- Thread starter
- #221
My logic is that ALL human beings (persons) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws because that's what the Constitution says.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.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.OK, let's go with M-W's generalized #1 definition of "empathy":Yes, it is. It is from Merriam Webster (hard to get more mainstream than that). Yours is the most narrow definition there is.
"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 don't get confused by capacity to empathize for other things / creatures because they are not human beings.
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.
I'm not perverting anything. The Constitution says "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." That seems pretty inclusive to me.
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.
Yeah, you are not only cherry picking (again) but you are also making an "appeal to authority" fallacious argument.
Do you not comprehend that - when the Constitution says one thing (i.e. "all persons") and our laws say another thing (children in the womb are only persons when they are killed in a crime) there is a disparity between the laws and the Constitution.
And that disparity is what is being challenged.
So, your using an existing cherry picked definition from ONE law - as the final word and authority on what the definition should be is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
It's like claiming the King James version of the Bible is the final word of God because the Bible says so.
Thankfully, the SCOTUS will have much more to take into consideration than just your selective cherry picked definitions.