Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah: in vitro fertilization.
So I take it you are suggesting that all children should be conceived by in vitro otherwise they are invaders?
Or is it that, the same rules of abortion apply to these invaders if the mother changes her mind in the 3rd trimester?
liberty student:So I take it you are suggesting that all children should be conceived by in vitro otherwise they are invaders?
Only if you wish to create a strawman.
liberty student:Or is it that, the same rules of abortion apply to these invaders if the mother changes her mind in the 3rd trimester?
What's that got to do with anything?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah: in vitro fertilization. liberty student:So I take it you are suggesting that all children should be conceived by in vitro otherwise they are invaders? Only if you wish to create a strawman. liberty student:Or is it that, the same rules of abortion apply to these invaders if the mother changes her mind in the 3rd trimester? What's that got to do with anything?
Look this arguement always goes nowhere because the pro-abortion will never state their definiton of when human life begins and when human rights begin. Until they do there is nothing else to discuss. The pro-life people always state their position and can defend it with logic.
The pro-abortion crowd ideology is contradictory and arbitrary and they know it which is why no pro-abortion person in this entire thread has stated exactly when human life begins and when human rights begin.
Maxliberty:Look this arguement always goes nowhere because the pro-abortion will never state their definiton of when human life begins and when human rights begin.
No. You refuse to read. Quit trolling the same damn thing over and over.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Only if you wish to create a strawman.
I'm asking for clarification. It seems to me that you are inventing positions on the fly. Why offer in vitro, when it precisely makes my case that there are acts made that either intentionally create life, or have a possible outcome of creating life, and thus the notion of an invader or parasite is fundamentaly flawed.
To imply that the initial action is separate and distinct from it's consequences, seems incorrect to me.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What's that got to do with anything?
I'm just wondering if you advocate the consent to create life, also includes the right to destroy life. For example, if a mother chooses to get in vitro fertilization, isn't she intentionally seeking invader/parasites, for the purpose of procreation? And if the invader/parasites she has intentionally allowed into her body and nourished, maintained until they reach a dependent state, and approach the moment of birth (like the 3rd trimester), is it correct that you say she can go back on her decision and eliminate the fetus?
It's not just the question of when the fetus becomes an individual, but where libertarian morality is on inviting someone into your care intentionally, and then when they cannot survive without your nourishment or support, choosing to intentionally destroy them.
I'm all for people not being bound to positive obligations, but that doesn't mean that people can take actions and avoid responsibility for the consequences. If you harm someone else, you might be responsible for their future care. If you bring life into the world, you might be responsible for seeing it through. These are not obligations forced onto someone, they are the consequence of deliberate action whether it is pro creation by sex or in vitro.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:LibertyStudent, out of curiosity : are you advocating the death penalty, just like pro-life MaxSlavery does ?
Why would you ask that? And why are you mimicking Nicky with the petty re-naming?
If your argument had any quality, you wouldn't have to resort to those theatrics. Or are you just trying to impress us with your style and creativity?
LibertyStudent: Why would you ask that?
If your argument had any quality, you wouldn't have to resort to those theatrics.
MaxSlavery: Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty.
Juan:Because I want to know if your position is as ridiculous as Max's. Care to answer ?
Why assume I knew his position? I'd love to answer, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Juan:You mean, like quoting this ?
Well, in general, you get aggressive for no particular reason. You're a smart guy, so is Nicky, but that's no excuse to be a jerk.
Juan: MaxSlavery: Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty. So, is Max advocating the murder of women who have abortions (morning after pill included) ? Or am I misunderstanding his humanitarian benevolence ?
So, is Max advocating the murder of women who have abortions (morning after pill included) ? Or am I misunderstanding his humanitarian benevolence ?
Sounds like Max is saying that murder is murder, and his definition of abortion is that it is murder. IIRC, he's still waiting for the pro-abortion crowd to define when life starts. Do you have an answer for him yet?
Prior to Ron Paul, I guess I was pro-choice, for some of the silly reasons most people are. I assumed that the woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. Which I still agree with.
