Argument of insignificance.

[celticwar17]

I just want to point out one thing I see very often in the abortion debate.


There are many, when confronted with a moral question of whether an early pregnancy is in question of being terminated or not we get two very common responses.
" why would it be okay to murder the baby?"
"a mutilation that deserves the death penalty!"

"Its just a zygote"
"just a parasite"


Both these responses specifically target and try to persuade emotions in this argument.
One tries to heighten our notion of mercy and guilt, and even shock and disgust.

The other tries to completely make the situation seem insignificant and try's make people immune to otherwise some peoples first response of moral confliction (I know I made up a word :lol.


What I want to focus on is the second response.

I feel this way of thinking and this type of response is over-all very bad for the discussion and general cultural opinion on the matter.

(not direct correlation, but i see the similarities) The same method of making culture and people immune is used to let completely horrible actions and monstrosities to happen will the general public doesn't care whatsoever because its been socially acceptable.
Like some People in Africa so used to death
Like killing of jews in Germany
Like america going to war while casual citizens don't even have to think about it.

Has the same thing been done with abortion?

If everyone was to witness the actual procedure and see a developing baby ripped out? would they have a different opinion? Would it strengthen and change some views?

I think people should reconsider these arguments of insignificance , and we should actually debate on the real matters of morality and what it means to be human instead, you can show some compassion for people that actually do see significance in every-living thing and argue in consideration/respect for their respect of life.



meh I feel like I could of written that better but Im in a hurry, going to class :bolt

 

[Thunder]

yes, a 3-day old Zygote is pretty insignificant, in the greater scheme of things and the context of human life.

 

[StillBallin75]

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is true, but my general perception has been that most people, regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be pro-choice or pro-life, have some moral qualms about abortions that happen post-first trimester. I think very few people out there are okay with abortion as a casual form of birth control. So I don't really see this as a "desensitization" issue. The practice of induced abortions has pretty much existed throughout almost all of human history, so it's really not all that new. While I consider myself pro-life, I think the current cultural debate about abortion is due to certain social-cultural trends namely second and Third Wave feminism vs. that of evangelical fundamentalism, and it's an issue that's mainly dominated by those two groups while most other folks sit on the sidelines and simply don't have a real dog in the fight.

 

[jimbo]

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is true, but my general perception has been that most people, regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be pro-choice or pro-life, have some moral qualms about abortions that happen post-first trimester. I think very few people out there are okay with abortion as a casual form of birth control. So I don't really see this as a "desensitization" issue. The practice of induced abortions has pretty much existed throughout almost all of human history, so it's really not all that new. While I consider myself pro-life, I think the current cultural debate about abortion is due to certain social-cultural trends namely second and Third Wave feminism vs. that of evangelical fundamentalism.

I agree.

There is only one certainty in the abortion issue. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. Therefore, the argument becomes pointless.
I would expect that at some point in the history of the country an evangelical group will become powerful enough to swing the pendulum back the other way, but the argument will not change.

 

[StillBallin75]

I agree.

There is only one certainty in the abortion issue. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. Therefore, the argument becomes pointless.
I would expect that at some point in the history of the country an evangelical group will become powerful enough to swing the pendulum back the other way, but the argument will not change.

Well, often I feel like the disconnect between the two sides is that they are fundamentally arguing about two different things and talking past each other. And in all honesty, I believe in the near future most of the victories will go to the pro-lifers. You're already seeing the pendulum swing back with states implementing new laws regarding access to abortion.

 

[RamFel]

yes, a 3-day old Zygote is pretty insignificant, in the greater scheme of things and the context of human life.

A human Zygote is very significant. It's only one's politics that make a person take these views. Remove the politics, and the Zygote's significance is more apparent.

 

[samsmart]

I just want to point out one thing I see very often in the abortion debate.


There are many, when confronted with a moral question of whether an early pregnancy is in question of being terminated or not we get two very common responses.
" why would it be okay to murder the baby?"
"a mutilation that deserves the death penalty!"

"Its just a zygote"
"just a parasite"


Both these responses specifically target and try to persuade emotions in this argument.
One tries to heighten our notion of mercy and guilt, and even shock and disgust.

The other tries to completely make the situation seem insignificant and try's make people immune to otherwise some peoples first response of moral confliction (I know I made up a word :lol.


