Apparently according to some of the pro-lifers here, she should put up with it for 9 months then have it adopted. Fankily I think that is the most degrading thing that could ever happen to a woman, not only was she raped by a stranger or family member, but she is being made to have that baby.
I can only imagine the sort of, long term, emotional damage, that could do to a person.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad someone pointed this out to me because I would like to say "Screw you I'm the only sibling in my family who isn't adopted!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And guess what? No long term emotional damage, hell they younger two aren't even like their parents, just like more people in the Brymer family. Depression? Suicide? I'm the natural child and I'm the only one witha mental disability and depression.
Excuse me for being rude but as I feel a bit more of an expert than you on this and I feel that statement is <span style='color:red'>incorrect</span>, and will go futher to say that from personal experience with my sisters:
environment > genetics by a long shot.
Now one thing to consider is the fact that all of my sisters joined the family as babies. For children already attached to a family then I might agree with you statement in some particular situations. (certainly not an all or none) But your little generalization just got you in a little conflict with me, who has experienced the opposite.
Though I disagree with X5 on a lot of stuff, on this one he is "right ON"
Think about it this way - parents don't adopt unless they really "want" a child. To be chosen for adoption is one of the greatest signs of love that we humans can do. It says "although the other person doesn't want you, I choose you".
X5's family has the right attitude - they place value where other people don't. I'm sure they make sacrifices to do so - the children may not have the latest and greatest toys, video games, computers, etc. - but they are all loved without any merit on their part.
OT:
--> That Ideal is why salvation (Christian faith) is described as an adoption process.
Who said he was saying that the baby would have emotional damage? I personally thought he was talking about the mother, forced to have a baby and then give it up. I guess thats the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, one is thinking about the baby, one is thinking about the mother.
Besides, thinking about the baby, I'm pretty sure there is a big difference between discovering your parents were some random average people who found they couldn't cope with a child at that time and discovering you were the end result of rape, that your father was a rapist and that your mother didn't want you at all but was forced to have you.
cmeast, your making rather big assumption to justify abortion here. You "think" that a child who was adopted will have emotional trauma when they find out who their parents were. Until you "know" (not assume) then how can you justify killing it?
I "think" that a person can see even more beauty in being adopted if they <b>were </b>the result of rape. They can understand that the anger of the situation wasn't taken out on them. They can see value in their life - their adoptive family sure put value there. The biological mother put value there by not aborting.
I sure as heck don't want to give you the deciding factor in life/abortion. You make huge assumptions that are totally unfounded, and as a result, a baby dies. Just because you don't see value there, doesn't mean that someone else won't.
There is a woman in my church (single) who just recently adopeted a child from an inner city environment. This kid had a mother who was addicted to crack. As a result, she has developmental problems.
If this was your decision, that kid would be dead, and as a direct result, you deprive all the joy that the child experiences, not to mention the adoptive mother.
That sort of arbitrary power is not something that should be given to joe/janet shmoe.
If a mother can't guarrentee her baby a good quality of life, she probably shouldn't deliver one. Putting a mother through the pains of pregancy is pointless if the child is going to come into this world unloved, and as a nuisance. While adoption is great, it's not as high as the rate of abandoned children, so there's no guarentee a child is going to be picked up.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 21 2004, 09:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 21 2004, 09:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You "think" that a child who was adopted will have emotional trauma when they find out who their parents were. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aww Pepe we agree on much, much more than we disagree on. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Laura will never know who her biological parents are; Taia and Grace may be able to meet their biological parents; but to all my sisters their biological parents are not their <i>real</i> parents. Does that make any sense? It make seem odd to us "natural born" children but if you grew up attached to your adopted parents and love them so you don't really give a **** if they are not genetically you parents. All genetics do are things like this: what you look like what diseases and disorders you are weak to what biological abilities you might have just your <i>biology</i> stuff... (and even at that you have to remember growth which is affected by environment. Like my dad is shorter than me because he drank lots of coffee which stunts your growth) Genetics has nothing, repeat <i>nothing</i>, to do with your <i>character</i> or <i>being</i>. Chi balance in one matters not on biology whether you become good or evil. It's how you grow, how you learn, how your environemnt is, how you live you life. Futhermore, people <i>can</i> change. Evil people are saved and good people become filled with evil everyday. People can have a disasterous childhood filld with abuse and then turn their life around to save others, or the rich spoiled kid finally fails because he/she has not learned to be independent. Whether a being is good or evil really has nothing do with it's looks. <b><span style='color:orange'>Judge not by the race of your skin or the DNA in you body but by the content of one's character.</span></b> A great Law & Order: SVU episode (based on true story) may help those of you who need an allusion:
