Pro Life, or Pro Choice?

Explain your decision making process. Do you look to statistical evidence to back your opinion? Or is your opinion primarly what you feel at a gut level? Just looking for answers.

Not sure what word reference book you are using, but I use this definition of empathy when I mention the word.

Empathy (from the Greek ????????, "to make suffer") is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly experientially feel the emotion of another.

Quote:

I'm forcing nothing. It's 100% your choice.
Welfare + neutered OR no welfare and no neutering.

I can understand you view. I do not agree with it.

Quote:

"don't get me wrong... there is a time and a place for welfare. People DO run into hard times, get laid off from their jobs, and so on. My problem with welfare is the people who NEVER "get back on their feet again" or weren't on their feet in the first place."

I agree with you. It is on the verge of criminal how some greedy people exploit our social programs.

Quote:

"NO ONE has helped me. My parents never bought me a damn thing.
I bought my first car at 16 with earnings from slinging papers from 13-16.
I went to public schools, and had every opportunity that everyone else in my town did to learn and better themselves. How come I make nearly 100k a year, and they mooch the system?"

I applaud your for your self determination. I would speculate you are more motivated.

Quote:

"I paid nearly $36,000 in taxes last year. 36 THOUSAND DOLLARS. Why? so they can keep popping out kids and I can keep feeding them.'

Perhaps you need a new accountant.

I do admire your stance on taking care of your own. In relation to my own family, I adhere to this.

Correct me if I wrong but is "I have no pity, no empathy, and certainly no sympathy." related to the percentage of people who expliot our social systems.

"come to down town. you can see it for yourself"

Specifically which city? I've seen Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown New Orleans.

okay I understand more now.

Maybe only you can answer that for yourself. But sure, I'll ask. What is it that motivates you to be successful?

Just suggesting maybe if you paid an accountant (probably a whole lot less than $36,000 thousand dollars) you can maximize your personal wealth. But, hey it is your money and do with it as you please. Afterall, this is America.

:dunno: I don't know. I know that i'd donate blood, sperm, ebay everything i own, and even try to sell my kidney on the black market before i ever stood in a welfare line. Not because i'm "better" than them... but because it's my life, my F up, and I'M going to get myself out of it, one organ at a time.

I've looked for one, and trust me, there are no good ones.

I went to one and she was shocked that I "make money off the internet".

How is she going to get me a better cut, when she doesn't even know what e-commerce is?

What, you think that if someone works hard, they'll be as wealthy as you claim to be by that alone? That's a laugh.

God doesn't reward hard work, nor does he help those that help themselves. There is no such thing as karma.

To succeed, it requires hard work much of the time, yes, but it also requires opportunities that not everyone gets.

It takes at least some form of intelligence, too, which you do seem to have.

You have an awfully big chip on your shoulders, though. Bitter, much?

You prefer illegal immigrants to people on welfare.

I see.

Because they're trying to make something of themselves? And people on welfare, by definition, are not?

Your unwarrented biases are showing. Where's the data supporting your assertions? Data, not beliefs. Facts, not opinions.

No it doesn't. This is inhumane barbarism, worthy of the early decades of the 20th century, not today. It makes too many unwarrented assumptions, and commits too much cruelty long term.

Your hatred of these people keeps showing. Why do you hate them so?

But your assumptions about their work ethic are showing. You don't know why they aren't, but you're assuming laziness. Its far more complicated than that. Laziness? Please!

The inner cities, the difficulties impoverished people deal with in such locations, the sheer ignorance, is not caused by laziness. Your scorn for people on welfare does not match the actual facts.

Sorry, but most of your taxes, if you split it up by what things are being spent on, were spent on social security, the military, and medicaid.

The eldery ain't lazy.

The military isn't a charity.

And medicaid? Sorry, I'd rather not see poor children dying in the streets because their parents can't afford the expensive treatments. Would you?

That's the vast majority of where the money goes. Welfare? A drop in the bucket. Something like $50 billion goes to welfare. Something like... 1/40 of the entire budget. So, what's 1/40 out of $30,000? $750.

To split the amount they take out, only about $750 goes to welfare. For someone who makes the money you do, a drop in the bucket. And not nearly all of that goes to those welfare mothers who so despise. Again, sorry, but I can't cry for you, having to spend a big whole $750 for welfare.

I can cringe because that's a lot of money, the 36 thousand, sure. But most of that goes to causes I'd at least hope you consider better.

So, here's a question: Once said welfare mothers are no longer needing those services, are wealthy, or at least stable, by your system, they at that time can no longer have children.

A large enough amount of the people on welfare, such as, for example, my now quite-successful step-dad, would have then been rendered sterile due to your draconian measures. Irreversible procedures like that for life situations that will later no longer exist is not just excessive, but cruel.

Possibly starve to death, but if you're lucky be able to have kids later on, or not starve to death but be unable to have kids once you're on your feet?

Evil. There's no other word for such a choice you want to put onto people.

