CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[Chuz Life]

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.

the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.

Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.

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?


What are your plans for enforcing this required level of Morality?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

truly moral Persons Only need Ten religious Commandments from a God.

Since homo sapiens sapiens need laws, regulations, and rules, why give any credence to any Persons claiming Religion.

You seem to be the only one here talking religion..

So. . .

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[danielpalos]

the Earth is no longer flat; and, technology is improving, all the time.

Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.

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?


What are your plans for enforcing this required level of Morality?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

truly moral Persons Only need Ten religious Commandments from a God.

Since homo sapiens sapiens need laws, regulations, and rules, why give any credence to any Persons claiming Religion.

You seem to be the only one here talking religion..

So. . .

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

An ounce of prevention is worth any pound of cure. The left doesn't have a problem with that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Even if you can make birth control 100%effective. How do you intend to force 100% of sexually active people to take it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only truly immoral Persons, don't prevent Any need for the abortion of a fellow human being, if it is within their power.

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?


What are your plans for enforcing this required level of Morality?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

truly moral Persons Only need Ten religious Commandments from a God.

Since homo sapiens sapiens need laws, regulations, and rules, why give any credence to any Persons claiming Religion.

You seem to be the only one here talking religion..

So. . .

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

An ounce of prevention is worth any pound of cure. The left doesn't have a problem with that.

Hey, I am all for prevention. After all, You can't abort a child that doesn't already exist.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

NO, you do NOT have empathy for a zygote cell.
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.

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.

Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.
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

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

 

[westwall]

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.

Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.
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

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.
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

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Is there a disorder that causes one to give inanimate objects human emotions?


The American Scholar: Empathy for Inanimate Objects - Josie Glausiusz

Of course children in the womb are not inanimate. . . But if we can have empathy for inanimate objects (like a robot or a washing machine) then we certainly can have empathy for a child in the womb.

 

[bt404]

Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.
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

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Is there a disorder that causes one to give inanimate objects human emotions?


The American Scholar: Empathy for Inanimate Objects - Josie Glausiusz

Of course children in the womb are not inanimate. . . But if we can have empathy for inanimate objects (like a robot or a washing machine) then we certainly can have empathy for a child in the womb.

Women should have a right to their body anywhere. So NO, abortion shouldn't be left up to the states.

 

[bt404]

"I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Is there a disorder that causes one to give inanimate objects human emotions?


The American Scholar: Empathy for Inanimate Objects - Josie Glausiusz

Of course children in the womb are not inanimate. . . But if we can have empathy for inanimate objects (like a robot or a washing machine) then we certainly can have empathy for a child in the womb.

Women should have a right to their body anywhere. So NO, abortion shouldn't be left up to the states.

Yeah. I can see how that would seem illogical to a simple minded shallow thinking individual who thinks a comedian like Carlin is an authority on the subject.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I can see how a brainwashed religious fundamentalist zealot such as yourself, who gets his philosophical ideas from an ancient worn-out irrelevant scroll written by illiterate middle easterners 3500 years ago (and who probably believes in human resurrections), can't see his own hypocrisy in denying a woman's right to her body all whilst preaching morality. The right to life begins when a baby is out of the womb. Period. Stop adding all this faux-moral religious bullcrap to the "notion of life" in there, it has no credibility.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Is there a disorder that causes one to give inanimate objects human emotions?


The American Scholar: Empathy for Inanimate Objects - Josie Glausiusz

Of course children in the womb are not inanimate. . . But if we can have empathy for inanimate objects (like a robot or a washing machine) then we certainly can have empathy for a child in the womb.

Women should have a right to their body anywhere. So NO, abortion shouldn't be left up to the states.

Yeah. I can see how that would seem illogical to a simple minded shallow thinking individual who thinks a comedian like Carlin is an authority on the subject.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Unfortunately, I can't see how a brainwashed religious fundamentalist zealot such as yourself, who gets his philosophical ideas from an ancient worn-out irrelevant scroll written by illiterate middle easterners 3500 years ago (and who probably believes in human resurrections), can't see his own hypocrisy in denying a woman's right to her body all whilst preaching morality. The right to life begins when a baby is out of the womb. Period. Stop adding all this faux-moral religious bullcrap to the "notion of life" in there, it has no credibility.

Yeah. I am not religious and don't use any religion in any of my arguments. You really should read a little more before you start making such idiotic assumptions as you just did above.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

Perhaps you can have sympathy for a mentally retarded child, but empathy implies you can feel/experience what they do.
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

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

 

[PK1]

I am not religious and don't use any religion in any of my arguments.

Not religious? You sound dogmatic.
Are you an atheist, agnostic, or?

 

[Chuz Life]

I am not religious and don't use any religion in any of my arguments.

Not religious? You sound dogmatic.
Are you an atheist, agnostic, or?

Not sure what dogmatic sounds like or what my personal views have to do with anything. I was born and raised in a christian family and mostly out of respect for my family and friends who ARE religious, I choose not to denounce or distance myself from that.

