Why Do You Post In The Abortion Threads?

[Ikari]

It requires identification. As I said:



Identification with the 'feeling/sensation' of pregnancy is impossible for a man. Ergo, he cannot 'identify' with it. Pregnancy is not a thought or an attitude. It's a physical condition.

It's intellectual identification, not physiological. See the difference?

 

[NoC_T]

It's intellectual identification, not physiological. See the difference?

Which would include feelings, as per the dictionary definition itself.

See the difference?

 

[Ikari]

Which would include feelings, as per the dictionary definition itself.

See the difference?

It is identification with certain feelings, yes. But nowhere is there a necessity on first hand physiological experience. You're confusing things here. Empathy is not an emotion, it's not a physiological response to external stimuli. Empathy is born of intelligence, it is a product of reason and logic. When you say someone cannot empathize, you aren't actually commenting on one's ability to feel, but rather on their intelligence. They are not smart enough to get it. That's what it means when you say one cannot empathize.

 

[NoC_T]

It is identification with certain feelings, yes.

Which ones, if not all of those specific to pregnancy?

But nowhere is there a necessity on first hand physiological experience. You're confusing things here. Empathy is not an emotion, it's not a physiological response to external stimuli. Empathy is born of intelligence, it is a product of reason and logic. When you say someone cannot empathize, you aren't actually commenting on one's ability to feel, but rather on their intelligence. They are not smart enough to get it. That's what it means when you say one cannot empathize.

You're repeating yourself. Not direct experience, but 'identification'.

You have no frame of reference, having never experienced the sensation/feeling of pregnancy. And btw, if empathy could be experienced in the absence of identification with such sensation/feeling (those being specific to pregnancy), then anyone could, theoretically, actually be pregnant, regardless of gender, since 'thought' alone would define the condition, and no physical component would be necessary.

 

[Peter King]

You form one, and then express it, same as any other position about anything.

You can have a political opinion about the treatment of breast cancer but about breastcancer itself? That's like forming a political opinion about the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Doesn't matter. Elective abortion is the act of violating another's rights without justification. I'm not gay and will never marry a man, that doesn't mean I can't stand up for gays where their rights are being violated.

actually, there are no rights to violate until the fetus is so andvanced it has come close to birth/viability and in that early stages of pregnancy it is not your business with what kind of justification (or even when there is no justicification other than not wanting a child). And no, you are not gay but the civil rights of actual human beings/persons do warrant civil liberties where as a clump of cells in the first few weeks of pregnancy does not.

Even if this were true: so?

being a father is something that someone can walk away from knowing that almost certainly the mother will always be there for these children and raise them. If a mother walks away, some fathers will rise up to the challenge but a lot of others will not be able to do so. There is a cultural divide when it comes to how motherhood is seen compared to fatherhood, mostly because motherhood is seen as caring for your children for ever, men will be expected to love their children for ever but not like a mother's task.

Men aren't mothers and women aren't fathers. Again I ask: so?

mothers have other tasks that usually last forever and have a different biological bond with their children.

A dick in my ass is also a 'sensation' I don't know, that doesn't stop me from supporting gays serving openly in the military.

yeah, being pregnant a dick in your ass:roll:

It's not her body. It's the child's body. It's not the woman, it's another person. I don't need to own a slave to say owning a person as property is wrong.

So as soon as she has a few extra cells in her body it no longer is her body? Yeah right. And it is not a childs body, it is nothing more than some cells in the beginning and only has some qualities that look like a child but it is anything but a child during the first trimest. Also, a slave is not inside the womb of the owner.

 

[Ikari]

Which ones, if not all of those specific to pregnancy?


You're repeating yourself. Not direct experience, but 'identification'.

You have no frame of reference, having never experienced the sensation/feeling of pregnancy. And btw, if empathy could be experienced in the absence of identification with such sensation/feeling (those being specific to pregnancy), then anyone could, theoretically, actually be pregnant, regardless of gender, since 'thought' alone would define the condition, and no physical component would be necessary.

