EPTBesides, whether or not bio-determinism exists, it's still not proof that it caused the gender roles and cultures way back when. Could have just been chance.
Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 37
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
Besides, whether or not bio-determinism exists, it's still not proof that it caused the gender roles and cultures way back when. Could have just been chance. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:41 Dark_Chill wrote: I don't claim to be a biology expert, but isn't the number of genes someone irrelevant? I mean, some genes are more important than others, right? Until we know what these different genes do, isn't it better to not write them off? Besides, whether or not bio-determinism exists, it's still not proof that it caused the gender roles and cultures way back when. Could have just been chance. He wasn't writing them off. He's saying that the other 19,922 other genes are important also. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On June 28 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote: DoubleReed is saying men and women are human and hence are affected by the same evolutionary factors. Others disagree with him, because 72/20,000 genes are not 100% the same (although it is the same every 1/20,000 people) not really. he was arguing how male and female genome is exactly the same and as such, both of them should've evolved exactly the same. his reasoning as to why that didn't happen, was because females were oppressed by the males. also, him ranting on and on against bio-determinism only shows that he has no idea what it is and only sees it as a killer of free will or some other crap like that. the extra genes in males are not inactive, they are active, they are doing something. the extra gene expressions in the double X chromosome in females also do something, something else. | ||
|
killy666
France204 Posts
| ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On June 28 2013 01:04 DoubleReed wrote: I'm not dismissing anything. I was talking about the genetic differences between men and women. I didn't bring up other differences because that's not what I was talking about. I am arguing against biological determinism. The idea that men and women can be considered separate groups that evolve independently makes no sense. This is an important distinction, because people have both a mother and father that they get their genes from. Saying "women are like this socially because of evolution" becomes incredibly unlikely because men would be that way too. Because you know, that's the way biology works. Testosterone is not your genes and is not passed on that way. You would have to come with a drastically different explanation why it would be actively repressed in men. And once these are factored in, suddenly you realize how minor such biological pressures would become and drift would dominate it. The fact is that men and women are extraordinarily similar and culture acts as a significant enabler and repressor of how we act. One needs extraordinary evidence to suggest something would be biologically deterministic based on sex. But of course, humans don't particularly care if the evidence is total BS if it confirms their preconceived notions. Traits in each sex can evolve independently, because it's not having the genes that give you X, it's the time and place in the body that this gene is active, you know and acknowledged this in your post. And these traits can be physical or behavioral, we see this in animals all the time. That's pretty much the definition of sexual dimorphism. Here's one biologically deterministic trait based on sex. Mate preference for the opposite sex in animals with two clearly defined sexes. Saying "women are like this socially because of evolution" becomes incredibly unlikely because men would be that way too. Because you know, that's the way biology works. Some traits like skin pigment production that have no difference in selection pressure between sexes would indeed be passed down to both male and female offspring. However, selection pressure can also favor traits differentially between sexes. And given the immensely interconnected gene regulatory pathways, potentially every single gene could be regulated in a sex dependent manner. The fact is that men and women are extraordinarily similar and culture acts as a significant enabler and repressor of how we act. One needs extraordinary evidence to suggest something would be biologically deterministic based on sex. This is not a fact, it is a null hypothesis. What I believe you mean to say is that to pinpoint a complex trait as being different between the sexes on the basis of biology requires more evidence that we have at this point. I agree provisionally, if only because the neurobiology of behavior is still in the "many more pieces of the puzzle" stage. Popular press likes to make leaps that blur the boundaries of current knowledge, such as OCD-like behavior (excessive grooming in mice) ---> detail oriented. There's plenty of bullshit to go around. | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
