BS! Abortion for whatever reason has been around as long as humans have and the human race is going strong.... AGAIN: Why do you think these women and their fetuses have an obligation to "save the world" or improve the human race or whatever crap you're promoting ..???
There is no way you could know that it was immediately a benefit. It could have been an abnormality that the first carriers simply survived through until further mutations made it beneficial. - - - Updated - - - What obligation do companies who cause global warming have to save the world?
Translated: " I have no answer so have to segue off into another topic." - - - Updated - - - I asked you first. Why are you running and hiding? AGAIN: Why do you think these women and their fetuses have an obligation to "save the world" or improve the human race or whatever crap you're promoting ..???
Everyone has an obligation to not kill the human race. I thought that is why Obama took all those coal miners' families' livelihood. You don't think they suffered? What obligation warranted such suffering?
Assumes facts NOT in evidence. Basic evolutionary theory is premised on survival of the fittest. You are advocating the exact opposite and claiming that it is the only way mankind will survive. That is pure unadulterated balony.
No, that's not what I did. I made an honest attempt to describe my drive to at least consider evolution when you are talking about aborting abnormalities. And it is a similar feeling to the urge to prevent companies from poisoning our atmosphere or water.
Your premise makes no sense whatsoever. Either it conferred an evolutionary benefit that promoted survival or it didn't. If it didn't then it would have remained vestigial and opposable thumbs would not have evolved. Obviously it did have a survival benefit and thus it was those who had it and were using it to their advantage to survive who passed it along and those who didn't have it died off.
"Survival of the fittest" is not entirely accurate. It is: "survival of the fittest of a certain environment". Which means that if the environment changes (which it continually does), the unfit of the previous environment could become the fittest. However, if you aborted everyone who wasn't the fittest in the previous environment, then your species is dead.
Life, or evolution, isn't that simple. I never learned the tenet that says all beneficial mutations are beneficial immediately, and to the first carrier. The first carrier may have simply survived due to other benefits it had, or luck, and a usable opposable thumb didn't come along until further mutations down the line.
And that's why you are losing the abortion fight. You cannot comprehend that there is more to this then a legal semantics argument, and you cannot understand that no matter how often you cry "its the law" it is not going to change peoples minds. You can wave a piece of paper with legal words printed on it, and I can hold up a picture of a baby in the womb, and guess who people will side with.
BZZZT Wrong! Unless the environment changes overnight, which happens only very rarely, environmental changes are gradual enough for evolutionary adaption to occur. Evolutionary adaptions won't stop if humans abort those who are unfit to survive in the current environment which is essentially what you are trying to claim.
This nation was not founded on a picture of a fetus in a uterus. Instead it was founded on the Law of the Land. Now that might be a hard concept for the home schooled to grasp but that is what actually happened and still happens to this day. We the People are a Nation of Laws and unless you can find a way to change the Law of the Land all you have is that picture of yours that you are waving around.
I'm not buying the evolutionary theory that says all beneficial adaptations will be a walk in the park for the very first carrier.
Then why not test it out for yourself. Let's begin with multicellular organisms floating in the primordial soup. One of them has an evolutionary adaption in a cell that reacts to light. This adaption allows it to absorb more energy by moving closer to the source of the light which happens to be the sun while the others just randomly move around. Since the organism with the light sensitive cell can obtain energy at a greater rate than the others it can multiply faster than the others. What part of that don't you understand?
And what happens if in order to get that adaptation, other adaptations must be in each of the parents. Two wrongs don't make a right, except in evolution, they might.
Just tell folks who suffer from an injury sustained in the womb, "Honey, I know your injury is tough to overcome, but don't blame the person who did it to you, because they did it to you before you were a person." I'm sure they would take that well.
Then by your standard all people diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer (35% survival rate) should be killed, no sense wasting all those medical resources and causing the patient to suffer over the slim chance of a "medical miracle". Right?