Woman has eggs illegally taken from her which are fertilized and given to infertile couples. Daughter is born to the couple, totally unknowing that the egg she was born from was illegally stolen, and years pass. Later the biological mother finds out about her eggs being stolen and manages to find her biological child. She kidnaps the girl feeling that it is her child but the couple is horrified that their daughter has been kidnapped. Eventually the detective characters catch up and free the girl and arrest the woman but she is determined to force a trial where she vows not to give up until the jury looks her in the face and tells her that she is guilty of kidnapping her own child. The lawer character lady (forget name) goes to Elliot Stabler and asks him for advice. He ends up quoting an old testimate scripture: (*gasp* x5 actually remembers something from his scripture classes in highschool and remembers where in the bible to find it, yikes!) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-1 Kings 3:24?27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (1 Kings 3:24?27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the king [Solomon] said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither thine, nor mine but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The lawyer lady was like you Elliot I can't cut the kid in two and he's like Solomon didn't have to. Later the lawyer lady had the child on the witness stand and asked her a few warm up questions about recent events. Then she said to the girl,"You know what Miss [fill-in name of biological mother] is your egg mommy right?" The little girl was like no because from her point of view she loved and was attached to the couple as her parents. To her they were her <i>real</i> parents. The lawyer continued too harshly press the question until the girl cried and then the biological mother demanded she stop and withdrew her court case. In otherwords she finally understood that if she was really loving the child she would let her go instead of tearing her up because to the child this couldn't be true. You see the biological connection is way, way overrated. I doesn't matter if you parents aren't even human. If they are the ones who love you and care for you as you grow up then they are mom and dad. Am I making more sense using this allusion from literature?
Although, this is comming from a natural born child so I don't want to speak for someone who may be able to tell you this personally. <span style='color:orange'>So why don't you ask my oldest little sister yourself when she joins this forum?</span> I am trying to introduce her to forum-ing currently: <a href='http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=165' target='_blank'>http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=165</a> <a href='http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=166' target='_blank'>http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=166</a> (c2l1k is my best friend, x7, and the biggest smart-arse I know) I'll try to get here to come here to this forum but I'll have to catch her on the cellphone and walk her through it. (omg she is such a newbie; "What's posting?" Imao))
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
I would agree with what x5 has said, another thing that I would point out in favor of adoption is that the parent who is bringing the child into this wolrd is not fit to be a parent, and when they give the child up to a acceptable loving home you give that child a chance to excell in life instead of wind up being a stripper or violent criminal
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 21 2004, 02:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 21 2004, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> cmeast, your making rather big assumption to justify abortion here. You "think" that a child who was adopted will have emotional trauma when they find out who their parents were. Until you "know" (not assume) then how can you justify killing it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not justifying its death because it 'might' be traumatised, I justify its death because the mother is more important than the child (well, the potential child but we'll not get into that, every else has, I still call it 'murder' (the 'ethical' version, not the legal version) as its killing the potential).
In fact, I notice the fact that the only time you try replying to any of my posts is when I start talking about the childs possible trauma and even then you completely misunderstand my point.
To summarise my point of view in case you have somehow missed my other posts, human life IS NOT sacred, I'd prefer it if no-one died, I'd love it if there was no such thing as abortion, if everyone was responsible, if contraceptives worked perfectly and everyone was educated at school about them.
Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way, there will always be a need for abortion until a baby can be carried to term without its mother (because lets face, no matter how 'pro-life' you are, you will not volunteer to carry anothers baby for them, you will simply tell the woman to carry it even when she won't/can't and then whine afterwards).
If there is going to be abortion then it should be legalised so it is done in a safe manner (as all ready been discussed).
There are really two sides to abortion, the ethical and the practical. Ethically, people dying is bad but sometimes some die so others can live. In practice, its going to happen so lets makes sure its done properly.
Finally, x5, genetics has a bigger effect than environment, it decides HOW you think, it gives you the foundation from which to build your life. Your environment gives you information to work with but your genes control how you absorb that information, give you limits as to what you can and can't do.
Besides, citing one example is not proving a point, there are too many exceptions to the rule. I'm sure she's an exceptional exception but a sample of one is not scientific.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Oct 21 2004, 11:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Oct 21 2004, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Finally, x5, genetics has a bigger effect than environment, it decides HOW you think, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:red'><b>No</b></span> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...it gives you the foundation from which to build your life. Your environment gives you information to work...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:green'><b>Yes</b></span> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->with but your genes control how you absorb that information, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:red'><b>No</b></span> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->give you limits as to what you can and can't do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Generic; some yes some no.
