Ad Hominems attacks are against the person, not the idea. Calling you an idiot or ignorant would be ad hominem. Calling your ideas silly is certainly a rhetoric

Ad Hominems attacks are against the person, not the idea. Calling you an idiot or ignorant would be ad hominem. Calling your ideas silly is certainly a rhetorical fallacy and not polite, but it's not ad hominum. I stand by my characterization. > A. No, because a blackboard is not a biological organism which is capable of manipulating the environment. Your statement was about removing information from the universe, not biological diversity. Evolution is a processes of removing biological diversity - that's how it works, so it may be ugly at times, but hard to call it unethical. > B. Red Herring, Straw Man. I like how you switched the argument over to sperms The argument is about removing genetic diversity, and if it applies to zygotes, it applies to sperm. Every sperm has unique genetics, so why not use them all? In fact, lets clone every egg and sperm and generate every possible combination - that will help evolution along. You have to follow statements to their logical conclusion, and in this case, it's absurd. > Are you now arguing for destroying information? Destruction of information is as important as creation. Forgetting is as important as remembering. Evolution is a process of natural selection, meaning those organisms not selected are lost. The human brain forgets almost everything it perceives so that it can remember what's important. Death is as important to evolution and species survival as birth. So yes, I am perfectly comfortable with the "loss" of information. I'm also comfortable with the loss of zygotes before they grow into sentient beings who are likely to lead a life of suffering and imposing suffering on others. Our species certainly does not need genetic diversity at the expense of other qualities. > Stupid and fat people have actually produced rather intelligent offspring, surprisingly. Do you deny this? No, but both characteristics are genetically influenced. Smarter people produce smarter offspring, and fat people produce fatter offspring. My point was not to advocate for eugenics, but to point out that if we are trying to help evolution along, that's the way to do it, not making unlimited babies. > When did I bring morality into it? I never did, just sheer math and evolution. I don't need morality to prove my point. Ok, so you are just advocating for a maximally dominant species, without regard to ethics. In that case, see above regarding helping evolution. > Are you proposing that we /should/ kill our young and unfit? No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely following the trails of logic. > "aborting babies ... helps [reduce] violence and suffering." Yes, aborting zygotes who are unwanted and are unlikely to be cared for certainly reduces violence and suffering, both for them and for those they will impose suffering upon. Churchills, as you call them, by and large come from loving, supporting families, have access to opportunity and education, are well fed and sheltered, and have strong communities. I don't know Churchill's biography, but I'm going to guess he was no gutter baby.