Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Omega's Questions
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] [i]Abortion[/i] "It is wrong to tell someone what to do with their own body." I agree. Do you believe that this does not apply to a mother and her unborn child's body? If not, why? I have asked this question multiple times, and have yet to recieve an answer. Your only response has consistantly been, "Keep your laws off my body!" or some variation thereon. Your response was not an answer to my question. "Gee, Omega, see that pregnant girl over there? Well, its not your body, so don't touch it, and don't legislate it." I have no desire to do so. However, if I do not have a right to affect the mother's body without permission, why does she have the right to do the same to her child's body? Are they both not human? [i]Liberal programs[/i] Your response, judging from your final sentence, is meant in jest. Your response was not an answer to my question. [i]Bush and drugs[/i] "My belief of it is rather irrelevent." Irrelevant to what? My request was that you explain your beliefs. There is nothing for this to be related or not related to. Your response was not an answer to my question. "Rather, the question should be, 'an you prove he used drugs?'" This is not what I desire to know. I desire to know WHY you believe he did, not whether you can prove it. [i]China[/i] "I think the government HAD a reason for killing those people, Omega, they're just not reasons that the rest of the world likes to acknowledge." Do you believe that peaceful protest constitutes a reason to kill two thousand people? [i]Siamese Twins[/i] "I have no information on Siamese Twins, but I think I've heard that some live together, co-existing for many many many decades and longer." What if one decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question. [i]Alleged GOP lies[/i] I will take your response to mean "no." Therefore, my question becomes this: "Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied, even though you have no evidence of this?" [i]Trade with China[/i] "The point is, when people say, "don't deal with China, they've killed thousands for no reason" ... you make it too easy to point at the US and say, "so have we."" "We" have not killed innocents. A rogue lieutenant did. He did not have orders to do so, and was punished for his actions. The Chinese government, OTOH, ordered the deaths of innocents, and is still in power. They would constitute murderers and criminals. My question remains, as your response was not an answer to my question. "Second, how can they be murderers? By your own definition (re: US executions, and the difference between a "murder" and a "killing") the killings would be legal under that government, thus, not murder." The Chinese government was not instituted by popular consent, and thus does not constitute a legitimate government. Therefore, all laws enacted by this government, and all actions taken by this government, are not legal, as the government itself is not legally instituted. This is all by my definitions, which are the one's you're calling into question. My beliefs stand explained. How 'bout yours? [i]Capital punishment re: abortion[/i] "No, capital punishment is archaic and should be abolished, but sadly enough, it is legal, therefore, not murder." A valid answer. [i]Chinese attrocities[/i] "What attrocities have they committed recently?" How is timing relevant? The dictator that ordered the murders is still in power. Why should we believe that he has changed? Your response is not an answer to my question. [i]"Fairness Doctrine"[/i] "Most papers have what are known as "editorial pages", where readers may write responses to pieces within the paper. Therefore, the paper is already conveying readers' right to be heard in that desired medium." These are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivalents. Your response is not an answer to my question. [i]DNP's disregard of the Constitution[/i] "Er ... what list? Could you repost them here and I will then reply? Thank you." The attempt to prevent the FL legislature from doing its constitutional duty The support of the Fairness Doctrine The support of banning firearms The support of banning school prayer The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets 90% of the programs that FDR implemented The existance of the FCC The abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians Democrat judges writing new laws that do not exist [i]Status of the unborn[/i] "Omega, the basis for my belief is irrelevent. The only thing relevent is my stance on the issue." The basis of your belief is the only thing I'm requesting you tell me, and is therefore by definition relevant. I ask not for your beliefs. I ask for the reasoning behind them, and how they apply to certain situations. Your response is not an answer to my question. I count twelve questions. One was responded to with a valid answer. One was responded to with a request for more information. One was responded to with an answer, but what I believe to be an invalid or unclear one. The remaining nine were not answered at all. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3