Where I am saying no is because genetics only give you a blueprint. It's up to the proteins, nutrients provided, and just the general environment of nature that affects. (ie: look at baby, you cannot guarantee me that those tissues can grow up into a conscious health being or even that a genetic disorder will or not appear)
Genetics doesn't affect how you are wired. Can you have a defect where the neurons don't grow in a correct fashion? (assuming we can claim arrogance to determine what is correct and what isn't) Of course, but a preposition doesn't guarantee 100% anything. You have a whole bunch of crack "scientists" who want to get rich quick by saying they have found a link between genetics and behavioral archetypes. (ie: the "homicidal gene") This is total BS. Just because while sampling a microscopic portion of the population you find a trend does not mean it fits.
Genetics make proteins. Proteins build cells and structures. Proteins do not make a person unique. Proteins do not give one a soul. Genetics -> Proteins != character of a being. Genetics doesn't <i>decide</i> or <i>choose</i> anything. Genetics is simply the CAD file and has no bearing on how or if it will even be constructed. (<i>if it will even be constructed is actually beginning to get back on topic with the thread</i>) Genetics doesn't care whether the cells live or die. If you die, well you just got naturally selected out of the equation and the successful genes will continue.
Now with that said genetics and environment share in many areas. You can't say that just one or the other affects "who you are" because that phrase means your whole being mental structure, memories, character, consciousness, soul, body; setup design and how it is played out though presence of change which we perceive as the "double abstract" we call time.
And with that said I'm also not ignorant to realize that my one experience doesn't mean it's the exception or the general rule but if I may reiterate once more: genetic are overrated, as is the so called "biological connection." (which is mostly on the parent's side anyways, for the baby and young child it's a survival adaptation called imprinting)
I'm glad I got to get to know your sister a bit x5...
You creep here out alot, don't you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Oct 21 2004, 02:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Oct 21 2004, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 17 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On another note raised. Many of you have said adoption is a plausalbe way to get around it. Are any of you adopted? Do any of you know the long term emotional damage that can be given to a child that has been adopted? Emotional damage that can lead to depression or even suicide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad someone pointed this out to me because I would like to say "Screw you I'm the only sibling in my family who isn't adopted!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And guess what? No long term emotional damage, hell they younger two aren't even like their parents, just like more people in the Brymer family. Depression? Suicide? I'm the natural child and I'm the only one witha mental disability and depression.
Excuse me for being rude but as I feel a bit more of an expert than you on this and I feel that statement is <span style='color:red'>incorrect</span>, and will go futher to say that from personal experience with my sisters:
environment > genetics by a long shot.
Now one thing to consider is the fact that all of my sisters joined the family as babies. For children already attached to a family then I might agree with you statement in some particular situations. (certainly not an all or none) But your little generalization just got you in a little conflict with me, who has experienced the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did anyone miss that little word "<i>can</i>". I'm very happy that you family works, and that everyone is happy, I really am. But i also know of other cases where this is not true and has lead to the damage I've spoken about.
To clarify I never said all adopted children have emotional damage, I said they could. A very big difference in my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I "think" that a person can see even more beauty in being adopted if they were the result of rape. They can understand that the anger of the situation wasn't taken out on them. They can see value in their life - their adoptive family sure put value there. The biological mother put value there by not aborting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad you would see the beauty in this, because I really can't and people I've spoken to about this really can't either. I'm glad you can see beauty in one of the most disgusting things I can imagine could happen to a woman.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kester+Oct 22 2004, 04:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kester @ Oct 22 2004, 04:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I "think" that a person can see even more beauty in being adopted if they were the result of rape. They can understand that the anger of the situation wasn't taken out on them. They can see value in their life - their adoptive family sure put value there. The biological mother put value there by not aborting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad you would see the beauty in this, because I really can't and people I've spoken to about this really can't either. I'm glad you can see beauty in one of the most disgusting things I can imagine could happen to a woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow, don't look at the statement the wrong way or anything. Personally I don't see how being the result of a rape is such an overwhelming thing. I mean its not like you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of your parents or that your life is somehow minimalized. The value of a person's life is the value they give it themselfs, no extraneous circumstances can change that.
Honestly if I were to learn right now that I was the product of a rape, the only emotional reaction I would have would be wanting to hug my mom and telling her its ok. I am absoluty indiffernet to my sourse, because I am very sure, in no uncertian terms, that I am far greater as a person then the sum of my parts. Honestly, I might feel a little sicky amused by the fact.
I'm not saying that Genetics decide who you are, I simply disagree with you when you say that evironment is more important than genes. I'm not even sure how we turned on to this subject, its definitely off-topic and if you want to continue this we should be in another thread (which I'm sure everyone will want to comment in).
The reason why I say genetics is more important is because you can't change your genes, you can change your diet, you can change your evironment (or at least it does change, it's not always easy to escape from where and how you live) but you will always have those built in limits.
