Roe v Wade

[jimmyscoular]

A foetus is not a baby. And that's a fact, mate!

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.'

[the other bob wilson]

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.'

Here we go.

[jimmyscoular]

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.

[Citizen's Nephew]

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.

[Wales-Bales]

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?

[Citizen's Nephew]

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

There is no non-human animal kingdom until humans become extinct. I don't remember seeing Meerkats with AK47s on any of Attenborough's programs.

I'm happy to debate but your question doesn't make any sense to me.

[jon1959]

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]

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.

[NYCBlue]

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.'

The people can decide? No, they can't. That's the point. The decision has been taken out of the hands of the women, who will now carry and bear children whether they want to or not. Rape, incest, life-threatening circumstances are no longer factor.