Intellectual identification. I can understand others pain, I can empathize with it as I am a thinking and rational individual. That's the basis of empathy.

We're done here. You can't accept the basic definition and try to constrain it further than it actually is in order to push your agenda. I mean that last sentence was Navy Pride level stupidity, my brain cells are not worth this.

 

[NoC_T]

Intellectual identification. I can understand others pain, I can empathize with it as I am a thinking and rational individual. That's the basis of empathy.

We're done here. You can't accept the basic definition and try to constrain it further than it actually is in order to push your agenda. I mean that last sentence was Navy Pride level stupidity, my brain cells are not worth this.

What are you talking about? I have no 'agenda'. I take issue with your understanding of empathy. Relax, dude.

What you cannot do is empathise with sensations/feelings specific to pregnancy. I'm sorry, Ikari, but if you'll even dispute the dictionary, then we're not even speaking the same language.

 

[Ikari]

What are you talking about? I have no 'agenda'. I take issue with your understanding of empathy. Relax, dude.

What you cannot do is empathise with sensations/feelings specific to pregnancy. I'm sorry, Ikari, but if you'll even dispute the dictionary, then we're not even speaking the same language.

We ain't, because somehow you think that intellectual and physiological are the same god damned thing. Seriously, that last comment hurt. Can you empathize with that? You killed off some of my braincells with that ****. For shame.

 

[NoC_T]

We ain't, because somehow you think that intellectual and physiological are the same god damned thing. Seriously, that last comment hurt. Can you empathize with that? You killed off some of my braincells with that ****. For shame.

I don't think they're the same. That's the point. You're the one who believes that.

What I think is that pregnancy involves perception of feelings specific to it (you know, because pregnancy is not the same as a head cold or a sore throat), and which includes physical sensations related to it. Empathy involving identification with those feelings, what you personally 'think' cannot be empathy. By definition. I'm not making this stuff up, as I go along, dude. Unlike yourself, my own understanding of empathy is borne out by the English language.

 

[Ontologuy]

As I said I think artifical wombs for ZEF's under 12 weeks gestation are NOT going to occur because they will be unable to keep a ZEF that is under 12 weeks gestation alive long enough for a transfer to an artificial womb.

The only way I could ever envision an artifical womb bringing a ZEF under 12 weeks gestion to term would be if the woman's egg was fertizled inside the artifical womb.

Trying to transfer any ZEF under 12 weeks gestion will most certaily kill it.

We've seen some amazing technological advancements in our day.

At this point, I would neither speculate about the degree of resiliance of a ZEF or second guess science's ability to create the most incredible breakthroughs.

We all know we're moving in the direction of more and more incredible breakthroughs.

Who really knows what's next and when.

The only reason I went along with your sceanio was to make to it clear that most women who did not want an unwanted pregnancy only wanted not to be pregnant.

I think most woman who seek an abortion would be Ok with letting the ZEF live and grow into a baby as long she did not have to be one to carry it to full term using her body, possibly ruining her health ,and/or making her responisible for raising the baby.

Most women who choose abortion just want the ZEF out of their body.

Though it's pretty clear that women who choose abortion want the ZEF out of their body, the actual underlying reasons would determine whether they were okay with the ZEF being brought safely to term by other means.

For those women whose health is at risk, they may indeed want the ZEF to be brought to term by other means if the conception/pregnancy wasn't undesired, with an eye to keeping the infant for themselves as opposed to giving the infant up for adoption.

But if the conception/pregnancy is undesired, then it would depend on the woman.

How many women would want the Z or E to continue by submitting to a more rigorous surgical process? If they didn't realize a Z/E was a living human organism, they might be more inclined to just abort chemically or through surgery comparatively less risky than a transfer. It's all about information and values. The pro-choice camp is obviously, as evidenced by PP and NARAL and the majority of pro-choice posters here, loathe to even acknowledge the living human organism nature of the Z or E, let alone mention it. So many women are sadly never accurately informed before making a decision. Especially with regard to Zs and Es, it's greatly about the information the woman possesses in combination with her values.

