is an option like it's a simple fix, but it still requires the woman to spend nine months carrying her rapist's baby, and then living the rest of her life knowing a product of the rape is out there somewhere.

The problem is if you make abortion illegal there are going to be people who are desperate enough to get them anyway. And having a safe, legal procedure available is better than having women possibly endangering their own lives.


----------



## Edmund (Mar 30, 2010)

TheBB said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > TheBB said:
> ...


And you can't just put the kid up for adoption? Why the hell not? 
Yes it is your rapists baby but isn't 9 months of sacrifice worth not killing someone?

Is it okay to be okay with slavery even if you don't own slaves and are not forcing people to own slaves? Of course not, so why is it okay with abortion?


----------



## Dene (Mar 30, 2010)

Why are people completely ignoring adoption? The life of no one has to be ruined by going through with a pregnancy. You could infact bring joy to a poor couple unable to conceive (FACT: 1 IN 6 COUPLES ARE INFERTILE. Don't even try to refute this because I will slam you down so hard (I'm serious. I just don't want to find the evidence because it would mean digging through lecture material from last year)).

Personally, I'm all for eugenics (controlled conception). I think the world would be a much happier place with a ruling class of superiors and a working class of inferiors. This would solve any abortion problems.

EDIT: Since I started writing up this post adoption came into the picture >.<


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 30, 2010)

Edmund said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > Edmund said:
> ...



Quote the post you're actually responding to next time? I never said anything about rape so it doesn't seem you're responding to me....make yourself more clear


----------



## Edmund (Mar 30, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Edmund said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...



Well I figured that was implied of when you thought it was okay. When do you think it is okay? Anytime the woman felt like it?


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

Edmund said:


> Yes it is your rapists baby but isn't 9 months of sacrifice worth not killing someone?



Is that how you would feel if this happened to your mother or sister or daughter? Someone did something completely horrendous and because of that his progeny should not only have a shot at life, but use your family member's body for it?


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> Rape is a traumatizing experience. You say adoption is an option like it's a simple fix, but it still requires the woman to spend nine months carrying her rapist's baby, and then living the rest of her life knowing a product of the rape is out there somewhere.
> 
> The problem is if you make abortion illegal there are going to be people who are desperate enough to get them anyway. And having a safe, legal procedure available is better than having women possibly endangering their own lives.



This. People are talking as if rape only involves the act. There is the psychological, physical and emotional aftermath. Just imagine being violated in that way, then being forced by law to carry the memory, the trauma and the actual offspring of that horrible act.

On another note, imagine being told by your mother that you are the offspring of some low-life rapist and you are an accident.


----------



## brunson (Mar 30, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Actually, I think I changed my opinion. If a girl was raped and conceived a child, then, for sure, they could just have the kid and then give it up for adoption? Surely better than death?


Everything dies sometime.

BTW, I think better terms are "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Choice". It better sums up the positions.


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

brunson said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I think I changed my opinion. If a girl was raped and conceived a child, then, for sure, they could just have the kid and then give it up for adoption? Surely better than death?
> ...



Nah, pro-lifers still think women have a choice between keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.


----------



## Dene (Mar 30, 2010)

You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.


----------



## Sir E Brum (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Johan444 said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...


 
1) The sensory capabilities of a fetus are still in development
2) How do you think a fully grown, adult cow feels when it is slaughtered?


----------



## shelley (Mar 30, 2010)

Dene said:


> You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.



If controlled conception were a viable solution, China would have been all over it years ago.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 30, 2010)

4Chan said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.
> ...


I'd rather dumb-ass children than jerk children.

Dumb people are fine, in comparison to mean/negative people. (without reason, that is.)


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

Dene said:


> You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.


Rape happens, and women get pregnant from it. It definitely deserves a mention in this debate.

Also, I think everyone should watch the film Juno. That's very relevant.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

Sir E Brum said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > Johan444 said:
> ...


Human != cow


----------



## Dene (Mar 30, 2010)

shelley said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.
> ...