However, when a woman engages in the practice of creating new life, she's no longer making her decision in a vacuum. She has consciously decided to initiate chance that a new life could result, and it's no longer her body only or (if you believe such things) her soul only that the decisions are being made for.
Some will argue that she cannot be put under a positive obligation, but I would argue that she put herself under an obligation. By her own willful act(s). Which someone will say, but she can negate any contracts she makes with herself. I agree. Unless there is another life involved. And we still have no answer on when life conclusively begins.
Now I would be all for determining precisely when life begins, but in the interim, perhaps we should err on the side of caution. As long as I am unsure, I can't advocate abortion with a clear conscience.
If no one minds, I think that this Long article is now relevant.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
LibertyStudent: Why assume I knew his position?
LibertyStudent: Juan: So, is Max advocating the murder of women who have abortions (morning after pill included) ? Or am I misunderstanding his humanitarian benevolence ? Sounds like Max is saying that murder is murder, and his definition of abortion is that it is murder.
Juan: So, is Max advocating the murder of women who have abortions (morning after pill included) ? Or am I misunderstanding his humanitarian benevolence ?
Prior to Ron Paul, I guess I was pro-choice,
However, when a woman engages in the practice of creating new life,
Some will argue that she cannot be put under a positive obligation, but I would argue that she put herself under an obligation. By her own willful act(s).
As long as I am unsure, I can't advocate abortion with a clear conscience.
First, I want to say that people who remove all spacing in their posts, so when you go to quote them, you have to unravel and add your own line breaks, drive me crazy.
Juan: LibertyStudent: Why assume I knew his position? Because you are posting in this thread where Max has made his position clear.
Juan:Sounds like Max is saying that murder is murder, and his definition of abortion is that it is murder. Wow. Amazingly evasive answer. Care to try again ?
Sounds like Max is saying that murder is murder, and his definition of abortion is that it is murder.
Juan: Prior to Ron Paul, I guess I was pro-choice, But whatever Paul says is right ? You can't be serious.
Juan: However, when a woman engages in the practice of creating new life, Sex's purpose is not only to 'create' life. And life can be 'started' by medical means.
Juan: Some will argue that she cannot be put under a positive obligation, but I would argue that she put herself under an obligation. By her own willful act(s). So are you saying that all women who engage in sex do so to get pregnant ? And then change their mind ? Too bad that's not true at all.
Juan: As long as I am unsure, I can't advocate abortion with a clear conscience. Fine. Don't advocate abortion then. But "not advocating abortion" has nothing to do with trying to stop women from having abortions, or worse 'punishing' them for doing so. This last stopping and punishing, which Max advocates, has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:Or is it that, the same rules of abortion apply to these invaders if the mother changes her mind in the 3rd trimester? What's that got to do with anything?
I'd say the issue of abortion of in vitro babies is more than relevent.
Peace
Maxliberty:Look this arguement always goes nowhere because the pro-abortion will never state their definiton of when human life begins
No matter how many times you spew that lie, it remains a lie, Herr Goebbels.
liberty student:I'm asking for clarification.
And it's been so clarified, hasn't it?
liberty student: It seems to me that you are inventing positions on the fly.
That would be the result of you not reading what I'm writing.
liberty student:Why offer in vitro, when it precisely makes my case that there are acts made that either intentionally create life, or have a possible outcome of creating life, and thus the notion of an invader or parasite is fundamentaly flawed.
No, it doesn't. You forget that the act of sex does not have to end in pregnancy. Further, consent to sex is merely that: consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy. If you feel it is: prove it. Otherwise, you're guilty of a non sequitur.
liberty student:I'm just wondering if you advocate the consent to create life, also includes the right to destroy life.
I'm sensing a bait-and-swtich here. Not playing.
And you, like Max, must show that abortion is avoiding responsibility. Please provide the definition of responsibility wherein abortion is not part of taking responsibility.
LibertyStudent: You're asking me to answer for what Max believes.
...the mother certainly has full rights over her body, but how do we reconcile that with the life of the unborn?
