>>I feel that the overwhelming majority in this country have been given more opportunity to not just survive but thrive in their life. People make bad choices and I feel they should be held accountable such that they learn and improve. I do not feel that certain policies contribute to the betterment of the populace but rather hold them back from their potential. I also believe that we are a very charitable nation and that help is there for the truly needy without making it a matter of state policy.
>>
>>As to your specific example: What choices have they made in their life which has left them at the mercy of strangers to provide such a basic necessity as food? Why did they have a child they cannot afford? Why do they accept that this is their lot in life and they cannot overcome this burden? I find that the root of most peoples' circumstances come from poor choices they've made in life rather than some burden that's been randomly thrust upon them. There are also single mothers and fathers who have spent a small amount of time homeless and at food banks who have bettered themselves through hard work.
>>
>>Our opinion of compassion is obviously different. I believe it is compassionate to help people along a path to better their own lot in life as they will care more when they've invested their own time and energy. I find welfare to be detrimental to the potential of the individual.
>>
>>You have every right to your opinion about my beliefs but kindly don't insinuate that your opinion is fact. Either defend or retract this statement. "You feel everybody including children are a) expendable, and b) as capable as you are, but too lazy to bother."
>
>Do you not recall saying, in message #1168272:
>
>This will be harsh but here goes. Children get hurt. Children die. It's a part of life and life is not fair. I do not believe it is the role of the government to be the populace's baby sitter. It's an incremental mess that is happening in regards to the nanny-state and it always seems to be done to protect 'the children'.
>
>Was I supposed to take from that statement that you feel people (including children) are not expendable?

"Expendable" means not worth salvaging/saving. The above statement was part of my rejection of the idea that the government can legislate protection for children. Rejection of government policy <> children are expendable.

>As far as my 2nd point, you keep saying over and over that people should make better decisions and that therefore whatever happens to them is their own fault.

Not all. I will allow for a small percentage of people who have things happen to them that are truly out of their control. But, for the most part this is true.

>Is that supposed to recognise that not everyone is as capable of making the good decisions that you're made? In my world, not everyone is so capable. If they are not, then it seems that you feel that's just tough. Correct me if my impression is wrong.

I feel people not only make bad decisions, but it is necessary for them to learn and grow. I have made some wonderfully bad decisions in my life and I cannot remember a single one where I did not have to suffer the consequences. I also learned great lessons from each. I argue that people who are bailed out from their bad choices, either through government programs, the platitudes of friends or the support of sycophants are having their development stunted.

Frankly I think the very idea of compassion has been bastardized into handouts and it's a leading cause for the state of the western populace at large. I do stand by my opinion that American's specifically and western people in general are by and large lazy, spoiled, arrogant and self-absorbed. You were dead on there. ;)

>>>Well, I guess that's about as stereotypical as it gets. There are single mothers and fathers out there who have to use food banks to feed their children. This is not a good thing. We've been down this road before. You feel everybody including children are a) expendable, and b) as capable as you are, but too lazy to bother. I feel otherwise. I don't see much point in travelling that route all over again.
>>>
>>>>In Zimbabwe the people are impoverished due to crushing government's policies. In America people have freedom and the ability to make due for themselves. The difference lies in the circumstances of their poverty.
>>>>
>>>>No comparison will make their lives better, just like no argument will make their lives better. The betterment of their lives is their responsibility.
>>>>
>>>>I look at what's considered poor in this country. They typically have a roof over their heads, water, food and a tv or two, not to mention they're able to afford alcohol and cigarettes.
>>>>
>>>>>But they live in America, and in that they have trouble buying food, they are living in poverty. How does it make their lives better by comparing them to the impoverished of say, Zimbabwe?
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd challenge that 1 in 5 idea. That's a relative statistic based on the prosperity that Americans enjoy and is not a fair comparison to the rest of the world. Those living below the poverty line in America would be considered wealthy in most of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Opinion arguing types may go stand around as principled as they may afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business. I support womb survival thru 12th grade. 1 outta 5 in that range in poverty is nothing for U.S. to be proud of. Let the Dept. of Ed. receive billions more than it asked for after already having it all, then let the military have a bake sale. Or conversely, 'privatize' the military -- not to worry because they will magically receive all they deserve from the market's invisible hand job or whatever. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Go stand around as principled as you can afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Steven, there is nothing simple about this issue. My point in responding the way I did was to make a point that when you take a principled stance on an issue the alternatives are few, if any, if you really believe in your stance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think the abortion issue is oversimplified by all sides. Everyone makes it seem that there are only two stances - pro-choice or pro-life. I disagree. I am personally very, very pro-life as you probably figured from my response. OTOH, who makes me the judge of other peoples moral decisions? I don't believe in laws regarding abortion pro or con since it's an individuals private choice of what they can live with.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>OTOH, my gut is that a baby who can survive the womb deserves a chance at a life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tamar,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>1) What if the child has no chance at a normal life, or even surviving much past birth? Here, I'm thinking of really severe impairments, like ancephaly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>2) What if the child will survive birth, but not beyond early childhood? Something like Tay-Sachs, where victims die by age 5.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>3) What if the mother will survive pregnancy, but only at great damage to her health. For example, a mother with a disease that needs to be treated, but can't be treated while she's pregnant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>4) What if carrying the pregnancy to term means the mother will lose the ability to bear future children?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You mentioned rape, so let's go down that path:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>5) What if the mother is a child impregnated by her father, so you have not only the issue of rape and child abuse, but increased genetic risks?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>6) What if the mother is child, 10 or 11 or 12?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That's enough to start.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The choices are simple when you believe in the sanctity of human life.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ok 'sanctity'-breath, so they just send you the bill, right? I *sure* you're responsible for your belief, aren't you? Wow, it is simple. ;-)