Chicken or Egg?

[John_Mace]

@Autolycus

Chicken. Definitely the chicken. Anybody who says otherwise is cracked.

Egg. There were eggs before chickens. Anyone who says chicken is a-fowl of the truth.

[Darth_Panda]

@John_Mace

Egg. There were eggs before chickens. Anyone who says chicken is a-fowl of the truth.

Now you’re just trying to egg people on.

[curlcoat]

@Penderel

Theoretically, you are correct, but there are some flaws in your argument. If someone chooses to kill dogs, or their parents, then the question of choice isn’t applicable. Having an abortion is not like choosing chicken noodle over clam chowder. Regardless of whether people want to defend the right to choose there must be limits on what you can choose to do.

The hell? You aren’t making any sense - you can choose to kill a dog, or actually your parents, at any time as long as you follow the laws that surround those thing. As for having an abortion not like choosing this soup or that soup, you are right there - it’s far more important and life changing than that.

Besides that, the choice argument is a red herring. If you look at the roots of the abortion “movement,” social Darwinism, not liberty, was the driving force. While they may not care to admit it, even to themselves in some cases, a good many people still support “choice” because it is overwhelmingly chosen by “lower” people. Many also view abortion as a form of birth control, eliminating an unwanted pregnancy rather than living with the consequences of their own actions.

Piffle. You must be male…

“Choice” thus becomes the way they justify such opinions, though if you try to find consistency in the political spectrum, it’s invalidity as an argument becomes glaringly clear. Most political views are ascribed to either conservative or liberal mindsets. School choice, for example, is seen as a conservative issue while choice over abortion is a liberal one. If one supports the right to choose whether a child is born, shouldn’t that person also defend the right to choose where that child goes to school?

Still not making sense. When is the right to choose where a kid goes to school not allowed?

This goes back to my original point: Choice isn’t being defended as part of liberty, abortion is being defended as part of the liberal mindset. No logic needed.

Well, I am mostly conservative and in case you haven’t figured it out, I support free access to abortions. Just because you have decided that it’s a human at conception (or whatever your issue is) doesn’t mean that any woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant has to go through with it. It’s simply none of your business.

Just as, simply because you have decided some political hot button must be liberal, doesn’t mean that all those who support it must also be liberal.

[Penderel]

@Bosstone

Now you’re making shit up because it coincides with your world view of liberals as central-planning fingers-in-everyone’s-pie dictators lacking in morals, and there’s no way you can be gainsaid because ‘people just don’t care to admit it.’

What shit am I making up?

@woodstockbirdybird

So now liberals hate the poor, too? Man, those unlucky bastards can’t catch a break!

From Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

“Eugenics is chiefly valuable in its negative aspects…it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all – that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36746902/Margaret-Sanger-the-Pivot-of-Civilization

“All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class, and if morality is to mean anything at all to us, we must regard all the changes which tend toward the uplift and survival of the human race as moral.”
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/documents/speech_morality_and_bc.html

These quotes go directly to my point (conveniently ignored) that what started out as a eugenics movement shifted its public face to that of one that promotes liberty and choice. As a poster pointed out earlier, nobody in their right mind comes out and says, “Let’s destroy fetuses!” That wouldn’t go down well with the public, but if the argument is framed as a debate on choice and free will it suddenly becomes palatable.

@curlcoat

The hell? You aren’t making any sense - you can choose to kill a dog, or actually your parents, at any time as long as you follow the laws that surround those thing.

My point in bringing up the dog is that if you beat or neglect a dog you can go to jail, but abortion of a human fetus is perfectly legal. How can you square that logically?

As for killing my parents, when the hell is that legal (aside from following advanced directives)? Is there some new patricide law I haven’t heard about?

@curlcoat

Still not making sense. When is the right to choose where a kid goes to school not allowed?

I’m assuming that you’re purposely being dense about this. I’m not going to list every state that does or does not have school vouchers or public school choice. The debate has been going on for years, I’ll let you inform yourself.

@curlcoat

Piffle. You must be male…

Thanks for the highly logical retort.