The technology still isn't available for what I have in mind yet. Only because people whine over "ethics", though.



Musli4brekkies said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.
> ...



People wouldn't get pregnant from it if getting pregnant was impossible.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



She can have the kid, then give it up for adoption.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Sir E Brum said:
> 
> 
> > 2) How do you think a fully grown, adult cow feels when it is slaughtered?
> ...



Nobody said that. However, on an important scale, humans !> cows.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 30, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Consider this;
> 
> Girl is raped at 10 years old, and just happens to get pregnant. What would you do?





iasimp1997 said:


> She can have the kid, then give it up for adoption.


You're 12, and wtf is this?
Preggo 10yr old...no.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 30, 2010)

Dene said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



So we choose who gets pregnant and who doesn't now? That seems a bit Totalitarian to me.



Stachuk1992 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Consider this;
> ...



Click me.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 30, 2010)

Edmund said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > Edmund said:
> ...



All I ever said to you was that there's a difference between the term pro-choice and the term pro-abortion, and now you're asking me when I think abortion is acceptable - a topic I never went anywhere close to! I think you're still responding to the wrong guy!



rickcube said:


> Sir E Brum said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The sensory capabilities of a fetus are still in development
> ...


It seems easy for you to say that a handful of human cells should have more rights than ~1500 pounds of cow cells - yet you put such an emphasis on the value of life. Not to mention how you completely ignored his first point, AND my first response to you: 


LewisJ said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > The clump of cells would be a human being. Killing the child to save the mother would send the message that one human being is more important than another. That's like saying let's kill people from third world countries because they suck resources and are endangering the health of the world. Regardless of how the child was conceived, the child still has rights as a human being and human life should be protected from the _moment of conception_. It's human life, not just a clump of cells.
> ...


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 30, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > Sir E Brum said:
> ...


Try to save the mother and the child without intentionally trying to kill the child. Intentionally killing the child to save the life of the mother is wrong IMHO.

EDIT: And yes I value a human life more than that of a cow (which I happen to be eating right now).


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 30, 2010)

I'm pro-life because I think all life is valuable, whether created on purpose or accident. Although in an ideal world, you wouldn't have to worry about rape, or having kids when you're not ready/out of wedlock.


----------



## Daniel Que (Mar 30, 2010)

Hmmm, I would say that people should have the choice of whether or not to "abort mission," and that hopefully, people wouldn't abuse the privilege. If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Also, as horrible as this sounds, the world doesn't need more people. With our environmental crisis that many are taking too lightly, we need to either reduce energy use, or reduce the people using energy. With the world's population rising too fast for resources to regenerate and keep up with, we're headed in a bad direction. The more people there are, the more resources are needed to sustain them. I know that aborting children (in the early stages) won't reduce population significantly, but regardless of that, population is an issue in a world where on one side, people are overusing energy, and on the other side, people are overproducing people.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 30, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Consider this;
> ...



Ya ya ya, no 13, actually, soon .


----------



## Dene (Mar 31, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Musli4brekkies said:
> ...



Well, not necessarily who, but when. But I'd go with who as well if I had things my way. Let's be perfectly honest here: the world would be a better place if people were born unequal, and didn't care.


----------



## Kian (Mar 31, 2010)

brunson said:


> I think you should have to pass a test to have a kid.



Oh yeah, I want the government deciding who should reproduce. What a fantastic idea. Flawless.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Mar 31, 2010)

This is a topic that, I feel, men should have no say in. I voted pro choice because it should be the woman's decision.


----------



## kprox1994 (Mar 31, 2010)

shelley said:


> Rape is a traumatizing experience. You say adoption is an option like it's a simple fix, but it still requires the woman to spend nine months carrying her rapist's baby, and then living the rest of her life knowing a product of the rape is out there somewhere.
> 
> The problem is if you make abortion illegal there are going to be people who are desperate enough to get them anyway. And having a safe, legal procedure available is better than having women possibly endangering their own lives.



