Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion? (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

Nor is there any gene with trancends time or social context. Well...within reason.

 

[HNAKXR]

Nor is there any gene with trancends time or social context. Well...within reason.

we can't argue if you agree :-(
that's no fun at all.

 

[Graney]

morals come from social conditioning.
therefore there is no abosulute code of moral values that transcends time or social context.

I disagree. Why do you think diverse cultures, separated by time and space, tend to share similar morals and values?

 

[Kwayera]

Morals are by no means solely a function of 'social conditioning'. It is in many ways influenced by our evolutionary biology and genetics, as well as society.

Sociobiology FTMFW.

 

[*TRUE*]

Morals are by no means solely a function of 'social conditioning'. It is in many ways influenced by our evolutionary biology and genetics, as well as society.

Sociobiology FTMFW.

Love you Kwayera.

 

[Kwayera]

Love you Kwayera.

 

[scarybunny]

Love you Kwayera.

NO!

me love her first.

 

[*TRUE*]

NO!

me love her first.

Alright dear.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Morals are by no means solely a function of 'social conditioning'. It is in many ways influenced by our evolutionary biology and genetics, as well as society.

Sociobiology FTMFW.

Isn't that what I was saying? Maybe I was just thinking of saying it. In any case, I want the kudos for introducing the idea to the thread plz.

 

[Graney]

Morality, imo, doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from where everything else that's a part of a human comes from - the human genome. Hence, morality = population biology!

Your population biology arguement against abortion is fail though, because most biologists would agree that at a species level, humans will be better off with a steady, or even declining population. Given the high rate of gene flow in the modern world, there is no need for large localised communities, and we are rapidly approaching, if not exceeding the earth's carrying capacity.

So we need more abortions if anything, from a species perspective.

 

[Graustein]

So we need more abortions if anything, from a species perspective.

Or better contraception. Or better sex education to promote USE of said contraception. Or, yknow, less sex. Or a culling, I'm sure it's just as likely to happen as the previous one.

 

[Kwayera]

His population biology also fails when it comes to reproductive value (a critical element of population biology), where adult females have more reproductive worth (and thus worth to the population in general) than her juvenile children.

 

[Kwayera]

Or better contraception. Or better sex education to promote USE of said contraception. Or, yknow, less sex. Or a culling, I'm sure it's just as likely to happen as the previous one.

Oh please, that'll never happen

 

[Graustein]

Oh please, that'll never happen

'zactly, hence the culling comment.
Just pointing out that rampant abortions are hardly the only possible solution to our overpopulation problems.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Your population biology arguement against abortion is fail though, because most biologists would agree that at a species level, humans will be better off with a steady, or even declining population. Given the high rate of gene flow in the modern world, there is no need for large localised communities, and we are rapidly approaching, if not exceeding the earth's carrying capacity.

So we need more abortions if anything, from a species perspective.

In Ethiopia where it's poor or China where it's overpopulated: Yes.
In Australia where it's neither: No.

His population biology also fails when it comes to reproductive value (a critical element of population biology), where adult females have more reproductive worth (and thus worth to the population in general) than her juvenile children.

This only came into the situation when a life was at stake, I thought. And even then, I still had my reservations about accepting that as fact.

<_<
>_>
<_<

 

[Kwayera]

This only came into the situation when a life was at stake, I thought. And even then, I still had my reservations about accepting that as fact.

Not at all. An adult reproductive female is ALWAYS of more reproductive worth (and thus worth to the population as a whole) than the immature offspring.

It also comes into conversation biology - you can't protect them from birth to death, so which parts of the lifecycle do you work to save? The mature breeding adult females (most of the time. Males aren't usually the limiting gender when it comes to reproduction).

For example, in the loggerhead turtle recovery program the application of population biology finally led to proper conservation techniques: protect the adults by altering nets, and don't bother wasting money on protecting the nests.

 

[Graney]

In Ethiopia where it's poor or China where it's overpopulated: Yes.
In Australia where it's neither: No.

To quote you some Jared Diamond

"it's doubtfull Australia can even support its present population: the best estimate of a population sustainable at the present standard of living is 8 million people, less than half of the present population."

Australia faces some of the most severe environmental problems in the world.

Business and political leaders arguing we should increase our population to 50 million are extremely ignorant.

 

[Kwayera]

Well that's more of an argument against immigration, but yes, it's idiocy.

 

[Iron]

I will be a pro-life moderator

 

[bigboyjames]

To quote you some Jared Diamond

"it's doubtfull Australia can even support its present population: the best estimate of a population sustainable at the present standard of living is 8 million people, less than half of the present population."

Australia faces some of the most severe environmental problems in the world.

Business and political leaders arguing we should increase our population to 50 million are extremely ignorant.

what do you mean that you cant live here.

coastal areas are pretty good to live in and anywhere up to 200km from the eastern shore line.