Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Empathy

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:40:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My understanding of our emotional connection to humanity is that Ethos governs our relationships to our own kind; and you can see the similarity of the word ethic to ethnic; and that pathos governs our relationship with all other beings, human or not and you are already familiar with words like empathy, sympathy. Pathetic, and psychopath. I think this is important knowledge when you see people in the world today like the Jews and Muslims in conflict who are entirely moral in their actions, clearly acting in regard to their consideration of the best interest of their own kind, but forever losing the sympathy of the world because their regard for the lives of their enemy is so devoid of empathy. It is pointed out in vain that the existence and welfare of both these people depends upon the sympathy of the world, and if they show themselves so without sympathy they show themselves as inhuman.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 3:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

Hypocrisy?
Where? in identifying with a woman?
How is it empathetic to say, 'I do not care if it is your body - you have an obligation to my morality to carry it to term, and spend the reminder of your life caring for it.'
Do you see the hypocrisy of your position?
You place the value of a zygote over a mature human being.
Now if you are offering to pay for all medical expenses and adopt all of those wonderful newborns, different story.
Or maybe you believe you have empathy with that zygote? That brainless mass of human tissue.
Do you so volunteer?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 3:54:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 3:50:22 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

Hypocrisy?
Where? in identifying with a woman?
How is it empathetic to say, 'I do not care if it is your body - you have an obligation to my morality to carry it to term, and spend the reminder of your life caring for it.'
Do you see the hypocrisy of your position?
You place the value of a zygote over a mature human being.
Now if you are offering to pay for all medical expenses and adopt all of those wonderful newborns, different story.
Or maybe you believe you have empathy with that zygote? That brainless mass of human tissue.
Do you so volunteer?

In the U.S. the birth of half of all babies is paid for by welfare - and the first year of life, all medical expenses paid, by welfare.
You want even more.
Do you favor welfare paying for all births?
I'm just wondering how consistent your morality is.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 7:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 3:50:22 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

Hypocrisy?

Did I studder?

Where? in identifying with a woman?

Is that what you think I meant?

How is it empathetic to say, 'I do not care if it is your body - you have an obligation to my morality to carry it to term, and spend the reminder of your life caring for it.'

I don't know anyone who says that and our characterization does not my reality make. P.S. There's always adoption.

Do you see the hypocrisy of your position?

There is no hypocrisy in my position.

You place the value of a (human) zygote over a mature human being.

Wrong. I don't place values on either of them at all. Our Constitution has established that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws (regardless of value) and I am abiding by that premise.

Now if you are offering to pay for all medical expenses and adopt all of those wonderful newborns, different story.

You are trying to place certain conditions where our Constitution does not. The Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. The only 'condition' for those protections is that you be a "person."

Or maybe you believe you have empathy with that zygote? That brainless mass of human tissue.

I have empathy for both and for what it's worth, there are not many abortions being performed on "zygotes." Do a quick images search for "aborted children" and you will see that the vast majority are far beyond the zygote stage of their lives when they are killed.

Do you so volunteer?

For what?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:16:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

You know, except that a fetus has no higher brain functions, so there really is no contradiction. I swear, you must avoid facts like the plague.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 8:16:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

You know, except that a fetus has no higher brain functions,

My ability to empathize is not limited by the ability of someone or something's ability to think or to feel pain. Yours is?

so there really is no contradiction.

I obviously disagree.

I swear, you must avoid facts like the plague.

This from someone who avoids the fact that abortions kill a child, deny to the child their personhood and their right to the protections of our laws. . .

Meh.

Imagine that.

SMH
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 8:24:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/16/2015 8:16:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know, except that a fetus has no higher brain functions,

My ability to empathize is not limited by the ability of someone or something's ability to think or to feel pain. Yours is?

Empathy is about putting yourself in another's shoes.
So, imagine you are unable to think, feel pain, have wants, etc. Any action does not matter.
Now imagine you are pregnant (the other being that is involved with a pregnancy) and empathize with them. Certain actions or inactions DO matter.

So, in the end, it still end up with how each individual women feels.

so there really is no contradiction.

I obviously disagree.

Because you don't understand science?

I swear, you must avoid facts like the plague.

This from someone who avoids the fact that abortions kill a child,

Define child.

deny to the child their personhood

By the definition of personhood I recognize, a fetus needs higher brain functions to be considered a person.

and their right to the protections of our laws. . .

What laws do we have that protect the rights of non-persons?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:48:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

I believe that empathy has a pretty negative impact on people because of how selective it is. It not only binds people together, it draws lines in the sand around them. But promoting group cohesion, it enables the 'othering' of those outside of the group, and fails to socially punish behavior towards them which is both irrational and antisocial if we look at the potential value of individuals. I see it as a primitive, tribalistic emotion which will never outgrow its exclusionary roots and ought to be discouraged because of this.

There are better ways to recognize what we have in common than straining a volatile emotional response to encompass more people.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:50:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 8:28:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/16/2015 8:24:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/16/2015 8:16:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
You know, except that a fetus has no higher brain functions,

My ability to empathize is not limited by the ability of someone or something's ability to think or to feel pain. Yours is?

Empathy is about putting yourself in another's shoes.

It's about more than just that.

So, imagine you are unable to think, feel pain, have wants, etc. Any action does not matter.

You obviously have a very limited knowledge of empathy.

Now imagine you are pregnant (the other being that is involved with a pregnancy) and empathize with them. Certain actions or inactions DO matter.

They also matter for the child involved.