This.
What if the mother got so traumatized from it all, that she committed suicide during pregnancy. Now I would much rather have the girl go through with the abortion and live, wouldn't you?


----------



## kunz (Mar 31, 2010)

all i have to say is i would want all my options open if i was put in a postilion like this


----------



## Tortin (Mar 31, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> I think it should depend on the circumstances of the people involved, the circumstances of the pregnancy and the wishes of the families.
> 
> For example, if a girl was raped and left pregnant an abortion should be allowed. Likewise if a condom broke and other methods of contraception failed.



54% of all women who get abortions were on some sort of birth control at the time.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Oh, and how about this stat? Around 1.5 million women died from failed abortions from the mid-1800s to around 1970 (when abortion was illegal in the US.)

Anyway, I don't want people telling me what to do with my body, therefore, I can't tell people what to do with theirs.


----------



## beingforitself (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Dene, I am interested in hearing more in detail about your technologically-driven eugenics-based utopian society (seriously, not facetiously).


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Why are people completely ignoring adoption? The life of no one has to be ruined by going through with a pregnancy. You could infact bring joy to a poor couple unable to conceive (FACT: 1 IN 6 COUPLES ARE INFERTILE. Don't even try to refute this because I will slam you down so hard (I'm serious. I just don't want to find the evidence because it would mean digging through lecture material from last year)).
> 
> Personally, I'm all for eugenics (controlled conception). I think the world would be a much happier place with a ruling class of superiors and a working class of inferiors. This would solve any abortion problems.
> 
> EDIT: Since I started writing up this post adoption came into the picture >.<



If you had any experience with the adoption/orphanage system, you would see that it should not be a viable option... ever.



iasimp1997 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > rickcube said:
> ...



I would love to see you be the judge who has to tell a 12 year old girl that she has to do this because some idealistic nuts feel the need to impose their will on everyone. Also, see my above post about the adoption system.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 31, 2010)

beingforitself said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


BNW gogogo


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Well, not necessarily who, but when. But I'd go with who as well if I had things my way. Let's be perfectly honest here: the world would be a better place if people were born unequal, and didn't care.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Why do you support a caste system? I know I would be there to prove you wrong. People are inherently fascinated by the underdog.
You aren't your potentials; you are your accomplishments. Isn't that from existentialism? Apparently all you do is study philosophy, but not practically apply it to your own life. How could you not care if things aren't equal? Nurture is just as important as nature. I see you did not have any first hand experience with racism. When the insults become great enough, your will becomes great enough to prove them wrong.
Define "better". Is it better that no one cares about anything?

arctan:
What if I pick pro-choice and pro-life? You should always have the option to maximize the overall quality and quantity of life. People should draw several graphs and do some simulations before making the choice.


----------



## Dene (Mar 31, 2010)

fanwuq: you are being very naive if you think that every philosopher agrees on every issue. How is it that I am not living by my own philosophical beliefs?

I don't believe the world is equal, nor do I think it ever will be.
Not sure how racism comes into this at all.
Not sure about a few of the other sentences either; to be honest your post is a bit incoherent.

I have read Brave New World and saw Gattaca (a very long time ago). I do not find either of these scenarios plausible, nor do I find either of them desirable.

Here is my view: Natural rulers are further bred until ruling status is maintained. Natural followers are further bred until following status is maintained. Through some genetic modification, sperm are changed such that they only become active when triggered. At all other times one can have sex as much as one likes without worry of pregnancy.

By better I mean everyone will be happier with their life. Those in the ruling class will not desire to be in the following class, and vice versa. There is a "contentment" of position. You might argue that these people are not completely free. But I challenge you to find any society in which everyone is completely free. 
I should say: "Is it better that no one cares about anything?" This is not my view at all. Really, all I propose is a small change, namely from what we already have (rulers and followers), to genetic "destiny" so to speak. But this destiny only puts one in one class or the other, it does not determine anything else whatsoever.

I'm a bit tired. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask and be explicit.