Right, but you keep playing into my position by repeating that statement.
No, I don't think all sexual acts are committed with the intention of creating a pregnancy, but sex is definitely a time tested method for getting pregnant, short of the recent medical breakthroughs, it was the ONLY way to get pregnant.
If you know that sex can lead to pregnancy, and have sex anyway, then aren't you flirting with getting pregnant?
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it doesn't. You forget that the act of sex does not have to end in pregnancy. Further, consent to sex is merely that: consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy. If you feel it is: prove it. Otherwise, you're guilty of a non sequitur.
Sex and pregnancy are not mutually exclusive. Agree?
Knight_of_BAAWA:I'm sensing a bait-and-swtich here. Not playing. And you, like Max, must show that abortion is avoiding responsibility. Please provide the definition of responsibility wherein abortion is not part of taking responsibility.
What bait and switch? It's a straightforward question. If one can consent to create life, then does that same theory of consent work for the destruction of life, and vice versa? You don't want to answer it, because it's the pandora's box of the libertarian argument for abortion. I don't blame you. The answer doesn't make any of us richer, it makes all of us poorer.
Juan:Embryos and fetuses can't have rights.
Why not?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
liberty student:Sex and pregnancy are not mutually exclusive. Agree?
Sex doesn't always end in pregnancy. Agree?
liberty student:What bait and switch?
Not playing, and not taking the bait. Try it on someone who doesn't know any better and will be fooled by the fallacious argument that is merely an emotive plea: "if you create a life, sniff sniff, you can't take it away!".
How about this: if a woman owns herself, she cannot be made a slave just because she's pregnant. If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it.
Spideynw:Why not?
Because Juan thinks that babies magically gain rights once exiting the womb?
banned: Because Juan thinks that babies magically gain rights once exiting the womb?
Knight_of_BAAWA: How about this: if a woman owns herself, she cannot be made a slave just because she's pregnant. If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it.
Well, first of all, what do you mean "made a slave"? The baby owns the mother? At what point does a baby not own its mother anymore?
Regardless, as we have already discussed, just because someone happens to be on your property does not give you the right to do something to them that will end their life, just like if you are driving a hundred miles an hour in your car with someone does not give you the right to push them out of your car, just because it is your car.
Juan: banned: Because Juan thinks that babies magically gain rights once exiting the womb? All I know is : An embryo or a fetus is not the same kind of entity as a newborn or a child - so it makes no sense to 'grant' full rights to an embryo/fetus especially when doing so means that pregnant women loose a good deal of their rights - including the right not to be killed according to Max. I don't think babies 'magically' gain rights when they are born although as a compromise it sounds more or less plausible.
Yes you do. A newborn baby is not the same kind of entity as a one year old, a two year old, or a 25 year old. So why does it matter that they exited the womb?
Juan, you keep scrunching up your posts. FAIL!
Juan: LibertyStudent: You're asking me to answer for what Max believes. No. I'm asking you what kind of 'punishment'(if any) do you think is proper for abortionists.
Juan: LibertyStudent: ...the mother certainly has full rights over her body, but how do we reconcile that with the life of the unborn? Embryos and fetuses can't have rights.
LibertyStudent: ...the mother certainly has full rights over her body, but how do we reconcile that with the life of the unborn?
Juan:So, what the anti-abortion camp is proposing, is to suspend the rights of women to protect the non-existent rights of embryos and fetuses.
Juan: Right, but you keep playing into my position by repeating that statement. I don't see how. Whether life starts at some point or not, and how that happens, has nothing to do with embryos having rights (or not).
Juan: No, I don't think all sexual acts are committed with the intention of creating a pregnancy, but sex is definitely a time tested method for getting pregnant, short of the recent medical breakthroughs, it was the ONLY way to get pregnant. True, but that has no bearing on the problem at hand.
Juan: If you know that sex can lead to pregnancy, and have sex anyway, then aren't you flirting with getting pregnant? I don't think so. Usually people use contraceptives, which sometimes fail...