What I want to focus on is the second response.

I feel this way of thinking and this type of response is over-all very bad for the discussion and general cultural opinion on the matter.

(not direct correlation, but i see the similarities) The same method of making culture and people immune is used to let completely horrible actions and monstrosities to happen will the general public doesn't care whatsoever because its been socially acceptable.
Like some People in Africa so used to death
Like killing of jews in Germany
Like america going to war while casual citizens don't even have to think about it.

Has the same thing been done with abortion?

If everyone was to witness the actual procedure and see a developing baby ripped out? would they have a different opinion? Would it strengthen and change some views?

I think people should reconsider these arguments of insignificance , and we should actually debate on the real matters of morality and what it means to be human instead, you can show some compassion for people that actually do see significance in every-living thing and argue in consideration/respect for their respect of life.



meh I feel like I could of written that better but Im in a hurry, going to class :bolt

If you want to make those arguments of insignificance in regards to discussion of abortion, then I suggest making all the debates surrounding abortion arguments of insignificance in regards to discussion of birth control.

After all, abortions happen because they are unwanted pregnancies, and education on, providing of, and expansion to men of birth control methods will help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and thus will prevent the need or want of abortions in the first place.

 

[Goshin]

yes, a 3-day old Zygote is pretty insignificant, in the greater scheme of things and the context of human life.

Abortions are rarely performed on a 3 day old Zygote. Most women take a few weeks to realize that something changed and get an EPT.

Regardless, the fact that if you leave the developing unborn alone, in 9 months you get what is undeniably a human being with legal rights, trumps all other arguments. If it is a human person with rights 10 seconds after birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth. If it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 weeks before birth, and 20 weeks before birth, and probably from the moment it attached to the uterine wall and began to grow.

 

[samsmart]

Abortions are rarely performed on a 3 day old Zygote. Most women take a few weeks to realize that something changed and get an EPT.

Regardless, the fact that if you leave the developing unborn alone, in 9 months you get what is undeniably a human being with legal rights, trumps all other arguments. If it is a human person with rights 10 seconds after birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth. If it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 weeks before birth, and 20 weeks before birth, and probably from the moment it attached to the uterine wall and began to grow.

But the issue to whether it should be carried to term would be moot if women had better education of and easier access to processes that prevent it in the first place. It would also be rendered moot if pharmaceutical and medical companies also developed birth control methods for men to use.

 

[nonpareil]

I just want to point out one thing I see very often in the abortion debate.


There are many, when confronted with a moral question of whether an early pregnancy is in question of being terminated or not we get two very common responses.
" why would it be okay to murder the baby?"
"a mutilation that deserves the death penalty!"

"Its just a zygote"
"just a parasite"


Both these responses specifically target and try to persuade emotions in this argument.
One tries to heighten our notion of mercy and guilt, and even shock and disgust.

The other tries to completely make the situation seem insignificant and try's make people immune to otherwise some peoples first response of moral confliction (I know I made up a word :lol.


What I want to focus on is the second response.

I feel this way of thinking and this type of response is over-all very bad for the discussion and general cultural opinion on the matter.

(not direct correlation, but i see the similarities) The same method of making culture and people immune is used to let completely horrible actions and monstrosities to happen will the general public doesn't care whatsoever because its been socially acceptable.
Like some People in Africa so used to death
Like killing of jews in Germany
Like america going to war while casual citizens don't even have to think about it.

Has the same thing been done with abortion?

If everyone was to witness the actual procedure and see a developing baby ripped out? would they have a different opinion? Would it strengthen and change some views?

I think people should reconsider these arguments of insignificance , and we should actually debate on the real matters of morality and what it means to be human instead, you can show some compassion for people that actually do see significance in every-living thing and argue in consideration/respect for their respect of life.



meh I feel like I could of written that better but Im in a hurry, going to class :bolt

How do you know they haven't reconsidered and affirm their belief?

And why do you want to focus on one response and not another? Such an unbalance discussion is bias on its face.

"It's just a zygote" is not meant to elicit any emotional response or trivialise anything, it's just an honest opinion. It doesn't make any sense to consider a zygote as a person, because a centimeters wide ball of cells is not a person. You can believe differently, but it doesn't make the opinion any less valid. You can make the comparison to blacks being held as not a full person before, but if you extend this to zygotes, then why not accept PETA's extension to animals? A zealous PETA member might make the argument about "insignificance" that you do when you might say "It's just an animal", and in fact animals have higher cognitive ability than zygotes, they respond to pain and can communicate, why shouldn't we extend to them the rights of a person? If I buy your argument, why shouldn't I buy their argument?