You mentioned crime? Read <a href='http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes/' target='_blank'>this</a> article on how crime in the nature vs nurture debate.
It proves my point (even though environment is just as important) because a social worker could save those kids, in affect 'protecting' them from their genetic heritage. Genes are a set of switches and while it does take environment to switch them, if you don't have the switch then the chances of you acting in a certain way are extremely remote. If you have the switch then you actively have to stop the environment from activating it.
Did you know that they did a study on orphan chimps where they weren't scared of toys that looked like snakes (and how could they be, they don't know what snakes are?) and yet for some reason they were scared by anything (no matter what it looked like) if it moved like a snake.
Something's are just built in and it takes a lot to be able to ignore it. How can environment be important when the environment we have lived in has changed so much in the past few hundred years? (Not so much the family dynamic but the pace of life, the things we eat, the work we do, where we live etc)
According to that artical all that is proved is that nature CAN have an effect if it is combined with poor nurture... That's a far cry from genetically predispositioned reaction to every situation. X5's statments are acctually far more congruent with generally observable trends then yours are. The vast majority of nature VS nurture experiments come up inconclusive, with a higher average rate leaning toward nurture than nature (keep in mind, all the studies are testing individual phenomina, so you would need really conclusive across the board numbers to declair one way or another). Why do you think sociaty is so whipped up over the whole issue of child abuse and violent video games? I think if science has proved anything so far it has proved that niether nature or nurture are scientifically mesurable as the defining factor in human development.
BTW, You don't find it an even slightly large step to prosume that the fact that genetically predetermined instinctual reactions exist in chimps, proves that genetically presupposed cerebral functions exist in humans? Are you aware that infinants literally have to learn to be able to pick up an object or they will be physically unable to do it later in life? Are you aware that infants that are born blind, if thier vision is corrected as adults, will be literally unable to properly process three dimentional data, simply because they never learned to as babies? I certainly won't dispute the fact that some mental processes are genetically ingraned, but it is also very much fact that many many many are not. I would take a wild guess that family relations and politics are one of the latter, considering that they logically require a sense of morals (which is definately a learned trait) and a fair bit of emotional political savy to process.
But thats only a negative way for nature to kick in (and so a lot easier to observe). What about all the postive parts of our dna that naturally come out because we are brought in a decent environment? Everyone agrees that humans are social but forget that its because we are bred that way. Those that aren't as social have a reduced chance of reproducing.
Also bear in mind that a) it is a <b>lot</b> easier to observe changes based on environment and b) people don't want to know that much of the way they act is decided from birth.
Finally, I didn't say that nature actually controls your personality, there are plenty of warlike girls and passive guys, lots of fat men that aren't funny etc All I'm simply saying is that certain traits are passed on and the likelyhood of you exhibiting the behaviour related to those traits are a lot higher than for someone who doesn't have those traits.
Example, I'm fairly pale (all my family are), thin (and I never stop eating) and un-athletic. Now there is no reason why I don't love football (bear in mind almost the entirety of England worships anyone who can smack some bag of wind with his foot (you'd think politicians would get hit more often) but I don't. Why? Because I'm not built in a way that would make me any good at it, people like and do what they are best at (hence me sitting on a PC spouting nonsense <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
What I can do is dance, still athletic but in a different way. I recently found out that my mom used to love dancing, now she never told me, I never saw her and for a large proportion of the time I knew her she was practically bed ridden, or at the least in agony if she moved much. How is it that both she and I dance even though there was no way of me knowing (and guys don't normally dance, you could hardly say it was peer pressure or anything, my mates certainly don't do it). Simple, our bodies were designed in such a way that we respond to music and we have good control over them in that way. That plus the love of music which she could teach me explains it.
I'm not saying nurture isn't important, I'm just saying that if your body and mind is designed in such a way that you will be good at some things and not at others then you will tend head in those directions. To be uber-geeky, if my Strength was 10 and my wisdom was 18 I'd probably focus on being a druid/cleric rather than a warrior type.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Oct 22 2004, 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Oct 22 2004, 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But thats only a negative way for nature to kick in (and so a lot easier to observe). What about all the postive parts of our dna that naturally come out because we are brought in a decent environment? Everyone agrees that humans are social but forget that its because we are bred that way. Those that aren't as social have a reduced chance of reproducing.
Also bear in mind that a) it is a <b>lot</b> easier to observe changes based on environment and b) people don't want to know that much of the way they act is decided from birth.
Finally, I didn't say that nature actually controls your personality, there are plenty of warlike girls and passive guys, lots of fat men that aren't funny etc All I'm simply saying is that certain traits are passed on and the likelyhood of you exhibiting the behaviour related to those traits are a lot higher than for someone who doesn't have those traits.