@curlcoat

Just because you have decided that it’s a human at conception (or whatever your issue is) doesn’t mean that any woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant has to go through with it. It’s simply none of your business.

Way to puke out the stock answer. Try to approach this logically. When does life begin, if not at conception? At three months? Six? Eight? Birth? Third birthday? I haven’t unilaterally decided that life begins at conception - it is the only logical conclusion. Any other explanation is arbitrary, and turnabout is fair play. Just because you have decided that life doesn’t begin at conception does not mean that any woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant has the right to end a human life. As far as it being my business, I suppose it’s no more my business than a young mother killing her two-year old daughter or a guy setting up a ponzi scheme that ruins hundreds of people. Should they be allowed to do these things simply because it was their choice?

Again, look at these things logically. Rants about choice and men not being able to decide don’t have any rational base. If you can make a rational argument, do so, but don’t try to shout down opponents on the basis of their gender.

[Typo_Negative]

It’s perfectly logical that I am absolutely morally right and everyone who disagrees with me is both amoral and idiotic.

[Darth_Panda]

nm

[Bosstone]

@Penderel

What shit am I making up?

Yeah, not going to play this game.

[Procrustus]

@Penderel

Quick example: Back in 2000 I had a co-worker who drove a huge SUV. One day over lunch he was telling me how Al Gore being elected President would be a great thing for the auto industry. Do you really think he thought that one through at all?

Sure, he might have thought that through quite of bit. We really don’t have enough information to judge. Having an SUV doesn’t tell us much, lots of people have huge SUVs. Al Gore might very well have been great for the auto industry. I’m not getting an lesson from this quick example.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Anyway, assuming the OP doesn’t have any particular originality or insight to it, I was musing on restrictions on freedom of expression lately. It can be left- or right-wing oppression depending, I guess, on who’s doing it and why.

[Der_Trihs]

@Penderel

Add on to this the strange case of people protesting against capital punishment and calling soldiers murderers, then showing unfaltering allegiance to the practice of abortion.

That’s only “strange” if you are the sort of person who can’t grasp that other people honestly do not agree with you. I really do consider a fetus to be a thing, not a person; therefore killing it isn’t in remotely in the same category as killing an actual person.

@Penderel

Having an abortion is not like choosing chicken noodle over clam chowder.

Yes it is.

@Penderel

Besides that, the choice argument is a red herring. If you look at the roots of the abortion “movement,” social Darwinism, not liberty, was the driving force. While they may not care to admit it, even to themselves in some cases, a good many people still support “choice” because it is overwhelmingly chosen by “lower” people.

I doubt most people know or care about any of that.

@Penderel

Many also view abortion as a form of birth control, eliminating an unwanted pregnancy rather than living with the consequences of their own actions.

Getting an abortion IS dealing with the consequences.

@Penderel

School choice, for example, is seen as a conservative issue while choice over abortion is a liberal one. If one supports the right to choose whether a child is born, shouldn’t that person also defend the right to choose where that child goes to school?

No, the two issues are completely different. One is about a woman dealing with an unwanted growth, the other is about racism and the conservative desire to promote ignorance by destroying the public school system.

[Find_Friends]

@curlcoat

The hell? You aren’t making any sense - you can choose to kill snip your parents, at any time as long as you follow the laws that surround those thing. …

My first impulse was to tell Penderel what ***I thought ***you might be getting at here. But it makes more sense to address my guess to you. It’s more respectful to you, in addition.

---

Did you mean self-defense as something that makes killing people legal? As I was starting this post, it had occurred to me that you might have meant authorizing active euthanasia through a doctor.

My thought is that “killing” is pretty broad and while “murder” is always illegal by definition, killing people can be completely legal.

- Jack

[Typo_Negative]

@Penderel

What shit am I making up?

Well, you started an abortion thread thinly veiled as a discussion on poltical discourse.

[curlcoat]

@Penderel

My point in bringing up the dog is that if you beat or neglect a dog you can go to jail, but abortion of a human fetus is perfectly legal. How can you square that logically?

Ignoring you moving the goal posts here, I can square that logically because at the time that 99% of abortions are done, the fetus cannot feel anything, where as an abused dog can.

