Blog with a Thousand Faces

stfuconservatives:

afeministinthekitchen:

Impure Tale: Abortion disproves Atheism and Darwinism.

crosspreacher:

I apologize for the bold statement, just thinking over some things. 

Darwinism says that above all else, the purpose of ones own life is to have a child, and for that child to live on to have a child, that is why we all have the desires of lust, so humans would have sex carrying on the blood line through time. If that were true, where does abortion play in this? The whole purpose of a life would be to have a child, yet we decide to deny that life before it is born now? Sounds like a pretty big hole for Darwinist and Atheists will have to try to cover up. 

So many problems will all of this. I’m a human biology major so you are in big trouble.

First, Darwinism is not a “belief system” as the OP makes it sound, Darwinism simply observes and explains what happens in the natural world mainly with regard to reproduction. 

Second, a big field of research in sociobiology is optimum brood size, which is essentially the number of offspring an individual will have that will be worth the effort. Though you could have a million kids, which would at first make you very reproductively successful, ultimately you won’t have the resources (food, shelter, etc) to take care of all those kids and most of them will die. Having offspring die is a waste of time for the parents, reproductively speaking. So your optimum brood size is be the greatest number of kids that you have the resources to take care of (there are other factors as well but that’s essentially what it is) and that’s how many kids you should have.

In developed countries today, having children can be extremely expensive monetarily: food is expensive, summer camps are expensive, buying them car insurance is expensive, paying for college is expensive. So having fewer children will be cheaper.

Let’s say a couple already has two children and the wife gets pregnant with a third: if the couple doesn’t have enough money to pay for raising another child, if they do have that third child than all their children will suffer because they’ll have to stretch the resources they do have and each child will get less. In this scenario, it would make sense for the woman to have an abortion in order to allow her existing children to get all of the monetary resources they need. All of this is completely consistent with Darwinism.

tl;dr Abortion can help achieve the optimum brood size which is totally consistent with Darwinism.

^ more science!

(via stfuconservatives)