Example, I'm fairly pale (all my family are), thin (and I never stop eating) and un-athletic. Now there is no reason why I don't love football (bear in mind almost the entirety of England worships anyone who can smack some bag of wind with his foot (you'd think politicians would get hit more often) but I don't. Why? Because I'm not built in a way that would make me any good at it, people like and do what they are best at (hence me sitting on a PC spouting nonsense <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
What I can do is dance, still athletic but in a different way. I recently found out that my mom used to love dancing, now she never told me, I never saw her and for a large proportion of the time I knew her she was practically bed ridden, or at the least in agony if she moved much. How is it that both she and I dance even though there was no way of me knowing (and guys don't normally dance, you could hardly say it was peer pressure or anything, my mates certainly don't do it). Simple, our bodies were designed in such a way that we respond to music and we have good control over them in that way. That plus the love of music which she could teach me explains it.
I'm not saying nurture isn't important, I'm just saying that if your body and mind is designed in such a way that you will be good at some things and not at others then you will tend head in those directions. To be uber-geeky, if my Strength was 10 and my wisdom was 18 I'd probably focus on being a druid/cleric rather than a warrior type. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if I grant all your points as fact, case study evidence is all but compleatly irrelivent in this case. If you could prove to me that 2000 people are good at the sports that thier parents were good at in a group of less than 3000 then you would have a leg to stand on (at least you would if we were arguing that sports aptitude is genetic) but the fact remains, even if a genetic causal relationship can be proved in one field it does not prove anything on any related fields. I can show you statisics that people who were abused as children are several time more likely to commit various crimes. You might as well claim definitively that all growth factors are nurture if you read evidence the way you are.
Comments
I can only imagine the sort of, long term, emotional damage, that could do to a person.
I'm glad someone pointed this out to me because I would like to say "Screw you I'm the only sibling in my family who isn't adopted!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And guess what? No long term emotional damage, hell they younger two aren't even like their parents, just like more people in the Brymer family. Depression? Suicide? I'm the natural child and I'm the only one witha mental disability and depression.
Excuse me for being rude but as I feel a bit more of an expert than you on this and I feel that statement is <span style='color:red'>incorrect</span>, and will go futher to say that from personal experience with my sisters:
environment > genetics by a long shot.
Now one thing to consider is the fact that all of my sisters joined the family as babies. For children already attached to a family then I might agree with you statement in some particular situations. (certainly not an all or none) But your little generalization just got you in a little conflict with me, who has experienced the opposite.
Think about it this way - parents don't adopt unless they really "want" a child. To be chosen for adoption is one of the greatest signs of love that we humans can do. It says "although the other person doesn't want you, I choose you".
X5's family has the right attitude - they place value where other people don't. I'm sure they make sacrifices to do so - the children may not have the latest and greatest toys, video games, computers, etc. - but they are all loved without any merit on their part.
OT:
--> That Ideal is why salvation (Christian faith) is described as an adoption process.
I guess thats the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, one is thinking about the baby, one is thinking about the mother.
Besides, thinking about the baby, I'm pretty sure there is a big difference between discovering your parents were some random average people who found they couldn't cope with a child at that time and discovering you were the end result of rape, that your father was a rapist and that your mother didn't want you at all but was forced to have you.
Genetics>Environment.
I "think" that a person can see even more beauty in being adopted if they <b>were </b>the result of rape. They can understand that the anger of the situation wasn't taken out on them. They can see value in their life - their adoptive family sure put value there. The biological mother put value there by not aborting.
I sure as heck don't want to give you the deciding factor in life/abortion. You make huge assumptions that are totally unfounded, and as a result, a baby dies. Just because you don't see value there, doesn't mean that someone else won't.
There is a woman in my church (single) who just recently adopeted a child from an inner city environment. This kid had a mother who was addicted to crack. As a result, she has developmental problems.
If this was your decision, that kid would be dead, and as a direct result, you deprive all the joy that the child experiences, not to mention the adoptive mother.
That sort of arbitrary power is not something that should be given to joe/janet shmoe.
