Roe v Wade

[jon1959]

Re: Roe v Wade

Too bad you didn't weigh in earlier with your certainty. This is the very issue that has been debated in the United States since 1973. You could have saved Americans a lot of trouble. It would help, though, if you could further clarify when the 'foetus' does become a 'baby.' Is it the moment of birth, as contrasted with one second or one minute earlier? Is it the point of "viability?" Is it conception? America has wrestled passionately and sincerely with these profound issues. The Supreme Court has said, essentially, 'We don't know, and will no longer pretend to know. The people can decide for themselves, in their particular states.'

You prefer Wales Bales' 'facts' and certainties to mine, and approve the Supreme Court decision?

OK - I think that is a very bad and sad place to be - but your choice (although obviously not a woman's choice!)

But help me out by pointing to any dictionary definition of the word baby that includes the foetus state. I have looked and cannot find. I am not talking about whether a foetus would be viable or not - that is a different question. My response to Wales Bales was about his use of the word, and then doubling down with claiming it was 'a fact', and so not open to debate.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

You prefer Wales Bales' 'facts' and certainties to mine, and approve the Supreme Court decision?

OK - I think that is a very bad and sad place to be - but your choice (although obviously not a woman's choice!)

But help me out by pointing to any dictionary definition of the word baby that includes the foetus state. I have looked and cannot find. I am not talking about whether a foetus would be viable or not - that is a different question. My response to Wales Bales was about his use of the word, and then doubling down with claiming it was 'a fact', and so not open to debate.

It's a living organism, whether it's inside or outside of the womb.

[jimmyscoular]

Re: Roe v Wade

Yes, legislation has to pass through both houses. That's the point. That's how small-population Republican states like Wyoming and Nebraska and Iowa and the Dakotas and Missouri and Kansas and Missouri and Alabama and Tennessee and Utah, and even large-population Republican states like Texas and Florida, defend their autonomy from massive-population Democratic states like New York and California.

It's also how small-population Democratic states like Maine and Vermont and Maryland, and even large-population Democratic states like California and New York, will defend their autonomy from the Republican wave that is expected to sweep across America during this November's mid-term election.

The confusion stems from imagining that the United States is a unitary nation. It is not. It is a federation of 50 almost-if-not-quite-completely-sovereign states with their own legislatures, their own laws, their own cultures and their own presidents (governors). The federal government does not like this, of course, and tries to coerce the states any which way it can. The Senate, with its equal representation, makes this impossible, or at least a lot more difficult.

The U.S. Senate is vastly more democratic than the UN Security Council. No state has veto power in the U.S. Senate. If 60 percent of the vote can be gathered, then anything can be passed, and, contingent upon any such legislation surviving constitutional scrutiny in the courts, everyone will have to fall in line no matter what.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Roe v Wade

It's a living organism, whether it's inside or outside of the womb.

So is bacteria. That doesn't make it an unborn child though.

[jimmyscoular]

Re: Roe v Wade

These are difficult and serious issues that deserve to be addressed, as they have been in the United States, without resort to snark. It can all seem ridiculous sometimes when you see contending protesters with their incendiary signs screaming at one another in the streets, but underlying all that are serious philosophical — and biological — questions that have to do with the nature of human life.

[jimmyscoular]

Re: Roe v Wade

Look at that. An actual argument. Good for you.

Of course, bacteria will not become a human being. The fetus will. It is a human being in embryo, which raises the question of whether it deserves protection in the same way that a born child, who is an adult in embryo, is worthy of protection. And so, we return to the vexing question of timing — at what point in the gestational or developmental process do we deem a biologically human entity worthy of protection?

These are not easy questions.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

So is bacteria. That doesn't make it an unborn child though.

I think you may be reaching a bit here.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Roe v Wade

These are difficult and serious issues that deserve to be addressed, as they have been in the United States, without resort to snark. It can all seem ridiculous sometimes when you see contending protesters with their incendiary signs screaming at one another in the streets, but underlying all that are serious philosophical — and biological — questions that have to do with the nature of human life.

You're elevating human life above all other life with that statement. Nature isn't interested in philosophy. Populations of animals are not governed by anything other than ecological systems and population dynamics i.e. mathematics and the equations of production, consumerism (in the biological sense) and decay. Mess with that (which we do all the time) and nature (the universe) has a way of making sure it balances out again.

Humans really aren't as clever as we think we are. People bang on about life being 'sacred' but they really mean human life, in isolation. We can't survive like that so all this so-called philosophical discussion is pointless anyway.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Roe v Wade

Look at that. An actual argument. Good for you.

Of course, bacteria will not become a human being. The fetus will. It is a human being in embryo, which raises the question of whether it deserves protection in the same way that a born child, who is an adult in embryo, is worthy of protection. And so, we return to the vexing question of timing — at what point in the gestational or developmental process do we deem a biologically human entity worthy of protection?

These are not easy questions.

I was arguing against the point that because something is a living organism that it makes it relevant.

Were there not already laws in place to prevent non-essential/emergency (as in: obvious risk to mother or baby) abortions in the second trimester and outright bans beyond that gestational stage?

The "unborn child" will now have more human rights in certain states than the women who will be forced to carry it to term.

[lardy]

Re: Roe v Wade

Look at that. An actual argument. Good for you.

Of course, bacteria will not become a human being. The fetus will. It is a human being in embryo, which raises the question of whether it deserves protection in the same way that a born child, who is an adult in embryo, is worthy of protection. And so, we return to the vexing question of timing — at what point in the gestational or developmental process do we deem a biologically human entity worthy of protection?

These are not easy questions.

Women have abortions for good reasons. They don't just fancy killing a human.

If a woman is pregnated through rape, why should her only choice be to carry the baby for 9 months and deliver it?

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Roe v Wade

I think you may be reaching a bit here.

Tell me more.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

You're elevating human life above all other life with that statement. Nature isn't interested in philosophy. Populations of animals are not governed by anything other than ecological systems and population dynamics i.e. mathematics and the equations of production, consumerism (in the biological sense) and decay. Mess with that (which we do all the time) and nature (the universe) has a way of making sure it balances out again.

Humans really aren't as clever as we think we are. People bang on about life being 'sacred' but they really mean human life, in isolation. We can't survive like that so all this so-called philosophical discussion is pointless anyway.

So would you condone the indiscriminate killing that occurs in the non-human animal kingdom, i.e. legalise murder?

[lardy]

Re: Roe v Wade

Women have abortions for good reasons. They don't just fancy killing a human.

If a woman is pregnated through rape, why should her only choice be to carry the baby for 9 months and deliver it?

(Impregnated, sorry. In b4 TBG)

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Roe v Wade

Tell me more.

To tell you the truth, I can't be bothered

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Roe v Wade

To tell you the truth, I can't be bothered

Surprise, surprise