Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 12:49:41 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I am letting My previous response stand, as I don't believe in editing things away.. However, as I hit enter and then took a call postponing My meeting until next Tuesday (aren't you lucky I can hang around...*Smile*) I realized I answered too quickily, and em,phasized the wrong perspective. 
Sinergy, did you completely miss the fact that I am not speaking of being forced to have an abortion?  You are looking at this fom the aspect that you feel forced to breathe smoke, when you don't wish to.  I am looking at the fact that I do not have choice and reasoanble access to places where I can smoke.   I am discussing from the point of view of "bans", that we might be in the beginning process of banning or removing the right of a women to choose.  Just as I have been "banned" from having places I can legally smoke, so might women eventually, bit by bit, be denied to option of any and all abortion.
Hence My statement:

quote:

Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down.  Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort? 




I'm sorry but you make a very poor argument.  Your/my hobby of smokinghas no desired side effects for others...It can only harm others as well as foul up their clothes and many folks have adverse reactions such as allergies to smoke....Why should someone who works in a bar be forced to jeopardize their health so you and I can smoke....There is a world outside just waiting to whisk our smoke away on a breeze....Smoking has no benefit other to the person who desires to smoke and even then the long term health ramifications far outweigh the pleasure derived in the short run...

If tobacco were "invented" today it would never be allowed to be put on the shelves of our stores....It is a hazardous, flawed product and should be avoided by all.

In the midst for the first time since I decided to take up my hobby of trying to remove these .35 per smoke delicacies from my life....If I succeed they will be truly missed.

_____________________________



(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 12:59:28 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

If tobacco were "invented" today it would never be allowed to be put on the shelves of our stores....It is a hazardous, flawed product and should be avoided by all.



So is alcohol, so are cars, so is junk food. Hell go to any store and take your pick, there will be some reason why just about everything should be banned. No one seems to complain about buying cheap products from the third world and effectively keeping people in a form of bonded labour. That damages more people's health than a waft of smoke as you walk across a parking lot.

Of course, in the situation of bonded labour, you aren't the one being imposed on.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 4/27/2007 1:01:47 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 1:14:49 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

If tobacco were "invented" today it would never be allowed to be put on the shelves of our stores....It is a hazardous, flawed product and should be avoided by all.



So is alcohol, so are cars, so is junk food. Hell go to any store and take your pick, there will be some reason why just about everything should be banned. No one seems to complain about buying cheap products from the third world and effectively keeping people in a form of bonded labour. That damages more people's health than a waft of smoke as you walk across a parking lot.

Of course, in the situation of bonded labour, you aren't the one being imposed on.


I usually find a great deal of merit in your posts...Alcohol used responsibly or even used unresponsibly (as long as you don't drink and drive) has a minimal effect on the population around you. Cars...when driven responsibly emit toxins but again few folks are running cars in an "indoor environment" or putting their muffler up to your face....Fast food I can sit right next to you while you cram seven Big-Macs down your pie hole and walk away pretty much the same person I was before your multi thousands of caloric intake.....Smoking is different than all of the products you mentioned in that it's affects are felt by everyone in your proximity...It cannot be avoided....I have no problem with the removal of such a product in any public situation.

I really don't see much of an argument on this topic....To me it is relatively a "no-brainer."

_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 1:18:08 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

Youa re saying that I cannot take the side of the unborn child...

 
I am not saying you can or cannot do anything.
 
I am pointing out that in my opinion it is not your choice to make.  But that is subject to interpretation.
 
Nevertheless, smoking is something person A does that impacts person B directly.
 
On the subject of bans, I was not the one seeking to ban abortions.  I am not even seeking to ban smoking.  I dont care.  I just dont want to breathe cigarette smoke or itch for hours afterwards.  Figure out a way to keep one's behavior to oneself, I am behind it 100%.

