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.
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.
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.
Please cite a law that recognizes a zygote as a "child" when the pregnant woman (who does not know she is pregnant) does not intend to give birth to it.... my ability to empathize with a child in the zygote stage of their life is not really the issue.
We already have laws that recognize them as children and those laws will be easy enough to use to help overturn Roe.
No kiddingActually, in Roe v Wade SCOTUS has already stated that protection of life des not "always" apply to a fetus.Back to the original question - If Roe v Wade is repealed do the 5th and 14th amendments extend personhood (including protection of life) to a fetus and thus prohibit abortion? In todays world I think that interpretation has no chance of surviving the courts.
Ummmm. In your hypothetical, If Roe v Wade has been repealed. . . it (the application of the 5th and 14th amendments) already did survive the courts. Didn't it? Why else would you think the Supreme Court would overturn it?
Why do YOU think cherry picking a definition supports your denials? There is more than one definition for "empathy" and you cherry picked and cited the one that helps you maintain your own denials. I get that.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 doubt that there were many people who tried to use your same logical (?) approach to defend slavery.Please cite a law that recognizes a zygote as a "child" when the pregnant woman (who does not know she is pregnant) does not intend to give birth to it.... my ability to empathize with a child in the zygote stage of their life is not really the issue.
We already have laws that recognize them as children and those laws will be easy enough to use to help overturn Roe.
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.
These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.
It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.
The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.
The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.
Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.
It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.
The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.
The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.
Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.
It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.
The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.
The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.
Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
Oh, really, who says?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.
In the modern era, we don't have the need to prevent abortion, we have 7 billion people in this Earth and rising. This is already more than there has ever been.
These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.SCOTUS will have to be a bit more specific in clarifying what sort of life begins at conception. Obviously, sperm and eggs are living cells, as is the zygote. There is a large, biological, theological and legal gap between living cells and US citizenship.
It would be biologically absurd to declare a cancerous tumor a US citizen so living cells isn't going to cut it. Theologically, the idea that God infuses a human soul into the living cells, thus creating an immortal human being, has long been held to occur at the quickening or at the first breath. The idea of a human soul being infused by God at conception is a very modern idea. Until quite recently, nobody understood conception as we do today. Legally, the Constitution grants citizenship at birth; revising the passage to grant citizenship at the moment of conception on US soil is possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely.
The harsh reality is that regarding a zygote as a human being separate from the mother is a very modern theory, one that is not widely shared and which is unworkable in American society. People who think that way are free to live their own lives according to that belief, but this as far as it goes.
The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.
Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.The only dissent from this view is about the harshness of reality. Reality merely is, neither harsh nor mild.
A woman and her choice about her personal destiny, here and in the present, trumps anyone else's desire to cause her to conform to his/her imaginings about the future. That is the test of wills in this issue. If there is to be a fight in this stupid world of ours, it should not be for money, oil, religion, gender confusion or abortion. It should be to liberate our sisters. Any person, idea, religion or ideology that fights against that does so at its peril.
Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
That logic does not follow.
According to your claim. a government having the power to tell the people that we cant "own slaves" is not acceptable because that would mean the same government could then force us to have slaves against our will.
That not only is illogical, it completely omits two very important factors that shows how illogical that reasoning is.
1. We (the people) are the the government.
2. You have ignored and or dismissed the reason for the action taken. Namely the RIGHTS that are being addressed and then (finally) protected.
The second amendment would also keep our own government from forcing us to abort our kids too.These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.Can you tell me why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
Can you tell me why a child's rights should only begin when we as a society can't justify or stomach the denial of their rights anymore?
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
That logic does not follow.
According to your claim. a government having the power to tell the people that we cant "own slaves" is not acceptable because that would mean the same government could then force us to have slaves against our will.
That not only is illogical, it completely omits two very important factors that shows how illogical that reasoning is.
1. We (the people) are the the government.
2. You have ignored and or dismissed the reason for the action taken. Namely the RIGHTS that are being addressed and then (finally) protected.
We the people are indeed the government till it decides to end our control over it. The significance of the 2nd Amendment is that without it, all the rest fall. That's why a authoritarian State, such as China, can mandate that people have abortions as an effort to control population. The two go hand in hand.
The second amendment would also keep our own government from forcing us to abort our kids too.These are very reasonable questions. The answer lies in two very different ideas about the nature and source of human rights.
The answers offered in the Declaration, Federalist Papers etc. are based on the idea that human rights are created by God ("endowed by their Creator") and as such are not subject to emendation by human governments.
This line of reasoning was the norm in the 18th century, a time when almost all modern science had yet to be discovered and when knowledge of the diversity of human societies around the world was just beginning to take shape.