On June 28 2013 16:53 killy666 wrote: I'm gonna sound extremely liberal about this, but i believe that abortion doesn't need justification besides the mother will to not have a baby. How is this considered EXTREME or LIBERAL? It's basic human fucking rights. Its the basic fucking right of any sentient being.... Add to that having been raped (incest or not) and it's downright fucking nobody's fucking business whether women keep the child or not. The fact that this thread exists (read: that it's even a topic of discussion) is offensive to me. Anyone advocating anything other than women's complete free right to abortion are offensive to me. There - I'm about as idiotic as the other side of this discussion, this is how it feels. /rant | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Incest no, consensual sex between adults resulting in pregnancy, incest or not, to me means either should have kept your legs closed or not wanted to get it in so bad or taken your birth control or been on birth control or used a condom or went and got the morning-to-3-days after pills, or don't kill an innocent and defenseless life because you don't want it and other people say it's alright you can. | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: A woman shouldn't have an obligation put on her - at least a pregnancy, maybe a miscarriage or complication, giving birth, then raising a child maybe or giving it up - when she never gave consent to have sex. I'm very pro-life but rape is in my eyes a justified reason to have an abortion. Incest no, consensual sex between adults resulting in pregnancy, incest or not, to me means either should have kept your legs closed or not wanted to get it in so bad or taken your birth control or been on birth control or used a condom or went and got the morning-to-3-days after pills, or don't kill an innocent and defenseless life because you don't want it and other people say it's alright you can. Birth control isn't 100%. Condoms aren't 100%. How the fuck do you even begin to draw lines here? Get out, honestly. It's a woman's body, it's her choice. You have no right making any kind of demands/decisions in that regard. | ||
|
Mefano
Sweden190 Posts
| ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:20 Jamial wrote: How is this considered EXTREME or LIBERAL? It's basic human fucking rights. Its the basic fucking right of any sentient being.... Add to that having been raped (incest or not) and it's downright fucking nobody's fucking business whether women keep the child or not. The fact that this thread exists (read: that it's even a topic of discussion) is offensive to me. Anyone advocating anything other than women's complete free right to abortion are offensive to me. There - I'm about as idiotic as the other side of this discussion, this is how it feels. /rant Again a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? Surely you don't advocate legal abortion right up to birth. Aborting a 9 month old foetus is not much different than killing a baby, which is why all countries put some kind of time constraint in their legislation. The discussion gets quite confused when you don't adress this point. | ||
|
Inertiaddict
United States126 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:32 Mefano wrote: Not wanting a baby is justification for abortion. Agreed, and if this is the case, have it done as soon as possible. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:27 Jamial wrote: Birth control isn't 100%. Condoms aren't 100%. How the fuck do you even begin to draw lines here? Get out, honestly. It's a woman's body, it's her choice. You have no right making any kind of demands/decisions in that regard. I draw the line at preserving the innocent and defenseless life that we all once were. Don't tell me to get out because I disagree with you, your moral outrage turning into "get out" "you have no right" is why society sucks these days. No one can disagree - on anything - without getting jumped on like he's some kind of Nazi by too many people and I'm not saying I haven't done it but it does suck. And even if I did have no right to make a decision or give a command, I sure do have the right to say I should have those rights if I do think that. Not wanting a baby is justification for abortion. I disagree. But this is about abortion rape and incest not just abortion and I think since the starting position would be me having no rights and somehow me commanding a woman not to have an abortion I just don't want to anything :D but i will say i'd never command a woman not to have an abortion, i'd try to persuade her not to and if she didn't approach me about it i wouldn't give my opinion at all, if i just held forth to her on the sanctity of life out nowhere that would be presumptuous and rude | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:36 Crushinator wrote: Again a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? Surely you don't advocate legal abortion right up to birth. Aborting a 9 month old foetus is not much different than killing a baby, which is why all countries put some kind of time constraint in their legislation. The discussion gets quite confused when you don't adress this point. Yes, it was. Yes, I am being overly agressive, because that's how I see the other side of this discussion 90% of the time. (THAT is NOT an oversimplification) Rape is not ok. Incest is not ok. (Incest being the abuse of a family member WITHOUT their consent/at too you an age for them to consent!) Abortion is perfectly fine, and every woman's right if they have been abused like this. I don't know when I draw the line, but why is it drawn at the moment of conception? Why don't you have these same feelings in regards to other living beings? It's a matter of choice, that's where we are at in our progress of evolution. Women have the choice, and it's their choice. Yes, a baby inside a woman that could live and breathe outside should be allowed to live. But one that depends on the woman to survive is not ready to live outside, and should be the woman's choice. On June 28 2013 18:44 DeepElemBlues wrote: I draw the line at preserving the innocent and defenseless life that we all once were. Don't tell me to get out because I disagree with you, your moral outrage turning into "get out" "you have no right" is why society sucks these days. No one can disagree - on anything - without getting jumped on like he's some kind of Nazi by too many people and I'm not saying I haven't done it but it does suck. And even if I did have no right to make a decision or give a command, I sure do have the right to say I should have those rights if I do think that. I disagree. But this is about abortion rape and incest not just abortion and I think since the starting position would be me having no rights and somehow me commanding a woman not to have an abortion I just don't want to anything :D but i will say i'd never command a woman not to have an abortion, i'd try to persuade her not to and if she didn't approach me about it i wouldn't give my opinion at all, if i just held forth to her on the sanctity of life out nowhere that would be presumptuous and rude As I wrote above, my outrage comes from having had enough of this rhetoric. You're allowed to disagree. So what you're saying is that you think abortion is wrong, but don't want it to be illegal? That's a RARE combination, to say the least. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
The problem is that too often don't think of it as right/wrong but instead they see it as win/lose and they don't want to lose. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On June 28 2013 18:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: A woman shouldn't have an obligation put on her - at least a pregnancy, maybe a miscarriage or complication, giving birth, then raising a child maybe or giving it up - when she never gave consent to have sex. I'm very pro-life but rape is in my eyes a justified reason to have an abortion. Incest no, consensual sex between adults resulting in pregnancy, incest or not, to me means either should have kept your legs closed or not wanted to get it in so bad or taken your birth control or been on birth control or used a condom or went and got the morning-to-3-days after pills, or don't kill an innocent and defenseless life because you don't want it and other people say it's alright you can. I don't really understand this sentiment. Murder is okay, but only okay if it was preceded by rape? If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, there's always adoption. Aren't pro-life people always talking about giving life a chance regardless of the circumstances the life may have to endure? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 22:48 ZeaL. wrote: I don't really understand this sentiment. Murder is okay, but only okay if it was preceded by rape? If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, there's always adoption. Aren't pro-life people always talking about giving life a chance regardless of the circumstances the life may have to endure? There was a time when masturbation was not condoned by the Catholic Church since it was murdering children. They then pulled back and now say that abortion is murdering children. They're right now pulling back and are saying that "rape and incest" is okay They will eventually move the goalpost yet again in the future. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On June 28 2013 22:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: There was a time when masturbation was not condoned by the Catholic Church since it was murdering children. They then pulled back and now say that abortion is murdering children. They're right now pulling back and are saying that "rape and incest" is okay They will eventually move the goalpost yet again in the future. This is actually just not even remotely true at all. The Catholic Church has never condoned masturbation, but it has nothing to do with "murdering children." They view it as a corruption of human sexuality which shirks the procreative element in favour of pure pleasure. Obviously, this is silly, but it definitely isn't murdering children, nor does the Church claim that it is. They have pretty much always stated that abortion is murdering children, although they have quibbled about the timing. The Catholic Church doesn't actually make exceptions for rape and incest. People in this thread have done so, but it has nothing to d with the Catholic Church afaik. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 23:53 Shiori wrote: This is actually just not even remotely true at all. The Catholic Church has never condoned masturbation, but it has nothing to do with "murdering children." They view it as a corruption of human sexuality which shirks the procreative element in favour of pure pleasure. Obviously, this is silly, but it definitely isn't murdering children, nor does the Church claim that it is. They have pretty much always stated that abortion is murdering children, although they have quibbled about the timing. The Catholic Church doesn't actually make exceptions for rape and incest. People in this thread have done so, but it has nothing to d with the Catholic Church afaik. You haven't read enough 13th century writing... | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
While we intuitively know what we mean when "life begins," this is a rather bizarre question to ask scientifically. Certainly before nerves and brains develop there's no capacity for thought or cognition. However, pragmatically speaking, this becomes irrelevant, because pregnancy is also life threatening and is by no means a minor inconvenience. To force another person to carry pregnancy is akin to indentured servitude. To have government and politicians step into medical procedure suddenly becomes psychotic and evil. The pro-life position is only consistent when you criminalize miscarriage, one of the most psychotic policies and relevant today in the US. Exceptions for rape/incest only cause more headaches. How do you enforce the exception? Does the rapist need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Will there be Rape Panels to determine how likely it is you were raped? How will this work in the real world? Make no mistake. Pro-life is an anti-woman, psychotic, hideously immoral position, and results in plenty of deaths due to medical complications. Imagine if that was your wife. Some politician makes it harder to abort her ectopic pregnancy. Edit: I basically side with the ACLU on nearly everything. They are some of the fiercest defenders of reproductive rights, and give very concise, solid defenses of their positions on their website. If you're on the opposite side of the ACLU, you're probably a bad guy. | ||
| ||
