Here Is An Interesting Scenario

[singinbeauty]

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

[singinbeauty]

So just because a child is born of a rapist or a murderer or anyother person who is violent (a wife beater) then they should automatically be deemed unworthy of life and we should kill them? And who appointed us god? There are evil people out there and there is no proof that says, no matter what, babies born of evil people turn out evil also. Now, if they grow up in the house with that violent person then yes, I do believe that they could inharet the behavior but when not in that household I think that they could hold healthy lives. How can a person with an upbringing in a household with two loving parents and a good home become a serial killer? Most studies done on killers blame their upbringing not their genetics. Profilists for the FBI look at how the person was raised not who their parents were in a genetic sense. Violence is a learned behavior... if it was genetic then there wouldn't be people out there who have broken the cycle of violence and instead of hitting their wife they have other methods of getting their frustrations out.

[Gaunt]

So just because a child is born of a rapist or a murderer or anyother person who is violent (a wife beater) then they should automatically be deemed unworthy of life and we should kill them?

No one is suggesting infanticide. That is an entirely different statement from abortion.

You seem to be on the side of "Nurture" in the nature vs nurture debate. Jose has shown that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that nature might have an impact on it. Is it not concievable that in practice, it is a combination of both? It is not necessary that violence, or any other behavior for that matter, only be explained by one or the other.

if it was genetic then there wouldn't be people out there who have broken the cycle of violence

There are overweight people with glandular disorders as the cause for their obesity. Conversely, there are people with glandular disorders that are fit and in shape. Simply because something is genetic does not mean we must be a slave to it. Our reason allows us, to some extent, to counteract our genetic dispositions. That does not mean the genetic dispositions do not exist, only that we have some control over the ultimate result.

[singinbeauty]

There are overweight people with glandular disorders as the cause for their obesity. Conversely, there are people with glandular disorders that are fit and in shape. Simply because something is genetic does not mean we must be a slave to it. Our reason allows us, to some extent, to counteract our genetic dispositions. That does not mean the genetic dispositions do not exist, only that we have some control over the ultimate result.

If we are going to say this then... Someone who is genetically disposed to violence (and I am still not sold on this ) has control and there is no guarantee that they will not be able to control this behavior. So the need to abort babies conceived of murderers, rapists, and such is not such a need after all.

[Gaunt]

Someone who is genetically disposed to violence has control and there is no guarantee that they will not be able to control this behavior

Someone who is genetically disposed to violence May have control. Notice how few people have actually "broken free" from their genetic predispositions. There might not be any guarantee, but the results of someone predisposed to violence are much more harmful to society than someone who is predisposed to being overweight or even, as Spongemom said, mental illness.

Plus you have to take into account that the mother does not want the child anyway. That will not likely lead to a violence free existance, and the government sponsered child care program is not particularly well known for raising children in a violence free environment. If the mother wants to keep the child, all well and good, but if she is forced to have the child of her rapist? That is an entirely different ball game.

[Amadeus]

I still don't agree.
Abuse is a horrible thing. I may have experienced it first hand. My mother was abused through out all of her growing up years. Other traumatic things have happened to me and my family, but that does not make life a waste of time, or a cruel existence. I love life, as does my mother.

Just because an infant has the probability of being raised in an abusive environment does not mean we should spare them from that pain. It may shape them into who they were ment to be. We could be aborting the future president, or the next great scientist.

Abuse is an awful prospect, and makes life difficult. Abortion, howerver, makes life impossible.
I'd rather have a difficult life than no life at all.

[Gaunt]

Just because an infant has the probability of being raised in an abusive environment does not mean we should spare them from that pain.

I think you misunderstand the argument. Singinbeauty was saying that even if someone were genetically predisposed to violence, they could overcome that tendency if they are given the correct environment. My response was that the correct environment would be difficult if not impossible to find if the child was not wanted in the first place.
Abuse does not really enter into it.

We could be aborting the future president, or the next great scientist.

We could be aborting the next Jack the Ripper, Stalin or Hitler. Speculation as to who or what may be aborted generally balances out.