So, in the end, it still end up with how each individual women feels.

All persons are equally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. The Supreme Court recognized this as fact - when they said that once personhood has been established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes nearly impossible to make.

so there really is no contradiction.

I obviously disagree.

Because you don't understand science?

Because YOU don't.

I swear, you must avoid facts like the plague.

This from someone who avoids the fact that abortions kill a child,

Define child.

Our fetal homicide laws already do that.

deny to the child their personhood

By the definition of personhood I recognize, a fetus needs higher brain functions to be considered a person.

The legal definition for "person" is the only one that matters and it requires no such thing. In fact, children born with no cerebral cortex at all are still recognized as 'persons' and are still equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

and their right to the protections of our laws. . .

What laws do we have that protect the rights of non-persons?

We have many laws that do that. Laws to protect animals for example. Why do you ask?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:25:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My understanding of our emotional connection to humanity is that Ethos governs our relationships to our own kind; and you can see the similarity of the word ethic to ethnic; and that pathos governs our relationship with all other beings, human or not and you are already familiar with words like empathy, sympathy. Pathetic, and psychopath. I think this is important knowledge when you see people in the world today like the Jews and Muslims in conflict who are entirely moral in their actions, clearly acting in regard to their consideration of the best interest of their own kind, but forever losing the sympathy of the world because their regard for the lives of their enemy is so devoid of empathy. It is pointed out in vain that the existence and welfare of both these people depends upon the sympathy of the world, and if they show themselves so without sympathy they show themselves as inhuman.

We have a natural tendency to appraise, most highly, those things we see as holding the most relevance or meaning.

The sin is not found in our inability to find relevance or meaning in something but in our inability to transcend ourselves. For instance, a classic demonstration of this is a person's readiness to make culpable another individual in going through an unfavorable circumstance. To illustrate, the tendency of one to say he, or she, is being persecuted on the occasion he, or she, stumbles on misfortune however in the event someone else happens on the same misfortune (especially an enemy) he, or she, is receiving recompense for his, or her, own actions.

The individual who grieves over another's suffering, only, on the occasion he, or she, suffers, likewise, is only using the suffering of the other to validate his, or her, own experience. In other words, the suffering of others confirms he, or she, is not being singled out. For, in all honesty, the individual must rectify suffering for he, or she, sees suffering almost exclusively as evil.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe that empathy has a pretty negative impact on people because of how selective it is. It not only binds people together, it draws lines in the sand around them. But promoting group cohesion, it enables the 'othering' of those outside of the group, and fails to socially punish behavior towards them which is both irrational and antisocial if we look at the potential value of individuals. I see it as a primitive, tribalistic emotion which will never outgrow its exclusionary roots and ought to be discouraged because of this.

There are better ways to recognize what we have in common than straining a volatile emotional response to encompass more people.

Empathy is, merely, the ability to relate to another emotionally.

Of course, it's exclusionary in the sense no one is able to find all feelings agreeable. We are not merely physical but also emotional beings, and just as we differ physically, we likewise differ emotionally.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 6:38:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:31:19 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/16/2015 3:50:22 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

Hypocrisy?

Did I studder?

Where? in identifying with a woman?

Is that what you think I meant?

How is it empathetic to say, 'I do not care if it is your body - you have an obligation to my morality to carry it to term, and spend the reminder of your life caring for it.'

I don't know anyone who says that and our characterization does not my reality make. P.S. There's always adoption.

Do you see the hypocrisy of your position?

There is no hypocrisy in my position.

You place the value of a (human) zygote over a mature human being.

Wrong. I don't place values on either of them at all. Our Constitution has established that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws (regardless of value) and I am abiding by that premise.

Now if you are offering to pay for all medical expenses and adopt all of those wonderful newborns, different story.

You are trying to place certain conditions where our Constitution does not. The Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. The only 'condition' for those protections is that you be a "person."

Or maybe you believe you have empathy with that zygote? That brainless mass of human tissue.

I have empathy for both and for what it's worth, there are not many abortions being performed on "zygotes." Do a quick images search for "aborted children" and you will see that the vast majority are far beyond the zygote stage of their lives when they are killed.

Do you so volunteer?

For what?

Stuttering on a keyboard?

'Empathy' requires the ability to identify with another being's personal identity.
I can not empathize with a cadaver, or a tree, or a cabbage.
For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple. Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.
Do you see it any differently?

If we empathize with a woman who has a embryo, or fetus, after the fifth week of fertilization, we may consider there are two minds worthy of our empathy, and they may be at odds with each others,
Choosing one over the other no way implies we lack empathy, only that a choice needs to be made, and we made it.
Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 6:38:45 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Stuttering on a keyboard?

Not likely, is it.

'Empathy' requires the ability to identify with another being's personal identity.

And circumstances.

I can not empathize with a cadaver, or a tree, or a cabbage.

I can.

For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

That is simply not true. That is especially not true of children born with anencephalia. They are born with no cerebral cortex at all. Only a brain stem. They are still human beings, still persons and still recognized by our laws as individual "persons." No functioning brain required.

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple.

No it doesn't. Look it up.

Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.

Empathy:
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.

Do you see it any differently?

Completely.

If we empathize with a woman who has a embryo, or fetus, after the fifth week of fertilization, we may consider there are two minds worthy of our empathy, and they may be at odds with each others,

No doubt that they are at odds. Who claimed otherwise?

Choosing one over the other no way implies we lack empathy, only that a choice needs to be made, and we made it.

