Abortion

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by 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.

\

In the end, the argument comes down to what one values about his or her existence, and these values are placed upon others. In other words, we take what we value about our own existence and assume that, if this is not present in another existence, there is no value in that existence.

Life is not valuable on its own.

Innocence is only meaningful when there is also a chance of guilt so the unborn do not apply.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

Apparently you decided to show up to an Intellectual Gunfight with a Cognitive Knife! First, the claim of omnipotent needs to be assigned for the definition to be applicable or valid, but we (only coherent people) all know that designation is impossible because of the inherent “GOD LIKE” statement that would be required. The assignment of omnipotent is simply unattainable, so the usage of the term rationally and practically becomes the realm of subjectivity, but how could I possibly expect you to consider this detail. Additionally, since the term omnipotent is ONLY approachable (Subjective) and NOT attainable, I have latitude with my integration of the term within my subscribed context, and in fact I used the term omnipotent to highlight the all-in-compassing importance of reproduction for the processes of evolution. Lastly, the term non-event (not reproducing) is used in indicated what would happen if every living species and organisms stopped replicating or reproducing, the process of evolution itself would become extinct, consequently every single measurable detail regarding the processes of evolution becomes MOOT, and I use this theoretical possibility to UNDERSCORE the inherent constraint of evolution and the subsequent OMNIPOTENT role of reproduction.


P.S. I prefer to confer with Editedes, the original composer of the weak counter-argument, because you are even less articulate.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

For context:

The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge, and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution, and the inherent unpredictable direction the process will take the development of the Human Being.

-Ruthless Logic

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

The assignment of omnipotent is simply unattainable, so the usage of the term rationally and practically becomes the realm of subjectivity, but how could I possibly expect you to consider this detail. Additionally, since the term omnipotent is ONLY approachable (Subjective) and NOT attainable, I have latitude with my integration of the term within my subscribed context,

Other than the statement that omnipotence is approachable but unattainable, can someone please explain what he means?

Then inform me what it has to do with anything in the statement we are considering here?

and in fact I used the term omnipotent to highlight the all-in-compassing importance of reproduction for the processes of evolution.

Read the statement. You were drastically inarticulate then, or you are a liar now.

Lastly, the term non-event (not reproducing) is used in indicated what would happen if every living species and organisms stopped replicating or reproducing, the process of evolution itself would become extinct, consequently every single measurable detail regarding the processes of evolution becomes MOOT, and I use this theoretical possibility to UNDERSCORE the inherent constraint of evolution and the subsequent OMNIPOTENT role of reproduction.

Now I know you are a liar.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic
The assignment of omnipotent is simply unattainable, so the usage of the term rationally and practically becomes the realm of subjectivity, but how could I possibly expect you to consider this detail. Additionally, since the term omnipotent is ONLY approachable (Subjective) and NOT attainable, I have latitude with my integration of the term within my subscribed context.

Well basically, the last part is fluff. And his redundancy is only giving the illusion that he said anything more than unattainable, and approachable. It's jading the logic right out of me.

But I disagree that reproduction is omnipotent. I don't understand how evolution/evolving, can construe with omnipotentcy, ruthless.

Omnipotent, defines cause to be linear so yeah, you're right that it would become extinct, but you have just stated that omnipotentcy was unattainable, so why do you say its subsequent to our inherent constraints?

[Ruthless Logic]

Omnipotent, defines cause to be linear so yeah, you're right that it would become extinct, but you have just stated that omnipotentcy was unattainable, so why do you say its subsequent to our inherent constraints? (Quote)



Do I really need to do this again? The assignment of omnipotent (God Like) is IMPOSSIBLE , sooooo it becomes a term based on subjective interpretation, SINCE it cannot be empirically proven. I ELECTED to use it as a provocative term (my writing style) to emphasize the Prove-able Prediction that all life would cease to exist if the process of reproduction entirely STOPS, which is an INHERENT CONSTRAINT of Evolution.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Your reproductive scenario can only be viewed as a non-event. The default position for the process of evolution IS NOT a static realm, where the option of a non-event is a viable endeavor conducive towards the long-run viability of the processes of evolution. The only thing your claim is passing on is the obvious constraints of a bad breakfast, and the subsequent lack of concentrative ability.

- Post Edited! Please Quote or Multi Quote and remove all but the text you are quoting or responding too leaving the tags in place. Thank you! jk

That quote in context was in respnse to this:

Originally Posted by Aedes
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.

Clearly Aedes presented this circumstance as a component to the process of evolution: The lack of reproduction of a group posessing a specific trait is logically equivalent to an increase of reproduction of similar magnitude on the part of the group not possessing the trait in question, within a closed sytem where population size is not a big factor of course.

Ruthless logic treated the process as total in and of itself rather than as a logcially equivalent process as it is if taken in context. The non-event is logically equivalent in specific effect to the afformentioned event as it is essentially its contrapositive. Discluding the problem of population density which may or may not be a factor, and realizing that the process is a component, this quibble disolves.

Ruthless Logic, can you conclusively argue from evolution for a cohesive solution of the problem at hand? I hope it does not ammount to the consideration of eugenics, such consideration is foolhardy and easily quashed.

Do you think that reproduction should not be restricted at all? Why not? Should sexual intercourse be reserved for reproductive efforts in your opinion? Why? I am aware that once the average reproduction rate falls much below 1.8 children per couple the result has typically meant the end of that society, but this is hardly an argument against birth control.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot control the sexual urges of the populace in a libertarian society, which is in my opinion the only wholly viable mode of society. Only an Orwellian society could acheive such ends, and if you hold such a mode of society in favor, NO THANK YOU.

Otherwise, I'm all ears.

P.S. Since I was the first one to legitimately criticise such a provincial useage of the term omnipotent and to make wholly explicit the implications of use you have had to repeat so many times, I would appreciate a response.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

For context:

The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge, and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution, and the inherent unpredictable direction the process will take the development of the Human Being.

-Ruthless Logic



Other than the statement that omnipotence is approachable but unattainable, can someone please explain what he means?

Then inform me what it has to do with anything in the statement we are considering here?

[/font][/color]

Read the statement. You were drastically inarticulate then, or you are a liar now.



Now I know you are a liar.

Your nonsensecal interpretations clearly reflects the inability to process any sentence containing words beyond two-syllables, or your misconstrued summations simply reflect you inability to accept Reality, along with your constrained cognitive ability

[Zetetic11235]

Ruthless Logic,
As my arguments have been the most relevent to the topic at hand, I must assume that any further ignorance of them by you is a concession that you have nothing to say about them and cannot answer even my most simple query. Must I resume the banal quipping process such that you might take notice of me? Must then I assume that you are here for the sole purpose of quipping, as opposed to clarification or substance?

[clearthought]

Basically we're weighing the right of a woman to choose whether to have a child against the right of that child to exist. In my mind, the living being's life takes precedent over the potential being.

[Zetetic11235]

I have already suggested taking that as an axiom. I would say that probabilities could determine to some degree of accuracy the potential productive worth of the mother compared to the child. Certain statistical likelyhoods of the success and mental stability of the child could be utilized in creating a potential worth index. Compare this to the mother's index value and decide if her life is in danger, whether she can abort.

If the woman has been raped, I think that the abortion should be allowed and the rapist tried with murder if she chooses to abort, on the same principal of assult with a deadly weapon resulting in a death within a years time, even though death was not intended by the offender.

When health, mental or physical is not a concern, abortion should under no circumstance be permitted.