RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman

RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 9:14:54 AM)
"I'm not particularly enamoured by the term 'pro-life' either but it is no more corrupt and hypocritical than the term 'pro-choice'. They are both convenient euphemisms diverting attention away from the activities and beliefs at the heart of their respective campaigns." ....i wouldn't disagree with you on this specific point MC, but you have failed to address the other point in my rebuttal of your original attack on my post. i assume you have realised that at no point have i addressed the issue of abortion as contraception. So will you kindly tell me why you chose that angle to attack my original point? You may know that both my children are dead, what i rarely share is that there was a possibility of a third child. However, without my knowledge it was aborted as going to full term entailed a significent risk to the mother. Am i upset about it? Of course, but i try to be honest with myself....and i know that nothing i would have said or done would change the situation. Yes, abortion is a terrible thing.......but it is a necessary thing in too many cases. The fact that the ability to abort safely is abused is the real red herring here......not the cases where it is wholly justified.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 9:45:24 AM)
quote: I'm not particularly enamoured by the term 'pro-life' either but it is no more corrupt and hypocritical than the term 'pro-choice'. They are both convenient euphemisms diverting attention away from the activities and beliefs at the heart of their respective campaigns. Incubator Slaves vs. Freedom?

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 9:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I'm not particularly enamoured by the term 'pro-life' either but it is no more corrupt and hypocritical than the term 'pro-choice'. They are both convenient euphemisms diverting attention away from the activities and beliefs at the heart of their respective campaigns. Incubator Slaves vs. Freedom? I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at.

CrappyDom -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:03:31 AM)
This whole debate is bullshit People want to grant rights and resources to the protection of a glob of cells but refuse to grant those same rights and resources once that glob is born. There would be intellectual and moral honesty if they held those positions for the living and wished to extend them to the "unborn" but that is NOT what they are doing. All they really want to do is control woman and sex and it is clear they don't give a rats ass about the rights of human's.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:08:53 AM)
quote: I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at. Property Rights. Who OWNS you? Who OWNS your child? IF you OWN your self, then you can do ANYTHING with YOUR SELF you choose to. Property Rights are Absolute, or they're not RIGHTS. If you DO NOT OWN YOUR SELF, you must OBEY your owner. Is YOUR OWNER The State?

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:11:26 AM)
I've nothing against abortion on medical grounds or on grounds of mental stress or illness. I'm not anti-abortion because I see it pointless and would merely drive the practice underground with the worse possible scenario for everyone. However, I do question the morality of abortion in the majority of cases which are by admission of the women involved, a lifestyle choice. Your original post... ...just thought that CD's point here was so germane i'd quote it again. If anyone wants to call themselves pro-life they are hypocritical if they don't defend all life. That includes, say, the life of illegal immigrants......it also includes the lives of convicted murders and rapists. If you're pro-life you're anti-war........if you're pro-life you're also anti-death penalty. If you're pro-life then any system that denies a kidney transplant to someone because of economic grounds is equally wrong, if you're pro-life you surely must be pro-universal health care and redistribution of wealth so that no-one dies through lack of food. If you're really, truly pro-life what are you willing to give up so that others can live? Actually I misread it, I apologize. I originally read it as an attack on all people who question the morality of abortion. I don't question the morality of abortion in the cases I mentioned. However, I think people don't have to be in favour of everything you say they must be in favour of to question the morality of abortion but I think it is encumbent on them to give a rational reason why they aren't. For myself, I'm not against anything you put forward.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:15:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at. Property Rights. Who OWNS you? Who OWNS your child? IF you OWN your self, then you can do ANYTHING with YOUR SELF you choose to. Property Rights are Absolute, or they're not RIGHTS. If you DO NOT OWN YOUR SELF, you must OBEY your owner. Is YOUR OWNER The State? No one owns a child. The legal guardian is entrusted by the state with care and protection of a child and when the guardian fails in that duty the state takes the child away from the guardian for the protection of the child. This is because the state recognizes that the child is an independent if not legally independent person. In the vast majority of cases the legal guardian happens to be the parents and with single parents that is in the majority of cases the mother.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:18:05 AM)
quote: No one owns a child. I disagree. That's the whole point of SLAVERY, is that FREE PEOPLE OWN THEMSELVES, and don't need to OBEY anyone but THEMSELVES.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:19:31 AM)
You may disagree but it is not how the state sees it.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:20:51 AM)
You're wrong. Cite me NYS Law which supports your hypothesis.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You're wrong. Cite me NYS Law which supports your hypothesis. Do something serious against the interests of your offspring and just see how long the state will consider the unmentionable as your property.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:32:28 AM)
"Do something serious against the interests of your offspring and just see how long the state will consider the unmentionable as your property." Your failure to provide citations to support your hypothesis when challenged will be noted as an inability to provide citations, and therefore your conceding the point. Here's a hint. When your bullshit is called out, you need to provide FACTS. Oh, and btw... NYS Constitution Article 6 provides for the courts. Check it out.