Oh also, about your supposed existential quote (I have no idea if that is true, nor do I particularly care; I'll assume it is), I'm inclined to disagree. You aren't your accomplishments, you are a giant jumbly mix of everything that has happened throughout your life. If you haven't accomplished anything, you're still something. 
Stupid philosophers and their fancy quotes taken out of context...


----------



## Ton (Mar 31, 2010)

If only a government would (also financially) support the woman with the baby and or find parents who will take care of the baby 

I believe this would be a better option. 

My opinion this is not a topic that should be decided democratically, there is a guide for live ......


----------



## Escher (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Here is my view: Natural rulers are further bred until ruling status is maintained. Natural followers are further bred until following status is maintained. Through some genetic modification, sperm are changed such that they only become active when triggered. At all other times one can have sex as much as one likes without worry of pregnancy.
> 
> By better I mean everyone will be happier with their life. Those in the ruling class will not desire to be in the following class, and vice versa. There is a "contentment" of position. You might argue that these people are not completely free. But I challenge you to find any society in which everyone is completely free.
> I should say: "Is it better that no one cares about anything?" This is not my view at all. Really, all I propose is a small change, namely from what we already have (rulers and followers), to genetic "destiny" so to speak. But this destiny only puts one in one class or the other, it does not determine anything else whatsoever.



Could you elaborate more on exactly how you are going to force people to breed? And what happens to those of the population that don't fit into natural followers or rulers during this programme? I assume that it would take a large number of generations before a reliable level was made.

Even then, what do you do with those that don't follow the expected genetic path nor the rest of society and rebel?


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene:

Sorry about the incoherency, it was a bit late.

Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change. You are suggesting to upset this equilibrium, which means that you want genocide or segregation. How is that not racist? To make your idea work, we have to introduce very radical changes that will lead to separate species of humans. Maybe you need to get a time machine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine

As a psychology major, I'm surprised that you do not understand the basics of nature vs. nurture. Environmental influences can be greater than genetic effects. While it might be possible to stimulate a child's leadership abilities through artificial means and mentor-ship, nature suffering and injustice stimulates it at a much higher level. Gandhi and Martin Luther King would not have became great leaders if it weren't for their first hand experiences of injustice.

Also, your idea would not work simply because of epigenetics. There are way too many factors than can affect gene expression that can completely shut down genes that are present. If you think genes and classical conditioning are everything, then you probably still live in the early 1900's. Genetics is dead; we are moving in the direction of genomics, nuclear run on, proteomics, and epigenomics. It's simply way too complex to control everything.
Take a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 31, 2010)




----------



## Dene (Mar 31, 2010)

Escher: People aren't forced to breed. The couple just have to get approval and the male get his sperm activated. There will be no problem with those that don't fit. Everyone will fit unless random mutations lead some to the opposite classes, in which programs would be in place to move them around.

fanwuq: What I propose is actually a literal separation of the species. So, you may want to call it genocide. So what? Evolution by natural selection commits genocide all the time. 

And yes I am aware of the fact that it would not be a simple process of "inject some with the leadership gene and others with the followers gene". Nor would I ever propose something so outrageous. All I'm saying is that if we figured out how to do it, then I think that we should.

It seems to me that you think I want complete genetic control. That's not what I want at all. I want for their to be two separate classes of humans. Within those classes they can do what they like. How about this for an analogy: There should be a following class to a ruling class, just as there are domestic cats to humans in general. Cats neither want, nor could they possibly ever, have control over humans. If evolution can do it then so can humans.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 31, 2010)

That's kind of... dumb.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Escher: People aren't forced to breed. The couple just have to get approval and the male get his sperm activated. There will be no problem with those that don't fit. Everyone will fit unless random mutations lead some to the opposite classes, in which programs would be in place to move them around.
> 
> fanwuq: What I propose is actually a literal separation of the species. So, you may want to call it genocide. So what? Evolution by natural selection commits genocide all the time.
> 
> ...



Oh wow.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 31, 2010)

Daniel Que said:


> If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.



Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).


