So on which side of the abortion debate are you and why?
I'll go first -
"First, we are a superspecies - rising out of the dirt of the african plains, we have touched the moon. As such, with changing times must come changing habits. Evoultionarily and altrusitically, a child represents the entire goal of life - new life. The overwhelming imperative to protect the very chance for new life, sometimes even more than life itself is obvious - other than the hardwiring for the protection of the new molecules, we have an inante curiosity and anxiety for the unknown - no doubt the pleasant remains from the time when our ancestors only had their brains to go against the teeth and claws of lions and the size of mammoths. As such, we have a certain aprehension towards making decisions where we dont know all the factors - we outsource our judgement - often to authority, sometimes to tradition. The obvious advantage is that the memetic* evolution of ideas and traditions mean they will usually work. But in a rapidly changing world, memetic selection is far outstripped by mutation - new ideas are usually better in a rapidly changing context than are surviving version of older ones. Hence the push [for me, personally] to think different, to think objectively.
Second, abortion is no different in principle than domestication or agriculture - its the rightful control, as a superspecies, by humans of natural events and processes. Pro-lifers can ask me what if my mom had aborted me, but they forget is that they have already naturally lost at least one sibling. That brings me to the scantity of life - is life really sacred, in the sense of the term, whether or not in the context of theism? Is all life, atleast within our own species, worth something equal to all else? I dont think so. Why? Two problems. First, why only us? Why is the unborn chicken any less worthy of life than an unborn fetus is? Just because the chicken isnt our species? This directly leads to the 'potential argument' - the child has potential to be an einstein or augestine, the chicken doesn't. But again, its just a random draw of cards. S/He could as well be the next hitler or stalin - the point I am trying to make is that life has no inherent sanctity - life has value and the value is the result of and in proportion to the use of the life - any life is as good as the next one if they do the same thing - an abortion no more deprives us of an einstein or the parents of a child than a rotten fruit deprive the tree of procreation.
Finally, is a fetus really a person? I would have to say, no. The problem is, of course - throughout the debate - where to draw the line. And we have an excellent line already present - birth. I would like to go back a little more and suggest that the line for abortion be decided on a per-case basis - on how developed the fetus is and on how likely it is to be born and survive. That is a line for the doctors to draw, so I must leave that one hanging. But back to whether a fetus is really a person. I still have to explain why I said no - no all levels, the fetus is closer to a chick than a human - it has nothing that defines a human - thought, ideas, fears, hopes, aspirations, experiences and so on. But the catch 22 is, of course, that it can. It has the potential to be a human, which is where the comparision to the chick fails. But the argument that would substitue for that one would be this - its natural for such potentials to go wasted and tragically end. We have already lost so many greats naturally that had they all survived, we would probably be living in another galaxy by now - but that hasn't happened and mother nature is what did that.
People are conditioned by the world they are born into - the world which our ancestors have created through thousands of years of effort - a world above nature, a world that better reflect the better side-effects of the evolution of the only weapon we have - our brain. In such case, the abrupt miscarriage or accident is a reminder that nature doesn't work that way - that the universe is a fundamentally hostile place for life and our precious existence as humans is precious precisely because its fragile and hard-earned. We cannot shy away from things that follow the path of nature and not the path we have managed to create for ourself - that is the price you pay for being idealists, better than but still in and confined by, an indifferent universe. Hence we must allow as well as eccelectically use that path if we see it fit.
*I am refering to memetics in only a metaphorical sense.
^ Abortion as a concept, as an option for a procedure for anyone - for people in general, for others OR for you personally.
I'll go first -
"First, we are a superspecies - rising out of the dirt of the african plains, we have touched the moon. As such, with changing times must come changing habits. Evoultionarily and altrusitically, a child represents the entire goal of life - new life. The overwhelming imperative to protect the very chance for new life, sometimes even more than life itself is obvious - other than the hardwiring for the protection of the new molecules, we have an inante curiosity and anxiety for the unknown - no doubt the pleasant remains from the time when our ancestors only had their brains to go against the teeth and claws of lions and the size of mammoths. As such, we have a certain aprehension towards making decisions where we dont know all the factors - we outsource our judgement - often to authority, sometimes to tradition. The obvious advantage is that the memetic* evolution of ideas and traditions mean they will usually work. But in a rapidly changing world, memetic selection is far outstripped by mutation - new ideas are usually better in a rapidly changing context than are surviving version of older ones. Hence the push [for me, personally] to think different, to think objectively.
Second, abortion is no different in principle than domestication or agriculture - its the rightful control, as a superspecies, by humans of natural events and processes. Pro-lifers can ask me what if my mom had aborted me, but they forget is that they have already naturally lost at least one sibling. That brings me to the scantity of life - is life really sacred, in the sense of the term, whether or not in the context of theism? Is all life, atleast within our own species, worth something equal to all else? I dont think so. Why? Two problems. First, why only us? Why is the unborn chicken any less worthy of life than an unborn fetus is? Just because the chicken isnt our species? This directly leads to the 'potential argument' - the child has potential to be an einstein or augestine, the chicken doesn't. But again, its just a random draw of cards. S/He could as well be the next hitler or stalin - the point I am trying to make is that life has no inherent sanctity - life has value and the value is the result of and in proportion to the use of the life - any life is as good as the next one if they do the same thing - an abortion no more deprives us of an einstein or the parents of a child than a rotten fruit deprive the tree of procreation.
Finally, is a fetus really a person? I would have to say, no. The problem is, of course - throughout the debate - where to draw the line. And we have an excellent line already present - birth. I would like to go back a little more and suggest that the line for abortion be decided on a per-case basis - on how developed the fetus is and on how likely it is to be born and survive. That is a line for the doctors to draw, so I must leave that one hanging. But back to whether a fetus is really a person. I still have to explain why I said no - no all levels, the fetus is closer to a chick than a human - it has nothing that defines a human - thought, ideas, fears, hopes, aspirations, experiences and so on. But the catch 22 is, of course, that it can. It has the potential to be a human, which is where the comparision to the chick fails. But the argument that would substitue for that one would be this - its natural for such potentials to go wasted and tragically end. We have already lost so many greats naturally that had they all survived, we would probably be living in another galaxy by now - but that hasn't happened and mother nature is what did that.
People are conditioned by the world they are born into - the world which our ancestors have created through thousands of years of effort - a world above nature, a world that better reflect the better side-effects of the evolution of the only weapon we have - our brain. In such case, the abrupt miscarriage or accident is a reminder that nature doesn't work that way - that the universe is a fundamentally hostile place for life and our precious existence as humans is precious precisely because its fragile and hard-earned. We cannot shy away from things that follow the path of nature and not the path we have managed to create for ourself - that is the price you pay for being idealists, better than but still in and confined by, an indifferent universe. Hence we must allow as well as eccelectically use that path if we see it fit.
*I am refering to memetics in only a metaphorical sense.
^ Abortion as a concept, as an option for a procedure for anyone - for people in general, for others OR for you personally.
Last edited:
