Abortion

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Post evidence from a source that proves that psychologists have actually said that.

Also, make it a credible source and credible psychologists.

eep!

psychology is too much of an umbrella term. For instance, there is a guy in my department who believes that psychology will never be a valid science until it is crossed with Christian beliefs.

Its not, as a whole, incorporated into the hard sciences yet, and thus, there are still lots of crazy whackos.

A research psychologist might be best, especially if they are in a bio/neuro area, but there are lots of really good social psychologists (the stats are not on par with the researchers imho)

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so, if you want to discuss, why not bring up what, to you, makes the argument untrue.

Because as far as the whole "self-sacrifice" thing goes I am not sure whether its true or not.

I think that the point is that in the act of giving up your life for someone, the instinct for survival which is one of the most powerful instincts in humans is overridden.

Now once again, I am not sure if I agree or not.

* if you need me I will be over there straddling a fence.

Originally posted by inimalist
eep!

psychology is too much of an umbrella term. For instance, there is a guy in my department who believes that psychology will never be a valid science until it is crossed with Christian beliefs.

Its not, as a whole, incorporated into the hard sciences yet, and thus, there are still lots of crazy whackos.

A research psychologist might be best, especially if they are in a bio/neuro area, but there are lots of really good social psychologists (the stats are not on par with the researchers imho)

Yeah, I studied psychology at A level (wish I could have studied it more in depth, though. It was pretty clear that pretty much every theory had another theory which claimed the opposite.

When read back, that sounds a bit shit, but hopefully it makes sense.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because as far as the whole "self-sacrifice" thing goes I am not sure whether its true or not.

I think that the point is that in the act of giving up your life for someone, the instinct for survival which is one of the most powerful instincts in humans is overridden.

Now once again, I am not sure if I agree or not.

* if you need me I will be over there straddling a fence.

ok, i see what you are saying, however, the "instinct for survival" is really just pop-science.

Yes, animals act for personal survival, but simply because it ensures that their genes will be passed on to the next generation.

Given that humans are highly social creatures, and would have evolved in band like family groups, it is likely that a large percentage of your genes are shared by those who are close to you.

Now, its not like the early humans were making charts of who had more of their genes, but, lets say there are 2 groups.

Group A and B are similar in some ways. They are each a family group, and all members have genes very similar to those also in the group.

The genes possessed by group A, lets say, prevent them, because of survival instincts, from jumping into a river to save another person. Now, the genes of group B say that they should jump in to rescue them. Which group is going to pass its genes on better? Most psychologists (especially those who do work with evolution) feel that group B would, as the self sacrifice keeps more of the same genes around to be passed on. This could also explain why anyone would be much more likely to save a baby than a grown woman.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yeah, I studied psychology at A level (wish I could have studied it more in depth, though. It was pretty clear that pretty much every theory had another theory which claimed the opposite.

When read back, that sounds a bit shit, but hopefully it makes sense.

no, it makes sense. Its because of how new the field is. Its frustrating when trying to interpret stats, because there are 2-3 different ways to do so (and of course, the researchers have themselves in little camps) but also means that there is a chance to do some work in the field that is note worthy.

I couldn't imagine being a chemist, I feel a lot of the new and revolutionary stuff in that field has been found or is sort of well beyond our technology (im sure im wrong). Psychology is ripe for some unifying theories.

I am sorry if I came off as if my way was the right way. It's simply what I believe. I fully respect people who think differently.

And I must say you guys have done a great job of defending your side of this.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I am sorry if I came off as if my way was the right way. It's simply what I believe. I fully respect people who think differently.

normally, people just assume this, so don't worry about offending anyone by telling them why they are wrong

also, don't worry when people say it to you, it is just their opinion as well 🙂
people will only tell you that you are wrong because they want to have a debate, its not an attack or anything

Thats cool, I'm still kind of a newb here.

you will develop a thick skin

I don't think women should get an abortion if they don't want it they could at least give it up

Originally posted by inimalist
which part?

I say you get two abortions in your life time, after the second one you get your uterus removed.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I say you get two abortions in your life time, after the second one you get your uterus removed.

No wait, I meant fascist...always mix up those two.

I say have however many abortions you want, for whatever reasons you want.

Wrong! Abortions should be used only as a last resort.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I say have however many abortions you want, for whatever reasons you want.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Wrong! Abortions should be used only as a last resort.

Like cannibalism?

Originally posted by Robtard
Like cannibalism?

Wait I'm atheist so 😆😆😆

You all are weird.......

Originally posted by Deja~vu
You all are weird.......