Something interesting that you said:

"NO ONE has helped me.
My parents never bought me a damn thing.
I bought my first car at 16 with earnings from slinging papers from 13-16.
I went to public schools, and had every opportunity that everyone else in my town did to learn and better themselves."

No one helped me either. My parents never bought me a damn thing. I bought my first car at 17 with my earnings from working from 13-16. I went to public schools, but managed to get a degree from a community college before I was done. (Thanks, yes, to government, but they were using the same money that would have gone to pay my high school to pay the college, so it's no more than anyone else gets.)

So why do I have empathy for people that you wish to sterilize?

I'm only a 19 year old now, going fulltime to a good university. (Gonzaga rules!) Maybe it's that I don't have a lot of money yet, so I can understand how people who don't have my intelligence, nor had my opportunities (it takes both, after all) could feel.

I don't feel scorn for people who have less than me, even though I have had no special help and am succeeding anyway, solely on my own merits. I am going through college because of my hard work and impressive academic achievement. That's it, that's all I have. My abilities. My destiny is to rely on myself, for no one else can or wil lhelp me.

You are clearly bitter. I see that. I understand that. But it's not right. You are using exagerations of the truth, outright inaccuracies, and self-rightousness that allows you to think of these people as actually close to worthless.

That's not their problem. It's yours! I applaud your hard work. I hope to do as well as you. But such hatred is a problem far worse, far more dangerous. As a Christian, I'll pray for you. Because that hatred is something pretty serious, at least a bad as fault as the laziness you claim that all these people have.

Point of reference, I was born in New Orleans and lived there the first 23 years of life. Not bragging Just stating a fact.

So could I then assume you are someone who will do whatever it takes (w/o injuring other) to earn finances to support yourself. No sarcasm, just observation.

Back to the topic:

I am pro choice. Unless the child was, in some way, my responsibility. As a man I could only try to persuade my sexual partner.

For someone else, including my sexual partner, it is their decision.

Boethius, a CHRISTIAN philosopher of the sixth century, said "Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights. "

The embryo will not BECOME a human. It IS one already. However, it is not a person.

A child is a person. An adult human is a person. A mentally challenged adult is a person. My hand is not a person. A one week old embryo is not a person. A brain-dead human being which cannot regain consciousness is not a person.

Said one week old embryo, about nine months later, is definitely a person. It will BECOME one. But at the one week, it's not.

at that point in time, the clump of cells can separate and become several individuals, each of which can become a person. How can an entity following my definition, designated by things such as continuation of self, individuality and self-consciousness, split into two? It cannot.

You also said, above, that their traits are all preset. Not true at all.

First of all, much of human traits are based on experience and choice, not genetics. Those things aren't set in the womb. Whether the clump of cells will become one or five separate individuals is not set, either, due to twinning. Their education will decide much. Their physical traits will be affected by their environment, outside chemical influences. Besides which, they don't have most of those traits THEN. I wasn't conscious when I was concieved, nor were you. We weren't people under those definitions above.

Back to the embryos, they have no brains. They cannot be conscious. They have no more say than an ameoba. And at that early stage, about as much potential for pain.

Just as I have no obligation to give you blood, a woman has no obligation to give a fetus her own nutrients.

The Democrats of the time of the civil war are not the same as today. The Democrats then, if they were taken to today's times, would be roughly closer to Republicans in ideology (you know, the part that matters.). And vice-versa.

Also, in the current age, Republicans don't support civil rights for groups such as homosexuals.

To say that Republicans, ideologically and currently as an organization, supports civil rights is a falsehood! I don't believe you were intentionally lying, but it was certainly false, regardless of your beliefs.

Panderers. Ha. Conservatives pander to evangelical Christians, many of whom would turn this country into a Christian flavored, Iranesque theocracy! Have you even heard the eyewitness accounts of the scorn the current Republican leadership has for those they're taking support from in those quarters?

Also, read up on Dominionism, also called Christian Nationalism. It's frightening. Not something to be overtly concerned about at the moment, as they aren't about to go try to take over through violent means, but they're a group to be aware of. A group that, if they had their way, would make our nation the same kind of theocracy as Iran has. (Only, you know, Christian instead of Muslim.)

born[/U] or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any personwithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

On the first hand, legally, unborn people, if I'm right, aren't yet citizens. That's the first key.

Second, I made clear the due process clause, under which Roe v. Wade was decided upon.

"No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

The decision was also, and this is key and something I hold to, that abortion is permissible until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The opinion of the Court at that time, which was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, stated "the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Now, I'd need to look at all later cases to make sure of the precise current legal standing of abortion, but I'm not a legal scholar and I don't have time at the moment.

You may not agree, but based on the actual Constitution, abortion is and should be legal.

Now, a problem does come when it comes to defining a fetus as a person. Do that, and it is a totally different ballgame, yes? I agree! However. The Court decided at that time that the Constitution's protections were not including the unborn., and were not persons under the law.

