We can argue about them, but the Supreme Court has decided...

Whether all living things realize it or not, all living things have and exhibit a basic survival instinct.

I can empathize with a prenatal child - facing an abortion - on that most basic level.

Can't you?

 

Most abortions happen in the first trimester when no consciousness is yet present. It would be like to trying to empathize with a rock.

 

Once again, abortion involves 2 people. At a minimum, pregnancy is a unique situation. If that is your only issue, then you have no issue with conservatism.

 

Principles of individual liberty, as supported by modern conservatives and classical liberals who exist on the "right" side of the political spectrum, but those principles are not supported by "modern liberals" and certainly not "progressives", who exist on the "wrong" side of the political sppectrum. .

 

Am not.

It may not have an awareness of it's perspective but that does not mean their perspective can not be observed by others.

In your opinion.

I can't disagree more but I don't feel the need to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise either. .

That's an odd thing to ask.

Why are you interested in MY perspective?

 

Rocks aren't alive.

So, rocks don't loose anything by being "killed."

 

Insects are alive...or are you a Jainist?

 

Well, sorry, but "everybody makes up their own mind"....doesn't really work when we are discussing laws and their enforcement.

But some day, I'm sure, when the Anarchic Revolution comes, and we all get to decide what we want to do and there are no courts or laws or police....your viewpoint will be affirmed.

 

and I would argue that the overwhelming extent rests with the woman not the zef, as it does in cases of chimera twins where one is causing injury to the other (non-life threatening) and is surgically removed causing it's death.

Pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases and is also included in the laws of some states as a serious injury, thus self defence laws come into play as well.

I agree it is and as such the only person who can make the decisions that 100% effect her body is the woman involved, unfortunately that results in the 'collateral damage' of the death of the zef.
No person can use another persons body without ongoing consent . .do you agree with that statement?
If so then the zef, IF it is a separate person as pro-lifers would have us think, cannot use the body of a woman without ongoing consent.
If you don't agree then what is to stop a man who has been given consent to have sex with a woman not have sex again with her again in an hour, a day, a week or a month later, after all she has given consent once so surely the implied consent is the same as that given to a zef.

The issue I have is that the conservatives are not practicing what their ideology is as far as abortion is concerned.

 

Remember there are libertarians, then there are "conservatives".

Libertarians want to shrink down Government so it is so small that it "interferes" with your life the least possible.

"Conservatives" want to shrink down Government so it is so small that it fits in a woman's uterus.

 

ridiculous, you can do nothing BUT place your views as the perspective of the item, to say otherwise assumes you know what the item is thinking... do you know what a zef or granite chip is thinking.

Yet another ridiculous statement, in order to have a perspective one must have the ability to think, a zef in the early stages does not have the ability to think let alone form a perspective, and your observing their perspective is nothing more than your view on what you THINK their perspective might be.

Yes it is, can you dispute it.

cop out.

Not really, you asked for the perspective of the zef, I am asking you the same for the given scenarios.

I'll guarantee you anything you write will be an extension of your own views onto what you THINK the perspective of the zef will be.

 

I don't have to know what they are thinking in order to be able to see and to comprehend their perspectives FOR them.

Neither do you.

The ability to think is not a requirement for a being or object to have a perspective.

Perspectives (like I said above) can be seen, recognized and comprehended by others.

Your opinions have been disputed endlessly.

Why? Because I refuse to buy into another red herring to the abortion debate?

I'm satisfied that our laws have already settled the debate over whether or not an abortion kills a child - by making it a crime of MURDER to illegally kill one.

The onus is on YOU if you disagree with that conclusion. It's not on me to defend it unless I feel there is a need for me to do so and you have done nothing more than to solidify by beliefs in it.... so there you have it. The onus is on you.

Ummmm... Think again.

Why would I ask for the perspective of something I already know the perspective of?

Okay and...

That's what empathy is - isn't it?

 

You fully know what I mean. Don't play dumb.

A fetus in the first trimester has no working mind, no consciousness. It feels absolutely nothing. To say that you can empathize with something that neither thinks nor feels is nothing more than pointless emotional hyperbole, because in stating such a thing you are strongly implying that a first trimester fetus does think and feel.

This is a lie and must be shown for the lie that it is.

 

How is it that someone is being dumb - for pointing out an obvious flaw or oversight in another persons argument?

Okay.

So?

Empathy does not require that the thing or creature being empathized with - be cognizant or aware in any sense of the word - of their surroundings or predicament.

I can empathize (for example) with a tree that is about to be cut down.

Trees have a will to live and to keep living.... even though trees don't know they have a will to live.

The same is true of a child in the womb.

You might consider looking at where those other fingers are pointing.

 

Empathy requires that the one being empathized with has feelings...

em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\
: the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

No, you can't...

Neither is true.

 

You're wrong.

This is from your own link:

Full Definition of EMPATHY

1. the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

Clue: "Objects" don't have feelings yet - according to the definition that YOU provided, objects can be empathized with.

Sure I can.

Both are true.

 

Read my response again - you have to assume you know what the item is thinking or if you wish I'll expand that, you have to assume what the item MAY be thinking if it could think.

Where do you get this rubbish from .. if a being or thing cannot think then by logic anything you write of its perspective is based on your own views of what YOU THINK the perspective of the being or thing would be if it could think ergo your own bias.

as have yours

Right so it is a red herring to use your own ideology of 'person at conception'

Couldn't careless how satisfied you are as this has nothing to do with our current discussion.

