Abortion

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Also Ruthless,

Aedes, despite his inability to contribute anything to this discussion, corrected your misunderstandings concerning evolution and a lack of reproduction, as well as provided excellent evidence that evolution is omnipresent and not omnipotent.

Perhaps, when it comes to this exchange of ideas, it is not Aedes broadcasting at fault, but your reception.

[Zetetic11235]

I am not so sure I would accept such an arbirary usage of omnipotent, it carries not only its dictionary definition which cites a thing which cannot exist, but a religious stigma.

Semantically, I would say that nothing is omnipotent, as nothing has the benefit of being self affecting thus its domain of influence is limited.

From natural sicence, evolution is an effect of physical laws and in no way hold these laws within its domain of influence. You may say that the process of evolution preceeds its idealogical conception, thus it is self causal and thus self affecting, however it has at best caused its conception among sentient beings, and still fails to hold domain over non-living entities. It holds domain over our perception and thus our worldview, logic ect, but so does the set of physical laws, which are conceivably the cause of evolution. This being true without the converse being convievably true i.e. physical laws being born of evolution, it holds that the process of evolution is not omnipotent.

The problem herein lies in the fact that though reality may likely be deterministic, physical laws cannot be totally predictive of all outcomes so there cannot be an absolute method of action.

I would propose a set of probabilistic determinants to judge case by case what method of action would be most beneficial. E.g. The potential and acomplishments of the mother and the affect of the absence of a mother on the baby(such factors such as it also having an absentee father shall be considered) shall be weighed in if the mother's life is endangered by the baby and a decision shall be made. The process would at its base be subjective and authoritarian, however so are all laws of this sort.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Also Ruthless,

Aedes, despite his inability to contribute anything to this discussion, corrected your misunderstandings concerning evolution and a lack of reproduction, as well as provided excellent evidence that evolution is omnipresent and not omnipotent.

Perhaps, when it comes to this exchange of ideas, it is not Aedes broadcasting at fault, but your reception.

Apparently you suffer from the same reading disability as Editedes. Please provide one single example (please be articulate) within my related posts that reflect ANY inaccuracies related to the topic of evolution? I suspect the only thing that is going to evolve is your continuance of unsupported claims.

P.S. If your have the cognitive courage to respond, you know intuitively I will destroy any challenge you pose.

[Zetetic11235]

Here is my challenge to you: Outline a full solution to the problem of abortion policy and how it would be implemented. I look foreward to your crushing of it so that we can end this silly thread once and for all.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Your syllable to coherent thought ratio is startlingly high.

At first, I considered your response a compliment, then I pondered the credibility of the composer, and quickly realized that my writing desperately needs to improve.

[Holiday20310401]

Its just that I actually agree with Socrato on this one, lol.

Honestly, why hold yourself in such prestige when writing?

I mean, the way you'd write what I just said is

Honestly, why hold yourself in such pragmatic prestige while responding to primitive, poorly postulated, lacking true prudence, pieces of penning?

Redundant context, is your game I've noticed, but other than that there's no problem other than the fact that your beliefs never exactly parallel that of somebody else.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Its just that I actually agree with Socrato on this one, lol.

Honestly, why hold yourself in such prestige when writing?

I mean, the way you'd write what I just said is

Honestly, why hold yourself in such pragmatic prestige while responding to primitive, poorly postulated, lacking true prudence, pieces of penning?

Redundant context, is your game I've noticed, but other than that there's no problem other than the fact that your beliefs never exactly parallel that of somebody else.

Again, please provide an example of redundant composition in an effort to support your claim. Also, my goal is to create the tension produced from Cognitive Dissonance, consequently providing the opportunity for individuals to closely examine their considerations, as well as their Natural World.

[Zetetic11235]

Ruthless logic, shall I emplore you to spend a bit of that fortune of cognative currency you have stored up on solving the problem at hand?
I know that we are quite below you, however, could you perhaps enlighten us as to how we might go about fixing our bumbling, incompetent treatment of this simple problem?

You are clearly a man of genius, and this is far less complicated than quantum electrodynamics, or non-abelian lie groups. This problem should tremble before you. Go ahead and crush it as none of us could.

All you must do is delineate the best possible system of legislature and show how it could be implemented. Its just a simple optimization problem.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Apparently you suffer from the same reading disability as Editedes. Please provide one single example (please be articulate) within my related posts that reflect ANY inaccuracies related to the topic of evolution? I suspect the only thing that is going to evolve is your continuance of unsupported claims.

P.S. If your have the cognitive courage to respond, you know intuitively I will destroy any challenge you pose.

You said:

"as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution"

"Omnipotent= Having UNLIMITED influence or authority."

Aedes responded: "Evolution is limited by the finite number of genetic permutations that can produce viable offspring,"

Now, I do not need to add any thing to Aedes non-contribution, and seeing that you dropped this line of discussion at this point, I doubt you seek to continue it now.

You also said:

"Your reproductive scenario (an individual not passing on his genetic makeup) can only be viewed as a non-event."

I am only apeing Aedes here, but since evolution is a matter of the changes in gene frequencies, all events that affect genetic composition of a population are evolutionary events. If a particular phenotype leads to non-reproduction, the frequency of the gene or genes that bring about this phenotype will deminish and viola! we have evolution.

Study your microevolution, because even a lowly business major dropout like me can correct your misunderstandings.

EDIT: I know from the last time these topics came up that you will skip refutation, rather starting with ad-hominem until the moment is sufficiently past in order to act like I did not have any support of my statements.

Since everyone now knows that I have no professional discipline in this field and that I have provided examples and coherent arguments, I request that you simply attempt refutation as I have already cut-off your usual tactics.

[midas77]

I consider the topic of abortion as controvertial and problematic, an always good topic for debate. Both sides are easily defendable and can easily be falsified (in a sense) hence argumentable. On the one side is a fundamental respect for life and right of the innocent and the unborn and on the other side is the fundament right of self determination of the mature adult. I'm against abortion on a personal level because I can not imagine myself stifling the life of my unborn child and actually appaled by the action of another otherwise. I think it is immature and irresponsible to practice abortion. Still, my life experience is different from other individuals. To force my personal belief on other individuals that have other reason for their actions is unsound.

What is the purpose of talking then about abortion if the answer for this problem is ellusive. In the process of the discussion we might find a solution that was not clear before. By talking about it we air all the possbile angles of the problem, therfeore we have a better understanding of what is at stakes.

On Ruthlesslogic. Your claim of genius is moot. Intellectual arrogance has no place in Philosophy. There is a saying in Philosophy that little knowledge is dangerous. The little knowledge you know, the more arrogant you become. The more you know the more humble one becomes because when your knowledge is dense you know that a lot is still to be known. The attempt to attack and silence people that do not agree with you limit your chance of actually learning from them. Ponder about it.