NationStates

I want to ignore theologic arguments here. Evolution is the advancement of a species through beneficial genetic information caused by mutation and selected through competition with other individuals for mates. Does abortion weaken our species by killing babes with possible positive gentetic traits, or is it beneficial as mankind is taking his evolution into his own hands, and aborting babes with negative gentetic traits (like paralysis or autism)? I agree with the former.

Your opinions please, and again, please no arguments involving religion.

Catan wrote:I want to ignore theologic arguments here. Evolution is the advancement of a species through beneficial genetic information caused by mutation and selected through competition with other individuals for mates. Does abortion weaken our species by killing babes with possible positive gentetic traits, or is it beneficial as mankind is taking his evolution into his own hands, and aborting babes with negative gentetic traits (like paralysis or autism)? I agree with the former.

Your opinions please, and again, please no arguments involving religion.

You think abortion weakens humanity? I disagree, but neither do I agree with your second alternative. Abortion is a private matter, not public policy. I would oppose forced abortion.

A religion-free abortion thread is like a meat-free hamburger.

Umm... unless you are aware of some specific allele group that is being aborted at a higher rate, it should have no effect on evolution.

Catan wrote:I want to ignore theologic arguments here. Evolution is the advancement of a species through beneficial genetic information caused by mutation and selected through competition with other individuals for mates. Does abortion weaken our species by killing babes with possible positive gentetic traits, or is it beneficial as mankind is taking his evolution into his own hands, and aborting babes with negative gentetic traits (like paralysis or autism)? I agree with the former.

Your opinions please, and again, please no arguments involving religion.

There are fewer babies being aborted than died of ... hell anything you can name practically a century ago. So no change.

Yahkima wrote:Umm... unless you are aware of some specific allele group that is being aborted at a higher rate, it should have no effect on evolution.

If anything, giving women better control over their reproduction will only help evolution.

It does not affect our evolution either way. The aborted fetuses, whether through human intervention or the upward of 15% of all pregnancies that abort themselves naturally, do not contribute their potential to the genetic pool for future generations.

D'uh.

I suspect that antibiotics have rather more effect on human evolution than abortion.

Dar Krumswick wrote:It does not affect our evolution either way. The aborted fetuses, whether through human intervention or the upward of 15% of all pregnancies that abort themselves naturally, do not contribute their potential to the genetic pool for future generations.

I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

The fact we have technology and agriculture affects evolution more than abortion.

Farnhamia wrote:

Dar Krumswick wrote:It does not affect our evolution either way. The aborted fetuses, whether through human intervention or the upward of 15% of all pregnancies that abort themselves naturally, do not contribute their potential to the genetic pool for future generations.

I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

If that is the point, it is a ridiculous one that can never be truly answered. What if the next miscarriage that occurs destroyed the next potential Hitler? Miscarriages/abortions have no effect whatsoever upon our gene pool. What are the potential effects? How do we know? Hitler, Einstein, we do not know. I am guessing the odds of actually birthing one or the other is similar to the odds of losing one or the other through miscarriage/abortion.

Dar Krumswick wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

If that is the point, it is a ridiculous one that can never be truly answered. What if the next miscarriage that occurs destroyed the next potential Hitler? Miscarriages/abortions have no effect whatsoever upon our gene pool. What are the potential effects? How do we know? Hitler, Einstein, we do not know. I am guessing the odds of actually birthing one or the other is similar to the odds of losing one or the other through miscarriage/abortion.

I quite agree, it's an absurd point.

To clarify, they may have positive genes, and it will reduce the gene pool by limiting the number of individuals in the speices. But with a population of 7 Billion, I agree that would not make much of an impact. It does still have a potentially negative effect.

mutations are random. so positive and negative mutations happen with the exact same regularity among the aborted and non-aborted. unless we are specifically aborting fetuses with particular traits, the selective effect should be negligible. the only traits we will seriously use for abortion decisions in any systematic way all involve terrible genetic diseases. you can do the math.

Catan wrote:To clarify, they may have positive genes, and it will reduce the gene pool by limiting the number of individuals in the speices. But with a population of 7 Billion, I agree that would not make much of an impact. It does still have a potentially negative effect.

THe potential is small enough to be negligible.

Though taking the extended phenotype idea to a ridiculous extreme, if the people who have abortions are the ones that have a genetic propensity to agree with abortion, eventually...

So to you I should have been aborted?
Not funny.

Farnhamia wrote:

Dar Krumswick wrote:It does not affect our evolution either way. The aborted fetuses, whether through human intervention or the upward of 15% of all pregnancies that abort themselves naturally, do not contribute their potential to the genetic pool for future generations.

I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

If they were so smart, why didn't they escape abortion?

Ifreann wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

If they were so smart, why didn't they escape abortion?

Because they were a fetus.

Former Wellboneland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If they were so smart, why didn't they escape abortion?

Because they were a fetus.

Bah, that's no excuse.

Ifreann wrote:

Former Wellboneland wrote:Because they were a fetus.

Bah, that's no excuse.

Even if the fetus could escape death it would be called a failed abortion and that usually ends in the child being retarded.

Former Wellboneland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Bah, that's no excuse.

Even if the fetus could escape death it would be called a failed abortion and that usually ends in the child being retarded.

Then they wouldn't develop a unified theory of physics, would they?

Ifreann wrote:

Former Wellboneland wrote:Even if the fetus could escape death it would be called a failed abortion and that usually ends in the child being retarded.

Then they wouldn't develop a unified theory of physics, would they?

So it is a stupid idea to abort a child with potential unless the mother needs the baby removed.

Former Wellboneland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Then they wouldn't develop a unified theory of physics, would they?

So it is a stupid idea to abort a child with potential unless the mother needs the baby removed.

Whether it's a stupid idea or not really doesn't matter.

Ifreann wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I think that's his point, they are lost to the gene pool. What if that aborted "baby" was going to cure cancer and clean up pollution and find the unified general theory of everything?

If they were so smart, why didn't they escape abortion?

this brings up a good point. if we attempted to abort every fetus, that would be a strong selective pressure for the early development of cunning and agility and immunity to poisons. new social policy goal!