 
Agreed.   I don't even know where you stand on that particular issue.  But the constant references to non-consensual and your rights end where My rights begin, to Me, is a beautiful example of unborn children being aborted without regard to their rights.  I am thinking, according to many, they do not have any.    Person A (Mother) directly impacts Person B(Unborn child).  But, as you say, that is open to interpretation by individuals.  


quote:
 
I can only make the argument if I am the one choosing to have or not have the abortion.  And I disagree with that. 
 
You are not forced to take in My second hand smoke. You may have the options to patronize places where there is no smoke.  I am not allowed to patronize places where there is.  Because they no longer exist.


 
quote:

Fair enough.
 
So, taking the argument to the greatest freedom and impact on the greatest number of individuals, what side do you think the body politic is going to support?
 
As I pointed out, dont like the law, get it changed.  If a sufficient number of the body politic agree with your view, then it should be simple to overturn the law.

 
There's the crux of it right there.  It never should have been legislated to this extent.  And they are not done yet.    Again I say to you...beware of when the body politic decides that they are opposed to something that you feel is harmless or you should have an ability to exercise that activity while feeling assured that if other's do not agree, they do not go to that place where you are exercising that activity.  .  Because they will not only limit you, they might restrict it beyond what you consider reasonable, and then you will be the one who is SOL. 
 

quote:
 
You are, in effect, saying that your life is more valuable that that of an unborn child who has no choice but to have life ended. 
 

 
quote:

Incorrect.  You are interpreting what I am saying in that way.  There is a difference, and I am not going to sign on to your impression of my words.

 
We must agree to disagree on that


quote:



I am not the first person to try to patiently explain and show the way to reasonable compromise.
 

 
quote:

I suggested a reasonable compromise.  Figure out a way to smoke where I dont have to breathe it in a public place.
 
The response I got was to go somewhere else so people could smoke.
 
That is not a compromise, that is trying to get me to capitulate to an unreasonable argument.

 
That is not the response you are getting.  You are getting the response that you might think about being considerate yourself, as a non-smoker, and respect the  few areas that are designated.  But this is not respected.  Instead, it is legislated out of existence.  Now you can go anywhere, and I can go nowhere, unless I am willing to not smoke.  Well, it is the law, so I must obey.  There is, apparently no room for compromise. I offer the compromise and it is rejected.   I feel that you are trying to get Me to capitulate to an unreasonable argument.   

 
quote:

As I pointed out, I am not the one doing something that is subjecting other people non-consensually to my behavior.
 
Additionally, I pointed out that these laws are the result of smokers inflicting their behavior on other people who did not care to have that behavior inflicted on them.
 
Sinergy



I truly do not buy into the "smokers are inconsiderate and have inflicted this on others, and there was no other way except to make it impossible for smokers to smoke in any public areas."  I have said that we smoked legally in many places when it was socially acceptable.  Then it became less desireable, and smoking areas became more restricted.  That was all okay and reasonable.  But it has now been taken to the nth degree, and they are not done yet.  You seem to be okay with the fact that you have the right to travel in any direction, and smokers have no right to any little corner where they can light up.  Are non-smokers incapable of avoiding these areas?  Perhaps a few restaurants that allow it, or some bars that allow it?   The additional benefit is that we have not also taken away to freedon of choice by the private business owners.  These laws are now doing that also.  It is just plain wrong!  Or is it that they just don't want to have to extend the same courtesy, albeit much more limited?  No, it appears to Me that you want to have every option open to you, and in doing so, you have removed every option I may have once had. 
 
