Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 6 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 86% |
Arguments: | 6 |
Debates: | 0 |
all traits do not have an equal chance of being carried on. without medical intervention, many traits would kill off the organism before it had a chance to have offspring and carry on that trait to the next generation. we are interfering with natural (i.e. without human intervention) evolution, but mutations occur at the same rate. medical intervention is not "slowing" evolution, nor are we "losing" our ability to evolve, human intervention is merely changing it from what it would otherwise be without it.
not exactly. evolution kills off non survival traits not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation. "adaptation" doesn't occur in one lifespan but over many. by medicine artificially prolonging the life of humans with non survival traits, it allows them to have offspring with this non survival trait and pass it on. this wouldn't occur in nature without medical intervention. that is what eugenics was all about.
I am completely against abortion except where the mother's life is at stake. those who are "pro choice" must prove that this thing they want to abort is not a human being, since if I am wrong, I do not commit murder, putting the burden of proof squarely on them. further, it is not the "woman's body," since this entity has its own DNA which is different than the mother's and it merely resides in her body as opposed to being her body.
however, I am even more against the notion that the government in its majestic notion of "justice," (I can't actually write that without laughing), can decide who is guilty of this crime and sending them to prison when one considers all the innocents that are fed to the prison industrial complex to make money for lawyers, prisons and their ilk in the "land of the free."
so I am actually pro choice for this reason. where else is the debate here?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |