Talk:The Captain's Hand/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "[[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)" to "[[The Twelve Colonies of Kobol"

2025-06-15T21:28:02Z

Text replacement - "[[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)" to "[[The Twelve Colonies of Kobol"

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 15 June 2025
Line 134:		Line 134:

	I removed the following entry from the article's "Notes" section:		I removed the following entry from the article's "Notes" section:
	: <font style="color: #00ff00;">[[Roslin]] references Shakespeare's ''Merchant of Venice'' when she asks [[Quorum of Twelve\|Delegate]] [[Sarah Porter]] if she wants her "pound of flesh". It's unclear if analogues of his work exist in the [[The Twelve Colonies ~~(RDM)~~\|Colonies]].</font>		: <font style="color: #00ff00;">[[Roslin]] references Shakespeare's ''Merchant of Venice'' when she asks [[Quorum of Twelve\|Delegate]] [[Sarah Porter]] if she wants her "pound of flesh". It's unclear if analogues of his work exist in the [[The Twelve Colonies of Kobol\|Colonies]].</font>

	I think that the phrase "pound of flesh" has become quite familiar in modern culture and literary circles, such that it really doesn't warrant significance in citing. It has been used in countless movies and TV episodes without citation (not that I think a phrase can be copyrighted to such an extent), and I haven't seen the writers of ''Law & Order'' state, "Yeah, we intentionally alluded to Shakespeare, and wanted the lawyer to give that impression that he was alluding to Shakespeare when he said it in court". Yes, I'm probably going to an extreme, but really, this is just a case of a scriptwriter putting this phrase into the script, and almost certainly has '''''nothing''''' to do with whether or not Shakespeare is familiar to The Colonies. This isn't the Klingons quoting ''Hamlet''. -- [[User:Hawke\|Hawke]] 21:45, 18 February 2006 (EST)		I think that the phrase "pound of flesh" has become quite familiar in modern culture and literary circles, such that it really doesn't warrant significance in citing. It has been used in countless movies and TV episodes without citation (not that I think a phrase can be copyrighted to such an extent), and I haven't seen the writers of ''Law & Order'' state, "Yeah, we intentionally alluded to Shakespeare, and wanted the lawyer to give that impression that he was alluding to Shakespeare when he said it in court". Yes, I'm probably going to an extreme, but really, this is just a case of a scriptwriter putting this phrase into the script, and almost certainly has '''''nothing''''' to do with whether or not Shakespeare is familiar to The Colonies. This isn't the Klingons quoting ''Hamlet''. -- [[User:Hawke\|Hawke]] 21:45, 18 February 2006 (EST)
Line 151:		Line 151:

	:''Hawke suggests:''		:''Hawke suggests:''
	The script for [[Laura Roslin]] references Shakespeare's ''Merchant of Venice'', when she asks [[Quorum of Twelve\|Delegate]] [[Sarah Porter]] if she wants her "pound of flesh". It's unclear as to if the writers are somehow placing Shakespeare's work into the story of [[The Twelve Colonies ~~(RDM)~~\|Colonies]], or if this is just a random "use of phrase" by an inspired scriptwriter.		The script for [[Laura Roslin]] references Shakespeare's ''Merchant of Venice'', when she asks [[Quorum of Twelve\|Delegate]] [[Sarah Porter]] if she wants her "pound of flesh". It's unclear as to if the writers are somehow placing Shakespeare's work into the story of [[The Twelve Colonies of Kobol\|Colonies]], or if this is just a random "use of phrase" by an inspired scriptwriter.

	:This seems verbose. Just stating that she's quoting shakespeare shouldn't imply any position on whether or not he exists in the BSG universe. How about simply stating this in notes:		:This seems verbose. Just stating that she's quoting shakespeare shouldn't imply any position on whether or not he exists in the BSG universe. How about simply stating this in notes:

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:57:48Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Show changes

Dogger55: /* "To Be, or Not... To Be" */

2011-07-04T02:08:38Z

"To Be, or Not... To Be"

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 4 July 2011
Line 174:		Line 174:
	I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]		I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]
	::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
			::*In another comment, you say "Also...pro-lifers don't believe that children are the property of their parents. That's simply a slander." Then you repeat the same slander here about those who believe in the freedom to choose. I could argue that you people believe that women are the property of government, since they shouldn't have control over their own bodies, but I don't feel my own position is so weak that I have to lie about yours. To call the writers' presentation of the issue "dishonest" is simply a case of projection, since you appear incapable of honestly assessing the issue yourself. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 22:08, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

	== Councillor -> Delegate ==		== Councillor -> Delegate ==

Dogger55: /* "Property"? */

2011-07-04T01:52:40Z

"Property"?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 4 July 2011
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
			:::*"The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it." Then where do you get off misrepresenting the Pro-Choice position? Pro-Choice supporters do not believe that children are property, and we don't believe that women are the property of the government subject to its control. And we don't believe the anti-abortion crowd is really "pro life" since they would let children suffer and die from lack of food and medical care once they're out of the womb. That's not pro life; that's pre-life. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 21:52, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

	*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)		*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Dogger55, it is not your place to edit or remove other people's comments just because you feel they are a misinterpretation. (Also, re-adding Dogger55's response in this edit.)