Some, including many liberal scholars, may argue that the decision is just making something up out of thin air, that it isn't in the Constitution. I don't see it that way, I agree with the reasoning that the Justices used for Roe v. Wade. I also see it in a few different places, but that's not the point, that has nothing to do with the current law or its current reasoning.

A good arguement does exist for it to be left to the states. I agree with that, in the legal sense. But I still support the law as is.



"Who decides who lives and dies?"

As for unborn children? The mother.


"Where do you draw the line? "

Legally, second trimester is the line. There and beyond, no.


"Your willing to kill it when it is more then one cell, how many cells is justifiable? Two, two thousand, two million, two billion? How many cells are in a baby at the second trimester?"

After clarifying my view above, this should be obvious.

"Why do you differentiate between this clump of cells and a clump of cells in it's third trimester?"

Shall I mention that the thing I value is sentience, consciousness, personhood, not human life in and of itself? Also, I'll make this clear: viability is a clear difference. The baby is viable. Sorry, that viable baby shouldn't be aborted.

"Where do you define if and when a human being is created?"

Obviously, human life exists as soon as conception.

That doesn't mean it's a person. Which it's not. My hand is also human life, and in those first few months, my hand is closer to a person than that lump of cells.

"You must have an answer if you have an opinion between abortion being ok for the first tri, iffy for the second and no for the third? "

Look above.

"When is your difference between personal choice and murder?"

Murder is a legal thing. Perhaps you should rephrase that to "your difference between eprsonal choice and killing?"

Obviously, human life dies. But it's legal to kill far more important human life than that. Big deal.

" Is it human at it's first breath, heartbeat, thought, sensation of pain? If you can't answer all of these, you need to apply yourself a little before you inject such a one sided sexist arguement, IMO."

Ha. It's ALIVE, it's HUMAN, in the first moment. Personhood? Birth. But, viability means it could be born and survive. That's close enough for me to keep from killing it.

One sided sexist arguement, is it?

Cute. That's really cute. The only sexist here is you, Mr. "chain their legs together."

Wow. I see your view of women is rather negative, isn't it?

Sometimes, yes, in the case of rape, actually. But beyond that, why should they have to? Why should they be forced to do that?

They shouldn't have to do that, though! Do you see them as something negative, these women who have sex?

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

On the first hand, legally, unborn people, if I'm right, aren't yet citizens. That's the first key.

Second, I made clear the due process clause, under which Roe v. Wade was decided upon.

The decision was also, and this is key and something I hold to, that abortion is permissible until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

"the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty

and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

You may not agree, but based on the actual Constitution, abortion is and should be legal.

As for unborn children? The mother.

Shall I mention that the thing I value is sentience, consciousness, person hood, not human life in and of itself? Also, I'll make this clear: viability is a clear difference. The baby is viable. Sorry, that viable baby shouldn't be aborted.

Obviously, human life exists as soon as conception.

That doesn't mean it's a person. Which it's not. My hand is also human life, and in those first few months, my hand is closer to a person than that lump of cells.

Look above.

Murder is a legal thing. Perhaps you should rephrase that to "your difference between personal choice and killing?"

Ha. It's ALIVE, it's HUMAN, in the first moment. Personhood? Birth. But, viability means it could be born and survive. That's close enough for me to keep from killing it.

One sided sexist arguement, is it?

Cute. That's really cute. The only sexist here is you, Mr. "chain their legs together

chaining a woman to a wall and forcing her to let a baby grow inside of her is a violent, evil act.

I beleive in a womans right to choose to have an abortion. I would like to ask those of you who are prolife, how many children have you adopted? How many women have you helped through pregnancy to give their child up for adoption? Basically, what have you done to help with the "solution" to the so called problem? It's easy to take a stand on such a subject, but very few actually do anything towards a solution to the "problem" of abortion. So before anyone could dream of having the right of telling a woman what to do with her body they should talk to themselves first about what are they doing to find a solution to the problem. And for the men out there (like me) we shouldn't have too much to say on this issue untill we can grow a uterus and have children ourselves.

I would like to ask those of you who are prolife, how many children have you adopted? How many women have you helped through pregnancy to give their child up for adoption? Basically, what have you done to help with the "solution" to the so called problem?

You know, I had a long post arguing you point for point, but forget it.

You support chaining people to walls and making them support other humans, regardless of their wishes.

You wish to punish people for things that are not crimes.

You deride the rights of other PEOPLE, and claim they are fake.

You claim truth is propaganda, and twist history to suit your false beliefs.

Instead of seeing objective truth, you continue living in a subjective, moralistic fantasy world.

I can't talk to you. You're evil. We have no common ground.

Thank God this country's society is built up the way it is, for if we were in a state of nature the only possibility when you encounter someone who holds no common ground with you, and whose beliefs and goals exactly contradict your own is conflict.

Thank God this country's society is built up the way it is, for if we were in a state of nature the only possibility when you encounter someone who holds no common ground with you, and whose beliefs and goals exactly contradict your own is conflict