CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[there4eyeM]

Good to see that some clean up took place. Clean Debate Zone means just that. Thanks!

One thing that no one has shown here is any other situation in law or society that is similar to the situation of women and their bodies in the abortion issue. Is there any precedent to legislating how someone regulates their internal workings?

 

[westwall]

Good to see that some clean up took place. Clean Debate Zone means just that. Thanks!

One thing that no one has shown here is any other situation in law or society that is similar to the situation of women and their bodies in the abortion issue. Is thee any precedent to legislating how someone regulates their internal workings?

Not that I have ever seen. And I am sorry for the delay, but i had to confirm my suspicions before perming the dude.

 

[Never3ndr]

Good to see that some clean up took place. Clean Debate Zone means just that. Thanks!

One thing that no one has shown here is any other situation in law or society that is similar to the situation of women and their bodies in the abortion issue. Is thee any precedent to legislating how someone regulates their internal workings?

Yes, you are not allowed to sell your organs. For instance, there has been cases made for a free market for kidneys since you can actually survive with one. However, our current body of laws prevent such an activity from occurring even though it simply deals with an individual and their choice on what to do with their body (organs in this case). So, there is a precedent for a government limiting or having a say on what you can or cannot do with your own body / "internal workings."

 

[westwall]

Good to see that some clean up took place. Clean Debate Zone means just that. Thanks!

One thing that no one has shown here is any other situation in law or society that is similar to the situation of women and their bodies in the abortion issue. Is thee any precedent to legislating how someone regulates their internal workings?

Yes, you are not allowed to sell your organs. For instance, there has been cases made for a free market for kidneys since you can actually survive with one. However, our current body of laws prevent such an activity from occurring even though it simply deals with an individual and their choice on what to do with their body (organs in this case). So, there is a precedent for a government limiting or having a say on what you can or cannot do with your own body / "internal workings."

Tell that to Planned Parenthood. they seem to be able to sell whatever body parts they want to.

 

[there4eyeM]

Good to see that some clean up took place. Clean Debate Zone means just that. Thanks!

One thing that no one has shown here is any other situation in law or society that is similar to the situation of women and their bodies in the abortion issue. Is thee any precedent to legislating how someone regulates their internal workings?

Yes, you are not allowed to sell your organs. For instance, there has been cases made for a free market for kidneys since you can actually survive with one. However, our current body of laws prevent such an activity from occurring even though it simply deals with an individual and their choice on what to do with their body (organs in this case). So, there is a precedent for a government limiting or having a say on what you can or cannot do with your own body / "internal workings."

Understood. Pretty different situation, though. Initiating the voluntary sale of an organ, a purely commercial endeavor, is rather another order of things. In fact, it isn't clear why it would be prohibited except to exclude possibilities of coercion, deception, etc. Doubtless, commerce such as this does go on surreptitiously. Abortion, of course, has no monetary gain involved for the woman (at least, none that is evident to this poster).

 

[PK1]

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.

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 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.

As i stated, i used a common definition for. "empathy". Here's one for kids learning the English language:
"being aware of and sharing another person's feelings, experiences, and emotions".

I doubt a zygote has feelings or experiences. Do you think it does?


Definition of empathy - Merriam-Webster's Student Dictionary

 

[PK1]

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.

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

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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

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?



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

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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?

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

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

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

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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?

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

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

Correct, accurate use of language is what language is for. Without it, we wander off into the kind of meaningless confusion most threads here demonstrate.
There is a necessary and important difference between sympathy and empathy.
Projecting one's emotions and feelings into another thing, object, animal, etc. may be entertaining, but it hardly substitutes for evidence to another person.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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?

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

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.

They have a problem with that - because it's false.

 

[Chuz Life]

Correct, accurate use of language is what language is for. Without it, we wander off into the kind of meaningless confusion most threads here demonstrate.
There is a necessary and important difference between sympathy and empathy.
Projecting one's emotions and feelings into another thing, object, animal, etc. may be entertaining, but it hardly substitutes for evidence to another person.

Not all "projections" are misguided or nefarious. Accusing someone of being twisted or evil or hateful when you yourself is the one who is that way... that would be an improper type of "projecting."

However, when a thinking, feeling, compassionate person "imagines" themself in the place of another creature or even a plant or a tree for the sake of DEFENDING that which is being killed or harmed? That is what "empathy" is all about.

It is ludicrous to demand that people can only have empathy for other human beings or animals who are capable of having their OWN thoughts.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

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

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Correct, accurate use of language is what language is for. Without it, we wander off into the kind of meaningless confusion most threads here demonstrate.
There is a necessary and important difference between sympathy and empathy.
Projecting one's emotions and feelings into another thing, object, animal, etc. may be entertaining, but it hardly substitutes for evidence to another person.

you may just need some clue and some Cause, to understand the issues better.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

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

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.

They have a problem with that - because it's false.

No it isn't; simply Because, I say so.

 

[jillian]

REMINDER!

This thread is NOT about the legality of abortion. It is about whether or not it is to be "left up to the States" if/when Roe v Wade is overturned.

You seem confused. If roe were overturned it would go to the states. And we know you religious nuts can't be trusted with individual rights.