2011-07-03T22:32:05Z

Dogger55, it is not your place to edit or remove other people's comments just because you feel they are a misinterpretation. (Also, re-adding Dogger55's response in this edit.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 3 July 2011
Line 126:		Line 126:
	::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)		::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)		*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Line 171:		Line 172:
	Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.		Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.
	I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]		I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]
	::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Councillor -> Delegate ==		== Councillor -> Delegate ==

Dogger55: /* "To Be, or Not... To Be" */ Removed misrepresentation of pro-life beliefs

2011-07-03T16:58:16Z

"To Be, or Not... To Be": Removed misrepresentation of pro-life beliefs

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 3 July 2011
Line 171:		Line 171:
	Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.		Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.
	I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]		I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]
	::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents~~. Pro-choicers believe that~~.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Councillor -> Delegate ==		== Councillor -> Delegate ==

Dogger55: /* "Property"? */ added signature

2011-07-03T14:39:45Z

"Property"?: added signature

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 3 July 2011
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
	*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children.		*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

	== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==		== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==

Dogger55: /* "Property"? */

2011-07-03T14:38:59Z

"Property"?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 3 July 2011
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
			*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children.

	== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==		== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==

Dogger55: /* "Property"? */ Removed misrepresentation of Pro-Choice beliefs

2011-07-03T14:23:21Z

"Property"?: Removed misrepresentation of Pro-Choice beliefs

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 3 July 2011
Line 126:		Line 126:
	::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)		::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents~~. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that~~. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==		== "To Be, or Not... To Be" ==

Jmdoman: /* "To Be, or Not... To Be" */

2010-10-31T06:18:10Z

"To Be, or Not... To Be"

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 31 October 2010
Line 170:		Line 170:
	Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.		Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.
	I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]		I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]
	::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)		::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Councillor -> Delegate ==		== Councillor -> Delegate ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 4 July 2011
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
			:::*"The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it." Then where do you get off misrepresenting the Pro-Choice position? Pro-Choice supporters do not believe that children are property, and we don't believe that women are the property of the government subject to its control. And we don't believe the anti-abortion crowd is really "pro life" since they would let children suffer and die from lack of food and medical care once they're out of the womb. That's not pro life; that's pre-life. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 21:52, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

	*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)		*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 3 July 2011
Line 126:		Line 126:
	::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)		::I do not understand. Further, how could she be "property"?--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:13, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)		:::In theory, children are absolutely not "property" under united states law, which grants equal protection not only to all citizens ''of'' the United States, but to all ''persons'' ''within'' the United States. In practice, legal guardians have a wide range of authority over their charges. Of particular relevance to this episode, some jurisdictions require minors to notify their parents prior to an abortion. A friend of mine who sued for emancipation from her parents has told me that in her opinion, there's little practical distinction between the status of an legal minor and "property". I suspect it's a matter of perspective, really. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 19:40, 18 February 2006 (EST)
	:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		:::I believe the pro-abortion writers of this episode thought it was a good idea to slander religious people (for whom the Gemenese are an obvious stand-in) by this "property" line. For the record - NO ONE in the pro-life movement believes that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers are the ones that believe that. The Pro-life position is that no one - not the mother, the father, or the grandparents - has the right to aborttion, because abortion is the killing of a human being. The writers can disagree with the pro-life position, but they shouldn't misrepresent it.[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)		*In the [[w:Marriage#In_the_Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29\|Old Testament of the Bible]], women were treated as the property of their husbands and wives could be purchased from their fathers. This seems congruent with the Gemenese view regarding children. [[User:Dogger55\|Dogger55]] 10:39, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Line 171:		Line 172:
	Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.		Its hardly a non-sequitor ...I honestly believe the literal interpretation/double meaning of the phrase is the reason it was chosen, and used by the writers.
	I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]		I believe that Porter was meant to understand the double meaning as well, and thats why she was as angry as she was...not just because she didn't get her full wishes granted. Is it gross? of course it is. but by refrencing a "pound of flesh" in this context, it not only means that the Gemonese have forced a law outlawing abortion, but that enough blood has litterally and figurativly been spilt on this one issue, and that Rosalyn would not give another inch. I believe that since the entire point of the Abortion issue being raised in the series to look at the morality vs. immorality of a womans right to control her own body, vs. religious beliefs, and the "reality" of repopulating the Colonial fleet, you might as well look at the issue and not just play lipservice to the questions asked in the episode.I by no means am encouraging a flame war on abortion...as our own personal views don't really matter in realtion to the series writing...either way...I would hardly call the point "wacky"--[[User:Strato\|Strato]]
	::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)		::It's only gross because abortion is kinda gross. If that ''was'' the writer's intent, it's pretty much the only honest thing they did in the otherwise slanted and dishonest take on abortion (pro-lifer's don't believe that children are the "property" of their parents. Pro-choicers believe that.)[[User:Jmdoman\|Jmdoman]] 06:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Councillor -> Delegate ==		== Councillor -> Delegate ==