From someone whose point of view is that the foetus is a not person, my thinking would be "people should reconsider the arguement that the zygote is a human being/person from conception". So there is nothing immoral about legalised abortion. It is however immoral to force women to maintain the pregnancy against their will - which is a deprivation of their rights to their bodies, to adopt a regime that results in women turning to underground abortions and hurt themselves, to stop scientific researches base on an inconsistent belief system.

Foetuses are lost by the millions every year from birth controls and spontaneous abortions. Why are the pro-life, anti-abortion people not making a big deal of that as they do with abortions? How many of them know how many millions foetuses are lost to miscarriages each year as opposed to abortion? What does that say about their belief that a zygote is as valuable as a person? Is there internal consistency within their stance, that they choose to make a big deal of "deaths" from one cause but not another? Is it the "death" of the foetuses that really matters to them or that we allow abortion?

 

[prometeus]

A human Zygote is very significant.

By what standards and what makes those standards the applicable ones?

 

[prometeus]

Abortions are rarely performed on a 3 day old Zygote. Most women take a few weeks to realize that something changed and get an EPT.

Is that an agreement that a 3 days old fetus is in fact insignificant? If so, in your opinion, when does it become significant?

Regardless, the fact that if you leave the developing unborn alone, in 9 months you get what is undeniably a human being with legal rights

Yes, that is what it WILL be, but the decision to abort is made in the present not the future.

trumps all other arguments.

Does it? Why?

If it is a human person with rights 10 seconds after birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth.

Right, now to have a valid point all you have to do is show evidence of at least one elective abortion that was done 10 seconds before birth. Make it an hour.

If it was a human person with rights 10 seconds before birth, then it was a human person with rights 10 weeks before birth, and 20 weeks before birth, and probably from the moment it attached to the uterine wall and began to grow.

Probably? So you are not sure. Why argue against a woman's freedom to choose when you are not sure?

 

[Goshin]

Is that an agreement that a 3 days old fetus is in fact insignificant? If so, in your opinion, when does it become significant?

Yes, that is what it WILL be, but the decision to abort is made in the present not the future.

Does it? Why?

Right, now to have a valid point all you have to do is show evidence of at least one elective abortion that was done 10 seconds before birth. Make it an hour.

Probably? So you are not sure. Why argue against a woman's freedom to choose when you are not sure?

People always seem to assume that I'm arguing against a woman's right to choose.

Would it shock you if I said I'm on the fence about whether abortion should be legal or illegal? I've heard compelling arguments both for and against.

The argument I'm making, the point I'm putting forward, is that let's not call it anything other than it is: the termination of a human life. And let's not trivialize it and pretend it is unimportant.


That's all.

 

[Sig]

If everyone was to witness the actual procedure and see a developing baby ripped out? would they have a different opinion? Would it strengthen and change some views?

I think people should reconsider these arguments of insignificance , and we should actually debate on the real matters of morality and what it means to be human instead, you can show some compassion for people that actually do see significance in every-living thing and argue in consideration/respect for their respect of life.

You want to see something truly disturbing, try watching postnatal infants and toddlers starve to death because the society into which they were born was so irrational, so disorganized, and so dysfunctional that it could no longer feed its own children.

Abortion is intuitively repugnant because, for most of human history, women could not have enough children due to the high rate of infant mortality. Such is not the case anymore. Earth is now inhabited by 7 billion people and counting. Any nation presently extant that fails to maintain rational policies for organized reproduction of its own citizenry will not likely be extant 100 years from now.

 

[prometeus]

People always seem to assume that I'm arguing against a woman's right to choose.

I did not assume that, you made that clear a while back. I was simply interested in your line of reasoning.

Would it shock you if I said I'm on the fence about whether abortion should be legal or illegal?

As I said no.

The argument I'm making, the point I'm putting forward, is that let's not call it anything other than it is: the termination of a human life.

Yes, from a strictly biological perspective that is true.

And let's not trivialize it and pretend it is unimportant.

