Really Interesting Case On Bill Oreilly

[3RA1N1AC]

remember that time Bill O'Reilly got Ludacris kicked off of a Pepsi ad campaign, and then Ludacris shot back with accusations that O'Reilly was picking on him because he's a racial minority? CLASSIC. i'm sure that if this woman were of the blue-blooded upper crust variety rather than looking like "queen of the trailer park," or if she were somebody like Pat Buchanan, O'Reilly would still be all over it like the proverbial hobo on a ham sandwich.

or maybe not.

if you look at some of the other stories currently on the front page of BillOReilly.com, you might get the impression that he tends mainly to go after people of certain ideologies and ethni... errr... i mean, "cultural backgrounds," etc. quelle surprise. you might even think he's gone to war against certain ethni... oops... cultures and heritages.

Thur. 3/11: Reebok defends deal with "gangsta" rapper 50 Cent -- Bill vows to throw out his Reeboks. Plus -- the U.S. House of Representatives cracks down on Howard Stern and "shock jocks" with powerful new legislation.

Wed. 3/10: The Culture War -- Bill exposes the secular agenda of The New York Times and columnist Frank Rich. Premium Members: This is an all-time classic Radio Factor program -- check it out!

maybe i just mistakenly get this impression because the phrase "Culture War" is plastered all over the site.

[Busyman]

She actually broke no laws.
If a jury convicts, it's based purely on emotion.

While she is an asshole, it was elective surgery that carries a mortal risk.

I these grounds the state's case holds no water.

The father needs to just put a foot in her ass.

btw, if I was the state, I would sic child welfare on her just to check up on her every once in awhile (more often than normal).

[muchspl2]

knew she was cracked out

Now, there's new information. Prosecutors say the surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in her system.

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/communit...sp#20040316-002

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by muchspl2@17 March 2004 - 02:11
knew she was cracked out

Now, there's new information. Prosecutors say the surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in her system.

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/communit...sp#20040316-002

Yer, she did look a bit of a mess but i withheld my judgement, know however i can say she is a crack fiend.

[shn]

Something not brought into this world yet really does not have a choice. While being in "her" body in all actuality she should be able to do what she wants...........crack whore or Miss America, it really does not matter. It's her choice.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by shn@19 March 2004 - 23:06
Something not brought into this world yet really does not have a choice. While being in "her" body in all actuality she should be able to do what she wants...........crack whore or Miss America, it really does not matter. It's her choice.

How is that "something" not brought into the World yet.

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.

Is your position that 30 seconds after you leave your mothers body you have human rights, but 30 seconds before you leave it you do not. On what basis would that be.

[ilw]

The baby (before birth) is physically part of the mother, both have rights, but you can't really decide who's rights take precedence. Once the baby has left the mother they are two separate entities and at that point what affects one does not necessarily affect the other. The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ilw@21 March 2004 - 01:07
The baby (before birth) is physically part of the mother, both have rights, but you can't really decide who's rights take precedence. Once the baby has left the mother they are two separate entities and at that point what affects one does not necessarily affect the other. The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference.

You say "both have rights", as such you identify them as seperate beings, "both" indicating two people.

You say "both have rights", giving the unborn baby human rights.

You say "both have rights, but you can't really decide who's rights take precedence", giving the baby equal rights to the mother.

I agree with you.

You say "The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference." I don't see how, given what we have already agreed.

[shn]

Originally posted by J'Pol@20 March 2004 - 15:55

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.

I would say a lot of "things" on this earth are indeed absurd as they are quite offensive.

And it's actually quite interesting that people like you can rant, rave, and even blow up a clinic or two or assasinate a few abortion doctors and still think your claims have merit. Yeah, I know I actually just stereotyped you, but you stereotyped me as well.

Just because I call the baby a "something" and not by it's species (human-being) does not mean I do not have regard for "it" or think that "it" should not have rights. I do however think the rights of the mother should supercede that of an unborn infant. After all, the mother is the creator of that child (in part) and therefore should be able to exercise her explicit consent wether she wants to give birth to it or not.

If "something" does not have a "name" then it's just something is it not?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by shn+21 March 2004 - 20:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 21 March 2004 - 20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@20 March 2004 - 15:55

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.

I would say a lot of "things" on this earth are indeed absurd as they are quite offensive.

And it&#39;s actually quite interesting that people like you can rant, rave, and even blow up a clinic or two or assasinate a few abortion doctors and still think your claims have merit. Yeah, I know I actually just stereotyped you, but you stereotyped me as well.

Just because I call the baby a "something" and not by it&#39;s species (human-being) does not mean I do not have regard for "it" or think that "it" should not have rights. I do however think the rights of the mother should supercede that of an unborn infant. After all, the mother is the creator of that child (in part) and therefore should be able to exercise her explicit consent wether she wants to give birth to it or not.

If "something" does not have a "name" then it&#39;s just something is it not? [/b][/quote]
.....and don&#39;t forget unknown gender. You cannot refer to it as a he or she.

Many things are cut and dry and this one of them. For the mother to be liable, she would have to proactively do something to endanger the baby.

The doctors could have put her to sleep and gave the Cesarian anyway albeit with a following lawsuit.