• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SMOGZINN said:
Sex creates bonds. It gives us reasons protect one another, to bond together as a group to work together for common goals. It is part of what creates society.

Reproduction is a part of that, but the whole is so much larger.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering why you chose the bond forming part of sex as the primary purpose, as opposed to reproduction. Also, the bonds created secondary to sex are supposed to promote monogamy and I'm wondering how that automatically leads to a society working together for common goals.
 
TheVrolok said:
I asked because I was simply wondering at what capacity you would place the cutoff? Should the severely mentally handicapped be terminated at birth because their ability to think is, perhaps, not that much better than a dog's.
Click to expand...

That is a hard thing. The fact is I can not know what their experience is. Are they capable of thought and just not able to communicate it? If they truly have a thought capacity that falls to that of a dog, I do not really consider them human, they are merely human looking. But, since I can never be sure that they can not think, right now I prefer to error on the side of caution. It costs society little to be magnanimous in these cases.
 
HAL9000 said:
"Make for me or my family"...?

Aside from that, I'm not talking about your family, I'm using it as an example. the question stands, in a situation where the parents choose if their child dies, and one says yes the other says no, which decision should you go with?
Click to expand...

It's up to them to decide amongst themselves. I'm not going to take sides with either one.

And don't think this in any way relates to the question at hand. It does not.
 
Did you know 1 in 3 women will have an abortion? I read this statistic in the newspaper this morning and it blew my mind.
 
SMOGZINN said:
That is a hard thing. The fact is I can not know what their experience is. Are they capable of thought and just not able to communicate it? If they truly have a thought capacity that falls to that of a dog, I do not really consider them human, they are merely human looking. But, since I can never be sure that they can not think, right now I prefer to error on the side of caution. It costs society little to be magnanimous in these cases.
Click to expand...

So, for you, humanity boils down to an IQ?
 
TheVrolok said:
I'm wondering why you chose the bond forming part of sex as the primary purpose, as opposed to reproduction. Also, the bonds created secondary to sex are supposed to promote monogamy and I'm wondering how that automatically leads to a society working together for common goals.
Click to expand...

There is very, very little evidence that the sexual bonds are supposed to promote monogamy. Monogamy is not natural. There are extremely few cases of it in nature (almost all of them in very short lived species), and not too many in humans. The evidence I take for the bond argument is all the 'feel good' chemicals that are released in our system with sex, those have little use other then to foster bonds. They are more important to the system then the whole pregnancy thing, as they are released on a whole slew of sexual play that could not lead to reproduction.
 
HAL9000 said:
You don't
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. What you described was not an explicit consent to pregnancy. Consent is given to someone. Even assuming arguendo the personhood of a fetus, it doesn't even exist to receive consent.

So, tell me again about how much you know regarding explicit consent. Moron. 🙄
 
TheVrolok said:
So, for you, humanity boils down to an IQ?
Click to expand...

Yes, but be carful here. IQ is not the same as the ability to think. IQ is more or less the ability to think fast (with some memory retention thrown in, really it is a poorly defined concept.)

The idea of thinking I'm talking about is more or less the ability to have will, and to subject your will on your environment. It is the ability to reason. Many animals have this, but for that animal to reach human levels it needs it in abundance. I accept that things not Homo Sapiens could nonetheless be 'human'.
 
TheVrolok said:
I've used a form of birth control 99.9% of the times I've had sex, a measure manufactured to prevent pregnancy .. of course the number of pregnancies would be low. There are numerous, numerous, numerous biological processes that do not have 100% (or anywhere near it) efficiency in carrying out their designed function; this does not suggestion a lack of correlation between the act and function or purpose.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that any biological process was designed. Sound conclusions can only be derived from objective facts, and alleged "designed functions" of biological processes are not among those.
 
SMOGZINN said:
There is very, very little evidence that the sexual bonds are supposed to promote monogamy. Monogamy is not natural. There are extremely few cases of it in nature (almost all of them in very short lived species), and not too many in humans. The evidence I take for the bond argument is all the 'feel good' chemicals that are released in our system with sex, those have little use other then to foster bonds. They are more important to the system then the whole pregnancy thing, as they are released on a whole slew of sexual play that could not lead to reproduction.
Click to expand...

That's actually untrue. Neurobiology studies of vasopression/oxytocin action are showing that the release of these hormones during sex is what begins to form the behaviors of monogamy. Also, you're saying that sex "feeling good" is what primarily bonds people, not reproduction, child rearing, etc.?
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
There is no evidence that any biological process was designed. Sound conclusions can only be derived from objective facts, and alleged "designed functions" of biological processes are not among those.
Click to expand...

I was not implying any sort of divine creation, simply saying that there was some sort of problem that needed to be solved to get from point A to point B and a process (function) evolved to fill that role. It came into being to serve a specific function - designed.
 
TheVrolok said:
That's actually untrue. Neurobiology studies of vasopression/oxytocin action are showing that the release of these hormones during sex is what begins to form the behaviors of monogamy. Also, you're saying that sex "feeling good" is what primarily bonds people, not reproduction, child rearing, etc.?
Click to expand...

No, those chemicals form social bonds between two people, not monogamous bonds.
If monogamous bonds formed naturally we would not need to have all these laws and rules against cheating.

Yes, the cocktail of chemicals is what forms bonds. Many on other species do not have them, and subsequently do not form societies. The father has no interest in the children, and does not stick around to raise them. We see the same thing in humans that have children with women that they have no had much sexual bonding with. They tend to have very low bond with the children, and have a much lower chance of taking an interest in them.
 
yea given this dudes obvious mental issues I think abortion or miscarriage was the right move. His genetics don't need to be copied.
 
SMOGZINN said:
No, those chemicals form social bonds between two people, not monogamous bonds.
If monogamous bonds formed naturally we would not need to have all these laws and rules against cheating.
Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15582383

Obviously this an experiment in lab animals, but we must begin somewhere and experimental neurobiology on humans is frowned upon. I also said begins to form the behaviors of monogamy; not that inseparably bind two people. There are many, many, many factors involved in social interaction but there IS some physical evidence that hormones may help regulate monogamy.
 
TheVrolok said:
That's actually untrue. Neurobiology studies of vasopression/oxytocin action are showing that the release of these hormones during sex is what begins to form the behaviors of monogamy.
Click to expand...

Also, the studies that show this are heavily contested as being a biased conclusion. I've read many of those studies and they more correctly show that they form pair bonds, not monogamous pair bonds. Nothing about them seems to create exclusionary emotional attachment.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Also, the studies that show this are heavily contested as being a biased conclusion. I've read many of those studies and they more correctly show that they form pair bonds, not monogamous pair bonds. Nothing about them seems to create exclusionary emotional attachment.
Click to expand...

I would love to read more studies as it's an interesting topic, got a few links or at least paper titles? I don't always have time to keep current on many of the readings I like to do, so any suggestions would be appreciated.
 
TheVrolok said:
I was not implying any sort of divine creation
Click to expand...
I didn't say you did.

...simply saying that there was some sort of problem that needed to be solved to get from point A to point B and a process (function) evolved to fill that role.
Click to expand...
Evolution does not work that way. Objectively, you can only talk about what things do. Once you start making claims about what something is for, you've abandoned objectivity, and are instead projecting purpose onto objectively purposeless processes.

It came into being to serve a specific function - designed.
Click to expand...
False.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top