How many women would want to help others have a child if it meant having to endure a likely more risky transfer surgery. Again, that depends on the awareness of the woman and her vaules.

Then there are those who want to avoid complications of the recipient woman changing her mind later, closer to birth, choosing to give the birthed infant up for adoption against the previous agreement with the biological mother .. and then there are woman who don't want to have a teenager seeking them out 19 years later asking them all kinds of questions.

Those women who presently use chemical/surgical abortion as a method of (albeit mostly secondary) birth control would likely just choose the more simple less-hassle procedure that is abortion without giving it a second thought. For many of these women, a Z or an E is erroneously perceived as a "mere clump of cells", so no biggy.

And, of course, all this new embryo incubator hi-tech will be very expensive, I would imagine. Someone has to pay for it. That adds to the challenge.

Then again, if scientific technology had pushed viability back to more earlier stages of gestation, those who simply sought non-medical reason abortion at a stage of pregnancy at or past gestation would be denied by legitimate state interest in protecting prenatal life. That opens up a whole 'nother can a worms, as where will we put all these new infants undesired by their birth mothers who were forced by law to carry them to term or, if they could afford it, transfer to an embryonic incubator? Hopefully there will be good adoptive parents available .. but who knows.

Ultimately, the best thing to do is to find better ways than presently available to prevent creation of undesired conceptions.

That really is the preferred solution to the inevitability of a greatly pushed back age of viability.

 

[Ikari]

I don't think they're the same. That's the point. You're the one who believes that.

Ow ow ow ow OWWWW.

Stop. You apparently can't empathize with how painfully stupid your comments are. I didn't take it the same way. I'm not the one saying that if empathy is purely intellectual that dudes can get pregnant. That's you. Stop. If you are human, you have a brain; for the love of all that is holy please use it. Quit terrorizing my intelligence.

 

[Ontologuy]

1. To present the facts and the truth they reveal leading to real resolution of the matter that benefits all and that both oppositions can truly embrace without changing their relevant values.

Always good to see another #1er.

So, Joko104, what facts revealing what truths would you present that would indeed lead to a real resolution of the matter that benefits all and that both oppositions can truly embrace without changing their relevant values?

 

[AGENT J]

How many women would want the Z or E to continue by submitting to a more rigorous surgical process? If they didn't realize a Z/E was a living human organism, they might be more inclined to just abort chemically or through surgery comparatively less risky than a transfer. It's all about information and values. The pro-choice camp is obviously, as evidenced by PP and NARAL and the majority of pro-choice posters here, loathe to even acknowledge the living human organism nature of the Z or E, let alone mention it.

You often say this but I still havent come across anybody like that here or in actual life. Its a talking point that has no evidence to support it.

WHile I agree those people would be WRONG, they arent around like you claim.

 

[NoC_T]

Ow ow ow ow OWWWW.

Stop. You apparently can't empathize with how painfully stupid your comments are. I didn't take it the same way. I'm not the one saying that if empathy is purely intellectual that dudes can get pregnant. That's you. Stop. If you are human, you have a brain; for the love of all that is holy please use it. Quit terrorizing my intelligence.

Since you believe that empathy requires identification only with those aspects, that aren't specific to the physical sensation of empathy, you're not arguing empathy at all, but sympathy only.

This is remedial. And the dictionary's the one calling you stupid, not me. You're at liberty to dispute the acknowledged definition, of course, but you might have a hard time getting the dictionary revised, to include your own personal interpretation. lulz

 

[NoC_T]

Ow ow ow ow OWWWW.

Btw, if you have company, I can come back later. You old dog, you. :lamo

 

[Ikari]

Since you believe that empathy requires identification only with those aspects, that aren't specific to the physical sensation of empathy, you're not arguing empathy at all, but sympathy only.

