4 ms·
Unedited version of wikipedia? No idea what you are talking about. Isn't wikipedia all edits? Are you implying I edited wikipedia? I scrolled down to the part
by aneth4 14y ago
Unedited version of wikipedia? No idea what you are talking about. Isn't wikipedia all edits? Are you implying I edited wikipedia?
I scrolled down to the part titled "Defining ethics," which happened to be the first section, thinking that would be applicable to defining ethics.
If you read author's comments in the thread, you will see he is clearly making the point that destroying a zygote is a moral issue, as he says:
> It's the destroying of a genetically unique individual human that is the issue
in response to a question about whether destroying a zygote is "wrong".
Throw morality out the door, and he is stating that a zygote is genetically unique for some strange reason in a thread about the morality of abortion.
Besides, his implicit point is also wrong - that a zygote is distinctive in being genetically unique. Each sperm is also genetically unique, so it's a rather inapplicable statement to the context of the thread, unless masturbation is also a sin against the universe.
- marknadal 14y agoWhy did you not like the definition at the top? Instead scrolling to the other? Oh, right, was that the thread I replied to and then got invisibly downvoted without an explanation? (If it was you, I'd love to hear your response to the post. I assume it wasn't you, since you've consistently been replying to my other ones.) Maybe I'm too ignorant, but I don't understand how if one is viewing the subject from a evolutionary genetic perspective, why it is wrong to say that mechanisms that go against evolutionary development (abortion) are wrong. This seems reflexive. Like, he did not bring up the soul, or feelings, or religion. Just genetics. Can one not make "right/wrong" judgements from a genetic perspective? (I'm not a biologist, so I wouldn't know). A sperm, in terms of science, is useless without an egg. A species, in terms of science, is extinct without offspring. I don't care how much you masturbate, the universe doesn't care about sin but our species cares about zygotes and genetic diversity.
- aneth4 14y agoMark, your response is dead, so I can't respond to it. I don't do much voting honestly. > I don't understand how if one is viewing the subject from a evolutionary genetic perspective, why it is wrong to say that mechanisms that go against evolutionary development (abortion) are wrong If anything goes against "evolutionary development" it is using technology to increase genetic diversity without regard to fitness. Anyway, abortion does not go "against evolutionary development" any more than celibacy or monogamy.
- marknadal 14y agoWouldn't that be natural selection, not evolution? Although I know many people are commonly "directional" Evolutionists (forget the technical term) that evolution is progressing int a certain direction, rather than randomly in no direction.
- aneth4 14y agoEvolution is natural selection. They are precisely the same theory. Directed evolution is a whole different ball game that presupposes an active god or a detailed master plan. Either way, that is not evolution as most scientists would view it or as Darwin theorized. And regardless, humanity is not at risk of spoiling such plans.