And this is the crux of the issue. Why is it important, what makes it important, is that importance universal and above all, it it important enough to curtail the freedom of self determination of women? I say no.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I just want to point out one thing I see very often in the abortion debate.


There are many, when confronted with a moral question of whether an early pregnancy is in question of being terminated or not we get two very common responses.
" why would it be okay to murder the baby?"
"a mutilation that deserves the death penalty!"

"Its just a zygote"
"just a parasite"


Both these responses specifically target and try to persuade emotions in this argument.
One tries to heighten our notion of mercy and guilt, and even shock and disgust.

The other tries to completely make the situation seem insignificant and try's make people immune to otherwise some peoples first response of moral confliction (I know I made up a word :lol.


What I want to focus on is the second response.

I feel this way of thinking and this type of response is over-all very bad for the discussion and general cultural opinion on the matter.

(not direct correlation, but i see the similarities) The same method of making culture and people immune is used to let completely horrible actions and monstrosities to happen will the general public doesn't care whatsoever because its been socially acceptable.
Like some People in Africa so used to death
Like killing of jews in Germany
Like america going to war while casual citizens don't even have to think about it.

Has the same thing been done with abortion?

If everyone was to witness the actual procedure and see a developing baby ripped out? would they have a different opinion? Would it strengthen and change some views?

I think people should reconsider these arguments of insignificance , and we should actually debate on the real matters of morality and what it means to be human instead, you can show some compassion for people that actually do see significance in every-living thing and argue in consideration/respect for their respect of life.



meh I feel like I could of written that better but Im in a hurry, going to class :bolt

Well - I, for one, emphasize the significance of human life and all the many realities that come along with conceiving and birthing a child into the world. It is by far MORE than 'just an unborn baby' in discussion.

BUT the wording and repeating there-of relies, for me, on the outlet. On line is VERY different than in real life discussion in a casual setting. And these two outlets are also VERY different than how I would discuss it in a class at school, as well.

The wording I choose regarding things on the internet isn't the same as how I would engage in discussion face-to-face with someone and I think that's the huge divided-line with people between 1) giving their reasons for/against abortion 2) countering arguments 3) being considerate of other people's feelings.

On the internet: there are no facial expressions and body language to read and respond to - only words. People tend to be more blunt and that also leaves room for misinterpretation OR for mis-application of potential emotion.

I've been accused numerous times of 'being emotional' when I'm not. . .I'm just calmly discussing the subject. Or I've been accused of 'making an appeal to emotion' when I'm just discussing the far-reaching and blunt broad-spectrum aspects of parenting/child rearing/conception (etc)

Some people, for some reason, argue that any discussion of 'how a child affects me - or you - or us' is emotionally-driven . . .and try to throw it out. That, though, is reality - the majority of parenting or carrying a child (believe it or not) is VERY personal and complicated - the future of things cannot be ignored but often is.

It's also extremely HARD to discuss a topic with people who try to only focus on 'logic' - because humans aren't logical (thank heavens for that).

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It's not necessary for humans to trivialize it. Nature trivializes it just fine on its own.

It's impossible to get a precise number, but the best guess is that 75% of fertilized eggs self-abort, probably spread half-and-half before and after implantation. As much as 80% of these will not even be noticed by the woman. Nature quite obviously doesn't care very much. And it is blatantly dishonest to say that "if left alone" a fertilized egg, or even an implanted blasocyst, will turn into a human. It usually doesn't.

Humans are incredibly good at justifying and intellectualizing our more basic drives. But that doesn't change what they are, at the root of it. People are very good at pretending the more ape-ish parts of their behavior are somehow transcendent. And justifying certain things goes in and out of vogue.

What's interesting is that much of this justification and intellectualizing on pregnancy specifically is new. Older civilizations didn't even count infants as humans until 2-5 months old, seeming to intuit a reality of human reproduction: all babies are born premature due to the anatomical limitations of being bipedal and having large skulls. While there was often a punishment for harming a woman's pregnancy, this had to do with encouraging fecundity in small tribes, not with the "life" and "rights" of the fetus.

In actuality, there was very little importance attached to children apart from their ability to eventually work, demonstrate good lineage (which was, back then, the same as having high net worth, as social status was traded through marriage) or help build an army. Loss of pregnancy and children was more common, and with every woman experiencing at least one or two losses, it was just seen as what it is: life is fairly trivial in the eyes of nature. There was no one attempting to dig a 5-week-old zygote out of a uterine clot to bury it, like there is today. Our pregnancy obsession is bordering on creepy.

This strange notion of a handful of cells being a human is a very modern notion. It's nothing but a cultural mood. It has no logical or scientific basis, and it will swing over the future as it has in the past.

The idea of controlling reproduction is a far older notion, and much more enduring. This stands to reason, as it's a more logical train of thought than that of uncontrolled reproduction... and thus requires no justification.

At the end of the day, pregnancy is precisely as important as the individual wants it to be. No more, no less.

 

[prometeus]

It's not necessary for humans to trivialize it. Nature trivializes it just fine on its own.

It's impossible to get a precise number, but the best guess is that 75% of fertilized eggs self-abort, probably spread half-and-half before and after implantation. As much as 80% of these will not even be noticed by the woman. Nature quite obviously doesn't care very much. And it is blatantly dishonest to say that "if left alone" a fertilized egg, or even an implanted blasocyst, will turn into a human. It usually doesn't.

Humans are incredibly good at justifying and intellectualizing our more basic drives. But that doesn't change what they are, at the root of it. People are very good at pretending the more ape-ish parts of their behavior are somehow transcendent. And justifying certain things goes in and out of vogue.

What's interesting is that much of this justification and intellectualizing on pregnancy specifically is new. Older civilizations didn't even count infants as humans until 2-5 months old, seeming to intuit a reality of human reproduction: all babies are born premature due to the anatomical limitations of being bipedal and having large skulls. While there was often a punishment for harming a woman's pregnancy, this had to do with encouraging fecundity in small tribes, not with the "life" and "rights" of the fetus.

In actuality, there was very little importance attached to children apart from their ability to eventually work, demonstrate good lineage (which was, back then, the same as having high net worth, as social status was traded through marriage) or help build an army. Loss of pregnancy and children was more common, and with every woman experiencing at least one or two losses, it was just seen as what it is: life is fairly trivial in the eyes of nature. There was no one attempting to dig a 5-week-old zygote out of a uterine clot to bury it, like there is today. Our pregnancy obsession is bordering on creepy.

This strange notion of a handful of cells being a human is a very modern notion. It's nothing but a cultural mood. It has no logical or scientific basis, and it will swing over the future as it has in the past.

The idea of controlling reproduction is a far older notion, and much more enduring. This stands to reason, as it's a more logical train of thought than that of uncontrolled reproduction... and thus requires no justification.

At the end of the day, pregnancy is precisely as important as the individual wants it to be. No more, no less.

Good post, good points.

 

[Bodi]

yes, a 3-day old Zygote is pretty insignificant, in the greater scheme of things and the context of human life.

Yeah... but so are you. So am I. That argument doesn't hold any water.

 

[Bodi]

What's interesting is that much of this justification and intellectualizing on pregnancy specifically is new. Older civilizations didn't even count infants as humans until 2-5 months old, seeming to intuit a reality of human reproduction: all babies are born premature due to the anatomical limitations of being bipedal and having large skulls. While there was often a punishment for harming a woman's pregnancy, this had to do with encouraging fecundity in small tribes, not with the "life" and "rights" of the fetus.

It is called evolving...

The idea of justification and intellectualizing on slavery is specifically is new as well. Same with granting women the right to vote, own land and be in the military.

...for one I am glad that we have evolved to the point that we debate this instead of looking at pregnancy dispassionately.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It is called evolving...

The idea of justification and intellectualizing on slavery is specifically is new as well. Same with granting women the right to vote, own land and be in the military.

...for one I am glad that we have evolved to the point that we debate this instead of looking at pregnancy dispassionately.

Evolution isn't always good. Evolution tries everything and anything, without regard to what's actually wise - that's something you find out in the process. All kinds of insane and stupid ideas pop up as we go through the ages. Most of them get Darwinized. This will almost certainly be one of them.

It is already losing popularity, globally speaking. As ideas go, this one has been extremely short-lived. It's dead already in much of the world. It's experiencing a temporary revival in some of the more vulnerable areas in the wake of a stressed and fearful global mood, which is a fantastic fertilizer for bad ideas. But over the long term, this particular idea is already terminal.

 

[Bodi]

Evolution isn't always good. Evolution tries everything and anything, without regard to what's actually wise - that's something you find out in the process. All kinds of insane and stupid ideas pop up as we go through the ages. Most of them get Darwinized. This will almost certainly be one of them.

It is already losing popularity, globally speaking. As ideas go, this one has been extremely short-lived. It's dead already in much of the world. It's experiencing a temporary revival in some of the more vulnerable areas in the wake of a stressed and fearful global mood, which is a fantastic fertilizer for bad ideas. But over the long term, this particular idea is already terminal.

Not evolution... evolving. Morally. Evolution does not see a species retain bad traits as those traits see the animals die off. With regards to morally evolving... yes, we can sometimes latch onto bad ideas, but that is not evolution, hence my slavery and woman's rights comparisons. Thankfully we see these ideas die off and be repaced with better ideas. Abortion is one of them. It was illegal and that was a horrible decision akin to slavery.

 

[Bodi]

You want to see something truly disturbing, try watching postnatal infants and toddlers starve to death because the society into which they were born was so irrational, so disorganized, and so dysfunctional that it could no longer feed its own children.

Abortion is intuitively repugnant because, for most of human history, women could not have enough children due to the high rate of infant mortality. Such is not the case anymore. Earth is now inhabited by 7 billion people and counting. Any nation presently extant that fails to maintain rational policies for organized reproduction of its own citizenry will not likely be extant 100 years from now.

The solution is not to kill developing humans simply because born humans can't function properly. We have the capacity to feed and care for billions of more people on this planet without difficulty. It is illogical to argue that because some die outside the womb for stupid reasons that we should condone killing some inside the womb for stupid reasons.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Not evolution... evolving. Morally. Evolution does not see a species retain bad traits as those traits see the animals die off. With regards to morally evolving... yes, we can sometimes latch onto bad ideas, but that is not evolution, hence my slavery and woman's rights comparisons. Thankfully we see these ideas die off and be repaced with better ideas. Abortion is one of them. It was illegal and that was a horrible decision akin to slavery.

Your slavery and women's rights comparisons are such complete non-sequitors that it's hard to even pick a place to begin. You already know what the response is - that you're comparing a living, sentient organism to what is essentially a smaller and softer-shelled version of what you eat for breakfast. And I already know that logic is not where your type of thought comes from, thus logic makes no difference to you.

Evolution produces bad things on a regular basis. Evolution is the entire process - not just the end result (which can be either neutral or positive, and strictly speaking there's no such thing as an "end result"). Bad things don't stay, but they happen all the time.

There was a period of time where we intellectualized pedophilia, and even that lasted longer than it looks like anti-choice is going to.

You can use bogus analogies all you like, but pedophiles use the slavery analogy as well. It's so asinine in either case it's really not worth attempting to address - like someone who asks "why monkeys still exist" if evolution is true. Where to even begin?

 

[Bodi]

Your slavery and women's rights comparisons are such complete non-sequitors that it's hard to even pick a place to begin. You already know what the response is - that you're comparing a living, sentient organism to what is essentially a smaller and softer-shelled version of what you eat for breakfast. And I already know that logic is not where your type of thought comes from, thus logic makes no difference to you.

Evolution produces bad things on a regular basis. Evolution is the entire process - not just the end result (which can be either neutral or positive, and strictly speaking there's no such thing as an "end result"). Bad things don't stay, but they happen all the time.

There was a period of time where we intellectualized pedophilia, and even that lasted longer than it looks like anti-choice is going to.

You can use bogus analogies all you like, but pedophiles use the slavery analogy as well. It's so asinine in either case it's really not worth attempting to address - like someone who asks "why monkeys still exist" if evolution is true. Where to even begin?

Why monkeys exist? Because they found their niche. Pretty obvious.

I won't get into the "where your type" comment is except to say that if that is how limited your thought process is... the debate is already over.

Debate moral evolution. Societal advances. Cultural awakenings. Debate these aspects and how they are reflected in our legal structure.

The analogy has nothing to do with a living developed person and a soft-shell human. I am sticking to logic, you just don't understand the argument since you are all wrapped up in arrogant posturing.

Lastly, to compare my analogy to pedophilia is completely and utterly childish... not to mention illogical and a veiled (whiney ass) add hom.

Anything else scooter or is this the best that you have?

Thought so...