I had a thought . yeah yeah smell the internet viruses flying all over the net lol Are there reasons for governments to allow abortions. Do they wish to cull the population of a certain person bent on killing. Is killing genetic? Do people who kill human zygotes and human fetus have a propensity of not really being nice and can that propensity be passed on through genetic memory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology) Do people who kill human zygotes and human fetus have an inner urge to kill others and is suppressed but present in subtle aspects of their parenting? so allowing for these people to abort is a sort of cull to governments. Maybe not governments but Intelligent Design sort of having It's Way. possible philosophical aspect to the fact this mass killing is legal. i have refrained from the word murder and have learned it really skews the issue .so is killing ok if you pluck a tadpole and stomp on it is that killing..if you rip open a cow and tear from her her unborn calf and terminate it , is that killing? the issue is for me why is the governments allowing this "ACT" to be carried out there by resulting in a sort of cull. the upper classes as a whole do not abort. the loving Christian does not abort. the loving atheist who views life as sacrosanct does not abort. so is the aborting of fetus conceived in people who would abort a good thing. the fact they would abort a human zygote , terminate a human fetus is a harbinger of psychological import. there has to be a reason these phenomena is allowed to happen. Is Intelligent Design acting out towards an evolutionary scheme to cull the instinct to murder. not that abortion is considered murder we covered that .but more like by allowing for this form of cull , we lower the murder rate by culling the potential genetically predisposed murderers . for the emotionally charged i am not without Academic Science in this, from the wiki link;
By that same rationale then.....is a war not a "culling"? And if so....find me that handful of pacifist "pro-lifers" who oppose abortion AND all war.
ok so this is actually a valid point…pro lifers join the army..pro lifers support even some inane wars… and hopefully you now see the point of my coming to realize that maybe abortion is part of Intelligent Design and is a viable aspect of human evolution towards becoming a being of peace.. thanks for the input.. abortion is but a cull to stop the human race from becoming more murderous …it's like a cleansing of the morally bereft...
Again, if one accepted that theory, wouldn't an EVEN BETTER way to "cull the murderous" be to send them off to war, especially in a volunteer army? The "non-murderious" wouldn't join up, would they? BTW, I completely disagree with your theory....I am simply using Socratic argument, "accepting the premise" rather than just refuting it and thus showing its error.
well it depends on which army…you do realize that we can now go to war in that theatre suffer losses from the enemy that can be counted on one hand…our friendly fire losses are much higher.. first Iraq war Saddam killed 3 guys…we killed 121 of our own and 300 thousand iraqi soldiers 2nd Iraq war we lost 2 and then recovered one…but we killed 111 of our own.. so that theory is out the window… as for using a Scrotum argument ..i think it's more a woman's issue
Probably because they recognize the right of the individual to make decisions about their own autonomy and self-determination. Interesting question, though on doing some digging it would seem that the 'jury' is still out on whether certain aspects are genetic. There has been some research on the minds of killers, more specifically serial killers, and the current observations seem to come down to three basic principles that cover most of them. 1. Genetic makeup 2. Brain patterns 3. Childhood abuse or violence Of the three it seems the most relevant is number 3. Jim Fallon - Neuroscientist - scanned his own brain and his sons and compared the readings to the scans made of psychopaths, he found that he has the same low orbital cortex activity as a serial killer .. however his childhood had no abuse or violence, so while he may share some traits the 'trigger' was not apparent. I'd say no, unless they have experienced the trigger of childhood abuse and violence, even then not all people who meet the three criteria turn out to be killers. I can't agree to that analysis, abortion has been a part of humanity since records began and quite probably since the first female discovered certain plants induced a miscarriage .. long before governments. You would also need to factor in the social positions of the women who have had abortions, you will find they stem from all aspects of the social network - from the religious to the rich to the atheist and the poor. Killing is fine by me. Really depends on which government .. if it a secular one that has a primary purpose of recognizing an individuals rights to autonomy and self-determination then it is based on securing that ideology. If it is a religious one then it would be based on what ever teachings/laws the people believe come from god(s). Your use of the word cull is an interesting choice of words to use being as it means a selective slaughter to reduce the population (usually of wild animals) and TBH I cannot seen how it fits with abortion as there is not selection method employed, each female is free to make the choice as to whether they abort or carry to term, there is no government involvement in the actual decision made .. however, were pro-lifers to get their way that situation would change, we would then have a society that has a portion of it's population controlled (for a period of time) by what ever government happens to be in power. Not strictly correct, while the 'lower' classes do show a slightly greater percentage of having abortions (53%), 47% are not classified as low income - http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html#4 Again not strictly correct: Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic, 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics. I find the usage of the word sacrosanct in relation to atheists a bit of an oxymoron, being that the word itself is derived from religion - Origin: late 15th century: from Latin sacrosanctus, from sacro 'by a sacred rite' (ablative of sacrum) + sanctus 'holy' No abortion is a 'good' thing. Personally I don't think it is that important. There is, the reason that each person has the right to control their autonomy and self-determination and not be forced to undergo something by legislation. That word again To kill is an instinctive thing built into all animals (not just humans), it is a means of survival intrinsic to all animals. Until the research is done, tested, confirmed and peer reviewed that is a question that is speculation and cannot be answered at this time. There is literally no evidence to suggest that women who have abortions are "potential genetically predisposed murderers" .. it is an interesting theory, but at this time that is all it is .. a theory. Having read the full text of the snippets provided, plus other research into genetic memory I would have to say that the theory offered is rather a very big leap from what is known.
well it's ok for a lot of people.. even nature it seems.. and in this case .. the fact it is evolutionary by nature ,, culling those prone to abortion rights…i thank you sir for easing the guilt i am experiencing through trying to embrace the science of natural selection choosing to wipe out people who are aborting babies. genetic cleansing by natural selection…slow but true... at least mother nature knows evil when she sees it…and slowly does something about it..
I should have been more precise, my response was meant to show that using the word killing instead of murder is acceptable to me in the forum of debate, not as an overall position.
BTW, you DO realize that abortions have taken place for MILLENIA, even under anarchic situations were there was no large, powerful central government. How would you explain that?
If abortions are allowed, under certain rules, then I don't see it as the action of totalitarian or even authoritarian government. When abortions are required - that's totalitarianism. Compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia of certain types of person might also be called totalitarian, at least these days.
evolutionary look what evolution did for you Gorn you can't even begin to have a chance at Kirk cause kirk is a human..and your reptilian throwback probably with stolen science and space ships come clean now Natural selection has been culling the obscene since time immortal abortionist are obscene humans ..almost as bad as the Gorn i hate to think what you reptiles have done to music...