We all have the right to make choices. However, no-one has the right to violate the rights of others with the choices we make. Children are "persons" and as such, they are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. A woman's right to "make choices" does not trump that.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:43:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Although I'm undecided on abortion, I must say I agree with Chuz-Life on some matters. If you see pictures of aborted children, you must feel sorry for them because this was programmed in our human minds. This is because you empathise with their situation - if it was you who had been aborted, surely you would not feel good, so you empathise.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 11:17:45 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:45 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Stuttering on a keyboard?

Not likely, is it.

'Empathy' requires the ability to identify with another being's personal identity.

And circumstances.

Wait a minute.
You tell us you can identify with a carrot, and the now, elaborate to say the circumstances of a carrot.
Seriously. If the carrot is in the dirt you feel all warm and fuzzy, and if it is on the chopping block ready to go in a salad what do you fee, fulfillment , or terror?


I can not empathize with a cadaver, or a tree, or a cabbage.

I can.

For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

That is simply not true. That is especially not true of children born with anencephalia. They are born with no cerebral cortex at all. Only a brain stem. They are still human beings, still persons and still recognized by our laws as individual "persons." No functioning brain required.

"only a brain stem"
As in, an incomplete brain.
Lobotomy does not end personhood, we agree.
1% does not equal zero percent, we disagree.
"no brain" and "only a brain stem" are not the same.

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple.

No it doesn't. Look it up.

Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.

Empathy:
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.

Dictionary definitions.
With a dictionary I can show a canine with three legs is not a dog, since dogs have four legs. By picking and choosing dictionary definitions any argument can be won.
Silly me, I go by philosophical encyclopedias, that say two minds, two brains (complete or incomplete) required.

Oh, well, you can empathize with a concrete block.
So if you started this post, and we found out you destroyed some concrete blocks, we could call you a hypocrite.
Did you throw the garbage out this week, you hypocrite.

Do you see it any differently?

Completely.

If we empathize with a woman who has a embryo, or fetus, after the fifth week of fertilization, we may consider there are two minds worthy of our empathy, and they may be at odds with each others,

No doubt that they are at odds. Who claimed otherwise?

Choosing one over the other no way implies we lack empathy, only that a choice needs to be made, and we made it.

We all have the right to make choices. However, no-one has the right to violate the rights of others with the choices we make. Children are "persons" and as such, they are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. A woman's right to "make choices" does not trump that.

Children and fetuses are not equivalent.
Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.
Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?
You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.
This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.
Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.
Your disagreement does not change things.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Wait a minute.
You tell us you can identify with a carrot,

Yes, I can. I think it's odd (telling) that you can't.

and the now, elaborate to say the circumstances of a carrot.

So I can subject myself to even more ridicule from you? No thank you.

Seriously. If the carrot is in the dirt you feel all warm and fuzzy, and if it is on the chopping block ready to go in a salad what do you fee, fulfillment , or terror?

Why are you assuming that empathy only has to do with literal feelings or emotions?

For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

That is simply not true. That is especially not true of children born with anencephalia. They are born with no cerebral cortex at all. Only a brain stem. They are still human beings, still persons and still recognized by our laws as individual "persons." No functioning brain required.

"only a brain stem"
As in, an incomplete brain.
Lobotomy does not end personhood, we agree.
1% does not equal zero percent, we disagree.
"no brain" and "only a brain stem" are not the same.

Does an amoeba have an identity?

Does an amoeba have a brain?

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple.

No it doesn't. Look it up.

Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.

Empathy:
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.


Dictionary definitions.
With a dictionary I can show a canine with three legs is not a dog, since dogs have four legs. By picking and choosing dictionary definitions any argument can be won.

Unless you are asserting that the claim dictionaries make about dogs having four legs is completely false, you're not 'winning' anything with that point. Yes, dictionaries can be mis-used. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who supports a claim with a reference to a definition is "picking and choosing." I can give you multiple definitions from multiple sources along with other references to support my claims about empathy.

Silly me, I go by philosophical encyclopedias, that say two minds, two brains (complete or incomplete) required.


Yes, I agree that it is silly to "pick and choose" from your sources in that way. A quick search on Google is giving me many references that already challenge your claim.

Oh, well, you can empathize with a concrete block.
So if you started this post, and we found out you destroyed some concrete blocks, we could call you a hypocrite.

LOL. It seems that you can't comprehend hypocrisy any better than you empathy.

Did you throw the garbage out this week, you hypocrite.

Just for the lulz, do explain what would be "hypocritical" about me throwing away my garbage.

We all have the right to make choices. However, no-one has the right to violate the rights of others with the choices we make. Children are "persons" and as such, they are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. A woman's right to "make choices" does not trump that.

Children and (human) fetuses are not equivalent.

Our fetal homicide laws say they are. A "child" in the fetal stage of their life is still a "child." That is how they can be legally recognized as "murder" victims.

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.

This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.

The Supreme Court said this: https://www.youtube.com...

We have been working to establish the personhood of children in the womb (fetal homicide laws) ever since.

Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.

They may be legal for now. However, the Supreme Court will inevitably rule that most (voluntary / elective) abortions are not constitutional.

Your disagreement does not change things.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Constitution says what it says about the rights of all persons to due process and to the equal protections of our laws. Our fetal homicide laws already recognize "children in the womb" as such and they are (for now) being denied the equal protections of our laws.

