RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman

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

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

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 12:12:26 AM)
In the section you have just quoted NG, nefertari has made a blanket statement.

Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 2:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Many millions of people oppose stem cell research because they believe they are defending human life. This is not a bad thing. " If it ain't THEIR LIFE, it ain't THEIR BUSINESS... I disagree. I saw an old lady being attacked across the street this morning. I did nothing. It's her life, it ain't my business. Okay I didn't really see an old lady being attacked. Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it.

Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 2:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver In the section you have just quoted NG, nefertari has made a blanket statement. Hi, MC. Yeah, it seems obvious to me too.

krys -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 3:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I can't say for certain that he did the ad without medication, I can say he's gone off medication for the purpose of making the statement politicly stronger in the past, so it's not beyond his ethical boundries to do so. I really care much less about on or off his medications than I want a declaration of it in the ad. I don't think it would effect the power of the ad, and it would certainly add to the ethical disclosure of a political ad. I'm not claimig he's faking the effects I am questioning if he has again used the tactic without disclosing he is dong so for a purpose. So what if he did choose to film on a day where his disease was at its worst to make more of an impact? Its an advertisement, and that is precisely what advertisements are designed to do. It doesn't change the fact that he has that disease, or the reality of what Parkinson's can and does do to people. A disclaimer would only provide backing to Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous position that somehow its fake. What you saw in Michael J. Fox is a very real part of Parkinson's. That's what it looks like, that is the reality the voters, and our legislature, should have to face when making these choices.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:01:22 AM)
Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it. [/quote] Easy words when it's not your body. How readily would You take the rapist's or your daddy's seed into your abdomen to bear and raise his child for the rest of your life?

Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:21:56 AM)
quote: Level wrote: Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it. quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong Easy words when it's not your body. How readily would You take the rapist's or your daddy's seed into your abdomen to bear and raise his child for the rest of your life? Yes, much easier, I agree. Easier for me to say, than live with. One doesn't have to raise the child you mention, nor destroy it. There is adoption, and yes, I know that's an imperfect situation.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:43:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it. Easy words when it's not your body. How readily would You take the rapist's or your daddy's seed into your abdomen to bear and raise his child for the rest of your life? This happened to a friend of mine, actually. Adrianne, the result of such scenario, is just about the cutest little girl I have ever seen and her mother loves her dearly. She said, in fact, "I paid a huge price to receive the love of my life." One of my nephews, adopted by my sister, is also the result of which. I thanked his birth mother for giving our family and that little boy the greatest gift possible. It must have taken great strength and courage for her to carry that little guy to term and then give him away. I couldn't imagine how painful that whole experience must have been. And now here's this little bugaboo, who climbs up on my lap whenever he sees me, and tells endless stories about me being a princess in a big pink castle, lol. I was raped, years ago. I missed my next period and thought I was pregnant. As I took my pregnancy test, I was wondering if I was going to have a boy or a girl. However, the test was negative. I suppose it just depends on the person going through it, doesn't it?

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:18:33 AM)
The overwhelming majority of abortions are late birth control. To bring up a insignificant number of extreme stories (albeit a nightmare for the victim) to justify the vast amount of abortions is a red herring.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver In the section you have just quoted NG, nefertari has made a blanket statement. If you take the time to read my post you'll see it started "I have read this thread" - meaning my comment relates to the whole thread. The section I quoted was deliberately Level's rather than anyone elses. If you read this thread it is obvious that the poster in question is not making a blanket statement.