----------



## cuberkid10 (Mar 31, 2010)

Pro-choice. What is the government to say what women can and cannot do with their bodies?


----------



## qqwref (Mar 31, 2010)

fanwuq said:


> Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change.



Sorry to butt in but this isn't quite necessary, at least for breeding natural politicians/cubers/athletes/generals/astronauts/etc. You would only really need a handful of each to reach the maximum attainable skill levels, so all you would need is a smallish group of people who agree with the eugenics philosophy, have natural ability in these areas, and are willing to contribute by creating and raising children. The overall frequency of alleles doesn't have to change. The technique is similar to that done in farming, where farmers often want a strain of plant/animal that has a particular desirable trait or as close as they can get; after enough generations you end up with something like the standard dessert banana, which is so much better than wild varieties that few supermarkets will stock anything else.

So, yeah, I agree that it's pretty much impossible to make the vast majority of people 'natural followers' without a huge number of casualties... but maybe you wouldn't have to go that far to have some measure of control over the society. With some careful breeding you could get a few very smart people who are ideally suited for various occupations. They could probably have enough natural talent that no normal person could compete with them. This actually already happens once in a while; usually it's by accident, like in athletics where some people have incredible natural talent because their parents did. Anyway, it's easier to create a natural ruling group than to force everyone else to be natural sheep.


----------



## Tortin (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Daniel Que said:
> 
> 
> > If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.
> ...



A clump of cells is considered a person now?


----------



## Edward (Mar 31, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Que said:
> ...



But, but, but, fingernails ;_;.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 31, 2010)

Edward said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...


Rats have fingernails, and we kill them all the time.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 31, 2010)

It's silly to consider a fetus a person before it has consciousness; before that it's just a bunch of human cells hooked up to a system of nutrients, and I think it's only fair to consider it part of the mother, which means it's her choice to decide what to do with it. It's true that it will become a person later, but that doesn't make it a person at that point (if a person who you think will win their first gold medal at the next Olympics dies, did a gold medalist die? no). I've heard that the brain starts being able to send signals around week 17-20. So, before that, I think the mother has the right to kill her fetus, just as she has the right to cut off her leg.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 31, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Que said:
> ...



It's someone that would grow into a person. It's not necessarily a "person" right then, but murder is still murder.

And to me, it's more of a question of the soul. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, *I'm not starting that debate*. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



And the Bible is the source of all truth! :fp


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 31, 2010)

@Musli, Edward was making a reference to Juno, a movie that hipsters like.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 31, 2010)

4Chan said:


> @Musli, Edward was making a reference to Juno, a movie that hipsters like.


Yeah I got it. It's a meh film.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 31, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> And the Bible is the source of all truth! :fp



Like I said, if you don't believe in that kind of thing, than I'm not saying to you have to. I personally do, and that's where a lot of my stance comes from. It's just an opinion, and as such I'm trying to support it, not preach it.


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 31, 2010)

Oh, my mistake then! >.<

I implied that you hadn't seen it from your reply.


----------



## shelley (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> And to me, *it's more of a question of the soul*. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.



Show me empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul". Until you can do that, it has no place in this debate.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 31, 2010)

shelley said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > And to me, *it's more of a question of the soul*. If you believe in that kind of thing, anyway. If not, I'm not starting that debate. But the Bible says that God creates us in our mother's womb (Psalms 139:13). So there's life going on in there, and if you end it, it's still murder.
> ...



That kinda depends on what you consider a soul. To me, a soul is what, to Christians, makes a human "in the likeness of God." I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right. My personal beliefs follow that into the whole heaven/hell thing, but that has to do with my beliefs, not how the soul is defined.

So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.

Edit: Missed the empirical thing. But I think there are things in science that are commonly accepted although not empirical: the earth's age, for example. Carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate several times before.


----------



## Tortin (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



That's why scientists don't use carbon dating.


----------



## Rpotts (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right.



A brain? :confused:



Chapuunka said:


> So as a human with conscious thought, I believe we have souls. And, (correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot) we don't know where this starts or what controls it. So it could start as soon as the sperm and egg meet, or as late as the fetus is developed. I tend to side on the former.