In the intervening two or three centuries, the understanding that rights are socially constructed and vary enormously from one society to another has become universally accepted outside of the field of theology.
This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
That logic does not follow.
According to your claim. a government having the power to tell the people that we cant "own slaves" is not acceptable because that would mean the same government could then force us to have slaves against our will.
That not only is illogical, it completely omits two very important factors that shows how illogical that reasoning is.
1. We (the people) are the the government.
2. You have ignored and or dismissed the reason for the action taken. Namely the RIGHTS that are being addressed and then (finally) protected.
We the people are indeed the government till it decides to end our control over it. The significance of the 2nd Amendment is that without it, all the rest fall. That's why a authoritarian State, such as China, can mandate that people have abortions as an effort to control population. The two go hand in hand.
Wouldn't it?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Then why was Scott Peterson charged with a double homicide?Since the placenta is a life support cord as long as the rules are more or less the same at both ends of life abortion is not necessarily murder anymore than killing a burgler or other assailant is murder.
All this brings us back to the questions I asked in post #132The second amendment would also keep our own government from forcing us to abort our kids too.This begs the question. . . What would the founders and framers have done with the information and technologies that we have today? Back when they were first debating and deciding things like the origins of human rights and personhood.
That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
That logic does not follow.
According to your claim. a government having the power to tell the people that we cant "own slaves" is not acceptable because that would mean the same government could then force us to have slaves against our will.
That not only is illogical, it completely omits two very important factors that shows how illogical that reasoning is.
1. We (the people) are the the government.
2. You have ignored and or dismissed the reason for the action taken. Namely the RIGHTS that are being addressed and then (finally) protected.
We the people are indeed the government till it decides to end our control over it. The significance of the 2nd Amendment is that without it, all the rest fall. That's why a authoritarian State, such as China, can mandate that people have abortions as an effort to control population. The two go hand in hand.
Wouldn't it?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Of course. Ours is a government of checks and balances. It accords the INDIVIDUAL with Rights that the government may not abridge. The INDIVIDUAL has the Right to have an abortion. The INDIVIDUAL may choose, whether you think it is right or wrong is immaterial, to have an abortion. The incipient child doesn't yet exist in any real fashion. As I stated earlier 50% end in spontaneous abortions anyway, the incipient child can not exist outside of the body of the mother, nor does it truly have a sentience until probably 5 months or so thus it truly is nothing but potential life.
The mother must have the ultimate choice to carry the child or not. If the government takes that Right away from her, then the government can force her to if it so desires. It truly is a black or white situation. As much as i personally abhor abortion, and would never even consider it as an option for my family, i am even more concerned at the governments ability to enforce abortions on those it deems unsuitable. That is a far greater worry than the individual abortions carried out on a daily basis.
All this brings us back to the questions I asked in post #132The second amendment would also keep our own government from forcing us to abort our kids too.That is a good question. I will tell you the reason why I am pro choice even though I would never abort a child. The second that a government gets to tell you that you can't have an abortion, is also the second that that very same government has gained the power to tell you you MUST have an abortion. That is a power I feel government should never have.
That logic does not follow.
According to your claim. a government having the power to tell the people that we cant "own slaves" is not acceptable because that would mean the same government could then force us to have slaves against our will.
That not only is illogical, it completely omits two very important factors that shows how illogical that reasoning is.
1. We (the people) are the the government.
2. You have ignored and or dismissed the reason for the action taken. Namely the RIGHTS that are being addressed and then (finally) protected.
We the people are indeed the government till it decides to end our control over it. The significance of the 2nd Amendment is that without it, all the rest fall. That's why a authoritarian State, such as China, can mandate that people have abortions as an effort to control population. The two go hand in hand.
Wouldn't it?
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Of course. Ours is a government of checks and balances. It accords the INDIVIDUAL with Rights that the government may not abridge. The INDIVIDUAL has the Right to have an abortion. The INDIVIDUAL may choose, whether you think it is right or wrong is immaterial, to have an abortion. The incipient child doesn't yet exist in any real fashion. As I stated earlier 50% end in spontaneous abortions anyway, the incipient child can not exist outside of the body of the mother, nor does it truly have a sentience until probably 5 months or so thus it truly is nothing but potential life.
The mother must have the ultimate choice to carry the child or not. If the government takes that Right away from her, then the government can force her to if it so desires. It truly is a black or white situation. As much as i personally abhor abortion, and would never even consider it as an option for my family, i am even more concerned at the governments ability to enforce abortions on those it deems unsuitable. That is a far greater worry than the individual abortions carried out on a daily basis.
Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