Juan:So, the question remains : What kind of punishment can libertarians legitimately use against abortionists ?
garegin:if the mother and the father created the fetus and the mother owns the fetus in her body how is it that she loses her rights to the fetus when he/she is born and becomes only a "guardian". for if the fetus has the future prospect of self-ownership, why is it only out of the womb that this future self-ownership gives him natural rights and only entitles the parents to simply custodianship.
The answer seems quite simple really. Unlike land, minerals, resources or other trappings of civilization, people cannot be owned. Regardless of life stage, the responsibility of the parents are to the child. They have the duty to raise the child so that it may become an independent person.
To answer your questions:
1. Parent's don't have rights, they have responsibilities.
2. You cannot own another person.
3. We are all at the whim of others' at all times. People will either meet their responsibilities or they will not.
I think Rothbard made a mistake when he tried to define parenthood as property based. Property is a human notion. It's a set of rules and/or customs that people mutually agree upon so one person does not steal from another. At different times and places people have defined that in different ways.
That's not to say that people cannot come to an agreement on the responsibilities of parents. Again different times and different places have defined those responsibilities differently. The question should be what's the optimum way to raise children to be able to secure life, liberty and happiness.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it doesn't. You forget that the act of sex does not have to end in pregnancy. Further, consent to sex is merely that: consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy. If you feel it is: prove it. Otherwise, you're guilty of a non sequitur. liberty student:Sex and pregnancy are not mutually exclusive. Agree?Sex doesn't always end in pregnancy. Agree?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:I'm sensing a bait-and-swtich here. Not playing.And you, like Max, must show that abortion is avoiding responsibility. Please provide the definition of responsibility wherein abortion is not part of taking responsibility. liberty student:What bait and switch?Not playing, and not taking the bait. Try it on someone who doesn't know any better and will be fooled by the fallacious argument that is merely an emotive plea: "if you create a life, sniff sniff, you can't take it away!".
Knight_of_BAAWA:I'm sensing a bait-and-swtich here. Not playing.And you, like Max, must show that abortion is avoiding responsibility. Please provide the definition of responsibility wherein abortion is not part of taking responsibility.
Knight_of_BAAWA:How about this: if a woman owns herself, she cannot be made a slave just because she's pregnant. If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it.
The question is if the fetus is not life, and the mother has a claim on it, then it is property. So under what reasoning is the creator of property through homesteading, not able to also destroy their creation? Who puts any caveat on the property (who has a higher claim to it)?
You see, the fetus is either property or a living being. If it is a living being, killing it is murder, if it is property, then it can be destroyed by it's creator. But at what point does the fetus stop being property and start being a living being? What fundamental difference is there between a baby 1 minute before birth, and 1 minute after?
Spideynw:Well, first of all, what do you mean "made a slave"?
You seem to have command of the English language; it means just what is written.
Spideynw:Regardless, as we have already discussed, just because someone happens to be on your property does not give you the right to do something to them that will end their life
And we've discussed that this is a false analogy. So why do you PERSIST in bringing it up?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Sex doesn't always end in pregnancy. Agree?
liberty student:Lame attempt at evasion. Very disappointing.
Lame lie; how disappointing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not playing, and not taking the bait. Try it on someone who doesn't know any better and will be fooled by the fallacious argument that is merely an emotive plea: "if you create a life, sniff sniff, you can't take it away!".
liberty student:There was no emotive plea made.
Bull. And please start using logic and reason.
liberty student:I'm not sure how to respond to this.
With words.
And I didn't fail to respond to anything. Either prove that the fetus has the right to be in the womb or give up the argument. Period. That's how it works.
Your fail to live up to your reputation. All I see are strawmen, dodges and Ad homs. Are you also a bully in real life, or is this just an internet tough guy act?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And I didn't fail to respond to anything.
Yes, you have now twice dodged answering TWO direct and simple yes/no questions. Why is it that the tough guys are always cowards when they run into someone who won't put up with their bully act?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Either prove that the fetus has the right to be in the womb or give up the argument. Period. That's how it works.
Prove whether the fetus is alive or not and we can debate it's rights.
liberty student:Your fail to live up to your reputation.