My disagreement with abortion alone may not "change things." However, things are changing never the less.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. . . that you think an ability to empathize with something means that you must live with a conclusion that "all things are equal." I can empathize with a carrot, a child, some garbage and or a concrete block without the compulsion that you seem to believe must be felt to see them all as "equal" - one to the other.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Wait a minute.
You tell us you can identify with a carrot,

Yes, I can. I think it's odd (telling) that you can't.

and the now, elaborate to say the circumstances of a carrot.

So I can subject myself to even more ridicule from you? No thank you.

Seriously. If the carrot is in the dirt you feel all warm and fuzzy, and if it is on the chopping block ready to go in a salad what do you fee, fulfillment , or terror?

Why are you assuming that empathy only has to do with literal feelings or emotions?

For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

That is simply not true. That is especially not true of children born with anencephalia. They are born with no cerebral cortex at all. Only a brain stem. They are still human beings, still persons and still recognized by our laws as individual "persons." No functioning brain required.

"only a brain stem"
As in, an incomplete brain.
Lobotomy does not end personhood, we agree.
1% does not equal zero percent, we disagree.
"no brain" and "only a brain stem" are not the same.

Does an amoeba have an identity?

Does an amoeba have a brain?

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple.

No it doesn't. Look it up.

Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.

Empathy:
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.


Dictionary definitions.
With a dictionary I can show a canine with three legs is not a dog, since dogs have four legs. By picking and choosing dictionary definitions any argument can be won.

Unless you are asserting that the claim dictionaries make about dogs having four legs is completely false, you're not 'winning' anything with that point. Yes, dictionaries can be mis-used. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who supports a claim with a reference to a definition is "picking and choosing." I can give you multiple definitions from multiple sources along with other references to support my claims about empathy.


Silly me, I go by philosophical encyclopedias, that say two minds, two brains (complete or incomplete) required.


Yes, I agree that it is silly to "pick and choose" from your sources in that way. A quick search on Google is giving me many references that already challenge your claim.

Oh, well, you can empathize with a concrete block.
So if you started this post, and we found out you destroyed some concrete blocks, we could call you a hypocrite.

LOL. It seems that you can't comprehend hypocrisy any better than you empathy.

Did you throw the garbage out this week, you hypocrite.

Just for the lulz, do explain what would be "hypocritical" about me throwing away my garbage.

We all have the right to make choices. However, no-one has the right to violate the rights of others with the choices we make. Children are "persons" and as such, they are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. A woman's right to "make choices" does not trump that.

Children and (human) fetuses are not equivalent.

Our fetal homicide laws say they are. A "child" in the fetal stage of their life is still a "child." That is how they can be legally recognized as "murder" victims.

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.

This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.

The Supreme Court said this: https://www.youtube.com...

We have been working to establish the personhood of children in the womb (fetal homicide laws) ever since.

Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.

They may be legal for now. However, the Supreme Court will inevitably rule that most (voluntary / elective) abortions are not constitutional.

Your disagreement does not change things.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Constitution says what it says about the rights of all persons to due process and to the equal protections of our laws. Our fetal homicide laws already recognize "children in the womb" as such and they are (for now) being denied the equal protections of our laws.

My disagreement with abortion alone may not "change things." However, things are changing never the less.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. . . that you think an ability to empathize with something means that you must live with a conclusion that "all things are equal." I can empathize with a carrot, a child, some garbage and or a concrete block without the compulsion that you seem to believe must be felt to see them all as "equal" - one to the other.

A woman who becomes pregnant did not 'force a child' into do anything.
There is no child before a zygote. The woman did not force the ovum or sperm to do anything.
She may have done her best to prevent the pregnancy, unsuccessfully.
Would this matter to you?

Why can't I identify with a woman who wants an abortion - and also identify with the fetus? How does this make me hypocritical, any less than you, who is selective in who or what you empathize with?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:02:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Wait a minute.
You tell us you can identify with a carrot,

Yes, I can. I think it's odd (telling) that you can't.

and the now, elaborate to say the circumstances of a carrot.

So I can subject myself to even more ridicule from you? No thank you.

Seriously. If the carrot is in the dirt you feel all warm and fuzzy, and if it is on the chopping block ready to go in a salad what do you fee, fulfillment , or terror?

Why are you assuming that empathy only has to do with literal feelings or emotions?

For another being to have personal identity, it would require a mind, a brain.

That is simply not true. That is especially not true of children born with anencephalia. They are born with no cerebral cortex at all. Only a brain stem. They are still human beings, still persons and still recognized by our laws as individual "persons." No functioning brain required.

"only a brain stem"
As in, an incomplete brain.
Lobotomy does not end personhood, we agree.
1% does not equal zero percent, we disagree.
"no brain" and "only a brain stem" are not the same.

Does an amoeba have an identity?

Does an amoeba have a brain?

'Empathize' requires at a minimum, two minds. It is that simple.

No it doesn't. Look it up.

Beyond that we may disagree, less than that and you are creating your own meaning to the term.

Empathy:
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.


Dictionary definitions.
With a dictionary I can show a canine with three legs is not a dog, since dogs have four legs. By picking and choosing dictionary definitions any argument can be won.

Unless you are asserting that the claim dictionaries make about dogs having four legs is completely false, you're not 'winning' anything with that point. Yes, dictionaries can be mis-used. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who supports a claim with a reference to a definition is "picking and choosing." I can give you multiple definitions from multiple sources along with other references to support my claims about empathy.


Silly me, I go by philosophical encyclopedias, that say two minds, two brains (complete or incomplete) required.


Yes, I agree that it is silly to "pick and choose" from your sources in that way. A quick search on Google is giving me many references that already challenge your claim.


