• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fantasea said:
My, my, how politically correct can one get?

Kindly refute the following statement.

A mother initially suckles her child or feeds it formula from a bottle, later weans it to strained baby food, and eventually teaches it to eat table food. The child is, therefore, totally dependent upon its mother for nourishment for quite a few years after its birth.

So, if a mother dies during child birth the child must die of starvation?

Where did you find that particular quote? Which century was it published in?

As you are the one who always demands that people support their statements, please prove that a man is not capable of holding a bottle of formula to a baby's mouth!
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
My, my, how politically correct can one get?

Kindly refute the following statement.

A mother initially suckles her child or feeds it formula from a bottle, later weans it to strained baby food, and eventually teaches it to eat table food. The child is, therefore, totally dependent upon its mother for nourishment for quite a few years after its birth.

So, if a mother dies during child birth the child must die of starvation?
Quite a stretch. However, it does not qualify as refutation; although it does make the grade as obfuscation.

Where did you find that particular quote? Which century was it published in?
It's an original, composed by me on March 1, 2005 in response to your post, a quote from which appears below.

Naughty Nurse Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The child, after it is born, is still dependent upon the woman for nourishment for quite a few years.

Fantasea, that's an incredibly sexist statement, if ever there was one!

As you are the one who always demands that people support their statements, please prove that a man is not capable of holding a bottle of formula to a baby's mouth!
Not germane to the point which is that a child is not capable for sustaining itself for quite a few years after being conceived.
 
Fantasea said:
My, my, how politically correct can one get?

Kindly refute the following statement.

A mother initially suckles her child or feeds it formula from a bottle, later weans it to strained baby food, and eventually teaches it to eat table food. The child is, therefore, totally dependent upon its mother for nourishment for quite a few years after its birth.

As if you're constant quoting wasn't enough, you're now quoting yourself!

A child is totally dependent on adults for quite a few years. It need not be the mother. It need not be a woman. It could be a group of people. A child can be brought up by an entire community in a communal nursery. A child can be brought up by two people of the same sex.

I am not being politically correct. I am pointing out facts:

1) Your statement is factually incorrect.

2) It is sexist.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
As if you're constant quoting wasn't enough, you're now quoting yourself!

A child is totally dependent on adults for quite a few years. It need not be the mother. It need not be a woman. It could be a group of people. A child can be brought up by an entire community in a communal nursery. A child can be brought up by two people of the same sex.

I am not being politically correct. I am pointing out facts:

1) Your statement is factually incorrect.

2) It is sexist.

Why must you constantly try to interject facts, logic and reason into this debate? Da*n you- you british Bit*h!

 
Pacridge said:
Why must you constantly try to interject facts, logic and reason into this debate? Da*n you- you british Bit*h!

:rofl And who are you calling a Bit*c? Go kill an elk for dinner!
 
Naughty Nurse said:
:rofl And who are you calling a Bit*c? Go kill an elk for dinner!
Sadly Elk season is past. But the freezer's full so that's good news. I always find humor in those who oppose hunting- while stuffing their face with a burger. Least the Elk meat I eat is completely without hormones and preservatives.



 
Pacridge said:
Sadly Elk season is past. But the freezer's full so that's good news. I always find humor in those who oppose hunting- while stuffing their face with a burger. Least the Elk meat I eat is completely without hormones and preservatives.




Carnivore, me, so no problem with hunting for food, although I have to say that I couldn't kill anything myself. I feel that's wrong, and I should be a vegetarian, but I just love meat (and that's NOT a bouble entendre!)
 
Yes. It is understandable that people view as an issue of morality according to thier own beliefs, but if the government is given the right to legislate what goes on in woman's body, without her having a say, then what else will the government think is thier right to control?
 
Charmedlife said:
Yes. It is understandable that people view as an issue of morality according to thier own beliefs, but if the government is given the right to legislate what goes on in woman's body, without her having a say, then what else will the government think is thier right to control?