The only way, given the body politic and the lack of foresight of that body politic, to get the law changed to something more reasonable, would be to point out the danger of removing the freedom of choice.  Non-smokers can have their choice of establishment, and smokers can have their choice of establishment.  Business owners can choose to allow or not allow.  Provide a place or not provide a place.  Individuals then decide they will go to that business and not smoke, or they will go to the other business and smoke.  Non-smokers have the same individual choice.  They can patronize the business that does not allow smoking, or they can patronize a business that does because they don't mind it, or they feel the risk is minimal if a few people are smoking on a patio outside.  Are you getting this at all? 
This lack of foresight has caused the body politic to vote to remove the freedom of choice.
If I was a non-smoker, I would still vote against these laws.  For I can see the precedents being set.  Today, severerly limited ability to smoke in designated areas, tomorrow, no "right to choose", no ability to eat at a McDonald's unless they have the body politic's approval for a new healthy menu, no health food stores because these choices for nutrients have been banned, and on, and on, and on....
Which is what this is really all about, Sinergy.  So are you ready to sign onto the "Freedom of Choice" train?  Or are you happy with the status quo because this is your preference anyway? 

< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 4/27/2007 1:24:47 PM >

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 2:14:16 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Cars...when driven responsibly emit toxins but again few folks are running cars in an "indoor environment"


They don't need to be run in an inside environment. Cars are the biggest cause of respiratory illness in young people. The ridiculousness of the situation was pointed out by a man who got arrested in London for blocking the entry to his street so cars couldn't cut down (with the support of his neighbours). The government is banning smoking in the pub on the corner of the street that no one is forced to use but does nothing about a more hazardous situation that effects everyone and the law protects the villains.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 2:53:55 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I am letting My previous response stand, as I don't believe in editing things away.. However, as I hit enter and then took a call postponing My meeting until next Tuesday (aren't you lucky I can hang around...*Smile*) I realized I answered too quickily, and em,phasized the wrong perspective. 
Sinergy, did you completely miss the fact that I am not speaking of being forced to have an abortion?  You are looking at this fom the aspect that you feel forced to breathe smoke, when you don't wish to.  I am looking at the fact that I do not have choice and reasoanble access to places where I can smoke.   I am discussing from the point of view of "bans", that we might be in the beginning process of banning or removing the right of a women to choose.  Just as I have been "banned" from having places I can legally smoke, so might women eventually, bit by bit, be denied to option of any and all abortion.
Hence My statement:

quote:

Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down.  Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort? 




I'm sorry but you make a very poor argument.  Your/my hobby of smokinghas no desired side effects for others...It can only harm others as well as foul up their clothes and many folks have adverse reactions such as allergies to smoke....Why should someone who works in a bar be forced to jeopardize their health so you and I can smoke....There is a world outside just waiting to whisk our smoke away on a breeze....Smoking has no benefit other to the person who desires to smoke and even then the long term health ramifications far outweigh the pleasure derived in the short run...

If tobacco were "invented" today it would never be allowed to be put on the shelves of our stores....It is a hazardous, flawed product and should be avoided by all.

In the midst for the first time since I decided to take up my hobby of trying to remove these .35 per smoke delicacies from my life....If I succeed they will be truly missed.


As you stated in another post, it is a "no brainer" for Me also.  Especially since I continue to emphasize that this is about a loss of freedom of choice.  "Bans"  and being selective, and all that...    On this particular issue, you now have all the choices and I have none.  So I guess that works for you.  I hope you never have to rue the day when you cannot make an argument for responsible separation so that you can enjoy your legal activity in a safe and responsible way.
I will leave MC to take up the banner.  For Me, this horse is beyond dead so I will put My floggers away..
But I might still be a voyeur! 

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 3:09:05 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		We must have a ban on time.
 
Time leads to old age, and people are dying of that, all over the world.
 
If we don't do something about time, and it's impact on old age, it will eventually kill us all.

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 4:45:09 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		 
I have very mixed feelings about abortions.  I am extremely supportive of choice.  I told my
own kid that it was her choice, and whichever approach she took, I would support it 100%.

In other words, if she decided to keep the kid I would let them live with me and I would
support them until she could do it on her own.  The child did not ask to be put in that
situation, and I am not going to blame it or pass judgement on it.  I am going to do what
I can to help the child get it's start.

Roe v. Wade is not really about abortions.  What the law stipulates is that the government
cannot intrude it's nose between a woman and her doctor.  People who want to throw out
that law dont seem to understand this.

Abortion is something women go to doctors to get.  Throw out Roe v. Wade and now the
government has nothing stopping it from clitoridectomies, forced sterilizations, forced pregnancy,
prevention of whatever.  I am always shocked when women rant about Roe v. Wade, apparently
they want the Gingriches and the Clintons and the Ashcrofts and the Bushes of this world messing
around in her uterus.

Again, I dont care where people smoke as long as they dont subject me or other people nonconsensually
to their kink.  One can take it as a violation of their basic freedoms, but I am one of those who thinks laws
are not passed in a vacuum.  The law as it stands is designed to prevent that from happening.  One of the
objections a few people have raised is about smoking and non-smoking sections, and I pointed out that
smoke does not always stay in it's own section.

I pointed out that people work there, and the response was that those people should go get other jobs so
people can smoke.  Again, this seems a bit rude that person A has to overturn their life, get a new job, etc., so
that person B is not inconvenienced in the pursuit of satisfying their addiction.

Come up with a solution that allows people to smoke in bars and restaurants without subjecting other people
to their addiction, and I am totally supportive of their right to smoke there.

Until such a solution is determined, I think the ban on smoking in public places is a workable solution.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 5:45:19 PM   
kitbaloo


Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

They used to require establishments that wished to have a smoking area the smoking area was mandatory to have a complete seperate room where smoking and non-smoking were divided completely.   Seperate room being a wall between one and the other.  Fair enough, with a wall dividing, smoke is obviously going to stay in the smoking section without bothering the non-smokers, but apparently even that wasn't good enough for them seeing as they're not happy unless they're imposing their non-smoking views upon those who have the right to smoke if they so wish.


As the bar owner of my local bar says to anyone complaining about smoke and they do (usually tourists), 'You don't have to drink in my bar, there must be a thousand other bars in this town. In fact if you look across the way you will see an empty bar, that is a no smoking bar and that is why it is empty. Goodbye!'


Problem with this being as simple as what has been stated by a few previous posts...  there is no such thing as a smoking establishment anymore, non-smokers made sure that every single last establishment is completely non-smoking so smokers don't have an option to go to a smoking establishment anymore. should just leave it up to business owners to choose whether their establishment will be smoking or non-smoking make it either one or the other, that way both smokers and non-smokers both have a choice instead of it being so one sided with only non-smokers having their chosen option.  or require two seperate rooms be provided one for smokers one for non-smokers and being sure that the seperation of the rooms has clearly distinguishable division between the two (walls/doors) so that smoke doesn't mingle into the non-smokers room.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 6:41:11 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

or require two seperate rooms be provided one for smokers one for non-smokers and being sure that the seperation of the rooms has clearly distinguishable division between the two (walls/doors) so that smoke doesn't
mingle into the non-smokers room.



Would have to add separate air filters and air conditioning systems, air locks, etc.  Of course, the owner of the restaurant would have to pay all the money to completely redesign their restaurant to accomodate smokers.

I think a more worthwhile solution would be to simply drop a large bell jar with a hose for air that goes down the street, over the smoker so they can enjoy their tar stick without subjecting the rest of us to it.  Of course, I am not sure it is fair to make the business owner provide these.  Perhaps we could stipulate that smokers can smoke in restaurants if they provide the appropriate sized bell jar and hose.

But again, smokers are now insisting that restaurant owners pay extra money to remodel their establishment so that smokers can indulge in their addiction.

Isnt it just easier for smokers to go outside and smoke to their hearts content, as opposed to requiring the rest of the universe to cater to their addiction?

Boggles the imagination.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to kitbaloo)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 6:57:02 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
apparently
they want the Gingriches and the Clintons and the Ashcrofts and the Bushes of this world messing
around in her uterus.


Now thats one party i would not want to be invited to!


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 7:01:33 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		the problem is that people no longer think in terms "rights".