CrappyDom -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:36:26 AM)
Fargle, I am in general on your side and opposed to cleaver but you are WAY off base here. What he stated is clearly fact, the agency is called CPS. What you in essense just did is ask for proof the sun rises, most sane people wouldn't bother responding.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:42:07 AM)
quote: What he stated is clearly fact, the agency is called CPS. What you in essense just did is ask for proof the sun rises, most sane people wouldn't bother responding. What part of the NYS Constitution provides for Social Services Law? What part of Social Services Law provides for the assertions made? All I get from the NYS Constitution is that Surrogates court represents cases where Minors' PROPERTY is concerned, and what is a FREE PERSON but Property owned by Themselves? And if YOU don't own your self, who does?

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:50:47 AM)
This is where the argument started. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: No one owns a child. I disagree. That's the whole point of SLAVERY, is that FREE PEOPLE OWN THEMSELVES, and don't need to OBEY anyone but THEMSELVES. If you read what I said in response. I said a child is an independent person under the legal guardianship, usually of the parent(s). The child in theory might own itself but it is not free to do as it wants and neither is the guardian(s) free to do what they want with the child. Other than that your logic is losing me.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/1/2006 10:54:26 AM)
Yeah, you don't "GET IT", that "Freedom" is all about Property Rights to your self. Explains a lot about what's wrong with this nation.

thompsonx -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/3/2006 9:35:37 PM)
As far as I know suicide is not against the law but attempted suicide is...????? Kind of the dichotomy of who owns you. thompson

Sinergy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/3/2006 9:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Sinergy: I will repeat this one last time, and I will write it really big so that it's not missed again: I am not saying umbilical cord stems cells are as effective as fetal stem cells. I said the topic should be brought up for discussion and researched, and we should be asking more questions about it. Yet you insist on asking me why I think one is as good as the other. It is very, very odd. I did not say one was as effective as the other, and I can not prove that one is as effective as the other, therefore I can not possibly answer your question as to why one is as effective as the other. Why you continue asking me to prove that one is as effective as the other truly escapes me. So this concludes our conversation, as it is futile to continue when words I continue to repeat are clearly not comprehended. Thank you for shouting at me. When a person has to use bolded and capitalized letters it always says to me that they are insecure in the notion that they have sound arguments. The point I am making is that because Monkeyboy and the religious right have done everything they can to prevent stem cell research, the likelihood that the question you are unable to answer (are fetal cells as effective as umbilical stem cells) will ever be answered. There is something so Inquisitional about that approach to scientific discovery. Enjoy your evening, Sinergy

ownedgirlie -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/3/2006 10:36:33 PM)
Sinergy, really. That post is 4 days old and you answered it already. It's still bothering you? I wrote big not to shout, but for the reason I stated - so that my point was not missed again. My point being that I did not draw any conclusions on stem cell or umbilical cord cell or one being equal to, greater than, or less than the other. Yet it appears you continue to want me to answer a question to somehow prove a position I never stated. To prove a claim that was never made. I'm not sure why you're on this merry-go-round but it must be fun for you, whereas I am seeing the marks of insanity here. You can reply again if you wish...as many times as you wish....repeating yourself again if you wish. But I see no redeeming value in continuing to reply to you, so I will not be replying to you further.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (11/3/2006 10:41:41 PM)
Yeah, Sinergy has a habit of responding to something constructively, and then responding to the same thing a few days later in the most incendiary manner possible. It's as though he forgets that he's already contributed to the discussion. I find it pretty weird, frankly. I'm sure he's going to say something nasty like "Why do my posting habits interest you so much?" but, you know, fuck it. It's something I've observed, and now I see that other people have observed it too.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875