As for killing my parents, when the hell is that legal (aside from following advanced directives)? Is there some new patricide law I haven’t heard about?

If one or both of your parents is on life support and you are the one with the legal power to do so, you may call for the pulling of the plug. This despite the fact that your parents are most likely far more valuable and aware than any fetus.

I’m assuming that you’re purposely being dense about this. I’m not going to list every state that does or does not have school vouchers or public school choice. The debate has been going on for years, I’ll let you inform yourself.

You are saying that there are places in the US where you are not allowed to send your kids to a private school? Or are you whining that you would have to actually pay to do so?

Thanks for the highly logical retort.

Your welcome. Good on you for noticing that it was a retort based on a logical conclusion.

Way to puke out the stock answer.

There is a reason why some answers are stock…

Try to approach this logically. When does life begin, if not at conception?

Birth. Now, you find me a logical, scientific reason to change my mind on that.

At three months? Six? Eight? Birth? Third birthday? I haven’t unilaterally decided that life begins at conception - it is the only logical conclusion. Any other explanation is arbitrary, and turnabout is fair play.

Deciding on conception is also arbitrary.

Just because you have decided that life doesn’t begin at conception does not mean that any woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant has the right to end a human life.

Wanna bet? Any woman who decides she wants to abort doesn’t have to justify it by telling you or anyone else what her beliefs are, because what she wants trumps the fetus since she is an already living, breathing, obviously alive human being.

As far as it being my business, I suppose it’s no more my business than a young mother killing her two-year old daughter or a guy setting up a ponzi scheme that ruins hundreds of people. Should they be allowed to do these things simply because it was their choice?

Try not to be an idiot. Those things hurt real, already alive people, not microscopic subdividing cells.

Again, look at these things logically. Rants about choice and men not being able to decide don’t have any rational base. If you can make a rational argument, do so, but don’t try to shout down opponents on the basis of their gender.

Say what? Are you whining because men don’t get to force women to remain pregnant?

Trans Fat Og - answer to your post is above. Tho I could see self defense being considered legal human killing too!

[Guinastasia]

Wow – I am in awe. Go curlcoat.

[curlcoat]

@Guinastasia

Wow – I am in awe. Go curlcoat.

Eh, anti-choice people piss me off…

[saoirse]

@Penderel

Besides that, the choice argument is a red herring. If you look at the roots of the abortion “movement,” social Darwinism, not liberty, was the driving force.

Just so you know, social darwinism has nothing to do with eugenics. If you’d like to know what social darwinism is like, read the platform of the Republican Party. These two completely distinct movements have been conflated by Christian fundamentalists in order to smear evolution.

[Mince]

If the chicken came first (presumably asexual genesis), or if humans were (eventually) formed from the primordial soup (asexual genesis), why were those events unique? Why did it subsequently become necessary for these groups to reproduce by sexual means?

[Lemur866]

Sexuality is older than multicellular life. Even bacteria have forms of sex where they exchange genetic information.

And eggs–hard calcium shelled eggs–existed for millions of years before birds, let alone chickens, evolved. The egg came first.

[Lemur866]

As for the question of why there should be sex, that’s an old question in biology. It seems that with asexual reproduction you pass on 100% of your genes, while with sexual reproduction you only pass along 50%. That’s a heck of a selective bias in favor of asexuality, and yet we find all sorts of species that have sexual reproduction. But note that many species can do both–they reproduce asexually when it is advantageous, and sexually when that becomes advantageous. So the optimum number of sexes seems to be more than one but less than two.

[saoirse]

@Lemur866

As for the question of why there should be sex, that’s an old question in biology. It seems that with asexual reproduction you pass on 100% of your genes, while with sexual reproduction you only pass along 50%. That’s a heck of a selective bias in favor of asexuality, and yet we find all sorts of species that have sexual reproduction. But note that many species can do both–they reproduce asexually when it is advantageous, and sexually when that becomes advantageous. So the optimum number of sexes seems to be more than one but less than two.

For example, Lady Jesus Hammerhead Shark.