7 ms·

It skews male and generally consists of a very well paid group of people that have never had to struggle economically. This is the wrong place to find lots of e

It skews male and generally consists of a very well paid group of people that have never had to struggle economically. This is the wrong place to find lots of empathy toward disempowered groups of people.

leereeves 4y ago
> This is the wrong place to find lots of empathy toward disempowered groups of people. That's unfairly dismissing the possibility that a pro-life position could be motivated by empathy for the unborn, who are completely powerless. We can do better than demonizing people who disagree.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Does having empathy in one situation change a lack of empathy in another? The parent didn't claim a lack of empathy for all
- rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > There is no valid pro-life position. Its all anti-women, anti-human rights, anti-humanity. That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one?
    - feet 4y ago
      I'd like you to lay out, very specifically, why what is essentially an extension or growth has more rights than a fully formed and independently living human
    - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
      Its true. The only lack of empathy is by those that wish to tell a women what they can do with their body because they hate women. Its really simple. Want an abortion? Cool. Don't want an abortion? Cool. Anything else is none of your business!
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > Its true. The only lack of empathy is by those that wish to tell a women what they can do with their body because they hate women. Its really simple. Want an abortion? Cool. Don't want an abortion? Cool. Anything else is none of your business! You know, there are a lot of pro-life women. Do you think they have those beliefs because they hate themselves? Abortion is a complicated issue, it's only "really simple" if you ignore a bunch of stuff and/or fill your head with slogans. You'd be on firmer ground if you said something along the lines of "there is no valid pro-life position [for me]."
        rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        I stand by that there is no position that is acceptable to anyone accept their own body. You don't get to decide what other people do. Yes I do think they hate themselves, or at least hate their sex, their world or their (nonexistent) God. It is intrinsic to the rights of women to do what they want to do with their own body. I accept that a anti-abortion woman does not want to have an abortion herself. I accept that a pro-abortion woman does want an abortion. Its a complicated issue only to the parties involved. Lets not make it more complicated by taking away autonomy.
        skissane 4y ago
        > It is intrinsic to the rights of women to do what they want to do with their own body I think there is a deep clash of worldviews here. Some people view individual autonomy, and especially bodily autonomy, as among the most cherished and sacred of values – an absolute which should never be compromised. Other people, while they don't view individual autonomy as worthless, they don't put it as high in their hierarchy of values, so they are open to the idea that sometimes it has to give way to other values, and can rightfully be limited if necessary to protect something else of great importance. There are both women and men on both sides of this worldview divide. And there is something to be said for trying to understand the viewpoint of people with very different values from your own – a message both sides of that divide would do well to heed.
    - karpierz 4y ago
      > That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one? All this says is: "What you are saying could or could not be true." Why write so much to say so little? If you think they're "ensconced in a bubble", say it. If you think they "lack ... imagination" or empathy", then say it. Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?"
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > If you think they're "ensconced in a bubble", say it. If you think they "lack ... imagination" or empathy", then say it. You didn't understand what I was attempting, and proceeded project some other intention onto me. > Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?" Your paraphrase is a misreading.
        karpierz 4y ago
        Sorry, I'm not very bright. Why don't you try explaining things explicitly, so simpler folk like me can understand?
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > Sorry, I'm not very bright. Why don't you try explaining things explicitly, so simpler folk like me can understand? You shouldn't lecture people about how they should say things when you can only speculate without much basis about what they're actually trying to do.
        karpierz 4y ago
        Again, I'm not very bright. I don't understand what this: >That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one? was trying to do, and this comment hasn't really made it any clearer. Can you explain it explicitly?
    - deeviant 4y ago