In private, I suppose I am more agnostic than anything else. Though I am sometimes angry enough at life and the world I see, I really don't give a shit either way.

Then, there are the times when I have felt scared enough or hurt bad enough that I have "prayed" for God's mercy.

I don't go to church, read a bible or tithe... so, you tell me.

What category is that?


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.

I also have empathy for children who are born and suffering. Again, we already have laws to protect those children and I support those laws and then some.

I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

As for your water want for me to abandon my empathy for children in the womb and focus on those "born:?

Not going to happen.

The Constitution says "all persons equally" and I choose to not ignore the significance of that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bt404]

"I can IMAGINE how the zygote feels because I understand that it is trying like hell to survive."

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.
.

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.

I also have empathy for children who are born and suffering. Again, we already have laws to protect those children and I support those laws and then some.

I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

As for your water want for me to abandon my empathy for children in the womb and focus on those "born:?

Not going to happen.

The Constitution says "all persons equally" and I choose to not ignore the significance of that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sure I can. I have a vivid imagination. I can imagine what the world was like millions, and billions of years before I was ever here. I have recreated in my mind sequences of events that were then shown to be correct. You may simply not be as capable as I am to imagine, or feel for living things. Regardless. The definition of empathy that I chose covers exactly what I said. I understand your desire to only use a simplistic definition as that is the only one that supports your political position. I don't care about your politics so I will use the proper definition.

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.

I also have empathy for children who are born and suffering. Again, we already have laws to protect those children and I support those laws and then some.

I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

As for your water want for me to abandon my empathy for children in the womb and focus on those "born:?

Not going to happen.

The Constitution says "all persons equally" and I choose to not ignore the significance of that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.

My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.

That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bt404]

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.

I also have empathy for children who are born and suffering. Again, we already have laws to protect those children and I support those laws and then some.

I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

As for your water want for me to abandon my empathy for children in the womb and focus on those "born:?

Not going to happen.

The Constitution says "all persons equally" and I choose to not ignore the significance of that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.

My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.

That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again, by that logic, sperm and eggs should be under the protection of our laws. Should masturbation then be made illegal?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Human bodies belong only to their owners. A man's body belongs ONLY to the man who owns it. A woman's belongs to the individual woman. No one ever never has the right to control another person's body in any way, on any level and most certainly does not have the right to force a man or woman to reproduce. There are no exceptions.

Abortion should be easily available, cost on the basis of ability to pay and no questions asked.

MYOB

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.

I also have empathy for children who are born and suffering. Again, we already have laws to protect those children and I support those laws and then some.

I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

As for your water want for me to abandon my empathy for children in the womb and focus on those "born:?

Not going to happen.

The Constitution says "all persons equally" and I choose to not ignore the significance of that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.

My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.

That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again, by that logic, sperm and eggs should be under the protection of our laws. Should masturbation then be made illegal?

You seem to not have a very good working knowledge of the biological difference between haploid CELLS that have only a POTENTIAL to merge together and form / create a NEW ORGANISM of their own species and the new organism (in this case, a human being) that is actually created when they finally do merge (conception) and their "potential" is actually realized.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

Human bodies belong only to their owners. A man's body belongs ONLY to the man who owns it. A woman's belongs to the individual woman. No one ever never has the right to control another person's body in any way, on any level and most certainly does not have the right to force a man or woman to reproduce. There are no exceptions.

Abortion should be easily available, cost on the basis of ability to pay and no questions asked.

MYOB

No.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PK1]

I'm not playing politics here; it's an academic issue.
"Proper position"? LOL.
You can choose your "explanation" of the term "empathy", but it certainly is NOT mainstream, esp in the field of psychology.
The common definition reflects shared consciousness, i.e., you experience the feelings/thoughts in another "object" by "putting youself in another's shoes".
A tree has no consciousness.
A zygote has no consciousness.
Empathy is not the same as sympathy or compassion.

Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.

OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":
"the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

If you have empathy for a zygote that you don't even know exists, then you must have empathy for bacterium too, right? After all, you said:
"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."

Your statement also describes bacteria.
Is your imagination practical? Mainstream? Not in psychology, but maybe in psychiatry.

Perhaps we need to get more practical in this abortion discussion.
There are millions of miserable born babies & children that need empathy & support, and they should have priority over the unborn and gov's interference with a woman's private life. No?

I for one, certainly can empathize for a creature as small as a bacteria. It doesn't take much effort at all to do that.
I don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.

So by your logic, we should make laws that protect bacteria, zygotes, and sperm as well? In fact, we should ban all forms of masturbation as well since its virtual genocide.

My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.

That would INCLUDE human beings of any age, size or level of development. Wouldn't it? Why else would it say "ALL?"

Again, you are perverting what the law says, just like your "empathy" for bacteria. Geez, whatever it takes to make a square peg fit into a round hole. LOL.
Here is the law's definition of "human being":
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.