This is a philosophy forum.
There is nothing arbitrary about consulting an encyclopedia of Philosophy for a meaning of 'empathy'.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

It contains a lengthy discussion of empathy, always concerning minds.
Using google to search out all meanings of a word is appropriate in a general discussion board, not a philosophy section on a debate board.

There is no evidence to indicate amoebas have minds.
In philosophy, within a human context, empathy involves two minds.

You choose to see it otherwise.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:53:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:41:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.

This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.

The Supreme Court said this: https://www.youtube.com...

We have been working to establish the personhood of children in the womb (fetal homicide laws) ever since.

Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.

They may be legal for now. However, the Supreme Court will inevitably rule that most (voluntary / elective) abortions are not constitutional.

Your disagreement does not change things.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Constitution says what it says about the rights of all persons to due process and to the equal protections of our laws. Our fetal homicide laws already recognize "children in the womb" as such and they are (for now) being denied the equal protections of our laws.

My disagreement with abortion alone may not "change things." However, things are changing never the less.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. . . that you think an ability to empathize with something means that you must live with a conclusion that "all things are equal." I can empathize with a carrot, a child, some garbage and or a concrete block without the compulsion that you seem to believe must be felt to see them all as "equal" - one to the other.

A woman who becomes pregnant did not 'force a child' into do anything.

The child is brought into existence through the actions of the woman and her partner. By their decision to risk the pregnancy. You claimed that the child they created is "violating" the woman's rights when it is clearly not the child's doing that it is in that relationship in the first place.

There is no child before a zygote.

Correct.

The woman did not force the ovum or sperm to do anything.

There are varying degrees of "force." As it applies to conception, it would range between an assumption of the risks either with or without contraception to a more forced conception like IVF, fertility treatments and implantation.

She may have done her best to prevent the pregnancy, unsuccessfully.

She may have.

Would this matter to you?

Would it matter? Sure. Would it negate the child she created's right to the equal protection of our laws? I don't think it would.

Why can't I identify with a woman who wants an abortion - and also identify with the fetus?

We can.

How does this make me hypocritical, any less than you, who is selective in who or what you empathize with?

I empathize with both and I demand that both are afforded their Constitutional rights as a persons and also the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Do you?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:59:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:02:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

This is a philosophy forum.
There is nothing arbitrary about consulting an encyclopedia of Philosophy for a meaning of 'empathy'.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

It contains a lengthy discussion of empathy, always concerning minds.
Using google to search out all meanings of a word is appropriate in a general discussion board, not a philosophy section on a debate board.

There is no evidence to indicate amoebas have minds.
In philosophy, within a human context, empathy involves two minds.

You choose to see it otherwise.

Do a quick google search of the phrase "empathy towards an object" and the word philosophy. You will see that I am not alone in how I see it.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 12:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:53:50 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:41:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.

This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.

The Supreme Court said this: https://www.youtube.com...

We have been working to establish the personhood of children in the womb (fetal homicide laws) ever since.

Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.

They may be legal for now. However, the Supreme Court will inevitably rule that most (voluntary / elective) abortions are not constitutional.

Your disagreement does not change things.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Constitution says what it says about the rights of all persons to due process and to the equal protections of our laws. Our fetal homicide laws already recognize "children in the womb" as such and they are (for now) being denied the equal protections of our laws.

My disagreement with abortion alone may not "change things." However, things are changing never the less.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. . . that you think an ability to empathize with something means that you must live with a conclusion that "all things are equal." I can empathize with a carrot, a child, some garbage and or a concrete block without the compulsion that you seem to believe must be felt to see them all as "equal" - one to the other.

A woman who becomes pregnant did not 'force a child' into do anything.

The child is brought into existence through the actions of the woman and her partner. By their decision to risk the pregnancy. You claimed that the child they created is "violating" the woman's rights when it is clearly not the child's doing that it is in that relationship in the first place.

There is no child before a zygote.

Correct.

The woman did not force the ovum or sperm to do anything.

There are varying degrees of "force." As it applies to conception, it would range between an assumption of the risks either with or without contraception to a more forced conception like IVF, fertility treatments and implantation.

She may have done her best to prevent the pregnancy, unsuccessfully.

She may have.

Would this matter to you?

Would it matter? Sure. Would it negate the child she created's right to the equal protection of our laws? I don't think it would.

Why can't I identify with a woman who wants an abortion - and also identify with the fetus?

We can.

How does this make me hypocritical, any less than you, who is selective in who or what you empathize with?

I empathize with both and I demand that both are afforded their Constitutional rights as a persons and also the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Do you?

The point is you claim the OP is not empathetic because they are pro-choice.
It is possible to empathize with both, and approve of the laws as they stand.
There is nothing hypocritical in that.
Illegal aliens have equal protection of the laws, but they are not treated the same, they are not in fact, equal.
Minors have equal treatment under the laws, but they are not treated equally - laws vary based on age.
The fetus is not equal to the mother, as demonstrated by our laws.
Your wishing the laws were different does not make it so.
A lump of tissue with no brain stem and no brain does not have personhood, according to the law.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 12:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:11:32 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:53:50 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:41:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.

This 'constitutional entitlement' you refer to has been discussed at the supreme court level, as you know.

The Supreme Court said this: https://www.youtube.com...

We have been working to establish the personhood of children in the womb (fetal homicide laws) ever since.

Thus, abortions are legal, under the constitution.