      > It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. You would have to be "firmly ensconced in a bubble" to think you have the right to force a women to carry their rapists baby. Or to even think you have the right to tell a women what to do with her body in the first place.
- autoexec 4y ago
  We can rule out empathy for most of pro-life folk, by what disturbingly little empathy they have for those same children post-birth.
  - zackees 4y ago
    - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
      "We're pro-life." It's like, well what does that make me? You know what I mean? You're so pro-life! You're so pro-life, do me a fucking favor. Don't block med clinics, okay? Lock arms, and block cemeteries. Let's see how fucking committed you are to this premise. "She can't come in." "She's ninety-six, she was hit by a bus!" "There's options!" "What, do we got to have her stuffed? What are you talking about, she's dead!" "We're pro-life, get her out of that casket! Get her out! She's not going, we're pro-life people. There'll be no death on this planet." -- Bill Hicks, 1993
      - leereeves 4y ago
        What are you or Bill Hicks trying to say there? If it were possible to prevent deaths of old age or to resurrect the dead, would you be against it?
        rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        The earlier part is: "Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. You ever see it, it's like a civil war, isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent! They are totally divided on abortion! It's unbelievable! Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house; "they're annoying, they're idiots, they're evil, they're fucks!" Brothers, sisters, come together! Can't we once just join hands and think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?" -- Bill Hicks, 1993
- feanaro 4y ago
  It's not like being born is some great prize that is fundamentally worth acquiring. That's your evolutionary reflexes speaking.
- FpUser 4y ago
  You can disagree for sure and I respect that (assuming you are woman and it is your decision what to do). But when men (predominantly) order women to prison for abortion - fuck those men. There is no need to demonize, they are already there.
usrn 4y ago
- npalli 4y ago
  Curious what you imply by readers being Indian Immigrant. Ironically, the abortion rights in India now are far more favorable for women than the US even though India is very religious and economically backward. Indian society has come to the conclusion that unwanted pregnancies burden women disproportionately and they should have the right to decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Ironically, the abortion rights in India now are far more favorable for women than the US even though India is very religious and economically backward. Indian society has come to the conclusion that unwanted pregnancies burden women disproportionately and they should have the right to decide. I'm neither Indian nor American, but just my impressions as an outside observer of both countries: in the US, the liberal-conservative divide on social issues and religion really latched on to the topic of abortion, in a way in which it did in few other countries (even most other countries with a traditionally Christian majority). The same divide absolutely exists in India, but it has tended to focus on other political issues instead – relations with religious minorities (especially Hindu-Muslim relations), the eating of beef, religious nationalism (Hindutva) vs secularism, citizenship and immigration (see the Citizenship Amendment Act controversy). Conservative Hindus and conservative Christians actually have rather similar views on the morality of abortion – the difference is not so much in the underlying ethics, rather what to prioritise in translating one's ethical views into public policy. I think, it may be less that Indian society has "come to the conclusion" – more simply that religious conservatives have let the secular liberals have their way on that particular issue, because they've got other issues they'd rather spend their political capital on. Another big difference, is that in India criminal law is a federal not state responsibility, so the issue ends up being addressed once at the national level, instead of separately in each state in the US (especially in this new constitutional situation, but that was already happening to a lesser extent under the previous one.)
nverno 4y ago
I have serious doubts how well someone is paid has anything to do with their ability to feel empathy. I do think making broad, negative generalizations is a sign of lack of empathy however.
- AnonMessiah 4y ago
  There have been several studies on the correlation between income/wealth and empathy. https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/ https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/
  - nverno 4y ago
    Assume those studies are correct (I don't believe that conclusion, personally). It displays a certain lack of empathy to interact with people using assumptions about their presumed sociological groups. This may be the very definition of lacking empathy- abstracting people into groups might make sense in studies, but when those preconceptions bleed into condemning statements, it's just prejudice. It's easy to have empathy for people like you or that you agree with, but the real test is having empathy for those who aren't / you don't.

