Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.The numbers of people against prevention and contraception are few in number and severely misguided. However, that doesn't keep the left from inflating and amplifying those numbers for political gain in their defense of abortion.I believe we need to hold the right wing more accountable for any perceived, cognitive dissonance.I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.
A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.
I completely disagree with that position and here is why.
The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'
If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.
All CDZ rules apply.
Why do they have a problem with Both, an ounce of prevention And a pound of cure?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
nothing but diversion?There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.The numbers of people against prevention and contraception are few in number and severely misguided. However, that doesn't keep the left from inflating and amplifying those numbers for political gain in their defense of abortion.I believe we need to hold the right wing more accountable for any perceived, cognitive dissonance.
Why do they have a problem with Both, an ounce of prevention And a pound of cure?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
It's not the belief in contraception that poses a problem on either side of the issue. It's the PRACTICE of using it effectively. Even if birth control is used every single time (and we all know it won't be) it's still never 100% effective - even when it is used.
That's why the claim that using birth control will result in NO need for abortions is just plain false.
There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.The numbers of people against prevention and contraception are few in number and severely misguided. However, that doesn't keep the left from inflating and amplifying those numbers for political gain in their defense of abortion.I believe we need to hold the right wing more accountable for any perceived, cognitive dissonance.
Why do they have a problem with Both, an ounce of prevention And a pound of cure?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
It's not the belief in contraception that poses a problem on either side of the issue. It's the PRACTICE of using it effectively. Even if birth control is used every single time (and we all know it won't be) it's still never 100% effective - even when it is used.
That's why the claim that using birth control will result in NO need for abortions is just plain false.
There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.The numbers of people against prevention and contraception are few in number and severely misguided. However, that doesn't keep the left from inflating and amplifying those numbers for political gain in their defense of abortion.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
It's not the belief in contraception that poses a problem on either side of the issue. It's the PRACTICE of using it effectively. Even if birth control is used every single time (and we all know it won't be) it's still never 100% effective - even when it is used.
That's why the claim that using birth control will result in NO need for abortions is just plain false.
There will always be a need for abortions. It's a fact of life. When the life of the mother is threatened you abort. It's as simple as that. The mother can get pregnant again, if she's alive. Rather difficult to do when dead. In cases of rape i have no problem with the victim aborting. Same for incest. What i despise is abortion used merely as birth control. That is a despicable process and in some cases I think the women involved are sociopaths, they enjoy the act of abortion.
the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
Facepalm.
If you want to believe in an absolute like that - go right ahead.
Agree to disagree.
It's off the subject from the OP anyway.
Perfect Knowledge of such Things, could preclude any need for the abortion of fellow, human beings.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.The numbers of people against prevention and contraception are few in number and severely misguided. However, that doesn't keep the left from inflating and amplifying those numbers for political gain in their defense of abortion.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
It's not the belief in contraception that poses a problem on either side of the issue. It's the PRACTICE of using it effectively. Even if birth control is used every single time (and we all know it won't be) it's still never 100% effective - even when it is used.
That's why the claim that using birth control will result in NO need for abortions is just plain false.
There will always be a need for abortions. It's a fact of life. When the life of the mother is threatened you abort. It's as simple as that. The mother can get pregnant again, if she's alive. Rather difficult to do when dead. In cases of rape i have no problem with the victim aborting. Same for incest. What i despise is abortion used merely as birth control. That is a despicable process and in some cases I think the women involved are sociopaths, they enjoy the act of abortion.
Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
Facepalm.
If you want to believe in an absolute like that - go right ahead.
Agree to disagree.
It's off the subject from the OP anyway.
Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
Facepalm.
If you want to believe in an absolute like that - go right ahead.
Agree to disagree.
It's off the subject from the OP anyway.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Is that like how we wouldn't need any laws against rape if we could just get everyone to be morally minded and respectful of women?Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
Facepalm.
If you want to believe in an absolute like that - go right ahead.
Agree to disagree.
It's off the subject from the OP anyway.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
The right wing, has a problem with that.
No, I don't see the general group known as the "right wing" having a problem with that. Only those who are very religious do. You must be more careful with your generalizations.
the religious left does not have a problem with an ounce of prevention, to prevent Any perceived need, for the abortion of a fellow human being.