They may be legal for now. However, the Supreme Court will inevitably rule that most (voluntary / elective) abortions are not constitutional.

Your disagreement does not change things.

We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. The Constitution says what it says about the rights of all persons to due process and to the equal protections of our laws. Our fetal homicide laws already recognize "children in the womb" as such and they are (for now) being denied the equal protections of our laws.

My disagreement with abortion alone may not "change things." However, things are changing never the less.

Choosing to favor one over the other, does not negate our expression of empathy.

See above.

Throwing the garbage out does negate your expression of empathy, unless your empathy is selective. Which would make you a hypocrite.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. . . that you think an ability to empathize with something means that you must live with a conclusion that "all things are equal." I can empathize with a carrot, a child, some garbage and or a concrete block without the compulsion that you seem to believe must be felt to see them all as "equal" - one to the other.

A woman who becomes pregnant did not 'force a child' into do anything.

The child is brought into existence through the actions of the woman and her partner. By their decision to risk the pregnancy. You claimed that the child they created is "violating" the woman's rights when it is clearly not the child's doing that it is in that relationship in the first place.

There is no child before a zygote.

Correct.

The woman did not force the ovum or sperm to do anything.

There are varying degrees of "force." As it applies to conception, it would range between an assumption of the risks either with or without contraception to a more forced conception like IVF, fertility treatments and implantation.

She may have done her best to prevent the pregnancy, unsuccessfully.

She may have.

Would this matter to you?

Would it matter? Sure. Would it negate the child she created's right to the equal protection of our laws? I don't think it would.

Why can't I identify with a woman who wants an abortion - and also identify with the fetus?

We can.

How does this make me hypocritical, any less than you, who is selective in who or what you empathize with?

I empathize with both and I demand that both are afforded their Constitutional rights as a persons and also the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Do you?

The point is you claim the OP is not empathetic because they are pro-choice.

No. I said it was hypocritical and it is.

It is possible to empathize with both, and approve of the laws as they stand.

Except that our Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws and some of our "laws" (like legalized abortion) are in violation of the standard set by the Constitution. So, when you support legalized abortion, you are not agreeing with the Constitutional idea of "equal rights and equal protections for all persons." You are denying the Constitutional rights of children who are being aborted.

So, where is the empathy - for them?

There is nothing hypocritical in that.

See above, Yes there is.

Illegal aliens have equal protection of the laws, but they are not treated the same, they are not in fact, equal.

They are afforded the equal protection of our laws though. Like you just said. Aren't they.

Minors have equal treatment under the laws, but they are not treated equally - laws vary based on age.

They are afforded the equal protection of our laws though. Like you just said. Aren't they.

The fetus is not equal to the mother, as demonstrated by our laws.

Our Constitution does not allow for children to be denied the equal protections of our laws based on your idea of "inequality."

Your wishing the laws were different does not make it so.

If a law is not Constitutional, it can not stand. We (the people) have the right to keep challenging it for redress. (see 1st amendment)

A lump of tissue with no brain stem and no brain does not have personhood, according to the law.

According to the fetal homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act, a child in the womb is a human being and their personhood (in any stage of development) is established by the fact that they can be legally recognized as murder victims. It's worth noting that abortion laws do not deny that a child in the womb is a person. They simply fail to recognize the child as such and by doing so - they deny the children aborted the equal protections of our laws.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:32:10 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:11:32 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:53:50 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:41:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:19:14 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:31:01 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Freedom of the fetus ends when it violate the rights of the woman. In case you forgot, she is a person too.

It was the woman (and her partner) who forced a child into that situation. So, who violated who?

Why doesn't she have this "equal protection"?

She does.

You say the rights of fetus trumps the rights of the woman.

I say no such thing.

If I grabbed you in an unknowing state and I connected your body to mine in such a way that a premature disconnection would kill you. . . my claim that YOU are violating MY body and my rights would be pretty weak. . . wouldn't it.


A woman who becomes pregnant did not 'force a child' into do anything.

The child is brought into existence through the actions of the woman and her partner. By their decision to risk the pregnancy. You claimed that the child they created is "violating" the woman's rights when it is clearly not the child's doing that it is in that relationship in the first place.

There is no child before a zygote.

Correct.

The woman did not force the ovum or sperm to do anything.

There are varying degrees of "force." As it applies to conception, it would range between an assumption of the risks either with or without contraception to a more forced conception like IVF, fertility treatments and implantation.

She may have done her best to prevent the pregnancy, unsuccessfully.

She may have.

Would this matter to you?

Would it matter? Sure. Would it negate the child she created's right to the equal protection of our laws? I don't think it would.

Why can't I identify with a woman who wants an abortion - and also identify with the fetus?

We can.

How does this make me hypocritical, any less than you, who is selective in who or what you empathize with?

I empathize with both and I demand that both are afforded their Constitutional rights as a persons and also the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Do you?

The point is you claim the OP is not empathetic because they are pro-choice.

No. I said it was hypocritical and it is.

It is possible to empathize with both, and approve of the laws as they stand.

Except that our Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws and some of our "laws" (like legalized abortion) are in violation of the standard set by the Constitution. So, when you support legalized abortion, you are not agreeing with the Constitutional idea of "equal rights and equal protections for all persons." You are denying the Constitutional rights of children who are being aborted.

So, where is the empathy - for them?

There is nothing hypocritical in that.

See above, Yes there is.

Illegal aliens have equal protection of the laws, but they are not treated the same, they are not in fact, equal.

