Abortion

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'm not idealizing our society. But it's a hell of a lot better than it was 100 years ago. You think corporations run America now? Do the names Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt ring a bell?

Aedes.

You have a point, but it does not make it anymore virtuous, the fact remains corporate power is international, it is the way the world is divided up. If one wants to entertain the thought that ones country is in fact a demorcracy that is quite alright with the powers that be, it keeps the public entertained. But then again, why is a coporate state bad if it functions to the betterment of the population as a whole? Was government in the states really ever accountable to the people, maybe a very long time ago. Funny this arises under the consideration of abortion, why its positively revolutionary!!!! This must be reported!!

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

it does not make it anymore virtuous

Except that now we have antitrust laws, labor laws, universal suffrage, civil rights, minimum wage, social security, medicare, the veterans administration, etc. We have a country in which there are protections in place for people other than monopolists, mobsters, and klan leaders. Not so in 1900.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Except that now we have antitrust laws, labor laws, universal suffrage, civil rights, minimum wage, social security, medicare, the veterans administration, etc. We have a country in which there are protections in place for people other than monopolists, mobsters, and klan leaders. Not so in 1900.

Aedes,

Yes, I believe your quite right, although your country still does not have government medical care does it? The last I heard they were still against it because it was leaning towards them dirty commies, or least those socalists Canadians. At anyrate, yes I believe your right it is a better situtation today.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

although your country still does not have government medical care does it?

You mean other than Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the Veterans Administration, and various smaller programs (i.e. provision of antiretrovirals to AIDS patients)?

Our federal budget in 2008 includes $386 billion for Medicare, $209 billion for Medicaid and SCHIP, and $39 billion on the Veterans administration. Of the mandatory spending mandates in the federal budget nearly 1/3 is for provision of health care.

[boagie]

Aedes,

I guess what I meant was blanket coverage by the government, after watching your democratic primaries I am fully aware this is not in place in your country. In Canada if your a citizen your covered automatic. The states just seem to have an aversion to taking it all the way, and making it a basic human right. Co**** I here they pay their doctors so much over there that little is left for the rest of the villagers!

[boagie]

TheRedMenace,

Having flash backs to your prison experiences? That acid in the sixties was something wasn't it?

[No0ne]

Clearly the whole point I was trying to make is... without the brain, the fetus is just a lifless peice of flesh...

So the cut off point must be before the brain develop's to a stage where it is aware of it's self and it's pain that it's self feel's.

So it's very easy to find out at what point the part of the brain that is responable for that function is formed... therefore the cut off date should be atleast one weak before such part of the brain is formed (just to be on the safe side)

(even tho I dont support abortion...I think it would be wise for them to conduct there practice's humainly, and by regulated standerds, for it's there "free" "will" "choice" to choose to due such or not to due such...)

Child birth is very painfull... unplaned thing's can happen... but it's more unwise to force another person to have a football "slowly" shoot out there **** over an unplaned event...

(I'm not going to address the comment's that where posted about my post, at least not in this thread, if anyone would like to talk more about the information that come's into the brain then is concouisly precieved by the brarin, please make a new thread to talk about such in another philosophy section, I will fix that little mis understanding.)

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by No0ne

So the cut off point must be before the brain develop's to a stage where it is aware of it's self and it's pain that it's self feel's.

So from your perspective there is no moral dilemma with abortion per se (i.e. ending a life). The moral dilemma is inflicting pain? That's a legitimate point of view, but if it could be proved that abortions could be performed without any pain to the fetus, would that make it ok now?

As for self-awareness, that is completely and wholly unmeasurable in a fetus. It doesn't just come down to this or that structure in the brain.

So it's very easy to find out at what point the part of the brain that is responable for that function is formed...

It's not so easy. The ultrastructure of the brain forms very very early. That does not mean it's functional in remotely the same way as it is later in life. The brain changes a LOT over the course of the first post-natal year, to say nothing for the 40 weeks of pre-natal life. Much of the neocortex isn't even myelinated at the time of birth, so the mere fact that the infant brain has the same structures as an adult brain doesn't make it functionally the same.

even tho I dont support abortion...I think it would be wise for them to conduct there practice's humainly, and by regulated standerds

I agree. But that should be true for everything in medicine.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Does this mean we do not have the individual right to use birth control either?