Aww Pepe we agree on much, much more than we disagree on. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Laura will never know who her biological parents are; Taia and Grace may be able to meet their biological parents; but to all my sisters their biological parents are not their <i>real</i> parents. Does that make any sense? It make seem odd to us "natural born" children but if you grew up attached to your adopted parents and love them so you don't really give a **** if they are not genetically you parents. All genetics do are things like this:
what you look like
what diseases and disorders you are weak to
what biological abilities you might have
just your <i>biology</i> stuff... (and even at that you have to remember growth which is affected by environment. Like my dad is shorter than me because he drank lots of coffee which stunts your growth)
Genetics has nothing, repeat <i>nothing</i>, to do with your <i>character</i> or <i>being</i>. Chi balance in one matters not on biology whether you become good or evil. It's how you grow, how you learn, how your environemnt is, how you live you life. Futhermore, people <i>can</i> change. Evil people are saved and good people become filled with evil everyday. People can have a disasterous childhood filld with abuse and then turn their life around to save others, or the rich spoiled kid finally fails because he/she has not learned to be independent. Whether a being is good or evil really has nothing do with it's looks. <b><span style='color:orange'>Judge not by the race of your skin or the DNA in you body but by the content of one's character.</span></b>
A great Law & Order: SVU episode (based on true story) may help those of you who need an allusion:
Woman has eggs illegally taken from her which are fertilized and given to infertile couples. Daughter is born to the couple, totally unknowing that the egg she was born from was illegally stolen, and years pass. Later the biological mother finds out about her eggs being stolen and manages to find her biological child. She kidnaps the girl feeling that it is her child but the couple is horrified that their daughter has been kidnapped. Eventually the detective characters catch up and free the girl and arrest the woman but she is determined to force a trial where she vows not to give up until the jury looks her in the face and tells her that she is guilty of kidnapping her own child. The lawer character lady (forget name) goes to Elliot Stabler and asks him for advice. He ends up quoting an old testimate scripture: (*gasp* x5 actually remembers something from his scripture classes in highschool and remembers where in the bible to find it, yikes!) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-1 Kings 3:24?27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (1 Kings 3:24?27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the king [Solomon] said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither thine, nor mine but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The lawyer lady was like you Elliot I can't cut the kid in two and he's like Solomon didn't have to. Later the lawyer lady had the child on the witness stand and asked her a few warm up questions about recent events. Then she said to the girl,"You know what Miss [fill-in name of biological mother] is your egg mommy right?" The little girl was like no because from her point of view she loved and was attached to the couple as her parents. To her they were her <i>real</i> parents. The lawyer continued too harshly press the question until the girl cried and then the biological mother demanded she stop and withdrew her court case. In otherwords she finally understood that if she was really loving the child she would let her go instead of tearing her up because to the child this couldn't be true. You see the biological connection is way, way overrated. I doesn't matter if you parents aren't even human. If they are the ones who love you and care for you as you grow up then they are mom and dad. Am I making more sense using this allusion from literature?
Although, this is comming from a natural born child so I don't want to speak for someone who may be able to tell you this personally. <span style='color:orange'>So why don't you ask my oldest little sister yourself when she joins this forum?</span> I am trying to introduce her to forum-ing currently:
<a href='http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=165' target='_blank'>http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=165</a>
<a href='http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=166' target='_blank'>http://s8.invisionfree.com/xzianthia/index.php?showtopic=166</a>
(c2l1k is my best friend, x7, and the biggest smart-arse I know)
I'll try to get here to come here to this forum but I'll have to catch her on the cellphone and walk her through it. (omg she is such a newbie; "What's posting?" Imao))
I am not justifying its death because it 'might' be traumatised, I justify its death because the mother is more important than the child (well, the potential child but we'll not get into that, every else has, I still call it 'murder' (the 'ethical' version, not the legal version) as its killing the potential).
In fact, I notice the fact that the only time you try replying to any of my posts is when I start talking about the childs possible trauma and even then you completely misunderstand my point.
To summarise my point of view in case you have somehow missed my other posts, human life IS NOT sacred, I'd prefer it if no-one died, I'd love it if there was no such thing as abortion, if everyone was responsible, if contraceptives worked perfectly and everyone was educated at school about them.
Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way, there will always be a need for abortion until a baby can be carried to term without its mother (because lets face, no matter how 'pro-life' you are, you will not volunteer to carry anothers baby for them, you will simply tell the woman to carry it even when she won't/can't and then whine afterwards).
If there is going to be abortion then it should be legalised so it is done in a safe manner (as all ready been discussed).
There are really two sides to abortion, the ethical and the practical. Ethically, people dying is bad but sometimes some die so others can live. In practice, its going to happen so lets makes sure its done properly.
Finally, x5, genetics has a bigger effect than environment, it decides HOW you think, it gives you the foundation from which to build your life. Your environment gives you information to work with but your genes control how you absorb that information, give you limits as to what you can and can't do.
Besides, citing one example is not proving a point, there are too many exceptions to the rule. I'm sure she's an exceptional exception but a sample of one is not scientific.
<span style='color:red'><b>No</b></span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...it gives you the foundation from which to build your life. Your environment gives you information to work...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:green'><b>Yes</b></span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->with but your genes control how you absorb that information, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'><b>No</b></span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->give you limits as to what you can and can't do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generic; some yes some no.