They are afforded the equal protection of our laws though. Like you just said. Aren't they.

Minors have equal treatment under the laws, but they are not treated equally - laws vary based on age.

They are afforded the equal protection of our laws though. Like you just said. Aren't they.

You have some very basic problems understanding rights, equality, laws, more.
Equal - according to the law.
The law does not apply exactly the same rights to Illegal aliens, minors, fetuses, and adult citizens.
It does not apply exactly the same for felons, they are treated the same under law, but the law says they can't vote, own firearms, and much more.
This should be glaringly obvious.
Since it is not, you are blind in your ability to see the difference, and I am no faith healer.

The law says a fetus can be aborted under this and that circumstances.
They get no trail, they do not have to be shown 'guilty' of any action. The life, that you consider to be human, can be ended, and no legal authority believes a law has been broken, so they received equal protection under the law.
The fetus will never be brought to term.
No legal rights were abridged.

The fetus is not equal to the mother, as demonstrated by our laws.

Our Constitution does not allow for children to be denied the equal protections of our laws based on your idea of "inequality."

Well, fetuses are not children in the eyes of the law.
The get the protection afforded to fetuses, not children.
That is the law, not a statement of my beliefs.

Your wishing the laws were different does not make it so.

If a law is not Constitutional, it can not stand. We (the people) have the right to keep challenging it for redress. (see 1st amendment)

You can challenge it until the cows come home, that does not mean it will not stand even longer.
It has been decided that it is constitutional.
That may be reversed.
It can also decide that a human being must have survived outside the womb for one year or the life can be terminated at the whim of the birth mother.
The court decides what the constitution says, not you or I.

A lump of tissue with no brain stem and no brain does not have personhood, according to the law.

According to the fetal homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act, a child in the womb is a human being and their personhood (in any stage of development) is established by the fact that they can be legally recognized as murder victims. It's worth noting that abortion laws do not deny that a child in the womb is a person. They simply fail to recognize the child as such and by doing so - they deny the children aborted the equal protections of our laws.

So, if there is no criminal act, the life of the fetus can be ended, and no crime has been committed.
If a woman accidently falls down the steps, because she tripped over my foot, and the fetus miscarries, no crime, no punishment. No accidental homicide.
If I try to kill that woman, by tripping her at the top of the stairs, and the fetus miscarries, different story.
The fetus is treated equally under the law, me too.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:46:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:59:54 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:02:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

This is a philosophy forum.
There is nothing arbitrary about consulting an encyclopedia of Philosophy for a meaning of 'empathy'.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

It contains a lengthy discussion of empathy, always concerning minds.
Using google to search out all meanings of a word is appropriate in a general discussion board, not a philosophy section on a debate board.

There is no evidence to indicate amoebas have minds.
In philosophy, within a human context, empathy involves two minds.

You choose to see it otherwise.

Do a quick google search of the phrase "empathy towards an object" and the word philosophy. You will see that I am not alone in how I see it.

So the search yields four hits.
One concerning Architecture as Metaphor
;Strong vs Weak Architecture: In construction there are strong forms of distinctive, firm shapes. Weak form involves looking at empathy towards an object, example: gardens. Thus, in modern time, significant structures don"t necessarily involve strong, powerful forms. Maybe strong forms in ancient governments were more important, and now humanity is evolving towards empathy?
One concerning Organic Dreams of Electric Sheep.
One concerning "Taoist love making system"
And the fourth is a post by someone on a discussion forum.

I do not consider this as showing you are 'not alone', in any meaningful sense.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 1:46:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:59:54 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:02:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

This is a philosophy forum.
There is nothing arbitrary about consulting an encyclopedia of Philosophy for a meaning of 'empathy'.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

It contains a lengthy discussion of empathy, always concerning minds.
Using google to search out all meanings of a word is appropriate in a general discussion board, not a philosophy section on a debate board.

There is no evidence to indicate amoebas have minds.
In philosophy, within a human context, empathy involves two minds.

You choose to see it otherwise.

Do a quick google search of the phrase "empathy towards an object" and the word philosophy. You will see that I am not alone in how I see it.

So the search yields four hits.
One concerning Architecture as Metaphor
;Strong vs Weak Architecture: In construction there are strong forms of distinctive, firm shapes. Weak form involves looking at empathy towards an object, example: gardens. Thus, in modern time, significant structures don"t necessarily involve strong, powerful forms. Maybe strong forms in ancient governments were more important, and now humanity is evolving towards empathy?
One concerning Organic Dreams of Electric Sheep.
One concerning "Taoist love making system"
And the fourth is a post by someone on a discussion forum.

I do not consider this as showing you are 'not alone', in any meaningful sense.

"It was however Theodor Lipps (1851"1914) who scrutinized empathy in the most thorough manner. Most importantly, Lipps not only argued for empathy as a concept that is central for the philosophical and psychological analysis of our aesthetic experiences. His work transformed empathy from a concept of philosophical aesthetics into a central category of the philosophy of the social and human sciences. For him, empathy not only plays a role in our aesthetic appreciation of objects. It has also to be understood as being the primary basis for recognizing each other as minded creatures. Not surprisingly, it was Lipps's conception of empathy that Titchener had in mind in his translation of "Einf"hlung" as "empathy."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 12:29:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 1:37:05 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

You have some very basic problems understanding rights, equality, laws, more.

LOL, I'm sure you would like for that to be the case but it's just not. I can support my claims and arguments with references to comments made by pro-abortion leaders themselves.

