Female FeticideFollow

Balance. If everybody is smart and attractive, what is there to distinguish us all from one another?

Realistically, it'd probably be incredibly difficult to get to that point. In general, I think it would be fantastic if we had more smart people around. Not that the movie Idiocracy is a great example of sociological theory, but I know that that concept probably worries a lot of smart people. It worries me when I think about it.

"Our"?

I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.

If everyone was smart and attractive, the scale would shift. We'd still have people that we'd consider ugly or dumb, and those that we'd consider beautiful or smart. They'd be better relative to where we are now, but that hypothetical society would still regard them the same way as always. They might all be more similar, but we'd proportionally increase the importance of minute differences to fit it within the same old dualities.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:43pm by Eske

[:scoff:]

Well I never! I turn my nose up at you, madame.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:51pm by Eske

That's probably very likely. Even now, we have people that are considered ugly, plain, pretty, beautiful, and gorgeous. There's a big gap between even pretty and gorgeous people, let alone ugly and gorgeous people. If everyone had access to genetic engineering and chose to make smart, beautiful babies, the gap would probably just shrink instead of disappear completely.

If it happened all of a sudden on a massive scale, you might perceive it that way. But because "ugly" and "beautiful" are subjective, ever-changing qualities influenced by a myriad of subconscious feelings, in all likelihood it'd be as if nothing changed. As generations grow up habituated to increasingly beautiful people, they'd perceive it as standard. They'd identify a medium, a pinnacle, and a bottom. The gap ends up being the same size; it's the qualities on either end of it that change.

It depends on why you support abortion. If you support abortion as a legal option but do not necessarily agree with the process, then no. However, if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child, but just a splash of cells, etc., then yes.

You clearly don't get the purpose of an intelligent population.

You can easily design a robot or minimally engineered human to do do those jobs. It'll be a new world, for those brave enough to grasp it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Assuming you were responding to my post, are you saying that having the "right to abort" can be infringed for some reason other than a competing right depending on why you support abortion? That doesn't make much sense. If your reason for supporting abortion does not include an assumption that the woman has some right to have one, then the issue is irrelevant. It's not about whether non-rights can compete with the right to abort, but that you don't believe that the right to abort exists in the first place.


I was making that argument that if you do believe that having an abortion is a right and should be protected, then any infringement of that right should be justified base on some other competing right. For those people, withholding ultrasound results should be seen as a clear violation of that right. Obviously, if you don't believe in said right in the first place, then you can restrict abortion for any reason you want. But if that's the case, then a whole hell of a lot of the pro-choice argument disappears in a puff of smoke.

Nonsense. I'm not a proponent of banning it, but I couldn't give less of a **** about the blob of cells in the woman's uterus. It's the underlying reason-- that they view half of the human race as second-class. Crazily enough, it tends to be expressed in other ways, too.

Overwhelmingly the responses in this thread (Sweetums included) claim that it's not wrong for a woman to have an abortion (regardless of reason). Independent of that argument, most also negatively view a societal believe that woman are of less worth than men.

But perhaps you're just practicing. If so, carry on.




Edited, Jan 27th 2012 6:30pm by Elinda

But I'll try a flyby pass:

Sometimes actions in themselves are not wrong. But they can have negative consequences further down the line, especially en masse. The latter mass effect is so negative in effect on everyone, that it becomes necessary to regulate the original behaviour.