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: krys quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I can't say for certain that he did the ad without medication, I can say he's gone off medication for the purpose of making the statement politicly stronger in the past, so it's not beyond his ethical boundries to do so. I really care much less about on or off his medications than I want a declaration of it in the ad. I don't think it would effect the power of the ad, and it would certainly add to the ethical disclosure of a political ad. I'm not claimig he's faking the effects I am questioning if he has again used the tactic without disclosing he is dong so for a purpose. So what if he did choose to film on a day where his disease was at its worst to make more of an impact? Its an advertisement, and that is precisely what advertisements are designed to do. It doesn't change the fact that he has that disease, or the reality of what Parkinson's can and does do to people. A disclaimer would only provide backing to Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous position that somehow its fake. What you saw in Michael J. Fox is a very real part of Parkinson's. That's what it looks like, that is the reality the voters, and our legislature, should have to face when making these choices. I couldn't care less wheather Rush's possition is reinforced or not. Truth is truth. And I would much prefer that political advertisements contain as much of it as possible regardless of who makes them. What exactly about that possition are you in disagreement with? Other than the reinforcement of Rush's possition we seem to be on the same page, although it's hard to tell.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:36:28 AM)
From a British perspective: The abortion debate over here centres around where the line should be drawn. The line is considered to be the number of weeks upto which an abortion is legitimate - it is currently 24 and this is supported by the British Medical Association. Some pressure groups are lobbying to have this reduced to 21 weeks and there are pros and cons for both (which aren't relevant to the post so I'll leave that there). Ultimately, the abortion debate is about civil liberties. I have heard it mentioned on here "what about the rights of the unborn child". The point here is as follows: The reason we have legal age limits around sex, alcohol, voting etc is because a person is deemed to hold the capacity to make decisions for his/herself in the interests of his/herself once that person reaches the agreed age of consent. Abortion is a messy business, must be heart-breaking for all concerned and should be avoided where possible. However, a foetus does not have the capacity to make decisions for the good of the mother-to-be and the foetus. Thus, the decision quite rightly rests with the mother-to-be in the interests of civil liberties. Now, what I sense from some Americans on this board (by no means all) is a deep-rooted conservatism rather than any regard for civil liberties. When it comes to the abortion issue where is the support of the right to self-determination that some wear as a badge of honour? i.e. in areas such as non-taxation, smoking etc. Either you believe in the concept of civil liberties and self-determination or you do not. It is a concept that can't be turned on and off like a tap when the cap fits. From an outsider looking in, it appears to me that some only propose the right to self-determination for those whowill act in accordance with your views.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:42:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie I suppose it just depends on the person going through it, doesn't it? True.. just as the right to choose should be.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 5:52:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Now, what I sense from some Americans on this board (by no means all) is a deep-rooted conservatism rather than any regard for civil liberties. When it comes to the abortion issue where is the support of the right to self-determination that some wear as a badge of honour? i.e. in areas such as non-taxation, smoking etc. Either you believe in the concept of civil liberties and self-determination or you do not. It is a concept that can't be turned on and off like a tap when the cap fits. From an outsider looking in, it appears to me that some only propose the right to self-determination for those whowill act in accordance with your views. This is all rather arrogant as the pregnant woman is relying on other people and public resources to get her out of her mess. I admit it is easy for me talking as a man but there is a difference between using contraception and needing resources and other people compromising their principles to have to deal with a private mess, that a trip down to the chemists could have avoided and needing an abortion on medical or social grounds. Most abortions are a substitute for contraception.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 6:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Now, what I sense from some Americans on this board (by no means all) is a deep-rooted conservatism rather than any regard for civil liberties. When it comes to the abortion issue where is the support of the right to self-determination that some wear as a badge of honour? i.e. in areas such as non-taxation, smoking etc. Either you believe in the concept of civil liberties and self-determination or you do not. It is a concept that can't be turned on and off like a tap when the cap fits. From an outsider looking in, it appears to me that some only propose the right to self-determination for those whowill act in accordance with your views. This is all rather arrogant as the pregnant woman is relying on other people and public resources to get her out of her mess. This is rather irrelevant as we are all relying on public resources in one sense or another. By your logic, anyone going to school is 'relying on other people to get them out of a mess' and anyone in hospital needing an operation is doing the same. I admit it is easy for me talking as a man Right you are. but there is a difference between using contraception and needing resources and other people compromising their principles to have to deal with a private mess, that a trip down to the chemists could have avoided and needing an abortion on medical or social grounds. Again, I'm struggling to understand your logic here. Do you agree with absolutely every Government public spending programme? If not, then you are compromising your principles for the greater good of society - just like we all do. Most abortions are a substitute for contraception. It seems to me your concern with abortion is the lack of thought given by both partners when having sex/after sex etc. You are confusing two separate issues as follows: 1) Abortion is about civil liberties and the right to self-determination. 2) If you think that men/women aren't taking enough care then this is a sex education issue that needs resolving in schools and by parents. It is in no way an argument to against abortion.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 6:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie I saw an old lady being attacked across the street this morning. I did nothing. It's her life, it ain't my business. Okay I didn't really see an old lady being attacked. Just don't follow her into the supermarket and tell her what food she had better eat to be as healthy as you think she should be. It's her body. And don't feel bad if she exhibits some sort of disease that could be remedied by stem cell research- you'll get over it. I love the stories of bouncing babies on the knee. I'm glad you enjoy children. The children you refereed to all belonged to other people and you could walk away after you had your fun. They have to do the rest and contend with the memories they would rather forget and reminded of day to day. Its about CHOICE. You know, like you are entitled to as to whether you keep YOURS or not.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 6:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie I saw an old lady being attacked across the street this morning. I did nothing. It's her life, it ain't my business. Okay I didn't really see an old lady being attacked. Just don't follow her into the supermarket and tell her what food she had better eat to be as healthy as you think she should be. It's her body. And don't feel bad if she exhibits some sort of disease that could be remedied by stem cell research- you'll get over it. I feel badly for just about anyone who has to live in any form of suffering. Are you implying I am against stem cell research? If so, you haven't been reading my posts. quote: I love the stories of bouncing babies on the knee. I'm glad you enjoy children. The children you refereed to all belonged to other people and you could walk away after you had your fun. They have to do the rest and contend with the memories they would rather forget and reminded of day to day. Its about CHOICE. You know, like you are entitled to as to whether you keep YOURS or not. I do enjoy children. I wanted children of my own, in fact, but could not have them. I would love more than ANYTHING to not have to walk away after having my fun. It breaks my heart every time I do. When I thought I was pregnant by rape, I knew I would have the baby and didn't give a shit about the idiot who raped me. Do not think I haven't suffered things in my life; I have. I have learned to not let such traumas own me anymore. As to the others I mentioned, I can not speak for my nephew's birth mom, other than she was compelled to give her baby life despite what happened to her. As for my friend, when I asked her about that - "Does Adrianne remind you of him?" She smiled and said, "She reminds me that love can come out of tragedy." I don't understand why you're being argumentative about this. I am not about removing one's choice to have abortion. I simply do not agree that abortions are the answer and I wish people did not have them. I have not once said it's not a choice. I have made it clear I would not have one, and I have brought to light that the argument of "It's her life, it ain't my business" is an ignorant statement. If used universally, it would mean humankind would no longer care about humankind. And if that were the case, why would we care about stem cell research? If he's going to make an argument, make it a compelling one with some basis. I know far too many people who use abortion as their means of birth control, rather than someone who became pregnant from a rape, or someone who was young, scared, with nowhere to turn. A woman I worked wtih had 5, yes 5, and she was married. "It's just not the right time for us," she said. She decided to keep her 6th pregnancy as it fit better with her plans. I chose to not attend her baby shower. When I was a teenager, a friend of mine had 4. She didn't like to be on the pill, she said. She could just go down to the local clinic, claim poverty, and voila - done. Lots of girls did that. They thought it was easier than having to remember to take a pill. It is cases like these that drive me nuts. Yes, it IS about choice - When possible, choose not to get pregnant!!