This is remedial. And the dictionary's the one calling you stupid, not me. You're at liberty to dispute the acknowledged definition, of course, but you might have a hard time getting the dictionary revised, to include your own personal interpretation. lulz

I'm not the one saying that if empathy is intellectual that men can get pregnant. If you cannot figure out why that statement is wrong; there's no point going on. I can't talk physics to one who can't do addition.

 

[Ontologuy]

I'm not arguing with all this. I'm just a person from a time when the right to personal liberty was genuinely valued and women stood up for their own rights.

Sounds like the late 1960s.

Back then feminism was on fire and women were liberating themselves from being under the control of men.

Quite the dualistic battle, it was.

Of course, abortion rights as a symbolic prize of feminist victory back then came complete with a more general ignorance in the population of the reality of the living human organism status of the ZEF, so the prize had a macabre downside unknown to most.

Things, especially mental awareness and emotional maturity, have changed since then.

If younger US women don't want to defend their rights, they may lose legal recognition of them, just not by me.

Younger women, especially those who have, thanks to feminist pioneers, grown up nowadays with the freedom to make their own career and financial decisions apart from the approval of a man, no longer experience the same imperative to keep fighting that battle.

Plus, more women, nowadays, are indeed mentally aware of the living human organism status of the ZEF and more emotionally mature to avoid denial of it.

That, of course, changes how more modern women view the topical matter compared with how it was viewed back in the late 1960s, understandably.

Some, though, still living in the late 1960s, are still fighting mostly irrelevant battles.

And the truth is, I'm not worried about where I will go post-mortem. I just want to finish my research project before leaving.

I hear you on that one. There's nothing like a big project to take one's mind off a more unpleasant approaching inevitability.

The world will belong to others then.

Nobely so.

Hopefully we've left them a good one, tecnologically, informationally .. and ethically.

If they are so poorly educated in liberty that they lose it, maybe the intelligent will just emigrate instead.

If we who are alive today make an effort to tell new generations the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, informationally and emotionally, well, I would think the newer generations would then be quite intelligent and accurately educated about whatever topic they choose of interest.

I doubt, in such a country, anyone would want to emigrate because they find liberty a rightful tertiary value to both secondary security and primary life.[/QUOTE]

 

[NoC_T]

I'm not the one saying that if empathy is intellectual that men can get pregnant. If you cannot figure out why that statement is wrong; there's no point going on. I can't talk physics to one who can't do addition.

I made it very clear (or so I thought) that your own definition of empathy allows for just that, since, according to you, empathy needn't include any awareness of the physical component. By extension, pregnancy may be a condition characterised by a complete lack of such physicality. Hence, anyone can be pregnant without the attendant sensations (that arise only because of the pregnancy).

It's your interpretation, dude. Not mine. Or the dictionary's.

Just admit you struck out on this one. Don't allow your pride to master your sincerity.

 

[Ikari]

I made it very clear (or so I thought) that your own definition of empathy allows for just that

No...no it doesn't. In fact, I believe that I very clearly said that it was not physiological, that it was purely intellectual. You're the one who bridged that gap. Please understand that.

 

[Ontologuy]

The very fact that you keep referring to Mein Kampf suggests that you really want people to know how familiar to you the Nazi ideology is.

Sadly, I believe we all know more about Hitler's thinking than any of us ever wanted to.

For those whose curriculum included studying the effects of the culturally sanctioned child abuse rampant in Germany since the mid-1800s that was disguised as "Master child rearing" and are aware of its associated psychological damage for generations leading to the ideologies that compelled many to cold heartless repressed experimentation on and extermination of "lesser" people, we have a tendency to join with those who say "Never again!" in reminding others of the high-minded excuses for brutality, the forms that brutality can analagously take, and how easy it can sometimes be to accidentally step into those ideologies to excuse a utilitarian goal.

FYI, on different posts, I may well be thinking in shorter or longer terms, just like anyone. I do think that the artificial womb thing will be presented as a court challenge in time.

Roe and Webster, as they stand today, care not about the nature of the artificial means that are fetal incubators.