leereeves 4y ago

> This is the wrong place to find lots of empathy toward disempowered groups of people. That's unfairly dismissing the possibility that a pro-life position could be motivated by empathy for the unborn, who are completely powerless. We can do better than demonizing people who disagree.

themitigating 4y ago
Does having empathy in one situation change a lack of empathy in another? The parent didn't claim a lack of empathy for all
rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > There is no valid pro-life position. Its all anti-women, anti-human rights, anti-humanity. That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one?
  - feet 4y ago
    I'd like you to lay out, very specifically, why what is essentially an extension or growth has more rights than a fully formed and independently living human
  - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
    Its true. The only lack of empathy is by those that wish to tell a women what they can do with their body because they hate women. Its really simple. Want an abortion? Cool. Don't want an abortion? Cool. Anything else is none of your business!
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Its true. The only lack of empathy is by those that wish to tell a women what they can do with their body because they hate women. Its really simple. Want an abortion? Cool. Don't want an abortion? Cool. Anything else is none of your business! You know, there are a lot of pro-life women. Do you think they have those beliefs because they hate themselves? Abortion is a complicated issue, it's only "really simple" if you ignore a bunch of stuff and/or fill your head with slogans. You'd be on firmer ground if you said something along the lines of "there is no valid pro-life position [for me]."
      - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        I stand by that there is no position that is acceptable to anyone accept their own body. You don't get to decide what other people do. Yes I do think they hate themselves, or at least hate their sex, their world or their (nonexistent) God. It is intrinsic to the rights of women to do what they want to do with their own body. I accept that a anti-abortion woman does not want to have an abortion herself. I accept that a pro-abortion woman does want an abortion. Its a complicated issue only to the parties involved. Lets not make it more complicated by taking away autonomy.
        skissane 4y ago
        > It is intrinsic to the rights of women to do what they want to do with their own body I think there is a deep clash of worldviews here. Some people view individual autonomy, and especially bodily autonomy, as among the most cherished and sacred of values – an absolute which should never be compromised. Other people, while they don't view individual autonomy as worthless, they don't put it as high in their hierarchy of values, so they are open to the idea that sometimes it has to give way to other values, and can rightfully be limited if necessary to protect something else of great importance. There are both women and men on both sides of this worldview divide. And there is something to be said for trying to understand the viewpoint of people with very different values from your own – a message both sides of that divide would do well to heed.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    > That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one? All this says is: "What you are saying could or could not be true." Why write so much to say so little? If you think they're "ensconced in a bubble", say it. If you think they "lack ... imagination" or empathy", then say it. Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?"
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > If you think they're "ensconced in a bubble", say it. If you think they "lack ... imagination" or empathy", then say it. You didn't understand what I was attempting, and proceeded project some other intention onto me. > Don't do this motte and bailey stuff of: "have you considered that you sounds like someone who's wrong?" Your paraphrase is a misreading.
      - karpierz 4y ago
        Sorry, I'm not very bright. Why don't you try explaining things explicitly, so simpler folk like me can understand?
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > Sorry, I'm not very bright. Why don't you try explaining things explicitly, so simpler folk like me can understand? You shouldn't lecture people about how they should say things when you can only speculate without much basis about what they're actually trying to do.
        karpierz 4y ago
        Again, I'm not very bright. I don't understand what this: >That's an extremely strong statement. It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. Is what you say true, or do you just lack the imagination or empathy to think of one? was trying to do, and this comment hasn't really made it any clearer. Can you explain it explicitly?
  - deeviant 4y ago
    > It's the kind of thing someone firmly ensconced in a bubble would say. You would have to be "firmly ensconced in a bubble" to think you have the right to force a women to carry their rapists baby. Or to even think you have the right to tell a women what to do with her body in the first place.
autoexec 4y ago
We can rule out empathy for most of pro-life folk, by what disturbingly little empathy they have for those same children post-birth.
- zackees 4y ago
  - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
    "We're pro-life." It's like, well what does that make me? You know what I mean? You're so pro-life! You're so pro-life, do me a fucking favor. Don't block med clinics, okay? Lock arms, and block cemeteries. Let's see how fucking committed you are to this premise. "She can't come in." "She's ninety-six, she was hit by a bus!" "There's options!" "What, do we got to have her stuffed? What are you talking about, she's dead!" "We're pro-life, get her out of that casket! Get her out! She's not going, we're pro-life people. There'll be no death on this planet." -- Bill Hicks, 1993
    - leereeves 4y ago
      What are you or Bill Hicks trying to say there? If it were possible to prevent deaths of old age or to resurrect the dead, would you be against it?
      - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        The earlier part is: "Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. You ever see it, it's like a civil war, isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent! They are totally divided on abortion! It's unbelievable! Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house; "they're annoying, they're idiots, they're evil, they're fucks!" Brothers, sisters, come together! Can't we once just join hands and think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?" -- Bill Hicks, 1993
feanaro 4y ago
It's not like being born is some great prize that is fundamentally worth acquiring. That's your evolutionary reflexes speaking.
FpUser 4y ago
You can disagree for sure and I respect that (assuming you are woman and it is your decision what to do). But when men (predominantly) order women to prison for abortion - fuck those men. There is no need to demonize, they are already there.

usrn 4y ago

npalli 4y ago
Curious what you imply by readers being Indian Immigrant. Ironically, the abortion rights in India now are far more favorable for women than the US even though India is very religious and economically backward. Indian society has come to the conclusion that unwanted pregnancies burden women disproportionately and they should have the right to decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India
- skissane 4y ago
  > Ironically, the abortion rights in India now are far more favorable for women than the US even though India is very religious and economically backward. Indian society has come to the conclusion that unwanted pregnancies burden women disproportionately and they should have the right to decide. I'm neither Indian nor American, but just my impressions as an outside observer of both countries: in the US, the liberal-conservative divide on social issues and religion really latched on to the topic of abortion, in a way in which it did in few other countries (even most other countries with a traditionally Christian majority). The same divide absolutely exists in India, but it has tended to focus on other political issues instead – relations with religious minorities (especially Hindu-Muslim relations), the eating of beef, religious nationalism (Hindutva) vs secularism, citizenship and immigration (see the Citizenship Amendment Act controversy). Conservative Hindus and conservative Christians actually have rather similar views on the morality of abortion – the difference is not so much in the underlying ethics, rather what to prioritise in translating one's ethical views into public policy. I think, it may be less that Indian society has "come to the conclusion" – more simply that religious conservatives have let the secular liberals have their way on that particular issue, because they've got other issues they'd rather spend their political capital on. Another big difference, is that in India criminal law is a federal not state responsibility, so the issue ends up being addressed once at the national level, instead of separately in each state in the US (especially in this new constitutional situation, but that was already happening to a lesser extent under the previous one.)

nverno 4y ago

I have serious doubts how well someone is paid has anything to do with their ability to feel empathy. I do think making broad, negative generalizations is a sign of lack of empathy however.

AnonMessiah 4y ago
There have been several studies on the correlation between income/wealth and empathy. https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/ https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/
- nverno 4y ago
  Assume those studies are correct (I don't believe that conclusion, personally). It displays a certain lack of empathy to interact with people using assumptions about their presumed sociological groups. This may be the very definition of lacking empathy- abstracting people into groups might make sense in studies, but when those preconceptions bleed into condemning statements, it's just prejudice. It's easy to have empathy for people like you or that you agree with, but the real test is having empathy for those who aren't / you don't.