is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

For someone who claims to want to 'understand both sides of things, you seem pretty obstinate in your clutching to ignorance of the facts of science. 

I'm out of this one.

Dude, I am posting that as an opposing argument. You cannot say micro=macro+time because the term macro means more than micro+micro+micro+...+micro^n. Macro involves changes that are not possible in that scenario.

For example: start stacking pennies...1+1+1+1...+n. Now in the in the end, you have n amount of pennies. Macro is like saying, eventually we will have enough pennies that a nickel will suddenly form...that will never happen. I keep adding pennies, I will always only have pennies.

I am not posting to push my beliefs, I posting to see replies...my way of understanding, sorry if it came off like that...you too oldtrees

[cometbah]

Hello, northcity4.

I am here because you mentioned you'd continue another discussion on this thread... but I did not expect to find this thread to have turned into a debate about the theory of evolution =9 but since I am here...

OldTrees:

Dogs can recognize themselves?

northcity4:

About the DNA replacement, I have answered here

[OldTrees]

@northcity4
1) Are you a troll? Unless you prove you are not this will be my final reply to you. (Though I will feel free to contradict your errors.)

2) Transitionary forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

3) Cloning currently involves removing the genetic material from an egg and inserting the genetic material from the cloned animal. In this manner the egg has the genes of the cloned animal. An ape egg with 100% the genes of a human is called a cloned human. They will behave as the donor human would have if they had developed in the environment the clone will develop in. If raised by apes it will act like a hairless ape because humans are social creatures and are genetically wired to ("to" not "how to") participate in the society they are in.

4) The human brain has not grown significantly (compared to the difference between apes and humans) over the past 3000+ years. However you asked how does the size of the brain matter. The simple answer is a larger more complex brain allows more complex thoughts. This is the reasons dogs can recognize themselves but some birds can't.

5) Your biology professors have done you a great disservice. If you understand the principles of science (aka Falsification) then you can read through this site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) and judge for yourself.

6) Cells have identifying proteins on their surface. If the surface proteins of the zygote are different enough from the host then the immune system of the host will attack the zygote. This is the result of genetics.

troll? I stated some very valid responses...but regardless let me give you my understanding of what you have said.

1) definite NO
2) This is still a hypothesis. There is evidence discounting this theory such as how would genetics split so interestingly as well as fossil record having many issues. For example lets take the neanderthal human (I forget the term used) sequence they show (like a cave man at first...becomes a human near the end). One of those 'humans' they show was made by combining a human skull and a pig's tooth i believe (or some other closely related animal's tooth)...found 50 feet away. Transitionary forms have so many problems I have discovered that I find it as a joke now when scientist's talk about it. As for closely related bone structures I need help understanding that...been a while since I have studied that.
3) True...but are there any animals with the same size brain as us? If so, can we train them to act like humans? Has this been done?
4)same as #3
5)Universal common ancestor: are we saying this 'thing' held all the genetic material and by mere chance it got split apart to create bacteria, to create animals, and after if splt off the animal part, what was left was humans? My teacher said we don't come from apes, all come from the universal ancestor.
Regardless, most people doubt this.

1) I am sorry. You seemed unreasonable and non responsive to the sourced I linked.

2) The scientific community has peer reviewed the evidence and has removed hoaxes shortly after they are discovered. The amount of transitional forms proven to not be hoaxes continues to increase. I am not qualified to teach phylogeny however I do recommend you research the topic more before asserting it does not have evidence for evolution.

3) Now that you accept that size can matter I suggest you study neurology. That field describes how the parts of the brain result in thoughts. We know that both genes and environmental factors are involved in deciding which connections are made between neurons in which area. The current understanding is that a set of neurons in the same configuration as a human brain (dictated by apoptosis and mitosis during development) and the same connections (dictated by environmental signals and surface proteins expressed) will be capable of the same level of thought as a human.