Equal - according to the law.
The law does not apply exactly the same rights to Illegal aliens, minors, fetuses, and adult citizens.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It says that no person can be deprived of their rights or their life except by the due process of law and it also says that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Any laws which run counter to that are them self un-constitutional.

It does not apply exactly the same for felons, they are treated the same under law, but the law says they can't vote, own firearms, and much more.

Ummmm. Felons have been afforded their right to due process. Haven't they? Didn't they have a trial and a right to appeal their convictions?

This should be glaringly obvious.

It was to me. Too bad it sailed over your head though.

Since it is not, you are blind in your ability to see the difference, and I am no faith healer.

It seems you are no self healer either.

The law says a fetus can be aborted under this and that circumstances.

No sh!it.

They get no trail, they do not have to be shown 'guilty' of any action.

That's right. They are denied their lives, their rights and their right to due process.

The life, that you consider to be human, can be ended, and no legal authority believes a law has been broken, so they received equal protection under the law.

Dafuq?

How can you say they are "equally protected" when their life "can be ended, and no legal authority believes a law has been broken?"

The fetus will never be brought to term.

Not if they are murdered, they won't.

No legal rights were abridged.

Yes they were.

Our Constitution does not allow for children to be denied the equal protections of our laws based on your idea of "inequality."

Well, fetuses are not children in the eyes of the law.

Yes, they (Human Fetuses) are.

The get the protection afforded to fetuses, not children.
That is the law, not a statement of my beliefs.

No sh!t. What did you think was being challenged?

Your wishing the laws were different does not make it so.

If a law is not Constitutional, it can not stand. We (the people) have the right to keep challenging it for redress. (see 1st amendment)

You can challenge it until the cows come home, that does not mean it will not stand even longer.

Time will tell.

It has been decided that it is constitutional.

Slavery was upheld as Constitutional once too and the reasoning that the SCOTUS used in Dred Scott was very much the same kind of denials (of personhood) that the court also used in the Roee v Wade decision. .

That may be reversed.

As was slavery.

It can also decide that a human being must have survived outside the womb for one year or the life can be terminated at the whim of the birth mother.

They could can try. However, it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

The court decides what the constitution says, not you or I.

We all have the right to do that and to petition the courts for a redress of our grievances.

A lump of tissue with no brain stem and no brain does not have personhood, according to the law.

According to the fetal homicide laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act, a child in the womb is a human being and their personhood (in any stage of development) is established by the fact that they can be legally recognized as murder victims. It's worth noting that abortion laws do not deny that a child in the womb is a person. They simply fail to recognize the child as such and by doing so - they deny the children aborted the equal protections of our laws.

So, if there is no criminal act, the life of the fetus can be ended, and no crime has been committed.

Again you cite the part of the law that is being challenged as an authority unto itself. Classic "appeal to authority" example.

If a woman accidently falls down the steps, because she tripped over my foot, and the fetus miscarries, no crime, no punishment. No accidental homicide.

Again you cite the status quo as an authority unto itself. As though laws can never be challenged or changed.

If I try to kill that woman, by tripping her at the top of the stairs, and the fetus miscarries, different story.

See above.

The fetus is treated equally under the law, me too.

By your own example, the child was not treated the same in both situations. Not even by a long shot. Interesting too that you can't refer to a child in the fetal stage of their life as a child. You have to call them by their stage of development instead of recognizing the fact that they are human beings and / or the children of their parents.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
ScareCr0we
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:02:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
From the perspective of someone who lacks/has extreme difficulty experiencing affective empathy, I have to say that I have a sort of neutral opinion on abortion. In the case of rape or similar situations, it should be allowed, because they had no choice. In situations where they willingly had sex, and got pregnant, then I think they should take responsibility for their actions. (This goes for the men to. There should be laws that ensure they have to take responsibility as well).

And as for empathy, it's interesting. I know I felt it when I was younger, but I'm pretty detached currently. There are situations where I know I should feel a certain way, but I don't, and it's odd to say the least. However, lacking in empathy does not cause any problems interestingly. I still function perfectly fine without it.
"You need people like me. People you can point at and say 'That's the bad guy'!"-Unknown
PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:06:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 3:50:22 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/16/2015 10:43:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:46:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I believe it is much easier to feel another's pain as we, ourselves, are experiencing like situations, in other words if one is suffering financially, we tend to have a greater degree of empathy if we, too, are struggling to make ends meet. At times though, after things tend to stabilize and a sense of security sets in, it becomes a little too easy to forget that which we have gone through and become ever the more ready to criticize. Anyone can share in another's grief as he, or she, also grieves; but, to empathize with others even as he, or she, lives above the fray takes a greater depth of character.

Wisdom is not only in understanding ourselves but, also, in understanding they who are not like us. If a mirror is to reflect that which we are, it must also reflect that which we're not.

You speak very wisely about the virtues of having empathy.

Then, you list yourself as "pro" on abortion in your profile.

Do you admit to the hypocrisy in that? Would it help spur some empathy if I were to share some pictures of aborted children?

How is it empathetic to say, 'I do not care if it is your body - you have an obligation to my morality to carry it to term, and spend the reminder of your life caring for it.'

For the same reason it's not empathic to say 'I know those are your arms, so please go ahead and strangle that little child to death.'

The rest of your post is too stupid to quote but btw, no one aborts when their baby is a zygote, that only happens for a couple days in pregnancy, then the baby starts rapid development of skin and muscle and then becomes quite succeptible to pain, then people can choose to kill the thinking feeling being.
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton