Talk:Abortion

From EvoWiki

Is this a creationist claim? Evolution supporting abortion? Is there a source for it? --tk (t) 10:03, 7 Jul 2005 (BST)

I don't think it fits under creationist claims necessarily. This seems (based on the title) like it ought to be more of a general abortion page. The seed merely focused on the evolution angle. As for the abortion-evolution link, it seems to be fairly commonplace to me, although not so much as racism and eugenics. Googling around, I'm having trouble finding any big names that support this argument. AiG has a few suggestive statements, and I seem to recall that Hovind explicitly states that the two are related, though I don't have a source for that right now. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 10:26, 7 Jul 2005 (BST)

Looks like John Kerry's Conscience's illinformed political ramblings again. Joe D (t) 17:40, 7 Jul 2005 (BST)

I'm not familiar with that person. Is he/she/it a troll or vandal? As long as the information is coherent and accurate, I don't really mind. It is, of course, true that evolution doesn't support abortion. Furthermore, even if we invoked the naturalistic fallacy, evolution would appear to oppose abortion. Of course, if you think this article is irrelevant, feel free to vote to delete it. I'm not exactly attached to it. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:45, 7 Jul 2005 (BST)

The article claims "Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy..." Is this accurate? My perception of the word has always been that "abortion" referred to termination of a pregnancy, either by a willful act or by natural causes (aka "spontaneous abortion"). --Suttkus 22:31, 27 March 2006 (BST)

Moved from article

Evolution and Abortion

Evolution does not favor the concept of abortion. Even ignoring the Naturalistic Fallacy, if a person slaughters their own young, they lower their chance of producing offspring and passing down their DNA. If a person has an abortion, she not only is allowing her young to be slaughtered, she is damaging her body, and increasing the chances that she will not reproduce. Anyone who understands what the theory of evolution states understands that abortion is not supported by the theory of evolution in any way.

If this is a creationist claim, it should be formatted and presented as such. The statment "Evolution does not favor the concept of abortion" is nonsense. --RonZ 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the person who was making this claim fails to acknowledge cases in nature where pregnant animals will spontaneously abort a fetus when severely stressed, or encountering extremely unfavorable environmental conditions in which to raise a baby (like in deer).--Mr A. 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is spontaneous, then let it happen. But, do not make any other stupid move. Keep the baby. He or she might become a king or a queen. --Juvenis 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You do must realize that the only way to become a king or queen outside of being born into a royal family, and be chosen by the current monarch to be the heir to the throne upon the current monarch's demise or abdication, is to form a new country, or forcibly conquer another preexisting country, and, when you have made yourself the only viable political power there, declare yourself a new king and or queen.--Mr A. 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. The unborn child could buy an island in the South Pacific and declare himself as the king of the island when he grown up. The proud parents could also enjoy their lives there. Imagine the white soft beach and the coconuts. This could be a significant benefit for not to abort the baby. Seriously, I don't think (although I don't really know) the case of deer you mentioned could be true. Wild baffalos in African savanna will have their calves born even the herd is surrounded and constantly threatened by lions years around. The majority of the casualty on the buffalo herd is on calves. --Juvenis 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You also fail to realize that virtually all of the islands in the South Pacific happen to be either their own sovereign nations, or are the property of other nations; that declaring one the ruler of a deserted island falls under "to form a new country;" a baby can not survive and develop indefinently on just coconuts; and since when can a woman obtain access to an abortion clinic on a deserted island in the South Pacific in the first place? Deer, other ungulates, and other mammals can, do, will, and have been observed to abort their pregnancies if they are pregnant during unfavorable environmental conditions, such as a prolonged drought, or when the local dominant male has been usurped by a new male.--Mr A. 18:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)