It's not the belief in contraception that poses a problem on either side of the issue. It's the PRACTICE of using it effectively. Even if birth control is used every single time (and we all know it won't be) it's still never 100% effective - even when it is used.
That's why the claim that using birth control will result in NO need for abortions is just plain false.
There will always be a need for abortions. It's a fact of life. When the life of the mother is threatened you abort. It's as simple as that. The mother can get pregnant again, if she's alive. Rather difficult to do when dead. In cases of rape i have no problem with the victim aborting. Same for incest. What i despise is abortion used merely as birth control. That is a despicable process and in some cases I think the women involved are sociopaths, they enjoy the act of abortion.
As a side bar, I never understand why anyone feels the need to separate "rape" and "incest" when they share their views on the exceptions (as you did above.)
Unless the incest was consensual. . . which in the vast majority of cases, it never is. . . then, it too is a rape.
And, in those cases where the incest IS consensual (sick as that is) and the woman is pregnant. . . are you saying you support abortions for them?
What am I missing?
Help me understand this logic.
Again, as stated twice before, i used common definitions of empathy.And the cherry picking continues. Screw all the definitions that disagree with you. Right? Let's ignore the fact that people (usually on the left) claim to have empathy for Trees and other things that are incapable of human feelings or thoughts. Right?Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.Why wouldn't you have empathy for a mentally retarded child? I had empathy for my daughter when she was a zygote. I KNOW it's a tough road to hoe when you are just starting out. 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's how hard it is to be a baby. Also, you used the very simplistic definition.NO, you do NOT have empathy for a zygote cell.I can have empathy for a human being in the zygote stage of their life because I was once in that stage of life myself. Just as I can have empathy for a new born or a five year old because I too was once that age and in those stages of my own development and what ever effect laws have on them COULD just as easily have had the same effect on me.
The common definition is ...
Empathy:
"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
The zygote has no feelings. No one can understand what it's like to be a single cell of biological matter.
Why do you make up crap?
Perhaps you have empathy for a mentally retarded child.
No, you did NOT have empathy for a zygote, even if it was your future daughter.
Here's other common definitions of empathy:
Origin:
from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’).
---
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. Empathy is seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another and feelings with the heart of another. There are many definitions for empathy which encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Empathy - Wikipedia
"Empathy" is now most often used to refer to the capacity or ability to imagine oneself in the situation of another, thereby vicariously experiencing the emotions, ideas, or opinions of that person.
Empathy vs. Sympathy | Dictionary.com Blog
"I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive."Wrong again, I refer you to this definition (that I posted mind you) I bolded the relevant sections. I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive. It has no sentience, it has no memory, it has nothing but a desire to live. That I can empathize with because I too have a desire to live. You are like most progressives in that you try and use semantics to make your point, however, when your point is false, as it is, you are unable to do anything else.Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.Why wouldn't you have empathy for a mentally retarded child? I had empathy for my daughter when she was a zygote. I KNOW it's a tough road to hoe when you are just starting out. 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's how hard it is to be a baby. Also, you used the very simplistic definition.NO, you do NOT have empathy for a zygote cell.I can have empathy for a human being in the zygote stage of their life because I was once in that stage of life myself. Just as I can have empathy for a new born or a five year old because I too was once that age and in those stages of my own development and what ever effect laws have on them COULD just as easily have had the same effect on me.
The common definition is ...
Empathy:
"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
The zygote has no feelings. No one can understand what it's like to be a single cell of biological matter.
Why do you make up crap?
Perhaps you have empathy for a mentally retarded child.
No, you did NOT have empathy for a zygote, even if it was your future daughter.
Here's other common definitions of empathy:
Origin:
from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’).
---
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. Empathy is seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another and feelings with the heart of another. There are many definitions for empathy which encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Empathy - Wikipedia
"Empathy" is now most often used to refer to the capacity or ability to imagine oneself in the situation of another, thereby vicariously experiencing the emotions, ideas, or opinions of that person.