The brain continues developing long after child birth. So far no infants (or fetuses) who can distinguish between right and wrong and make conscious decisions have been reported.

On a different note, telling a pre-pubescent girl to bear her rapists child is a punishment worse than death. She already had to endure the act itself, she will have to cope with the psychological abuse her entire life, and you want her to also have to tear her vagina open to bear the spawn of rape? That is insane. 

Anyone here who is a virgin shouldn't post. Also, 12 year old boys shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies.


----------



## Tortin (Mar 31, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > I interpret that as having conscious thought and knowing the difference between wrong and right.
> ...



It isn't possible for a pre-pubescent girl to get pregnant.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 1, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



I can't seem to find anything that says they don't. Although they use other methods to verify results, they seem to all be pretty similar.




Rpotts said:


> The brain continues developing long after child birth. So far no infants (or fetuses) who can distinguish between right and wrong and make conscious decisions have been reported.



We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.


----------



## deco122392 (Apr 1, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.



Do you believe that animals have souls? 

What conscious decisions do baby's make that are different from conscious instinctive decisions animals make.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 1, 2010)

deco122392 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > We also can't communicate them, so there's also no way to prove it wrong. And infants constantly make conscious decisions, albeit not big ones.
> ...



Good point. But I think babies go farther than that; they don't just adapt, they learn. I don't really know much about this, having never had a baby, but that's a small observation.

And from my biblical view (ignore this if you want...) animals were set aside from humans, who were given souls to be in the image of God while animals weren't.


----------



## Tortin (Apr 1, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > That's why scientists don't use carbon dating.
> ...



Sorry, I should say that they don't use it for determining the age of the earth, because it's not very accurate for dating really old things. There are many other types of radiometric dating used to accurately determine the age of the earth.


----------



## deco122392 (Apr 1, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Good point. But I think babies go farther than that; they don't just adapt, they learn. I don't really know much about this, having never had a baby, but that's a small observation.
> 
> And from my biblical view (ignore this if you want...) animals were set aside from humans, who were given souls to be in the image of God while animals weren't.



I was and am being raised catholic but i'll be the first to admit i'm a terrible Christian, or at least far from being exemplary. With all my questioning and blaspheming thoughts.

From what simple experiments show learning occurs in most if not all living organisms, even the small rat shows that it learns. 

Although I think humans do an amazing job at learning and adapting.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 1, 2010)

qqwref said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change.
> ...



Good points, but my argument on epigenetics still stand. Read more about epigenetics; it's much more important than you think. Also, it's difficult to tell if athletes who are kids of athletes are affected by natural talent or their exposure to an athletic environment.
Of course it is possible to breed natural leaders; it's called monarchy. But can they relate to the common people? The oppressed will always be stimulated enough to rebel. Such stress induced leadership is much greater than any genetic influences. There's a reason why home field advantage and adrenaline rushes exist.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 1, 2010)

Outlawing abortion would cause a number of problems for society. It would create an increase in unsafe back alley abortions. In addition, crime rates would increase because unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. The foster care system is overwhelmed as it is, criminalizing abortion would only make things worse.

Peronally, if I got a girl pregnant I wouldn't want her to get an abortion (but the final choice would be up to her, obviously), but I think there are a lot of situations where aborting the pregnancy is an option to consider. Many people are ill equipped to raise a child, be it from lack of responsibility, dire poverty, etc.

In my opinion, those who are able tp responsibly raise a child should carry through with the pregnancy. Since there is no way to legislate a system to fairly determine who is qualified for parenthood, the government should stay out of it.

So, I guess I'm pro choice, but I'd like people to choose life if reasonably possible.

EDIT*

It should be noted that I think most people shouldn't reproduce. I don't think the planet can reasonably sustain it's current population, much less it's rate of expansion. Ironically, the people that are least able to raise their children end up having the most children.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 1, 2010)

Back with the OT, I guess I agree that it shouldn't be 100% illegal, or at least not with society as it is. I think the better thing to do is to avoid un-planned pregnancies, be it rape or otherwise. If possible, I do agree though that you should go through with it.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 1, 2010)

I'm quite surprised that noone has asked: "How is babby formed?"


