Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is so silly! Of course family planning as defined in our current laws is protected by the Constitution, as far as I understand them. But I am not proposing new laws, or preservation of current laws, that might require constitutional justification. 

I agree that this is silly.  Give me a scenario where voluntarily claiming the liberties of family planning would be found to be unconstitutional based on the context (which you seem to leave out) of the word "Posterity" in the Preamble... 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, that's not true...a decision not to have children at a given point can contribute to the increase in posterity ultimately. The law of chastity is an example of this. 

Timing can be critical to one's ability to procreate and nurture a generation.

Good point, vasectomy and abstinence can work both ways. But we were talking about his personal experience and reasons for getting a vasectomy, and evaluating how that might impact the nation's posterity (i.e., combined descendants to the furthest generation). So I take his anecdote to refer to a reduction in the potential since he had had enough kids for him to manage; you can clarify with him whether this decision was primarily in consideration of the nation's population. "Timing" of a father's vasectomy as you say, can increase or decrease -- make a vas deferens in -- the continued uninterrupted transmission (emission?) which affects the potential total (adjusted for all other internal an external factors, including the number and gender of sexual partners). In this case, he was potentially able to father more and chose not to through this method, impacting the nation's population numbers of furthest generation.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that this is silly.  Give me a scenario where voluntarily claiming the liberties of family planning would be found to be unconstitutional based on the context (which you seem to leave out) of the word "Posterity" in the Preamble... 

I was asking that justifications for new or challenged family planning laws include a critical analysis of "Posterity" to address the inevitable question of constitutionality. I provided an example. Granted, not everyone is up to the task, or as you say, thinks it relevant. Such would not find theoretical potential scenarios of proposed family planning laws that might be challenged helpful, which is why I stick to requesting a critical analysis of "Posterity" in justifying actual proposals instead. 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good point, vasectomy and abstinence can work both ways. But we were talking about his personal experience and reasons for getting a vasectomy, and evaluating how that might impact the nation's posterity (i.e., combined descendants to the furthest generation). So I take his anecdote to refer to a reduction in the potential since he had had enough kids for him to manage; you can clarify with him whether this decision was primarily in consideration of the nation's population. "Timing" of a father's vasectomy as you say, can increase or decrease -- make a vas deferens in -- the continued uninterrupted transmission (emission?) which affects the potential total (adjusted for all other internal an external factors, including the number and gender of sexual partners). In this case, he was potentially able to father more and chose not to through this method, impacting the nation's population numbers of furthest generation.

This is getting really invasive into a persons personal liberties that the government has no business in. 

The Preamble is really being distorted here.  It has nothing to do with maximizing potential number of decedents - or controlling numbers in any way (we are not China).  It is not about securing population numbers of posterity, but is about securing the "liberty" (as in the liberty to choose how many children one wants to conceive, or to have a vasectomy and avoid children all together) of what will be our actual "Posterity" (regardless of the numbers).  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was asking that justifications for new or challenged family planning laws include a critical analysis of "Posterity" to address the inevitable question of constitutionality.

No, we should not consider the word "Posterity" in isolation and without context.  Given the context of the Preamble, your application of the word in relation to potential numbers of posterity is irrelevant.  

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is getting really invasive into a persons personal liberties that the government has no business in. 

The Preamble is really being distorted here.  It has nothing to do with maximizing potential number of decedents - or controlling numbers in any way (we are not China).  It is not about securing population numbers of posterity, but is about securing the "liberty" (as in the liberty to choose how many children one wants to conceive, or to have a vasectomy and avoid children all together) of what will be our actual "Posterity" (regardless of the numbers).  

I suggest you direct this militant rhetoric to the poster who asked the question, and whom I merely politely obliged with a response.

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, we should not consider the word "Posterity" in isolation and without context.  Given the context of the Preamble, your application of the word in relation to potential numbers of posterity is irrelevant.  