Nice lie.
liberty student:All I see are strawmen, dodges and Ad homs.
Nice projection.
Are you this ignorant in real life, or do you just play dumb on the interwebs?
liberty student:Yes, you have now twice dodged answering TWO direct and simple yes/no questions.
False. You have lied again. Why is it that you must lie? Why are you so cowardly? Are you being a coward because you know I won't put up with your bully act?
Hint: I throw your ignorant rants at you when you use them. So the upshot is: don't do it again.
liberty student:Prove whether the fetus is alive or not and we can debate it's rights.
Prove that such is relevant. If you can't: give up the argument.
Spideynw: Since I am pro-life, I would like to respond to these comments. First of all, Ron Paul never saw an instance where the baby so threatened the life of the mother that an abortion would be needed. Now, that is not a scientific survey, as such it is not necessarily very relevant. However, I have yet to see any evidence of an instance where an abortion is needed to protect a mother's life. Second of all, as to when life begins, a sperm will always die unless it is given an egg and an egg will die unless it is given a sperm. An embryo on the other hand, will grow to an adult human as long as its life is not ended. But to call an embryo a baby at three months as opposed to conception is just arbitrary. I could just as easily claim an embryo is not a human until at 25 years old.
Since I am pro-life, I would like to respond to these comments.
First of all, Ron Paul never saw an instance where the baby so threatened the life of the mother that an abortion would be needed. Now, that is not a scientific survey, as such it is not necessarily very relevant. However, I have yet to see any evidence of an instance where an abortion is needed to protect a mother's life.
Second of all, as to when life begins, a sperm will always die unless it is given an egg and an egg will die unless it is given a sperm. An embryo on the other hand, will grow to an adult human as long as its life is not ended. But to call an embryo a baby at three months as opposed to conception is just arbitrary. I could just as easily claim an embryo is not a human until at 25 years old.
Regarding the first point, I'm sure it is rare, but threats can come in various degrees. If the doctor said it was 100% chance of death, would you support an abortion, simply as a form of self-defense? If yes, what if the chance was 90%? Or 50%? Or 10%? Most things in life are not clear cut 100% one way or the other. And besides a threat to life, there's the physical and mental discomfort that can't be fully known ahead of time. So assessing threat is not that simple (imo).
On the second point, all life ends eventually, regardless of what we do. The fact that sperm have an extremely short life span compared to a live human being isn't really helpful, I don't think. Even so, an embryo could be created outside of the womb, and if so, it would die as well without some kind of intervention.
I think a continuum argument is more accurate and convincing. A newly fertilized embryo is very complex chemically, but I think most of us would see our pets as more truly alive in one sense. Life as the capacity to respond and choose, which is what forms the foundation of property and homesteading and all that. Embryos have that only in the most minimal sense. As time goes on, they gain more of it. One might argue that newborn babies don't have it as fully as adult humans do, but certainly enough that we recognize them as deserving consideration and that we can't arbitrarily kill them.
Part of the problem with the question of "when does life begin?" is that the question assumes a digital answer.. here's non-life, full stop.. and here's life, full stop. The question is question-begging in a way, though I'm not saying the people who ask it are trying to do that. It's just an unspoken assumption of the question, and I think it causes a lot of confusion in wrestling with this issue.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Prove that such is relevant. If you can't: give up the argument.
I have to prove that if the fetus is a living being, and thus abortion is murder, that such a fact would be relevant?
You're taking the cowards way out again. Better to log off and hope everyone forgets your escape act by tomorrow.
LibertyStudent: Juan, you keep scrunching up your posts. FAIL!
So you are saying that the rights of a new life are different 1 minute before and 1 minute after birth?
If you don't know when life begins, then how can you be so sure when it is ok to terminate a pregnancy?
How can you separate the ethics of abortion from the act of conception?
I'm trying to reach some sort of clarity on whether or not it is murder. Of course, you can't say it isn't because you don't know when life begins.