Where I am saying no is because genetics only give you a blueprint. It's up to the proteins, nutrients provided, and just the general environment of nature that affects. (ie: look at baby, you cannot guarantee me that those tissues can grow up into a conscious health being or even that a genetic disorder will or not appear)
Genetics doesn't affect how you are wired. Can you have a defect where the neurons don't grow in a correct fashion? (assuming we can claim arrogance to determine what is correct and what isn't) Of course, but a preposition doesn't guarantee 100% anything. You have a whole bunch of crack "scientists" who want to get rich quick by saying they have found a link between genetics and behavioral archetypes. (ie: the "homicidal gene") This is total BS. Just because while sampling a microscopic portion of the population you find a trend does not mean it fits.
Genetics make proteins. Proteins build cells and structures. Proteins do not make a person unique. Proteins do not give one a soul. Genetics -> Proteins != character of a being. Genetics doesn't <i>decide</i> or <i>choose</i> anything. Genetics is simply the CAD file and has no bearing on how or if it will even be constructed. (<i>if it will even be constructed is actually beginning to get back on topic with the thread</i>) Genetics doesn't care whether the cells live or die. If you die, well you just got naturally selected out of the equation and the successful genes will continue.
Now with that said genetics and environment share in many areas. You can't say that just one or the other affects "who you are" because that phrase means your whole being mental structure, memories, character, consciousness, soul, body; setup design and how it is played out though presence of change which we perceive as the "double abstract" we call time.
And with that said I'm also not ignorant to realize that my one experience doesn't mean it's the exception or the general rule but if I may reiterate once more: genetic are overrated, as is the so called "biological connection." (which is mostly on the parent's side anyways, for the baby and young child it's a survival adaptation called imprinting)
<span style='color:gray'>~edit~
used spell check because typos are evil</span>
You creep here out alot, don't you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm glad someone pointed this out to me because I would like to say "Screw you I'm the only sibling in my family who isn't adopted!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And guess what? No long term emotional damage, hell they younger two aren't even like their parents, just like more people in the Brymer family. Depression? Suicide? I'm the natural child and I'm the only one witha mental disability and depression.
Excuse me for being rude but as I feel a bit more of an expert than you on this and I feel that statement is <span style='color:red'>incorrect</span>, and will go futher to say that from personal experience with my sisters:
environment > genetics by a long shot.
Now one thing to consider is the fact that all of my sisters joined the family as babies. For children already attached to a family then I might agree with you statement in some particular situations. (certainly not an all or none) But your little generalization just got you in a little conflict with me, who has experienced the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did anyone miss that little word "<i>can</i>". I'm very happy that you family works, and that everyone is happy, I really am. But i also know of other cases where this is not true and has lead to the damage I've spoken about.
To clarify I never said all adopted children have emotional damage, I said they could. A very big difference in my eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I "think" that a person can see even more beauty in being adopted if they were the result of rape. They can understand that the anger of the situation wasn't taken out on them. They can see value in their life - their adoptive family sure put value there. The biological mother put value there by not aborting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you would see the beauty in this, because I really can't and people I've spoken to about this really can't either. I'm glad you can see beauty in one of the most disgusting things I can imagine could happen to a woman.
I'm glad you would see the beauty in this, because I really can't and people I've spoken to about this really can't either. I'm glad you can see beauty in one of the most disgusting things I can imagine could happen to a woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, don't look at the statement the wrong way or anything. Personally I don't see how being the result of a rape is such an overwhelming thing. I mean its not like you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of your parents or that your life is somehow minimalized. The value of a person's life is the value they give it themselfs, no extraneous circumstances can change that.
Honestly if I were to learn right now that I was the product of a rape, the only emotional reaction I would have would be wanting to hug my mom and telling her its ok. I am absoluty indiffernet to my sourse, because I am very sure, in no uncertian terms, that I am far greater as a person then the sum of my parts. Honestly, I might feel a little sicky amused by the fact.
The reason why I say genetics is more important is because you can't change your genes, you can change your diet, you can change your evironment (or at least it does change, it's not always easy to escape from where and how you live) but you will always have those built in limits.
You mentioned crime? Read <a href='http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes/' target='_blank'>this</a> article on how crime in the nature vs nurture debate.
It proves my point (even though environment is just as important) because a social worker could save those kids, in affect 'protecting' them from their genetic heritage. Genes are a set of switches and while it does take environment to switch them, if you don't have the switch then the chances of you acting in a certain way are extremely remote. If you have the switch then you actively have to stop the environment from activating it.
Did you know that they did a study on orphan chimps where they weren't scared of toys that looked like snakes (and how could they be, they don't know what snakes are?) and yet for some reason they were scared by anything (no matter what it looked like) if it moved like a snake.
Something's are just built in and it takes a lot to be able to ignore it. How can environment be important when the environment we have lived in has changed so much in the past few hundred years? (Not so much the family dynamic but the pace of life, the things we eat, the work we do, where we live etc)
BTW, You don't find it an even slightly large step to prosume that the fact that genetically predetermined instinctual reactions exist in chimps, proves that genetically presupposed cerebral functions exist in humans? Are you aware that infinants literally have to learn to be able to pick up an object or they will be physically unable to do it later in life? Are you aware that infants that are born blind, if thier vision is corrected as adults, will be literally unable to properly process three dimentional data, simply because they never learned to as babies? I certainly won't dispute the fact that some mental processes are genetically ingraned, but it is also very much fact that many many many are not. I would take a wild guess that family relations and politics are one of the latter, considering that they logically require a sense of morals (which is definately a learned trait) and a fair bit of emotional political savy to process.
Also bear in mind that a) it is a <b>lot</b> easier to observe changes based on environment and b) people don't want to know that much of the way they act is decided from birth.
Finally, I didn't say that nature actually controls your personality, there are plenty of warlike girls and passive guys, lots of fat men that aren't funny etc All I'm simply saying is that certain traits are passed on and the likelyhood of you exhibiting the behaviour related to those traits are a lot higher than for someone who doesn't have those traits.
Example, I'm fairly pale (all my family are), thin (and I never stop eating) and un-athletic. Now there is no reason why I don't love football (bear in mind almost the entirety of England worships anyone who can smack some bag of wind with his foot (you'd think politicians would get hit more often) but I don't. Why? Because I'm not built in a way that would make me any good at it, people like and do what they are best at (hence me sitting on a PC spouting nonsense <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
What I can do is dance, still athletic but in a different way. I recently found out that my mom used to love dancing, now she never told me, I never saw her and for a large proportion of the time I knew her she was practically bed ridden, or at the least in agony if she moved much. How is it that both she and I dance even though there was no way of me knowing (and guys don't normally dance, you could hardly say it was peer pressure or anything, my mates certainly don't do it). Simple, our bodies were designed in such a way that we respond to music and we have good control over them in that way. That plus the love of music which she could teach me explains it.
I'm not saying nurture isn't important, I'm just saying that if your body and mind is designed in such a way that you will be good at some things and not at others then you will tend head in those directions. To be uber-geeky, if my Strength was 10 and my wisdom was 18 I'd probably focus on being a druid/cleric rather than a warrior type.
Also bear in mind that a) it is a <b>lot</b> easier to observe changes based on environment and b) people don't want to know that much of the way they act is decided from birth.
Finally, I didn't say that nature actually controls your personality, there are plenty of warlike girls and passive guys, lots of fat men that aren't funny etc All I'm simply saying is that certain traits are passed on and the likelyhood of you exhibiting the behaviour related to those traits are a lot higher than for someone who doesn't have those traits.
Example, I'm fairly pale (all my family are), thin (and I never stop eating) and un-athletic. Now there is no reason why I don't love football (bear in mind almost the entirety of England worships anyone who can smack some bag of wind with his foot (you'd think politicians would get hit more often) but I don't. Why? Because I'm not built in a way that would make me any good at it, people like and do what they are best at (hence me sitting on a PC spouting nonsense <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
What I can do is dance, still athletic but in a different way. I recently found out that my mom used to love dancing, now she never told me, I never saw her and for a large proportion of the time I knew her she was practically bed ridden, or at the least in agony if she moved much. How is it that both she and I dance even though there was no way of me knowing (and guys don't normally dance, you could hardly say it was peer pressure or anything, my mates certainly don't do it). Simple, our bodies were designed in such a way that we respond to music and we have good control over them in that way. That plus the love of music which she could teach me explains it.
I'm not saying nurture isn't important, I'm just saying that if your body and mind is designed in such a way that you will be good at some things and not at others then you will tend head in those directions. To be uber-geeky, if my Strength was 10 and my wisdom was 18 I'd probably focus on being a druid/cleric rather than a warrior type. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if I grant all your points as fact, case study evidence is all but compleatly irrelivent in this case. If you could prove to me that 2000 people are good at the sports that thier parents were good at in a group of less than 3000 then you would have a leg to stand on (at least you would if we were arguing that sports aptitude is genetic) but the fact remains, even if a genetic causal relationship can be proved in one field it does not prove anything on any related fields. I can show you statisics that people who were abused as children are several time more likely to commit various crimes. You might as well claim definitively that all growth factors are nurture if you read evidence the way you are.