I use the quotation marks in "Posterity" for brevity in referencing the entire request I made all too often (and even offered a hypothetical example of what I'm looking for), and which you clearly find unnecessary to accommodate. I'll leave it to you to review all those posts, and if you still have questions about what I am asking for, reply to any post in question. Thank you.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I use the quotation marks in "Posterity" for brevity in referencing the entire request I made all too often (and even offered a hypothetical example of what I'm looking for), and which you clearly find unnecessary to accommodate. I'll leave it to you to review all those posts, and if you still have questions about what I am asking for, reply to any post in question. Thank you.

I'm not sure which posts you are referring to.  I guess I'll have to go dig around. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I suggest you direct this militant rhetoric to the poster who asked the question, and whom I merely politely obliged with a response.

No, this is your game.  I am addressing your responses not his questions. 

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I use the quotation marks in "Posterity" for brevity in referencing the entire request I made all too often (and even offered a hypothetical example of what I'm looking for), and which you clearly find unnecessary to accommodate. I'll leave it to you to review all those posts, and if you still have questions about what I am asking for, reply to any post in question. Thank you.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.  If you are talking about a critical analysis of the word "Posterity" -  I already gave you one.  I have explained what the word "Posterity" means in context several times.  It has nothing to do with controlling numbers.   Do you have a response, or are you going to continue to ignore my points?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is not about securing population numbers of posterity, but is about securing the "liberty" (as in the liberty to choose how many children one wants to conceive, or to have a vasectomy and avoid children all together) of what will be our actual "Posterity" (regardless of the numbers).

Yes, everyone has the free agency to marry or not marry, to abstain or engage in relations within the bonds of matrimony or outside, to have children or not, or even how many BUT all of us will ultimately answer to the Most High God's eminent commandment:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, longview said:

Yes, everyone has the free agency to marry or not marry, to abstain or engage in relations within the bonds of matrimony or outside, to have children or not, or even how many BUT all of us will ultimately answer to the Most High God's eminent commandment:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

I think I’m safe on that account, with 6 kids and 5 grandchildren. That has to count for something. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think I’m safe on that account, with 6 kids and 5 grandchildren. That has to count for something. 

The Lord bless you.  However, in the longer term, the perspectives outlined in the Proclamation on the Family has to come into consideration.  Such as welding links joining families together to complete the "House of Israel" in the Celestial Realm.  It would serve no purpose in the Telestial Kingdom

Link to comment
1 minute ago, longview said:

The Lord bless you.  However, in the longer term, the perspectives outlined in the Proclamation on the Family has to come into consideration.  Such as welding links joining families together to complete the "House of Israel" in the Celestial Realm.  It would serve no purpose in the Telestial Kingdom

I’m pretty sure I’m telestial material, so it’s all good. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure which posts you are referring to.  I guess I'll have to go dig around. 

Probably a good idea. Start with my initial post to you from last Friday, to which I see you never replied. I think you will see that focusing on the word itself is is too narrow and interpretation of what I was asking for -- that I am more referring to legal/constitutional interpretation, concept and application.

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

I’m pretty sure I’m telestial material, so it’s all good. 

No.  You are deserving of so much more.  NOT the blandness of the Telestial.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, longview said:

No.  You are deserving of so much more.  NOT the blandness of the Telestial.

I’m sure several people here can correct you of this notion. 😂

Link to comment
1 hour ago, longview said:

Yes, everyone has the free agency to marry or not marry, to abstain or engage in relations within the bonds of matrimony or outside, to have children or not, or even how many BUT all of us will ultimately answer to the Most High God's eminent commandment:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Are you suggesting that we base our laws concerning procreation around this scripture? Because I'm thinking those of us who are advocating  pro-choice regulation of abortion don't expect everyone in the United States to follow the commandments in the Bible. It's kind of the point of having religious freedom. We can't compel people to follow our religious tenets. 
So those in here who keep quoting scripture or sharing the words of the prophets are preaching to choir.  