[Jose]

So just because a child is born of a rapist or a murderer or anyother person who is violent (a wife beater) then they should automatically be deemed unworthy of life and we should kill them?

Gosh…did someone say we should? I hope you don't think that. I merely pointed out one of the reasons that someone who has been raped is justified in not wanting to carry the baby to term. I certainly wouldn't want to. If there are women who want to bear the children of rapists and murderers, that's up to them. But is the converse correct--that we should force the rape victim to bear her rapist's child?

There are evil people out there and there is no proof that says, no matter what, babies born of evil people turn out evil also.

Again, no one said they do. Perhaps you are jumping to a conclusion, following a common misconception. Many people seem to think that "genetics is destiny," and that any genetic character that you have guarantees that you have no choice in the matter. That may be true for eye color, but it certainly isn't for behavior. For "evil behavior," the genetic component should be seen as similar to the genetic components of alcoholism: a risk factor. Other behaviors, and certain environmental conditions can overcome the risk. On the other hand, different behaviors and environmental factors may easily turn the risk into reality--moreso than for those without the genetic risk factor.

Now, if they grow up in the house with that violent person then yes, I do believe that they could inharet the behavior but when not in that household I think that they could hold healthy lives.

Technically speaking, they cannot "inherit" behavior except genetically. You're thinking in terms of their being taught the behavior. You're right, of course. As I noted above, environment plays a role, either increasing or decreasing the risk of developing that behavior.

How can a person with an upbringing in a household with two loving parents and a good home become a serial killer?

I don't know…but it's happened. Quite a surprise.

Most studies done on killers blame their upbringing not their genetics. Profilists for the FBI look at how the person was raised not who their parents were in a genetic sense. Violence is a learned behavior... if it was genetic then there wouldn\'t be people out there who have broken the cycle of violence and instead of hitting their wife they have other methods of getting their frustrations out.

Indeed, the tradition is to blame upbringing, just as the tradition is to blame "lifestyle choice" for homosexuality. This doesn't mean that the tradition is correct. As I noted before, behavioral genetics is new, and has certainly not worked out any clear details. Nor has it worked its way into the legal system. What we know is that there are genetic components. There is much of behavior that is, in fact, not learned. In many cases, we can learn how to "break the cycle," as you have said--just as it is possible to learn how to "start the cycle." Learning also plays a role. Some people don't like to think that genetics is involved at all (ie, and make bold statements of fact, like "violence is learned behavior"), because it implies that they are not in control of their lives. I see it the other way around: if we do know it, and we know what our risk factors are, then we are better prepared to establish counter-active strategies that will help us. I think some knowledge of the underlying biology can only help us, so that we aren't shooting in the dark at a target we don't understand.

[singinbeauty]

This is an interesting point of topic... Rape and abuse is in no way a light subject and I am not talking from the victim's point of view. But when you add a child there is someone else that needs to be added to the equation and I am sad to see that society is trying to rationalize things so that killing a child, who is helpless and defensless, is ok. It's horrible what thesee women have gone through but killing a human is not the answer.

[illuminatus]

Do you think that this may magnify a situation so much that killing her child seems like the only way out?

How do you kill something that is not sentient?

[Piper Plexed]

This is an interesting point of topic... Rape and abuse is in no way a light subject and I am not talking from the victim's point of view. But when you add a child there is someone else that needs to be added to the equation and I am sad to see that society is trying to rationalize things so that killing a child, who is helpless and defensless, is ok. It's horrible what thesee women have gone through but killing a human is not the answer.

You say rationalize killing a child, I say discussing the removal of a zygote – embryo. They are two completely different things.

Main Entry: zy·gote
Pronunciation: 'zI-"gOt
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek zygOtos yoked, from zygoun to join -- more at ZYGOMA
: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
- zy·got·ic /zI-'gä-tik/ adjective
zygote



Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: 'em-brE-"O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
Etymology: Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon, from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
3 a : something as yet undeveloped b : a beginning or undeveloped state of something <productions seen in embryo during their out-of-town tryout period -- Henry Hewes>
embryo

What I consider to be irrational is to call an embryo or zygote a child in the first place, if they were one and the same, why the different names?