Search results

And again, by that logic, all women (off or on BC that prevents implantation) should be charged with manslaughter for the natural spontaneous abortions of >50% of fertilised eggs.

If I was an aborted foetus, I wouldn't really care, now would I? EDIT: I actually almost was an aborted foetus, so yeah.

Is abortion murder? Can it really be called such? I don't personally think the 'potential' argument holds much weight; if it did, than every woman (on or off birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilised egg) would be guilty of tens of counts of manslaughter, given that a woman...

I know that, it's just you seemed to be using it a lot, and unnecessarily (where using "rare event" would of sufficed). I was being persnickety. :p Um, morals and essentially everything that makes our 'culture' and 'society' comes from biology, and is a response to biological imperatives...

I also resent the notion that I'm a feminist, Neb, as you implied earlier. I'm not, and I hate AA. I'm just well aware of my rights as a human to my own body.

Why? Sorry, I should have made that clearer. However, I still count the mother as having more "value" (in the general and biological sense of the word) in all cases of abortion, especially considering your vaunted "social" value. Not necessarily. Infant mortality is less, indeed, but I...

That's four years away, if not more. Great technology, but it's still not currently competitive.

Dude, I was talking about biological value, not social. Biology doesn't care if you abort your foetus; you still have a higher reproductive value (and thus a higher Darwinian value) than your infant. Non-breeding females, i.e. those who are post-menopausal, still have biological value because...

Well I guess that is something we agree on :p

I resent that. It's not the "embrace of death", it's respect for the life that actually has been living and has both biological and social worth; I would always respect the rights of a thinking human over that of a ball of cells.

Other forms of engineering? Like what? Super strength and super smarts? Is that a bad thing, improving the human genome?

It still stands. The mother still has a higher reproductive value (and thus 'worth') biologically purely because she is an adult female who can reproduce, rather than an embryo or foetus that requires years of development before this can occur.

Chimpanzees (both species), gorillas (and other primates), certain parrots, various species of dolphin (orcas included)...

Why? We genetically engineer things all the time - dogs, cats, livestock, plants, etc. Why are we so different? I'd think that if you could engineer your child to be free of cancer, you would.

Biologically, that is a fallacy. The mother is always worth more than her infants, because she has a higher reproductive potential until such time as they reach sexual maturity and successfully reproduce themselves.

The only group in which there is a demand for children to adopt is for white babies (particularly male). Take the non-white and older demographies, and there are kids who spend their whole adolescent lives waiting for fosters or adoptive parents.

With the CP there's something like a 0.01% chance of it failing, which considering its prevalence worldwide, is still significant. The point is that the women who take CP and it fails aren't 'lazy and irresponsible'; should they also be forced to bear the burden of bad luck? (Which just goes to...

What's your stance if a woman uses contraception and is one of the unlucky minority for which it fails? And what about other species with sentience?

I said the third species, you twit. Not "a third". Actually, AFAIK, there are two types of The Pill. One prevents you from ovulating and prevents sperm from reaching the egg, and one prevents a fertilised egg from implanting. (There are also combinations thereof). The MA pill does the...

Why? Genetically, we're the third species of chimpanzee (alongside Pan troglodytes and even closer to Pan paniscus).