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Good point, vasectomy and abstinence can work both ways. But we were talking about his personal experience and reasons for getting a vasectomy, and evaluating how that might impact the nation's posterity (i.e., combined descendants to the furthest generation). So I take his anecdote to refer to a reduction in the potential since he had had enough kids for him to manage; you can clarify with him whether this decision was primarily in consideration of the nation's population. "Timing" of a father's vasectomy as you say, can increase or decrease -- make a vas deferens in -- the continued uninterrupted transmission (emission?) which affects the potential total (adjusted for all other internal an external factors, including the number and gender of sexual partners). In this case, he was potentially able to father more and chose not to through this method, impacting the nation's population numbers of furthest generation.

 

Vasectomies can indeed affect immediate fertility, although they can often be reversed--as in my brother's case, for example. Anyway, I would argue that the well-being of a generation can have extensive positive impact far outweighing the benefit of unbridled fertility.

The latter can reduce the lifespan of the mother, the good outcomes of the children and the well being of the entire family. A balance of quantity of children versus quality of life--in terms of future posterity--can be an example of "fast is slow and slow is fast."

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

I too find it scary that this is legally possible.  I don't see anything inaccurate in their attacks of the "ability to abort a baby..." The fact that the law allows for it is the concern - that they are "able".  Even if it is extremely rare, it is legal.  That is the problem. 

If it is doctors you are concerned about, I'm not sure how regulating them less would be a good solution to resolving your concern.   I too am concerned about the practice of doctors.  There are some quacks out there (see Covid).  Without clear guidelines, doctors will push the boundaries in unacceptable ways.   They need clear guidelines.  

Either way, whether we are talking about the federal government standardizing practice in the US or not, the federal government must not allow those standards to violate the constitutional rights to life.  That is the primary role of the federal government to protect those rights and not give states wiggle room with those rights.  So, either way, the government NEEDS to set clear boundaries as to what those rights are and who gets them. 

On the  first part, no comment. Most would be technical disagreements (accuracy thing again) and I'm not in the mood to go back and forth on technicalities

On the docs, it's a matter of exposure and training to make a specific decision on the issue. The more specialized an area there tends to be better care if only from greater ethical training and knowledge of concerns pertaining to said field. Most later abortions would fall under this category and all super late ones would, from what I'm seeing be described. Pregnancy also exposes you to far more of the medical field than abortion does and thus more opportunity for error and the general nature of full term pregnancy is far more risky. Docs of any stripe are by no means perfect, but at least they're thoroughly trained and educated in this field. Politicians are almost entirely not and the policies made are based off of their assumptions or limited exposure to it. Even in less heated issues, politicians often make policy that's counter-intuitive or problematic on the professional side. I've seen that with some of the laws passed that regulate the mental health field. Which is why I'd prefer a basic bare min policy, preferably informed by actual experts in this that guide practices and for docs have more say than politicians on issues concerned with physical health. 

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Currently, it is pretty vague.  "Personhood" is vague and will need to be clarified by the courts.  Is the unborn a "person" or not.  At what point is it a person?  The constitution and/or courts need to be clear as to whom these rights belong to - otherwise it is a useless document/system. 

That is your opinion that has not been decided by the courts and is pretty vague in the constitution.  The Unborn Victims of Violence act seems to suggest that the unborn do have rights to life and that they can be victims of violence and that those acts of violence are punishable as a violation of their rights. Roe kept it from addressing victims of abortion, but now that Roe is out of the way...   If the Unborn Victims of Violence act is constitutional, then I don't see why it can't apply to abortion too.  

I would actually probably put the words debated, nuanced, or even contradictory moreso than vague. Different forms of human fetal life in different stages of development and different contexts are treated differently under law. Laws around stem cell research, IVF, the most restrictive laws still placing more weight on the life of the mother and often leaving at least some small window for exceptions based on say rape, as a whole point not to vagueness IMHO...but the very different status embryos and fetus have from a completed human being.  Even the law that you mentioned was carefully nuanced to not weigh in on abortion when determining personhood for forceful/violent crimes. The context of forcing a loss on the woman, in effect, is considered than a woman coming to the decision to end a pregnancy. In large part because their personhood is inherently different from every born person. I saw a pithy quote today that I think captured this (i think based off of the famous violist analogy) "By outlawing abortion, we are giving fetuses rights people don’t have"...as in the right to exist via another's body without direct consent to do so. 

 

19 hours ago, pogi said:

For the purposes of the constitution and the courts to be fulfilled, that is precisely the question that must be addressed. Who is protected by the constitutional right to life, and who (or what) is not?  It is currently being decided if an elephant is a person...  Sheesh!  If these same people arguing that an elephant is a person are the same people arguing that a fetus is not, I think I will want to vomit a little. 

I have no idea whether they're pro-life. Again this isn't about vagueness per se, but the complexity of what entails personhood. This is taking on another (albeit incomplete) aspect that is deemed important: complex sentience and what degree of complexity means animals should have at least limited rights. This takes up a different aspect of potential personhood that pro-life arguments take up: which is unique human dna as therefore deserving of rights under human law. To be fair, I think it is an incomplete definition and that there likely needs to be a distinctive category for complex intelligent lives that are not human. Which is likely why they're largely failing as an argument in court. I would personally see a stronger case for the elephant than a rando company being a "person," personally....and at the very least a solid case for being more considerate of beings that are not human but still experience and exist on earth. The reason any of these are debates is because the parameter for complete/commonly understood personhood aren't fully met by any of them.  

19 hours ago, pogi said:

For me it really is as simple as addressing who is protected under the constitutional right to life.  Who is a person under the law and who is not.  All these other questions may or may not even be relevant based on that definition.   From where I stand, the best objective definition of a human being (which I think should direct our understanding of personhood) is found in biology.  There is no other objective measure we have to direct us. 

Yeah, no. We've already debated that ad nauseum. What makes a human being a human being isn't that straightforward. Each group, from pro-life to pro-choice can use aspects of science to prove their point. Personally I find the most extreme orientations (super pro-life or super pro-choice) the least convincing in argumentation, namely because they tend to take only one aspect of what we generally deem as a human being and place that as the defining characteristic.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Probably a good idea. Start with my initial post to you from last Friday, to which I see you never replied. I think you will see that focusing on the word itself is is too narrow and interpretation of what I was asking for -- that I am more referring to legal/constitutional interpretation, concept and application.

I have read all your posts and I can’t figure out what you are talking about. I think if you are serious about discussing this and are not trying to use some teaching method to draw people to a certain understanding, you should gather your thoughts on this subtopic from the beginning and put them in one post in a complete step by step format until you get to your point you want the discussion to springboard off of so readers can follow your logic because as far as I can tell no one is at this point in the process.  I feel like there are huge or crucial gaps missing, preventing me from making any solid connections.  We can’t read your mind and to me, I feel like you are asking us to do that even though of course you are not.  It just isn’t making sense though.  And if you are tempted to ask me to reread them again…you know that whole ‘insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’…that would apply to that request.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have read all your posts and I can’t figure out what you are talking about. I think if you are serious about discussing this and are not trying to use some teaching method to draw people to a certain understanding, you should gather your thoughts on this subtopic from the beginning and put them in one post in a complete step by step format until you get to your point you want the discussion to springboard off of so readers can follow your logic because as far as I can tell no one is at this point in the process.  I feel like there are huge or crucial gaps missing, preventing me from making any solid connections.  We can’t read your mind and to me, I feel like you are asking us to do that even though of course you are not.  It just isn’t making sense though.  And if you are tempted to ask me to reread them again…you know that whole ‘insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’…that would apply to that request.

OK, my initial post from last Friday: Posted May 13 What did it mean to you at that time?