The brain stops at "oh that sounds like a good idea to me", then goes back to sleep, never realizing that it is their rights that will be violated on the next round and the other guy will say the same thing when the rug gets unlawfully pulled out from them.

i can understand no smoking on busses and planes and even stores as people have a choice to go elsewhere but not a ban.

i do not smoke, i used to be a 3 packer, but will always fight for smokers rights as it is their choice.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 7:10:02 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i can understand no smoking on busses and planes and even stores as people have a choice to go elsewhere but not a ban.



The difference between these and other places people go (like maybe a favorite restaurants or bar) is what?

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 7:48:48 PM   
mistoferin


Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline 		Sinergy, you seem very concerned about your health and the effects of breathing toxic air. Yet you live in one of the most toxic areas of the country. There was a news report on TV this week that said that Southern California experienced 80 some odd days this past year where the air was determined to be unsafe to breathe. That is nearly 3 months of the year. I would think that you would be far more concerned about that than getting a whiff of someone's smoke that wafted out of a seperate room in a restaurant or bar.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 7:52:17 PM   
kitbaloo


Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline 		Let me also point out that we live in the United States of America where we're supposedly "free" to make our own choices and have rights, apparently the only ones you expect to have rights are the non-smokers, well here's a clue.. smokers live in America just as much as you non-smokers do and have just as much rights (well should -- since nowadays "freedom" means hypocricy).

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 7:59:51 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

Let me also point out that we live in the United States of America where we're supposedly "free" to make our own choices and have rights, apparently the only ones you expect to have rights are the non-smokers, well here's a clue.. smokers live in America just as much as you non-smokers do and have just as much rights (well should -- since nowadays "freedom" means hypocricy).


"America stands for freedom, but if you think your free
try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese."

The Vandals
Anarchy Burger
 
As long as all you people grant me the freedom to urinate in your lobster bisque, I am more than willing to support your freedom to make my steak taste like an ashtray.

Fair enough?

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to kitbaloo)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 9:26:52 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Agreed.   I don't even know where you stand on that particular issue.  But the constant references to non-consensual and your rights end where My rights begin, to Me, is a beautiful example of unborn children being aborted without regard to their rights.  I am thinking, according to many, they do not have any.    Person A (Mother) directly impacts Person B(Unborn child).  But, as you say, that is open to interpretation by individuals
 
Who are you to say a woman does not have the right to decide that she does not want this person living in her body. Who are you to say that she must be forced to nourish the person. If you state that we now must force women to feed and incubate babies, then I suppose we must house everyone who is homeless and feed them too? What you are really saying is a woman does not have the right to decide that she will not serve as an incubator. It may sound harsh to you, but not everyone loves their embryos, nor wants to be inconvenienced by them, and if you cannot understand that, perhaps you will tell me, do you feed every homeless person you pass on the street? They are just as worthy of life as an unborn baby

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 9:42:16 PM   
mistoferin


Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline 		Um julia.....I think you misunderstood.....she wasn't saying that she is in support of banning abortion, she was just using abortion as a means of making a point.

quote:

 
GoddessDustyGold
No smoking anywhere = no abortion for any reason.
Okay, I told you his would be extreme, and I don't feel that way.  Although I am on the side of the "right to life", I am not on the side of being completely insensitive to situations wherein this might be a responsible decision.  But I am trying to make a point


_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 10:12:41 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Um julia.....I think you misunderstood.....she wasn't saying that she is in support of banning abortion, she was just using abortion as a means of making a point.

quote:

 
GoddessDustyGold
No smoking anywhere = no abortion for any reason.
Okay, I told you his would be extreme, and I don't feel that way.  Although I am on the side of the "right to life", I am not on the side of being completely insensitive to situations wherein this might be a responsible decision.  But I am trying to make a point



If that is the case, well fine, the issue still stands, freedom from others imposing themselves on you in a way that infringes on your freedom. In the case of a pregnancy the woman that does not desire to be is to have her freedom infringed on by the embryo... their right to life only exists if she desires them to inhabit her body. It seems analogous to smoking in the way that someone smoking around me is invading my body with their smoke...One person's rights end where they infringe upon anothers