----------



## kprox1994 (Apr 1, 2010)

4Chan said:


> I'm quite surprised that noone has asked: "How is babby formed?"



The stork!


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

qqwref said:


> It's silly to consider a fetus a person before it has consciousness



Deary me qq, be careful with that one. I've seen relatively convincing arguments that consciousness doesn't come around until possibly even the time that language starts developing.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> But I think babies go farther than that; they don't just adapt, they learn. I don't really know much about this, having never had a baby, but that's a small observation.


Some of the more intelligent primates (chimpanzees for instance) are about as intelligent as a five-year-old child. Non-human primates have been shown to have excellent memory, to understand and use numbers (abstractions!), and to be able to communicate in sign language. If you believe human infants have a soul and nonhuman primates don't, your definition clearly has nothing to do with intelligence, learning, or consciousness.



fanwuq said:


> Of course it is possible to breed natural leaders; it's called monarchy. But can they relate to the common people? The oppressed will always be stimulated enough to rebel.


Actually, monarchy tended to be pretty terrible leaders, since they usually lived in splendor and thus had absolutely no idea how common people lived, and because of tradition that dictated that the best available person related to the previous ruler would rule the country. This led to a lot of inbreeding, and several spectacularly bad (and sometimes even completely insane) kings/emperors have existed throughout history. The same problems occur in the nobility but to a lesser extent.

Personally, I don't think leaders need to oppress their people. I guess the problem with monarchical systems was that there was no external check-and-balance - the monarch was allowed to pretty much do whatever they wanted, and they generally only lost power when they died or ruled so terribly that they ended up overthrown. An ideal society would probably be governed either by elected officials or by a relatively large group of intelligent people who were chosen for their desire to help out society itself. When I talked about natural leaders I meant basically having the intelligence to fully understand economics/diplomacy/politics, and traits like physical fitness and lack of aggression that would make them a good candidate for elected positions. It's true that a lot of that can be taught, but natural talent is always a useful bonus.



Dene said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > It's silly to consider a fetus a person before it has consciousness
> ...


Really? I guess it depends somewhat on standards. I'm more or less talking about the ability to simply make decisions and process information at a level higher than pure reflexes. I do think consciousness is what separates a clump of cells from an organism that is valuable in its own right, but my definition of consciousness isn't meant to be very restrictive at all.


----------



## BrunoAD (Apr 29, 2010)

This really is labeled wrong. We all have a choice! 
Pro Life also, they simply choose to keep their child alive, instead of killing it.
Are you not glad you get to play with your cube, because your parents chose to let you live?


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 29, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> This really is labeled wrong. We all have a choice!
> Pro Life also, they simply choose to keep their child alive, instead of killing it.
> Are you not glad you get to play with your cube, because your parents chose to let you live?



Asking someone "aren't you glad to be alive" as proof of arguement means nothing. I mean, you could say that Hitler's mom should've had an abortion as a counter-arguement. lol.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 29, 2010)

I've read some silly things in this thread.

As for the actual debate, my stance depends on the situation, so putting myself in one camp entirely is incorrect.

People will say this makes me pro choice, but I disagree.


----------



## Dene (May 2, 2010)

BrunoAD said:


> Are you not glad you get to play with your cube, because your parents chose to let you live?



No. Cubing is something that I use to distract me from the insane boredom that I have from this life that I wish I was not given.


----------



## iasimp1997 (May 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> BrunoAD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you not glad you get to play with your cube, because your parents chose to let you live?
> ...



lolemo


----------



## Brett (May 2, 2010)

It should be a state issue either way.

And pro-life.


----------



## Tortin (May 2, 2010)

So is anyone going to comment on the new legislation anti-abortion legislation in Oklahoma and a bunch of other states?


----------