I’m seeing from the most recent posts on this page that my suggestion suffers the same problem as when posters challenge each other’s’ sense of what makes a person, or a human being, only on steroids for some reason: what/who/when/where makes Posterity; why is it mentioned in the Preamble “alongside ourselves” and what does that mean; how is this concept to be addressed in whatever proposal one is making? It is as much philosophical as biological. I tried to point to that with an example here: Posted yesterday at 12:36 PM

I’m fine with people ignoring the question if I’m not articulating it well enough or if it is a trigger, which seems to be consistent with the negative reactions I got from the get-go. But it is also possible that people do understand it and would rather push it aside. I do not know; I just try to answer the questions the best I can.

But to your point, though I disdain posters putting conditions on how serious others are (it does go two ways), here is a distillation of my ideas from the various ways I tried to explain what I am asking for, from page 32 onward (excluding the links above):

“The Value of Including a Conceptual, Critical Analysis of  ‘Posterity’ As Used in the Constitution to Justify Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Positions” by CV75

[clears throat]

Let’s try using a point other than "viability" or “prevention” to justify one's position on the thread topic by applying the meaning of "Posterity" as used in the Preamble to the US Constitution; its distinction from "ourselves" in the same phrase; and what these mean for pro-choice or pro-life positions -- granted, loaded terms that do not capture the pro-"xyz" that most people cobble together from both movements...

Reason 1: It offers a more directly constitutional basis for discussion as opposed to the more derivative rights of viability and prevention. Reason 2: The Preamble to the United States Constitution seems to equally acknowledge ourselves and our Posterity, presumably as an added measure of justification for the highest law of the land. [This is where I began to get an incredible amount of flack of all kinds: brittle, passive-aggressive, and militant!]. Reason 3: SCOTUS must (as in very presumably) interpret and consider this in its deliberations and decisions on the thread topic. Reason 4: It might be helpful to bring it up when trying to win support for one position or another.

P.S. Forgive me if I did not take the subtopic of vasectomies very seriously.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment

I don't know if this is helpful or adding more mud in the mix, but I think I kinda know where @CV75is going. I haven't read as thoroughly and i still think it would be good for him specifically to clarify where he's going with this, but I've seen this mentioned briefly in a couple of places. 

The first is actually not about abortion at all, but climate change. There's a theoretical view that points to the idea that decisions around the environment should be weighed on not just immediate effect (like profit, or access to resources) but likely long term effects on coming generations. There's also been several law suits in a number of developed nations expecially from younger people that's basically suing governments and such for basically selling their future for immediate reward. Some of these have been successful. 

This second was when I was reading up on the act @pogireferenced in a post to me. The journal article touches on this law and the point about posterity mentioned int he constitution. Here is at least one part that relates

Quote

Second, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is in fact congruous with the tenets of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has addressed the right to an abortion by balancing the competing interests of two parties, the mother and the state."' Although the state may have a compelling interest in protecting potential human life, it may regulate the practice of abortion only if no undue burden is placed on the mother's ability to exercise her choice.  Roe v. Wade, in essence, subordinates the interests of all third parties to the interest of the woman with regard to abortion. Clearly, criminal laws punishing those who disregard this fundamentally established rule of law by terminating a woman's pregnancy against her will reinforce this logic. The decision to carry a child should be exercised by a woman and her treating physician and not by a third party. As pointed out by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Merrill, "Roe v. Wade protects the woman's right of choice; it does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.

And in a related footnote:

Quote

In the complicated decision of Casey, the Court concluded that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe, principles of constitutional integrity and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential three-part holding be affirmed. First, a woman must be able to choose to have an abortion prior to fetal viability without undue interference from the state, whose interests are not strong enough to support a complete prohibition of abortion or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Casey, 505 U.S. at 846. Second, the state may restrict the practice of abortion after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health. Id. Third, the state retains a legitimate interest from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus. Id. However, the Court also held that Roe's rigid trimester framework should be rejected, and that the state may enact measures to further its interest in potential life so long as these measures do not constitute an undue burden on the woman's right to choose an abortion. Moreover, measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated merely because their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion.