5) Ah. So the only disservice was poorly explaining the universal ancestor theory.
The first Terran life existed at some point. (Whether created by god, aliens or abiogenesis) Current theory supports the idea that this life used RNA and proteins as its genetic code. (Some of the evidence includes the universal ribosomal proteins) The population of this lifeform continued to experiences genetic variation. Eventually there developed significant differences between the subsets of this population. (The process of speciation). Each of these new populations (species) also exhibited genetic variation. Some of the mutations resulted in genes were never seen before in the universal ancestor. This included some surface proteins that varied the lipid membrane. Some of the variations made it easier to hold more monomers. This allowed DNA based lifeforms as a subpopulation as a result of genetic variation. Eventually there were 3 main groups (domains) of related species (archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote). At this point all life was microscopic. Each of these domains continued to experience speciation, mutation and selection. Inside archaea things like amoeba (now know to be a body type rather than a single species) algae, and slime molds. Multicellular life (like fungi, yeast and molds) was one of the results of the speciation. Eventually variations of multicellular life developed into early plants and animal. Remember none of these subpopulations stays still. The bacteria were still diversifying. (This is partly why microorganisms are so common) In a similar way to how speciation of the universal common ansector resulted in the vast diversity above, the population of universal animal ancestors. Animals have the following in common: They are heterotrophic, lack a cell wall, motile, multicellular and have a blastula stage. Not what you think of when you think of animal huh? Well the current theory is things like vertebra and cerebrums developed later as a result of mutations.

So no the genetic material wasn't split. Rather sub populations arose from random mutation, random reproduction and selection. When these sub populations became different enough speciation occurred. Some new genes resulted from mutation and some old genes were removed by mutation.

As for Apes. Humans are not descended from modern apes nor viceversa. However there was a common ancestor of both that you would probably call an ape if you saw it. If nothing else you would at least call it a primate.

@cometbah
Yes. In fact that is required for their 'game' of claiming territory via urination.

[nerd1]

This thread is being locked as it is no longer being used for the intended purpose. please make your own thread if you want to discuss evolution.

[northcity4]

Locked...ok fine, well change subject

Trees I see your point. Yes, my teacher didn't explain the actual way a common ancestor would create like you posted, but to be honest that is pretty technical for me (been a while).

I do have 2 questions tho: 1) your thoughts on what you posted (obviously there is the creation theory, you can create another topic if thats too off topic for here)

2) where do we go from here? If we don't talk about evolution, what is the next thing we should discuss about the right/wrong to if a women should have the right the abort a baby if it will kill her or abortion is morally bad/okay?

[OldTrees]

Locked...ok fine, well change subject

Trees I see your point. Yes, my teacher didn't explain the actual way a common ancestor would create like you posted, but to be honest that is pretty technical for me (been a while).

I do have 2 questions tho: 1) your thoughts on what you posted (obviously there is the creation theory, you can create another topic if thats too off topic for here)

2) where do we go from here? If we don't talk about evolution, what is the next thing we should discuss about the right/wrong to if a women should have the right the abort a baby if it will kill her or abortion is morally bad/okay?

We were discussing what makes a human human. The scientific consensus is that the genetic material is what makes Homo Sapiens Homo Sapiens.
Or we could go further back/further forward and actually discuss morally relevant traits. Is the ability to suffer sufficient to make a being capable of being immorally killed? Does it have to be able to reason before it has that characteristic?

[northcity4]

Ok lets try this...late term abortion. At this stage of pregnancy, the baby has a good size...everything to be simple. It can feel pain, and it has enough capability to respond to certain stimuli. Hence why a baby kicks in the womb. I pretty sure at this point the baby is human AND can feel pain as well and do a lot of things humans can.

If the woman decides she still wants to abort the baby, on what grounds does she have to kill it?

Pretend you are in a situation where you have humanity on one side and on the other your best friend. You have to kill one of them. This is different from military ethics since you are limited on time. Here, you can take as much time as you need. Who ever you save, the other dies. Right now, I am in agreement with you probably should kill you friend, but you don't have the right too.

Another way of look at this is from the book Beloved. Sethe kills her baby to save her from growing up in slavery. From an ethics consensus, it was agreed Sethe did the right thing, but wasn't the person allowed to do it.

[kimham8a]

I'd say Sethe did the right thing, but at the same time the total pain felt by everyone is not everything IMO. If you killed everyone in the whole world while they were asleep, that still wouldn't be exactly ethical.