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/27/2007 10:14:20 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Agreed.   I don't even know where you stand on that particular issue.  But the constant references to non-consensual and your rights end where My rights begin, to Me, is a beautiful example of unborn children being aborted without regard to their rights.  I am thinking, according to many, they do not have any.    Person A (Mother) directly impacts Person B(Unborn child).  But, as you say, that is open to interpretation by individuals
 

Who are you to say a woman does not have the right to decide that she does not want this person living in her body. Who are you to say that she must be forced to nourish the person. If you state that we now must force women to feed and incubate babies, then I suppose we must house everyone who is homeless and feed them too? What you are really saying is a woman does not have the right to decide that she will not serve as an incubator. It may sound harsh to you, but not everyone loves their embryos, nor wants to be inconvenienced by them, and if you cannot understand that, perhaps you will tell me, do you feed every homeless person you pass on the street? They are just as worthy of life as an unborn baby


I did say that I was done with this discussion as it has been beaten to death, but I think you deserve an answer. 
 
Julia, I am terribly sorry if you are misunderstanding Me.  I was simply drawing a comparison between losing the option to smoke in designated areas, and the potential of women losing the option to terminate an unwanted prgnancy.  Seems this is a hot issue for you.  Yes, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I do not stand in the way of anyone who chooses this.  I am distressed, often, at the casual way in which the option is abused...IN MY OPINION. 
But I do often see the phrase I used to draw the comparison and it is used in other non-smoking threads. Which phrase paraphrased is:  "Your rights end when they directly affect my rights to life and health". 
I do believe this can be applied equally as well to the unborn babies who are not wanted and are casually disposed of via the "right to choose".  I can probably pick out a handful or more of phrases that have been used in this thread alone that directly applies to both situations, but the direct impact of person "A" (Mother) on Person "B" baby is completely ignored and considered inconsequential.     
The answer to your question?  I am nobody.  There is a law that states you have the right to choose and I will never interfere in that, in spite of My strong feelings that is a grave error and harmful to the unborn babes.  But it is not different in My mind, from the anti-smokers who ride in and say they have the right to protect themselves and everybody else from the horrid smokers and we are not even entitled to a limited designated area to smoke.   
My question to you now...
Who are you to tell Me that you and all your anti-smoking friends have the power to make Me not smoke anywhere in public, or have an option to choose a restaurant, or a bar or a hotel where the option is there?  I don't want to smoke in your face!  I just want a fair shake when it comes to a little space on this planet.  Perhaps soon, if things keep going as is, I will not even be able to rent a house that allows smoking becaue the next law might be all rental properties must not allow smoking.  I may not be able to buy an affordable property that doesn't have an HOA who also has put into effect a no smoking in this neighborhood due to the complaints from a neighbor who can smell My cigarette that I am trying to smoke on My patio.  And all the private business owners have already been told they do not have an option to offer this to a smoker.  Everything has to be non-smoking. 
Like I am trying to say...watch your back.  And I will watch your back with you and for you, too.  Because the next thing might be "the right to choose", or any number of things that could have you reeling. 
My car and My home may be next.  There is discussion and many will jump on the bandwagon for that, also, since it doesn't really affect them.  My vacations are screwed because I cannot smoke in a hotel, and I already know I can't smoke in most rental cars. 
If my life is so easily screwed, what makes you think that there aren't plenty of people who are itching to take away something that would completely mystify you.  The ban on smoking began innocently enough.  A few restrictions here and there.  Then they took more and more.  And they are not quite finished. 
So think about it... and
Remember that the practice of partial birth abortions has now been cut down.  Is this the beginning of a new wave of limitations on when you can choose to abort?
Oh...remember also, that this is a thread about being selective in your stance on "bans"...Are you?


_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109