Empathy vs. Sympathy | Dictionary.com Blog
the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
"I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive."Wrong again, I refer you to this definition (that I posted mind you) I bolded the relevant sections. I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive. It has no sentience, it has no memory, it has nothing but a desire to live. That I can empathize with because I too have a desire to live. You are like most progressives in that you try and use semantics to make your point, however, when your point is false, as it is, you are unable to do anything else.Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.Why wouldn't you have empathy for a mentally retarded child? I had empathy for my daughter when she was a zygote. I KNOW it's a tough road to hoe when you are just starting out. 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's how hard it is to be a baby. Also, you used the very simplistic definition.NO, you do NOT have empathy for a zygote cell.I can have empathy for a human being in the zygote stage of their life because I was once in that stage of life myself. Just as I can have empathy for a new born or a five year old because I too was once that age and in those stages of my own development and what ever effect laws have on them COULD just as easily have had the same effect on me.
The common definition is ...
Empathy:
"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
The zygote has no feelings. No one can understand what it's like to be a single cell of biological matter.
Why do you make up crap?
Perhaps you have empathy for a mentally retarded child.
No, you did NOT have empathy for a zygote, even if it was your future daughter.
Here's other common definitions of empathy:
Origin:
from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’).
---
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. Empathy is seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another and feelings with the heart of another. There are many definitions for empathy which encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Empathy - Wikipedia
"Empathy" is now most often used to refer to the capacity or ability to imagine oneself in the situation of another, thereby vicariously experiencing the emotions, ideas, or opinions of that person.
Empathy vs. Sympathy | Dictionary.com Blog
the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
No, you cannot imagine how a zygote "feels" ... unless you are totally ignorant about neurobiology and on LSD or other hallucinogen.
The zygote has no feelings. No neurons.
Of course, you can imagine fiction, but that is not empathy.
.
Again, as stated twice before, i used common definitions of empathy.And the cherry picking continues. Screw all the definitions that disagree with you. Right? Let's ignore the fact that people (usually on the left) claim to have empathy for Trees and other things that are incapable of human feelings or thoughts. Right?Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.Why wouldn't you have empathy for a mentally retarded child? I had empathy for my daughter when she was a zygote. I KNOW it's a tough road to hoe when you are just starting out. 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That's how hard it is to be a baby. Also, you used the very simplistic definition.NO, you do NOT have empathy for a zygote cell.I can have empathy for a human being in the zygote stage of their life because I was once in that stage of life myself. Just as I can have empathy for a new born or a five year old because I too was once that age and in those stages of my own development and what ever effect laws have on them COULD just as easily have had the same effect on me.
The common definition is ...
Empathy:
"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
The zygote has no feelings. No one can understand what it's like to be a single cell of biological matter.
Why do you make up crap?
Perhaps you have empathy for a mentally retarded child.
No, you did NOT have empathy for a zygote, even if it was your future daughter.
Here's other common definitions of empathy:
Origin:
from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’).
---
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. Empathy is seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another and feelings with the heart of another. There are many definitions for empathy which encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Empathy - Wikipedia
"Empathy" is now most often used to refer to the capacity or ability to imagine oneself in the situation of another, thereby vicariously experiencing the emotions, ideas, or opinions of that person.
Empathy vs. Sympathy | Dictionary.com Blog
You call that cherry picking? LOL.
Empathy for trees is as ridiculous as empathy for a single biological cell (zygote). Westwall is also being ridiculous in stretching the meaning of "empathy".
The social hypocrisy concerning decisions of life and death may provide comfort to the intellectually shallow, but it doesn't advance the human condition. Economic, political, diplomatic and military issues determine the fate of unseen lives all the time, and those are often real persons active here, now, in the world. Our tax dollars send a young female soldier around the globe to decide continuation or termination for people she knows nothing about. To then turn and say we do not trust her to decide about her own private functions because it disturbs our gentle sentiments rings rather hollow.
truly moral Persons Only need Ten religious Commandments from a God.Is that like how we wouldn't need any laws against rape if we could just get everyone to be morally minded and respectful of women?Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.There would be no need for the surgical procedure of abortion, if contraception was more effective and easily available.
Facepalm.
If you want to believe in an absolute like that - go right ahead.
Agree to disagree.
It's off the subject from the OP anyway.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
What are your plans for enforcing this required level of Morality?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Life began a very long time ago and is a continuum.