That's absolutely 100% incorrect. The determinant of evolution is the ability of an individual to reproduce. Individuals with less reproductive fitness will make a lower genetic contribution to subsequent generations. Fertilization is NOT the major determinant or "leading edge" of evolution, because the selective forces only BEGIN to operate at this point.

Seniority is not a concept in evolutionary biology.

You may be attempting a poetic use of the word here, but come on, evolution is not omnipotent. It is constrained by the large but FINITE number of DNA sequence variations that are compatible with gestation, life, and reproduction.

Well, first of all, as I'm sure you know, a state cannot repeal a Supreme Court decision. But be that as it may, if every state except West Virginia decides to ban abortion, then people will just go to West Virginia to get the procedure. That's exactly what has happened with gay marriage -- gay couples who want to marry travel to the state where it's legal. When the Bush administration put all kinds of restrictions on NIH funding for stem cell research, California introduced its own intramural funding for it -- and guess what -- scientists began to move to California to do their research. That's what happens when states differ in some policies.

There is a multitude of reproducing couples who practice birth control, but still contribute to the process of evolution by having multiple children. Birth control and reproduction can clearly co-exist, so your point is simply moot.

The selection process when viewed in isolation produces absolutely NOTHING. The evolutionary process requires the consummation of the fertilized female egg, and the subsequent successful birth. While the selection process tends to favor partners with superior attributes (which is completely predictable), this is no guarantee from the Natural World that the offspring will benefit from the superior genetic material (i.e. both parents are professional athletes, yet their child cannot make the sports rooster of his or her high school), additionally there are situations related to genetic material that appears to produce outcomes that are contradictions to empirical predictions (i.e. both parents have 115~120 IQ's, but their offspring has 150~155 IQ).

Omnipotent= Having UNLIMITED influence or authority.

Please provide another example of a process from the Natural World that influences and shapes the changes among all species other then the concept of evolution, and why would you not view this process as omnipotent.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

There is a multitude of reproducing couples who practice birth control, but still contribute to the process of evolution by having multiple children. Birth control and reproduction can clearly co-exist, so your point is simply moot.

So then you're clearly saying that birth control is only ok if the couple in question also has a child. But for people who just want to have sex without reproducing, that is somehow wrong.

Furthermore, LACK of reproduction also "contributes to the process of evolution". Evolution, in the most simple terms, is change in allele frequencies at a population level over time. If one couple chooses not to reproduce, or if they have 50 pregnancies and abort them all, they are STILL "contributing to the process of evolution" by virtue of NOT passing their particular genotype to a subsequent generation.

The selection process when viewed in isolation produces absolutely NOTHING. The evolutionary process requires the consummation of the fertilized female egg, and the subsequent successful birth.

So what? The evolutionary process also requires cellular metabolism. But the factors that actually influence evolution all have to do with the likelihood that that fertilized egg will some day pass on its genes. The fact that you've gotten a fertilized egg has ZERO bearing on evolution in and of itself.

yet their child cannot make the sports rooster of his or her high school

...and on his farm he had a sports rooster, ee-i-ee-i-o...

Omnipotent= Having UNLIMITED influence or authority.

Evolution is limited by the finite number of genetic permutations that can produce viable offspring, and by the constraints that our environment puts on us. There are environmental conditions, like inside the magma chamber of a volcano, that cannot support any life at all. Sure, there are gram positive bacterial spores that can weather very harsh conditions, and there are archaebacteria that live at near boiling temperatures in fumaroles; but you said "unlimited" -- and there ARE environmental conditions that can make life impossible (at least insofar as we understand it based on what evolution has produced to this point).

Please provide another example of a process from the Natural World that influences and shapes the changes among all species other then the concept of evolution, and why would you not view this process as omnipotent.

Evolution has produced a shocking degree of complexity and diversity, and it's allowed organisms big and small to exploit an immense diversity of niches. Yes, it shapes all organisms. But it is not OMNIPOTENT, which etymologically means "all powerful".

If what you mean to say is that evolution is "omnipotent" because no other force shapes changes in species over time, (i.e. evolution)... that's a self-referential, i.e. circular statement. It's like saying that plate tectonics is omnipotent when it comes to continental drift. I mean evolution is what it is -- it's a process that operates within certain biological / chemical / physical and statistical constraints.