It will be interesting to see when the time of fetal incubator improvements push the viability date further back a bit .. or the advent of embryonic incubators really push it back .. whether there is really any legal need at all to revist these laws.

After all, they do already have a built-in mechanism for adjusting to the changing times: unqualifid viability.

If I'm not deeply worried, and I'm not,

Okay ...

it's because I have so much faith in the pro-choice view as more impartial than the pro-life view that I do not believe more and more understanding of impartial truth will take away a woman's right to choose.

Well, I'm not really sure what that really means, but as Roe and Webster read now, pro-choicers would have to go back to court and move a case all the way up to the SCOTUS to attempt to get around both the dynamic nature of the laws' presentation of viability and the legitimate state interest clause in protecting prenatal life.

Again, keep in mind, that women in America today do not have "the right to chose" abortion on demand. They have only the right to choose abortion when their lives are seriously, gravely threatened with permanent damage from the pregnancy or otherwise prior to viability, viability which technologically is retreating earlier into the gestation process.

I honestly believe, and at my age, that only untruth and partial truth could ever challenge that right.

Beliefs are important; they can help us cope. They can also help us avoiding facing difficult realities.

But I am basically with you on this one. I believe when the whole relevant truth is told, more of which is revealed as we mentally and emotionally evolve, the right resolution will be revealed, no matter what that resolution is.

The challenge, of course, for many, is to indeed tell the whole relevant truth that they presently already know.

If many, both left and right, could tell the whole relevant truth they know without fearing having to surrender their values or never get what they really want in the resolution, well, they'd likely be more honest and forthcoming about telling the truth.

Every time a serious challenge of that right has occurred in my adult lifetime, some new scientific breakthrough or some other legal aid has been revealed, as if to show that the right to choose will always triumph in one form or another - that the specific form can be replaced with a better one, that even if it appears dead it will rise from the grave.

If you wouldn't mind translating this abstract into some concrete examples, that would be great.

 

[NoC_T]

No...no it doesn't. In fact, I believe that I very clearly said that it was not physiological, that it was purely intellectual. You're the one who bridged that gap. Please understand that.

Well, Ikari, I'm not certain how many times I can rephrase the same comments, until such time as you find it commodious with your penchant for insistence.

Take it up with the dictionary, dude.

 

[Ikari]

Well, Ikari, I'm not certain how many times I can rephrase the same comments, until such time as you find it commodious with your penchant for insistence.

Take it up with the dictionary, dude.

I have, and it agrees that it is an intellectual property. Again, I'm not the one saying that if empathy is purely intellectual that dudes can get pregnant. Who is most likely mistaken on a definition if one makes such an erroneous leap in logic?

 

[NoC_T]

....since, according to you, empathy needn't include any awareness of the physical component. By extension, pregnancy may be a condition characterised by a complete lack of such physicality. Hence, anyone can be pregnant without the attendant sensations (that arise only because of the pregnancy).

It's your interpretation, dude. Not mine. Or the dictionary's.

Just admit you struck out on this one. Don't allow your pride to master your sincerity.

You omitted this, btw.

Another Thunder. Great.

 

[NoC_T]

I have, and it agrees that it is an intellectual property. Again, I'm not the one saying that if empathy is purely intellectual that dudes can get pregnant. Who is most likely mistaken on a definition if one makes such an erroneous leap in logic?

I refer you to both the material you omitted from my response, and my previous posts.

As I say, I'll not continue to rephrase my comments, until such time as they fit your baseless reinterpretation of the dictionary.

 

[Ikari]

I refer you to both the material you omitted from my response, and my previous posts.

As I say, I'll not continue to rephrase my comments, until such time as they fit your baseless reinterpretation of the dictionary.

You don't need to rephrase them. You think that if empathy is purely intellectual, that dudes can get pregnant. Been stated enough. We're to expect that you are correct over me in understanding a definition if you think that purely logical constructs can lead to pregnancy? Please.