And likewise, I can't say it is, because even though I am willing to accept your definition (whatever it may be), you fail to provide one.
liberty student:I have to prove that if the fetus is a living being, and thus abortion is murder, that such a fact would be relevant?
No, you have to prove that the fetus being a living being is relevant.
Hint: strawmen, like all fallacies, kill arguments. You're taking the coward's way out again. Better to log off and hope everyone forgets your escape act by tomorrow.
banned: Easy, if abortion is the only available immediate means in ridding oneself of an invader. In other words, if abortion is the only viable option for the mother, it is totally and completely within her ethical right to employ it. If abortion is not the only available means a woman has, it is a murderous act. But as of now, it's the only known method of fetus removal (and still, the fetus dies without support). If someone is in your home, stealing your things, and the only way you can stop them from doing it is by killing them, you are within your right to kill them. Of course, you'd have to prove that that was the only option you had, but that is hardly relevant here.
Easy, if abortion is the only available immediate means in ridding oneself of an invader. In other words, if abortion is the only viable option for the mother, it is totally and completely within her ethical right to employ it. If abortion is not the only available means a woman has, it is a murderous act. But as of now, it's the only known method of fetus removal (and still, the fetus dies without support).
If someone is in your home, stealing your things, and the only way you can stop them from doing it is by killing them, you are within your right to kill them. Of course, you'd have to prove that that was the only option you had, but that is hardly relevant here.
I think that there's a different justification for using lethal force, though. Perhaps that's the underlying disagreement.
Example, if someone is breaking into your home to steal your things, but justification for lethal force (for me) is based on the threat to one's life. Very different than if you find someone passed out drunk. It's your property in both cases, but I don't think that lethal force, absent a serious threat to your own life or livelihood, is justified. I understand most libertarians disagree, but it seems that life should have a bit more 'weight' so to speak than property, mainly because property rights are only possible when there are living beings involved. Life is primary and foundational, property is only by extension.
Perhaps that's taking the discussion too far afield, but it seems to me that those who are emphasizing property rights as the ultimate principle are too easily placing life as at best a parallel right, or somehow subsumed under the overarching idea of property. I think that's a reversal of the true relationship.
The problem you have here is you assume that proving the fetus is a human being proves anything about the criminality of abortion (evidenced by your use of "thus"). BAAWA could grant that the fetus is a human being (with full rights as such) and his point here would be unchanged. It is not the case that "if the fetus is a living being, then abortion is murder" - what's under dispute is more akin to, "if the fetus has a right to live inside the mother's womb, then abortion is murder," BAAWA is arguing that it is not the case that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother's womb.
Just a clarification for you, because you two seem to be talking past each other.
I hear you Morty, but Baawa has lost the argument. Because even if he concedes the fetus is a living being, the mother is the one to take it into her body (short of rape).
If I invite you to my house, then kill you for being in my house, have I committed murder or not?
Baawa was also avoiding answering the question, whether or not the right to create life includes the right to take that life. If a child is property, then the parent should be able to destroy it. If the child is not property, then what is it?
Juan: I didn't say that. I do say that there's a difference between a fertilized egg which can be removed using the morning after pill, and a fetus that can survive in an incubator. Failing to acknowledge that difference leads to absurd.
Wow, way to throw a wrench into the discussion.
If I agree with you then my whole argument falls apart.
If I disagree with you, then I have to concede that the morning after pill should be illegal, which I just do not think it should be.
liberty student:I hear you Morty, but Baawa has lost the argument.
Not possible.
liberty student:Because even if he concedes the fetus is a living being, the mother is the one to take it into her body (short of rape).
So what? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that consent can NEVER be rescinded? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman loses ownership of her womb when she's pregnant? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman should be enslaved to the fetus?
liberty student:If I invite you to my house
False analogy! How many times will you use that false analogy? NO ONE WAS INVITED INTO THE WOMB! THERE WAS NO PERSON!
And I've avoided nothing; you've avoided showing that there is a right to life, since your "can you destroy life if you create it" hinges upon that.
Go to it.
It's funny how much that false analogy is brought up, when it is plainly invalid.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...