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 7:15:46 AM)
quote: Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it. I understand your belief that it is a sentient life in the first trimester and no different in your mind than a born child, but I just do not agree with you. I respect your belief, I just do not share it. To me defending something without cognitive ability and understanding is not the same as defending the life of something that does have cognitive ability and understanding and self awareness... Like I said, I respect your beliefs, I just do not share them. It does not equate to the same thing in my moral compass, and if it did I guess I would feel as strongly as you. There are lots of cruelties to living things with more awareness than a developing embryo, cows have more self awareness, and I am more upset about how veal is produced than abortion...and I say that as someone that would like to see meat produced in a more humane way. A pregnancy in the first trimester is the promise of a new life, but it is not viable, self aware human life.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 7:34:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania A pregnancy in the first trimester is the promise of a new life, but it is not viable, self aware human life. A question for you, not at all intended to be argumentative. In the "Souls" thread, you mentioned the soul is "the spark of life" and "when we are no longer among the living we are literally a blob of tissue." I understand this to mean the soul carries on after we are no longer a viable life form. But when do you think it arrives? Do you believe the "spark of life" occurs at the moment a fetus becomes a viable human form? Or the moment the egg comes to life when fertilized....somewhere in between? For some of us, we believe this is an issue about human souls and whether or not we give them an opportunity to enter and surround the body they were given. For those who believe in souls, or in soul-like essences, I am interest when they believe that occurs.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 7:37:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent This is rather irrelevant as we are all relying on public resources in one sense or another. By your logic, anyone going to school is 'relying on other people to get them out of a mess' and anyone in hospital needing an operation is doing the same. We are talking about OTHER people being expected to compromise THEIR principles to help someone get out of a mess. Public resources are scarce and most abortions are late contraception and an unnecessary drain. We have already seen cancer patients having to do with inferior drugs because there is not the resources available to provide the best ones. WHAT ABOUT THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS? I've nothing against abortion on medical grounds and genuine mental grounds. I wouldn't ban abortion full stop because it would only drive it underground but I think for late contraception abortions the bill should be paid in full and medical staff should not be bullied or pressured into needless procedures against their will. but there is a difference between using contraception and needing resources and other people compromising their principles to have to deal with a private mess, that a trip down to the chemists could have avoided and needing an abortion on medical or social grounds. Again, I'm struggling to understand your logic here. Do you agree with absolutely every Government public spending programme? If not, then you are compromising your principles for the greater good of society - just like we all do. Most abortions are a substitute for contraception. It seems to me your concern with abortion is the lack of thought given by both partners when having sex/after sex etc. You are confusing two separate issues as follows: 1) Abortion is about civil liberties and the right to self-determination. Fine if it didn't involve other people having to compromise their civil liberties to help clean up the mess and who are YOU to say what is and isn't a civil liberty? 2) If you think that men/women aren't taking enough care then this is a sex education issue that needs resolving in schools and by parents. It is in no way an argument to against abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is a sex education issue, abortion isn't.