Abortion is a right. The onus is on YOU if you disagree with that conclusion. It's not on me to defend it unless I feel there is a need to do so and you have done nothing more than solidify my beliefs in it ... so there you have it. The onus is on you.

Just the point you actually don't know the perspective of anything, unless you ask it and it has the ability to respond, you can certainly guess at the perspective but that will always be clouded by your own views and/or bias.

I could ask you to give the perspective of a rock falling down a mountain whatever you write will be what you think the rock would feel, see, think and do based on your own viewpoint ie if it was you falling down the mountain and not the rock.

empathy is born on how you would react in the same situation or how you would expect others to react to you in that situation ergo based on your own viewpoint and/or bias.

Empathy - the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Which is based on your own viewpoint and/or bias if you have no basis to actually know what the item is thinking or a projection of what you think the item would be thinking if it could not think (that sounds confusing)

Perspective can be broken down as follows;

1. Born from personal experience ie you have a general idea of how the other person feels because you have been in the same situation - again this still means a certain amount of bias as your feelings on the item will never be exactly the same as another persons.

2. Born from examination of the reactions of the other ie you can deduce if a person is sad by their body language, you may be able to have a perspective of the sadness they are feeling without knowing the actually reason for the sadness - again this still means a certain amount of bias as your approximation of how they are feeling is based on how you would feel if you were in the same situation.

3. Born from imagining how the other thinks, feels and reacts ie Usually applied to inanimate items and is a projection of how you think they think, feel and react - again this still means a certain amount of bias involved

4. Born from interaction ie you have spoken to another or read their words - this has the least amount of bias involved as you have gained first hand knowledge from the horses mouth so to speak, but can still invoke bias especially if you do not agree with the reason eg. can you give the perspective of a woman who wishes to have an abortion without using your own bias, can you empathize with her?

 

In other words, one definition of empathy is "The attribution of one's own feelings to an object," but that doesn't apply to your following claim...

 

funny that the definition you quoted adheres to exactly what I have said all along.

The imaginative projection - ie you are imagining it and then projecting it
of a subjective state - ie relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

So you are imagining how you would feel and then projecting it into the object so that the object appears to be infused with it, and that imagination is tainted with your own viewpoint and/or bias.

 

There will always be coercion, I'm not trying to achieve some utopia, I'm concerned with what we can do in there here and now.

Additionally, whether their interpretation is correct is a different matter entirely to whether it should be obeyed or whether it should hold status in the government.

 

Hmmmm that sounds a lot like empathy and imagining things from another perspective - doesn't it.

I thought they don't have a perspective (in your opinion).

It would be interesting to know (objectively) which of us has done the better job of actually presenting and defending our views.

I'm sensing that you are getting increasingly frustrated and tied of admitting you were wrong about things lately.

The Red Herring that you have attempted to draw me into is about (laughing) whether or not a prenatal child can have a 'perspective' to be empathized with and whether or not I or anyone else can actually imagine or see things from that child's perspective.

It's a red herring because it has absolutely nothing to do with personhood laws or whether or not an abortion kills a child.

In short, you are grasping at straws.

Yeah.

I'm still "satisfied that our laws have already settled the debate over whether or not an abortion kills a child - by making it a crime of MURDER to illegally kill one."

Works for me. You're not between myself and my efforts to get it banned so... enjoy your time away from the debates.

How is that any different from when someone (usually a leftist) empathizes with an abused animal? A beached whale? An old growth tree that is about to be cut down?

[video=youtube;G880gxjj9dI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI[/video]

Let's see they can empathize with a dead tree (and apologize to them) but if they did the same for a prenatal human child.... they would be a bunch of wack jobs... right?

As a sidebar: I laugh so hard when I watch this too.... especially over the size of the little stump they are kneeling over. ROFLMAO!

Empathy in that case would be "what would the rock think if it could think" and it's thoughts would be somewhat limited by the fact that it is a rock and not a living thing that is being empathized with. Wouldn't it.

I think you are projecting again.

My empathy is more about trying to imagine things from another perspective and not about me trying to insert my own perspectives instead.

Can you imagine how a prenatal child would feel if they knew they were about to be aborted?

I can.

 

Sure it does.

 

the thing about why killing is so wrong …God created the will to live in all things and killing is just going against God's Will..

as for trees and plants sharing that will to live…


if you walk by a sidewalk in a city where the sun never shines and you see a wild flower poking through the street crack and don;t ask yourself about how strong that will to live actually is….

when they find new life at the bottom of the ocean and say it is impossible for it to be…it just can't be…but millions of just can't be life forms exist…

A wounded ant will still try to do it's duty…

a human fetus does indeed have the will to live…

but maybe you are of the fugazi school of life…human life is nothing special

 

which one…the one where you said human life is nothing special

Basically you are forcing your myopic untrained psychology unto the forum here.

you have this blurp blurp idea about thought itself and then pushing your agenda that the human fetus is not human and that it would be impossible for thought to be produced in the womb at certain stages some would argue does…


and then you become yet again an another authority….now it is on psychology …

how many authorities on the human condition and psychology and physiology are you fugazi…and are they all painted with human isn't special anyway ..so who cares if thought is produced in the womb...

 

Then why do up to 80% of fertilized human eggs spontaneously abort?