They will think it is their right to control everything! I think, certainly here in the UK, and I think also in the USA, that we are seeing a slow but sure erosion of civil liberties. Now "terrorist suspects" are being locked away with absolutely no evidence.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
They will think it is their right to control everything! I think, certainly here in the UK, and I think also in the USA, that we are seeing a slow but sure erosion of civil liberties. Now "terrorist suspects" are being locked away with absolutely no evidence.
Thank you, Patriot Act! Yes, as Arundhati Roy points out, "In the era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with terrorism."
 
anomaly said:
Thank you, Patriot Act! Yes, as Arundhati Roy points out, "In the era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with terrorism."

well, while that is true to an extent, poor people are not categorically terrorists. what sometimes it means is that a terrorist can easily blend in with poor people so to get the government of his trail.
 
Charmedlife said:
Yes. It is understandable that people view as an issue of morality according to thier own beliefs, but if the government is given the right to legislate what goes on in woman's body, without her having a say, then what else will the government think is thier right to control?
It's not a matter of controlling but saving.We pro-lifers believe that what some call a fetus is a human life.Is it not good when people want to stand up for the rights of the innocent and defenseless?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
A child is totally dependent on adults for quite a few years. It need not be the mother. It need not be a woman. It could be a group of people. A child can be brought up by an entire community in a communal nursery. A child can be brought up by two people of the same sex.
You make a good case allowing the child to live and aborting the mother instead.

It is sexist.
What does this mean?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
They will think it is their right to control everything! I think, certainly here in the UK, and I think also in the USA, that we are seeing a slow but sure erosion of civil liberties. Now "terrorist suspects" are being locked away with absolutely no evidence.
As has been the case whenever either country has been on a war footing. When things get back to normal, things will get back to normal.
 
alienken said:
Is it not good when people want to stand up for the rights of the innocent and defenseless?

Yes it is. Unfortunately, libs tend to apply that to animals over unborn babies.
 
ShamMol said:
well, while that is true to an extent, poor people are not categorically terrorists. what sometimes it means is that a terrorist can easily blend in with poor people so to get the government of his trail.
Terrorists fall into two economic classes. The 'brains' who are exceptionally well financed and the 'mules' who do the bidding of the 'brains' in the hope of martyrdom which ensures being with Allah in the after-life and economic support for the family members they leave behind.
 
Fantasea said:
As has been the case whenever either country has been on a war footing. When things get back to normal, things will get back to normal.

Oh, really? That's all right then. :rofl

Since 9/11 our government in the UK has been passing some very draconian laws allowing it to lock people up with absolutely no evidence against them in the name of fighting terrorism. Do you think these new laws will be reversed anytime soon?

And what about in the USA?
 
I believe that abortion, yea or nay is totally up to the woman who is pregnant. She is the one that must decide what is in her own best interest. She is the one that must weigh each side and then conclude what's best for her.

It certainly is NOT the decision of others.

IMHO, all other reasons are moot.
 
:wcm to Debate Politics!
 
alienken said:
It's not a matter of controlling but saving.We pro-lifers believe that what some call a fetus is a human life.Is it not good when people want to stand up for the rights of the innocent and defenseless?

Innocent and defenseless, maybe, but once again it is the right of those who live in America to be able to make that choice. Its a matter of being able to have control over yourself without the government telling you what you have to do
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Oh, really? That's all right then. :rofl

Since 9/11 our government in the UK has been passing some very draconian laws allowing it to lock people up with absolutely no evidence against them in the name of fighting terrorism. Do you think these new laws will be reversed anytime soon?

And what about in the USA?
Cancer has never been known to respond to band-aids. Terrorists do not respond to hugs and kisses. However, when the disease has been cured, treatment is no longer needed and will cease.

Therefore, in times of exceptional needs, exceptional measures are always taken. For many years, the government of the UK has been accused of treating the IRA terrorists much the same as the IRA terrorists have been treating the government of the UK. I see no reason why foreign terrorists should not enjoy the same attention as domestic terrorists.

Same thing in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom