puff_cake write: But alas, we have digressed. The point was, you were talking about animals discarding their sickly babies, but women abort perfectly healthy foetuses. There's a difference.
No, for instance, hamsters will eat thier young if thier nest is disturbed. No doubt the reaction is caused because if a nest is duturbed and it's no longer considered safe it's best to cut your losses, eat the children, and move on.
The point is that if it's often in the benifet of passing one's own genes on to kill children and try again later. This is evolutionary fact.
If we're solely concerned with reproduction in human society, then there are still occasions where it's best to abort children. We all know children are best raised in certain circumstances, a lady that gets pregant before she's ready and who is concerned with only the survival of her genes would do well to abort the baby, and work to getting that more comfortable enviroment and then trying again.
And this misses the point that most people's motives in life are not evolutionary, mine aren't. I'm concerned with happiness, not the surivival of my genes, and thus may well not ever reproduce. In this case it is often in the mother's own interests to abort, and it may well not be against thier moral values, just as it isn't against mine.
puff_cake write: None of the three species of elephant eats their young ok - Jesus!
But that's just plainly incorrect now isn't it? Gaidheal has lived around elephants, seen it for himself.
So what we have is Gaidheal, whose seen it, you who denies it, and my general knowledge that animals do in fact do it, and the fact that it makes evolutionary sense to do it. This leads me to think that it's you whose incorrect, as to believe you would make Gaidheal a lier, all my general knowledge about the animal kingdom incorrect, and it would stand as a refutation of evolutionary theory.
puff_cake write: Yes but the books don't lie, and i extensively study animals first hand both in the wild and captivity.
You're 19 you have not extensively even lived, much less studied anything. Quite what you think Sri Lanka has to do with anything, I don't know, either. Though I have indeed been there, albeit briefly. I lived in southern India, not Sri Lanka.
puff_cake write: Now i know you're lying. heh heh BTW - go back and read the post properly, i was using them as an example, not basing it completely on them. I was also referring to African elephants. And no - they would never intentionally kill their own offspring unless they did so in a panic after giving birth, due to stress.
I find it hard to believe that one line of Elephants would eat thier young and the others wouldn't.
Fact is, eating young is standard, I don't believe that even the one breed of elephant you selected doesn't, you will have to do better if you want to have a good basis for your argument.
puff_cake write: I read Hobbes and didn't much care for his sovereign sucking attitude to be honest. I'm not deluding myself, i watch lots of wildlife documentaries and read enough zoology books to know that the majority of higher mammals do not carelessly abandon sickly babies.
I was referring to his talks on the state of nature, not his precise decription of the state to replace it.
You are deluding yourself, even among Homo Sapiens the way has always been until recently to abandon young that can't fend for themselves, particularly the disabled.
Notably, documentaries have often been very false anyway, it's only recently that they've started showing the homosexuality in animals of which they've always been aware, they have a tendancy to hide the stuff that people don't want to see, and thus bend reality to the will of soft minds.
puff_cake write: yeah, elephants love eating their babies - pmsl - that is the animal i was using as an example
Your argument is based on a single animal? Not a problem, by the way. Elephants just kill them and the local scavengers eat the carcass. Did we forget I've actually lived in a country where elephants are native and commonly used as beast of burden, puffter_boy? LOL Seen it firsthand, or rather the aftermath. Not pretty.
puff_cake write: Different animals have different young rearing strategies, whilst some may take the actions you described, the intelligent mammals, such as elephants, care for all their young, both lame and healthy with equal devotion. As i believe that humans are an intelligent species, it would be right for them to take a similiar approach. Human life is precious and should not be flushed away because a woman isn't ready for a child. She should have thought about that before she had sex without a condom. I understand that every case isn't that simple, e.g raipes and all but i'm speaking as a whole. Just because the option is there, doesn't mean they have to use it.
Now you're just deluding yourself. Infanticide has always been the natural way to treat unwanted children, it's seen in all of our earliest societies, it's seen in most mammals.
Embyros are not precious, they're not rare and easy to create, they are alive, and are genetically human, but thier not intellegent sentient creatures and exist on a similar level to bacteria.
If you want to make a rational arguement as to why people should care about embyros, do so, but referances to embyros being 'precious' is merely circular reasonings, and referances to nature are not only flawed but inaccurate.
Gaidheal write: Actually, animals take pains to ensure the young they can support survive. They routinely kill of any weak or surplus individuals and usually eat them (too many nutrients to waste). As for the appeal to 'nature' that's total bullshit. It is no more natural than what we do; nature is determined by the actions of those within it. If we all do something, it becomes "part of the natural order" there is no 'nature' as a concept, it is simply an overused term to cover the idea of what happens when we do not intervene in an event. Nothing more.
Yes, I get fed up with the useage of 'natural' and 'nature' as useful concepts, pretty awful concepts really.
They rely on that same seperation of man and nature that we were recently accused off notable :o)
And the assumption that 'natural' equals 'good' really amazes me.
It's a worse concept than 'normal' for use in ethical discussions.
Actually, animals take pains to ensure the young they can support survive. They routinely kill of any weak or surplus individuals and usually eat them (too many nutrients to waste). As for the appeal to 'nature' that's total bullshit. It is no more natural than what we do; nature is determined by the actions of those within it. If we all do something, it becomes "part of the natural order" there is no 'nature' as a concept, it is simply an overused term to cover the idea of what happens when we do not intervene in an event. Nothing more.
puff_cake write: Yeah i admitted their were exceptions but nmy point was, animals take great pains to ensure their young survive, eggs hatch etc cos its biological. The meaning of life is to reproduce and pass on genes. To deny this, is to deny living.
Not exceptions, it's the normal thing for creatures in the wild to do with unwanted children.
Trying to find 'the meaning of life' in natural is flawed. If you acept evolution nature is merely a aimless and meaningless product of unthinking natural patterns, there's no meaning to be found there.
In fact, if we look at 'meaning' it's not to be found outside the person, things don't mean anything objectivly, they mean things to people. the meaning of life is what you take it to mean.
The meaning of my life is not to reproduce, I, like many others before me, may not have any children at all and still live a meaningful life.
Besides, sometimes passing on one's genes is better done through aborting children now to put you in a better position to pass them on later, foreplanning is always good.
puff_cake write: Women for centuries have harped on about the male dominated society and inequality but a birth is a special event - it takes two to tango. In the wild, an animal would not conceive of aborting its children (well mostly, however, with everything there is always exceptions) that's why i see it as unnatural. Anything against nature is wrong.
Go become a Catholic then and leave us alone, make sure to destroy your computer to be consistant.
Yes, animals don't engage in such forethought and make use of modern surgery to reach thier ai-ms, so what?
We don't live in a 'natural' state anymore and I sure as hell wouldn't want to.
I am quite happy to adjust my body and the enviroment around me to my needs and it's natural state can go screw itself.
Of course, notably, animals do kill thier young. If an animal has too many children, or if it doesn't think it can rear those children anymore, it'll eat them. Before we had modern abortion techniques, the human norm was to kill unwanted children.
It's a fairly recent idea that infanticide is somehow immoral.
I am not sorry to say that whomever got pregnant....unless they are some sort of F***ing wh*ore...its the persons decision and should not be made to feel like garbage for having a brain in their own head and using it...as long as they make the decision that is correct for them.....I was adopted and honestly...i wish i had never been born...i cannot stand so much that goes on around me...but some things are meant to be.Theres many kids that dont make it in the adoption place....way too many are put there.....ive seen some and it bothers me to no end how much some of those kids are in torment and pain....always wondering why the blood parents never wanted them...and they have to deal with that the rest of their life....it hurts really....and sometimes i wonder what happened to the ones who were my blood family...
jadestarr write: dah!!! but i'm thinking of those tht can't have children and would do anything to have a child. personally i know quite a few. heck my boss just adopted a wonderful, adorable little girl! whom he adores!
There's a surplus of children needing adoption so there's no need to create more. The main problems being that everyone insists that thier children must be the fruit of thier own loins, to the point of going to expensive and extravagant lengths to create children in thier labs, rather than adopt, and when they do adopt, only the babies with no 'defects' or difficulties get taken and any one that grows long enough to become a child doesn't have a hope in hell of being adopted.