Basically the state holds interest in potential human life. But that said what this means or should signify would really be dependent on one's world view. One could assume that having a greater quantity of children would be in the interest of the state and would be a version of maintaining posterity. But one could also say the increasing quality of life by reducing the numbers born into poor circumstances and increasing sustainable living both in families and things like the environment is also constitutionally appropriate by protecting and assuring a healthy future for posterity. Just pointing to posterity in the constitution doesn't say much without legal interpretation. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

On the docs, it's a matter of exposure and training to make a specific decision on the issue. The more specialized an area there tends to be better care if only from greater ethical training and knowledge of concerns pertaining to said field. Most later abortions would fall under this category and all super late ones would, from what I'm seeing be described. Pregnancy also exposes you to far more of the medical field than abortion does and thus more opportunity for error and the general nature of full term pregnancy is far more risky. Docs of any stripe are by no means perfect, but at least they're thoroughly trained and educated in this field. Politicians are almost entirely not and the policies made are based off of their assumptions or limited exposure to it. Even in less heated issues, politicians often make policy that's counter-intuitive or problematic on the professional side. I've seen that with some of the laws passed that regulate the mental health field. Which is why I'd prefer a basic bare min policy, preferably informed by actual experts in this that guide practices and for docs have more say than politicians on issues concerned with physical health. 

It's not actually that difficult to define what potential risks to life might be for the mother.  They are all well documented in the literature.  It is not likely that some novel way to die during pregnancy from carrying the fetus is going to arise anytime soon.  The CDC could offer the guidelines very easily.  There is no need for wiggle room.  We know the risks, and anything outside of those risks should not be justification for abortion.  They don't need room to end-life unnecessarily. 

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would actually probably put the words debated, nuanced, or even contradictory moreso than vague. Different forms of human fetal life in different stages of development and different contexts are treated differently under law. Laws around stem cell research, IVF, the most restrictive laws still placing more weight on the life of the mother and often leaving at least some small window for exceptions based on say rape, as a whole point not to vagueness IMHO...but the very different status embryos and fetus have from a completed human being.  Even the law that you mentioned was carefully nuanced to not weigh in on abortion when determining personhood for forceful/violent crimes. The context of forcing a loss on the woman, in effect, is considered than a woman coming to the decision to end a pregnancy. In large part because their personhood is inherently different from every born person. I saw a pithy quote today that I think captured this (i think based off of the famous violist analogy) "By outlawing abortion, we are giving fetuses rights people don’t have"...as in the right to exist via another's body without direct consent to do so. 

I use the word "vague" in the sense that it is an uncertain, non-objective, or indefinite term.  The lack of consensus also attests to the lack of clarity on the definition.  It is arbitrary and unlikely that science, philosophy, and or law will agree to its meaning and parameters.    

I have no clue as to what you mean be "completed human being".  Please define that in objective terms and identify the stage of development this "completeness" happens.  I didn't know that an embryo was considered anything other than completely Homo sapiens (Human being).  

I don't find anything "pithy" about that quote.  I find it quite sloppy and silly.  The only way there could not be inherent consent to the potential for pregnancy is in the case of rape.  This life didn't come out of nowhere.  It is like complaining to a casino after loosing your money that you never consented to this.  

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Again this isn't about vagueness per se, but the complexity of what entails personhood.

No, its about the arbitrary nature of the term.  There is nothing inherently complex about an arbitrary term.  Neither is there is no authoritative definition for this arbitrary term that we can rely on.

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

What makes a human being a human being isn't that straightforward.

Only if yo continue to use the term in your philosophical and arbitrary sense, while knowing that I am using it in the objective biological sense.  If this continues to happen, we are going to continue to speak past each other.   It is actually quite straightforward in the biological sense - Human being is the common name for Homo sapiens - which is pretty straightforward,  I thought we were understood on this point.  I guess not.  No need to rehash.  We are just going to have to agree to disagree on what biology accepts as the common name for Homo sapiens. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...