[OldTrees]

I'd say Sethe did the right thing, but at the same time the total pain felt by everyone is not everything IMO. If you killed everyone in the whole world while they were asleep, that still wouldn't be exactly ethical.

Utilitarianism is about minimizing pain/suffering and maximizing pleasure/happiness.

[northcity4]

I'd say Sethe did the right thing, but at the same time the total pain felt by everyone is not everything IMO. If you killed everyone in the whole world while they were asleep, that still wouldn't be exactly ethical.

Utilitarianism is about minimizing pain/suffering and maximizing pleasure/happiness.

Correct. The problem is that in this scenario there were better options. Sethe didn't have the right to kill her child. Why not try to hide her? Why not make it look like she is dead? What if (hopefully you are familiar with the story) Sethe found out the 4 people coming for her died on the way? You know how guilty she would have been?

For abortion to be considered under Utilitarian morals, there must be only two scenarios to justify it. Unfortunately, there are hundreds in this case. You cannot say it's right to abort the baby under those terms because in some ways Utilitarian by definition is military ethics.

Here is an example from class textbook: You are driving a trolley that lost its brakes. There are two roads ahead, one has 4 workmen, the other has 1 workman? Which ever road you take will kill all the workmen there. This is a situation where you can justify your actions under Utilitarian aspects.

To show how Utilitarianism doesn't work with abortion, here is an example:


   Save the baby                               Kill the baby
   Mom will live                               Mom lives, less grief for
   If mom dies, baby would               relatives.
   be worse off.                               Family can be taken care of
   Baby will probably die               better.
   if mom is not there.                       Save money with one less mouth
   Mom dying will cause               to feed.
   grief for many people.



   Problem: there is no guarantee the mom will die, no guarantee the baby would die without a mom. If we say the mom has the right, then what about times people harm you. What if people decided to kill every time they felt they were in harm? You know how destructive society would be?

Example: burglar robs your house, I can see you justifying shooting him in the leg to defend yourself, but to kill him right then and there? Even cops who are in real danger ask the enemy to lower their weapon and give the guy a chance.

[Nepycros]

   Problem: there is no guarantee the mom will die, no guarantee the baby would die without a mom. If we say the mom has the right, then what about times people harm you. What if people decided to kill every time they felt they were in harm? You know how destructive society would be?

Haha, no. :|

There were chances to save her. There were ways to make it perfectly clear that this was a life-or-death situation.

They did nothing.

[northcity4]

   Problem: there is no guarantee the mom will die, no guarantee the baby would die without a mom. If we say the mom has the right, then what about times people harm you. What if people decided to kill every time they felt they were in harm? You know how destructive society would be?

Haha, no. :|

There were chances to save her. There were ways to make it perfectly clear that this was a life-or-death situation.

They did nothing.

So we should kill someone else to save you? If you look through the first couple of pages on this thread, we already discussed this: the baby is not intentionally killing the mom. Are you seriously going to hold a baby accountable for murder? If that is how you want to think, good luck.

Another problem is on who has the right to decide which human is 'worth' more. By being close minded to the baby, you are putting a 'value' on it. Pretty sure the constitution says all men created EQUAL. If you are religious then the baby is worth just as much as the mom is. From an evolutionists point of view, maybe that baby will one day be a prodigy of some sort, maybe be the reason we find the cure to cancer or some other huge discovery.

The reason you statement makes no sense is because someone can answer well they had all the time to save the baby. Also there are other ways to have a pregnancy too. When we say the mom will die from the birth, we are implying it will be born the natural way. We have saved mothers by cutting open the womb and delivering a baby that way. Are we also saying cutting the womb would still result in the death of the mom for this thread?

Also, it is a life-death situation, but again, you have plenty of time to think it over, which leads us to normative ethics which you can see more in depth over here: http://www.examiner.com/article/effective-decision-making-ethics-and-ethical-decisions.

So, your the mom, your dying, and you can easily save your life if you just didn't have the baby. So to save your life will come at the cost of an INNOCENT life. That is our dilemma right there.