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 7:53:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania A pregnancy in the first trimester is the promise of a new life, but it is not viable, self aware human life. A question for you, not at all intended to be argumentative. In the "Souls" thread, you mentioned the soul is "the spark of life" and "when we are no longer among the living we are literally a blob of tissue." I understand this to mean the soul carries on after we are no longer a viable life form. But when do you think it arrives? Do you believe the "spark of life" occurs at the moment a fetus becomes a viable human form? Or the moment the egg comes to life when fertilized....somewhere in between? For some of us, we believe this is an issue about human souls and whether or not we give them an opportunity to enter and surround the body they were given. For those who believe in souls, or in soul-like essences, I am interest when they believe that occurs. I think that bacteria have the spark of life ownedgirlie. I think every living thing has a soul. I eat meat, I eat plants, and I sleep really well at night. On a spiritual plane I do not put a higher value on human life than any other life. I see this planet as a big connected organism. In practice I am a human being so I put higher value on human life in my defense of my species in the struggle for survival. I would save a human before an animal be. But that does not mean I believe that the human has more value than an animal on a spiritual level, or to God the way I understand God to be. Like i said, I respect your belief, but I do not share it. I do not believe an embryo is a self aware sentient being... You believe differentlly than me, from some of what you posted I would assume you are judeo-christian (Icould be wrong)... Im not a judeo-christian or a protestant. I do not share your beliefs. I do not think that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy that cannot sustain itself without her body. It gets murkier when brain development is further along, but I also believe that late term abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is at risk.... My beliefs are different from yours, that's all. If I had a daughter and she wanted an abortion I would drive her there myself after I asked her if she considered other options. Edited for clarity about my spiritual beliefs

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875