This fact you speak of is false, unless by “wanting to reproduce” you actually mean “sexually active, either voluntarily or not, and either inclined to reproduce or poorly informed about or unable to access birth control or unlucky and not so unwilling to reproduce that one will get around any and every obstacle to abortion including psychological attacks, physical prevention, massive social stigma, expense, and physical and emotional pain”. Or for the male version, “careless” would do.
...I’m saying that people can and do reproduce without wanting to, even in our society. It is simply not the case that reproduction is caused only by wanting to reproduce.
It seems to me that not wanting to get an abortion is covered under “wanting to reproduce”, at least for the evolutionary considerations I am interested in. From an individual rights perspective, I would retract my statement, but in the context of worrying about dysgenic selection pressures, I think my statement stands.
I think that’s a completely inappropriate classification of the catchall “not wanting to get an abortion”. It’s rarely medically necessary, and it’s painful and expensive, even pro-choicers have qualms about it sometimes, it carries enough of a stigma that it can be dangerous for reasons beyond medical complication—there are so many reasons not to have an abortion that it’s not at all difficult to imagine a woman whose desire not to reproduce is thereby outweighed, even if you’re dismissing as stupid all of the possible religious objections.
Well for the argument I am making this isn’t relevant. I can see that sometimes the problems and difficulties of some groups—e.g. women seeking abortions or couples unable to conceive are neglected or trivialized, and I am not trying to do that, so I could replace “wanting to reproduce” with “being able to either reproduce or not, and deciding to reproduce”. The argument I am making is about the evolutionary forces shaping society on average, for example by Catholics having more children and a gene for religious belief therefore taking over. I am not trying to argue that every single woman who has a child does so wholeheartedly.
Note that optional reproduction doesn’t have to be 100% true for Roko’s premise to hold. Even if 75% of children are ‘oops babies’ that other 25% will have significant effects on the gene distribution (or rather, the vast multitude that weren’t born because of people exercising choice will have an effect)
This fact you speak of is false, unless by “wanting to reproduce” you actually mean “sexually active, either voluntarily or not, and either inclined to reproduce or poorly informed about or unable to access birth control or unlucky and not so unwilling to reproduce that one will get around any and every obstacle to abortion including psychological attacks, physical prevention, massive social stigma, expense, and physical and emotional pain”. Or for the male version, “careless” would do.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to make the point that women post menopause may want to reproduce but not be able to?
...I’m saying that people can and do reproduce without wanting to, even in our society. It is simply not the case that reproduction is caused only by wanting to reproduce.
It seems to me that not wanting to get an abortion is covered under “wanting to reproduce”, at least for the evolutionary considerations I am interested in. From an individual rights perspective, I would retract my statement, but in the context of worrying about dysgenic selection pressures, I think my statement stands.
I think that’s a completely inappropriate classification of the catchall “not wanting to get an abortion”. It’s rarely medically necessary, and it’s painful and expensive, even pro-choicers have qualms about it sometimes, it carries enough of a stigma that it can be dangerous for reasons beyond medical complication—there are so many reasons not to have an abortion that it’s not at all difficult to imagine a woman whose desire not to reproduce is thereby outweighed, even if you’re dismissing as stupid all of the possible religious objections.
Well for the argument I am making this isn’t relevant. I can see that sometimes the problems and difficulties of some groups—e.g. women seeking abortions or couples unable to conceive are neglected or trivialized, and I am not trying to do that, so I could replace “wanting to reproduce” with “being able to either reproduce or not, and deciding to reproduce”. The argument I am making is about the evolutionary forces shaping society on average, for example by Catholics having more children and a gene for religious belief therefore taking over. I am not trying to argue that every single woman who has a child does so wholeheartedly.
Note that optional reproduction doesn’t have to be 100% true for Roko’s premise to hold. Even if 75% of children are ‘oops babies’ that other 25% will have significant effects on the gene distribution (or rather, the vast multitude that weren’t born because of people exercising choice will have an effect)