Society/Culture I support free speech, unless it offends me

[The Coup]

Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.

Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.

Its life on par with bacteria.

 

[Milkshaker]

Its life on par with bacteria.

What a sad outlook on a beautiful and amazing thing.

 

[telsor]

Its life on par with bacteria.

No, bacteria can look after itself.

The difference is that the embryo (or whatever it is at that stage) has the potential to become something much greater than what it is.

 

[The Coup]

What a sad outlook on a beautiful and amazing thing.

Is a couple of cells that might grow into a member of a species that has about 7 billion existing members.

Its bacteria at best, but bacteria serves a function.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.

Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.

Id agree with this on a basic level. The attempt to paint things differently is merely an attempt to free ones self from harder ethical questions. From an Australian perspective the latest termination period available is determined by that science and the medicine. We broadly accept abortion on more utilitarian grounds and i personally have no problem with that.

I know several people who view abortion as morally wrong, but support it none the less. They accept the deontological argument against abortion but concede it's necessity.

 

[telsor]

Id agree with this on a basic level. The attempt to paint things differently is merely an attempt to free ones self from harder ethical questions. From an Australian perspective the latest termination period available is determined by that science and the medicine.

It's determined by the date it's safe for the mother.

We broadly accept abortion on more utilitarian grounds and i personally have no problem with that.

I know several people who view abortion as morally wrong, but support it none the less. They accept the deontological argument against abortion but concede it's necessity.

I think it's wrong because I find it hard to distinguish between a foetus (which is a 'life' entirely dependent on another...a parasite of sorts, only special because of what it can become) and a baby (which fits the same description), and as I cannot countenance infanticide, I believe it follows that abortion must also be wrong.

That said, I also believe in people making their own choices, and as such, think that it is wrong for me to force my views upon others (usually...there are exceptions where the choices are very clear), so I respect other peoples right to make their own choice on the matter.

 

[medusala]

Rupert Murdoch (and a lot of Murdoch journalists including Bolt) love freedom of speech until it comes to reforming the law of defamation in Australia.

Comrade, freedom of speech has never been absolute. It has no primacy over property rights of which defamation is one. I doubt you will find too many Adam Smith sorts argue differently, with the caveat that the rich and powerful should not be able to use it as a weapon (ie Askin and his threats against papers, ditto Jimmy Saville vs Murdoch papers - Rupert as ever on the side of the angels. A thankless task)

BTW how many defamation cases did Bob Hawke win? How did Blewett manage to win his (and not get done for perjury later?)

Plenty of non Murdoch types in the below list. Last one particularly amusing.

http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2009/03/10-1024-2493.html

Neal Blewett: the former colourful Labor Health Minister owned a bong in the shape of a phallus, and successfully sued when a magazine said he was gay. Years later he came out and now lives with his gay lover in the Blue Mountains.

Nick Bolkus: sued Crikey in the Adelaide District Court and also won a settlement from Channel Seven in the late 1980s after Dennis Grant went on Tonight Live with Steve Vizard and said that Bolkus was involved in a "punch-up" at a post-budget drinks. Cabinet made a decision to fund Bolkus's action but the settlement was rumored to be about $40,000 plus costs so the taxpayer got their money back. Crikey eventually settled in 2002 for $25,000 with no apology required.

Jim Cairns: he was Gough Whitlam's disastrous Treasurer and his secretary Junie Morosi sued The National Times over an article alleging they were each involved in an improper sexual relationship. They split up in the late 1980s, Cairns went on to sell his self-published books at the Camberwell market, before finally admitting the affair. He died in 2003, eight days after his 89th birthday, althought he never ever paid the money back.

Arthur Calwell: the federal ALP leader in the 1960s sued The Sunday Review over an article that said Calwell was really a traditional conservative conducting a rearguard action against progressive socialist policies favoured by Whitlam.

Michael Danby: the Federal Labor member for Melbourne Ports successfully sued Channel 7, Sky News and Glenn Milne in 1998 for alleging he engaged in domestic violence. Will Houghton QC acted for Seven but never thought the matter would actually get to court.


Alphonse Gangitano: journo John Silvesterfrom The Age' told 3AW that the infamous standover man had "the brains of a flea and the genitalia to match". Alphonse sued but he was shot dead in his Templestowe home by his old mate Jason Moran before the matter could get to court.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Comrade, freedom of speech has never been absolute. It has no primacy over property rights of which defamation is one. I doubt you will find too many Adam Smith sorts argue differently, with the caveat that the rich and powerful should not be able to use it as a weapon (ie Askin and his threats against papers, ditto Jimmy Saville vs Murdoch papers - Rupert as ever on the side of the angels. A thankless task)

BTW how many defamation cases did Bob Hawke win? How did Blewett manage to win his (and not get done for perjury later?)

Plenty of non Murdoch types in the below list. Last one particularly amusing.

http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2009/03/10-1024-2493.html

Neal Blewett: the former colourful Labor Health Minister owned a bong in the shape of a phallus, and successfully sued when a magazine said he was gay. Years later he came out and now lives with his gay lover in the Blue Mountains.

Nick Bolkus: sued Crikey in the Adelaide District Court and also won a settlement from Channel Seven in the late 1980s after Dennis Grant went on Tonight Live with Steve Vizard and said that Bolkus was involved in a "punch-up" at a post-budget drinks. Cabinet made a decision to fund Bolkus's action but the settlement was rumored to be about $40,000 plus costs so the taxpayer got their money back. Crikey eventually settled in 2002 for $25,000 with no apology required.

Jim Cairns: he was Gough Whitlam's disastrous Treasurer and his secretary Junie Morosi sued The National Times over an article alleging they were each involved in an improper sexual relationship. They split up in the late 1980s, Cairns went on to sell his self-published books at the Camberwell market, before finally admitting the affair. He died in 2003, eight days after his 89th birthday, althought he never ever paid the money back.

Arthur Calwell: the federal ALP leader in the 1960s sued The Sunday Review over an article that said Calwell was really a traditional conservative conducting a rearguard action against progressive socialist policies favoured by Whitlam.

Michael Danby: the Federal Labor member for Melbourne Ports successfully sued Channel 7, Sky News and Glenn Milne in 1998 for alleging he engaged in domestic violence. Will Houghton QC acted for Seven but never thought the matter would actually get to court.


Alphonse Gangitano: journo John Silvesterfrom The Age' told 3AW that the infamous standover man had "the brains of a flea and the genitalia to match". Alphonse sued but he was shot dead in his Templestowe home by his old mate Jason Moran before the matter could get to court.

No argument from me on those particularly Hawkey who used it in a dodgey way. It would would be OK if the Murdoch knobs advocated for a limited freedom but they all talk in absolutes when it comes to freedom of speech and the pernicious March of political correctness

 

[medusala]

No argument from me on those particularly Hawkey who used it in a dodgey way. It would would be OK if the Murdoch knobs advocated for a limited freedom but they all talk in absolutes when it comes to freedom of speech and the pernicious March of political correctness

Didn't your favourite minx, Janet make reference to it not being absolute? IIRC she did in an article (paywall issues).

Also, am I correct in thinking the great man himself, despite the never ending stream of fraudulent accusations by the chattering flotsam and jetsam, has never sued for defamation?

Surely an object lesson in turning the other cheek.

#paragonofvirtue

 

[The Coup]

Free speech should definitely take primacy over property rights.

It shouldn't take primacy over personal safety though, and that's where people like bolt come undone. He incites racial hatred based on lies to split people into groups. Its divide and conquer shit used by the establishment against the proletariat.

Should be put in stocks in Fed Square so everyone can offer him some free speech of their own.