"Abort"

I now they abandon, specially if there's a treat.

Some even eat them.

Some animals can reabsorb the fetus if put under too much stress. Effectively an abortion.

Actually, that's more like a miscarriage.

ok, I see.

So, it's reasonable to state that "only humans abort their offsprings willingly"?

Well, it's hard for non-sapient creatures to do anything willingly.

We have an N of 1 and we say in science.

Only humans do anything willingly.

Depends on your definition of "willingly". You can argue they don't have a choice in which to willingly choose. Most animals procreate in what seems to use as borderline rape and then they have no meaningful way to abort.

it's within reason to state so?

my definition of willingly most certainly is your definition.

Pretty sure horses will abort their offspring if the mare doesent deem it worthy

But I dont think we should be comparing ourselves to animals. Were much, much different than them

are we?

you sure about that?

I know the whole 'were stupid and dumb like a bunch of animals' meme but if you look at our knowledge, governments, achievements etc. Its kind of crazy to think were the same as any other animal group

Fuck can you tell me if wolves, monkeys etc. Worked together to land on the moon?

No, that was humans uniqueness and knowledge

we have opposable thumbs and needed to established a lot of this in order to survive.

plenty of other creatures have complex social groups, in the form of our government. And there are other creatures that demonstrate levels of problem solving nearly on par with humans.

Im hardly saying were stronger or faster than animals, were just much more smarter and industrious

So you can we are much different but really the only difference is we got thumbs. Imagine if dolphins had thumbs. Japan wouldn't be here.

And there are groups of animals or even bugs in that manner that do work together like termites, beavers making dams etc. But none of them are on par of dominating the world like humans have

We are better at pattern recognize, but that makes us slower to react. Things that most animals can do nearly instantaneously need to go through our logic tree before the brain finds the right response, leading to lag time. Our oversized brains require a lot of energy, which has lead to a lot of trade offs in other areas of our biology.

at the end of the day, however, the chemical reactions in your brain still control you just like the animals you look down upon. You are classically conditioned just like a dog. Lighting can adjust your mood like you were a bird

the whole field of social engineering relies on the consistency of our animalistic selves to work in repeated fashion, often to great success.

man i wish i had done shrooms before seeing this debate

ive talked about this once for 5 hours straight

I get what your saying to a point, but if you seriously want to boil it down furthur you could just say were all the same cause were made up of carbon lol. But nah to an extent I understand, but even the second smartest specie on the Earth is nowhere near human levels of successes and failures. We are *a* part of the animal kingdom but we're ontop of it *due* to a large array of traits that are pretty much unique to humans, alot of it being mental, some of it being to manual dexterity, but almost none of it would be due to speed or strength

by your definition we are better because we are human. A list of traits and accomplishments we value.

If by our own resiliances, traits, mental capacity etc. Is what makes us human than sure, boiling it down to just 'being human' means a hell of a lot

Sorry, I got distracted having to hunt down the home of an escaped dog immediately after I got off the clock. I'm back now.

Damn why does democracy suck so badly

I cant find any more arguments for it

Because by definition there is no quality control.

You cannot selectively utilize a subset of the population, because you have engaged the population as a whole.

Alright, so the point of this hypothetical is sort of like the Trolley problem in a way, for figuring out what you believe and why. I am FULLY aware that it sounds like a Soap Opera subplot. Just roll with me on it.

```John and Jane Doe have been trying to have a child. Eventually, they conceive, and visit a doctor. The doctor informs them that the mother will not be able to carry the child to term. The child would miscarry. The doctor suggests that they find a surrogate, and that that would let the child survive to birth. They eventually find their surrogate, and surgically transfer the embryo.

After carrying the child for a bit, the Surrogate decides they want to back out of it, that they weren't as ready for this as they had thought. Without contacting the parents, the surrogate decides to get an abortion.```

Were anyone's rights violated in this scenario?

For the sake of this scenario, there was no legal contract made, only an informal agreement between the parents and the surrogate.

@DrYuriMom Pinged as promised.

```"life is pointless so why shoudlnt we give women a choice"
"better to kill the fucker before he realises what life is" - Definitely Not Insane```
There was also a reason why I didn't think Definitely Not Insane wouldn't be able to contribute in this in good faith, and had in fact already given his answer to the hypothetical unwittingly.