dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
On January 22, 1973, abortions became legal in the United States.
---dr.M.
---dr.M.
32nd Anniversary of Row v Wade
- Thread starter dr_mabeuse
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
And somewhere out there, there is a 32 yr old man who thanks god every day that our legal system is so slow.
Last edited by a moderator:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Damn! I thought to withdraw as this requires way too much time and I was doing good.
At the instant sperm invades ovum, there becomes more than sperm and ova.
argue that.
What is it? embryo, go on, file out all your 'scientific' terms as to what it is and is not, play games.
By definition, it is life. A living thing that begins to grow and multiply and ascend towards.....what?
Debate that in your fanciful evasions.
Within the body of a female, human life has begun.
Thas a fact, Jack...Fact. as in for real.
All the bullshit about a woman's reproductive rights and the right to control her body, ends when she opens her legs and a new lige begins. Deal with it.
It is not the religion nuts, as the effervescent Mabeuse proclaims, that is the core concern, it is the entire set of the values of civilization as we know it.
Does human life have value, or not?
If not, then the holocaust, a cleansing of racial prerogatives is perfectly logical as some races, or 'ethnic' groupings show undebatable advantages over others.
Italians sing, Jews do math. ( and they are hotter)
Does human life have value? Or not?
If, at the moment of conception, a human life is created; and if we claim to respect and revere and protect human life, then there is no debate.
The answer is clear.
I for one do not expect many to see the irrefutable logic as it applies to human values.
But if there is any one issue that will destroy western civilization it is this one. Either we protect human life or we do not. And if we do not, then look in the mirror and see Adolph staring back, he had no regard for human life either.
The real problem that will come to pass, when the Supreme Court reverses Roe V Wade, which they will, is how to prosecute the 30 million women for first degree pre meditated murder and what to charge the doctors and nurses with.
There is no compromise, no partisan party amelioration possible on this issue. Like the Holocaust, like Slavery, it is a wrong that need be righted.
And I am going back to writing and hope to ignore anything that anybody says...
amicus...always consistent and 'logical' "a guy is a guy wherever he may be...." old song, only Bullet may remember...
Ciao...amicus...
At the instant sperm invades ovum, there becomes more than sperm and ova.
argue that.
What is it? embryo, go on, file out all your 'scientific' terms as to what it is and is not, play games.
By definition, it is life. A living thing that begins to grow and multiply and ascend towards.....what?
Debate that in your fanciful evasions.
Within the body of a female, human life has begun.
Thas a fact, Jack...Fact. as in for real.
All the bullshit about a woman's reproductive rights and the right to control her body, ends when she opens her legs and a new lige begins. Deal with it.
It is not the religion nuts, as the effervescent Mabeuse proclaims, that is the core concern, it is the entire set of the values of civilization as we know it.
Does human life have value, or not?
If not, then the holocaust, a cleansing of racial prerogatives is perfectly logical as some races, or 'ethnic' groupings show undebatable advantages over others.
Italians sing, Jews do math. ( and they are hotter)
Does human life have value? Or not?
If, at the moment of conception, a human life is created; and if we claim to respect and revere and protect human life, then there is no debate.
The answer is clear.
I for one do not expect many to see the irrefutable logic as it applies to human values.
But if there is any one issue that will destroy western civilization it is this one. Either we protect human life or we do not. And if we do not, then look in the mirror and see Adolph staring back, he had no regard for human life either.
The real problem that will come to pass, when the Supreme Court reverses Roe V Wade, which they will, is how to prosecute the 30 million women for first degree pre meditated murder and what to charge the doctors and nurses with.
There is no compromise, no partisan party amelioration possible on this issue. Like the Holocaust, like Slavery, it is a wrong that need be righted.
And I am going back to writing and hope to ignore anything that anybody says...
amicus...always consistent and 'logical' "a guy is a guy wherever he may be...." old song, only Bullet may remember...
Ciao...amicus...
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
amicus said:
Do you really want to go over this ground again Me bucko?
I seem to remember a famous quote, one by a man you should respect, Name of George Patton. When asked by the Brits if he shouldn't fall back and regroup he replied "No, I don't like paying for the same real estate twice."
If this particular bit of moral ground is so important to you, suit up and enter the fray. If not, and I would suspect after our last encounter here, it isn't, go back to writing and save your troops for fights where your reasoned, Randian ideas have some legs.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,689
Once again, our 'friend' illustrates that little saw of mine, "logic doesn't care."
Anyhow, if life is so sacred, why do 2/3rds of fertilised human ova never come to term even under the most 'natural' of conditions.
Nature always limits the population of any species. We humans are the only species that can choose the methods by which this happens. And I like it. The methods nature uses are unpleasant.
Anyhow, if life is so sacred, why do 2/3rds of fertilised human ova never come to term even under the most 'natural' of conditions.
Nature always limits the population of any species. We humans are the only species that can choose the methods by which this happens. And I like it. The methods nature uses are unpleasant.
yui
A Different Scene
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Posts
- 5,351
amicus said:
This is a genuine question, please don't flame me.
I'm not debating the morality of abortion, but I am curious as to what you think the 30 million men who impregnated these 30 million women will be charged with? Accessory to murder? The culpability of the male is addressed, too, in your personal paradigm of justice, right?
Luck,
Yui
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
It's worth noting that Roe v Wade, the actual decision(text), is not the Bible. It has weaknesses and leaves many issues undecided.
Keep in mind too, that 'privacy' is an evolving concept, not exactly in the constitution as such; the judges have to do creative thinking to get at issues like contraception and abortion. So they won't be perfect and the decision is not writ in stone. (Indeed rights of due process, Miranda, etc. are not writ in stone as the Patriot Acts prove; they are going to be--and have been--adjusted.)
While I favor the human's right to decide about human life (including one that's 'within' a body), there's going to be some changes, in part because of the dissatisfaction of person's like amicus, who aren't rare (I'd guess maybe 30% of the US population.)
BUT Amicus shows no awareness that humans take human lives--both innocent and guilty [if the distinction makes any sense]--all the time, i.e., in the wars that amicus supports. Further, I don't recall any comment from him on the classic 'life of the mother' situation (where only one may be saved). The simplistic 'sanctity of life' [amicus and RC] position cannot avoid saying, 'it's a toss up,' or 'let nature take its course [RC position, usually]'.
In simplest terms, amicus, some of the core abortion scenarios are solvable in terms of a person's right to self defense (including using lethal force).
Amicus and his ilk have, in a way, a harder problem than the SC: they have to explain *who* it is they want to kill, without guilt, and why-- most of them maintain a fairly *long* list of who may be killed, while they are honoring Ayn Rand or the Blessed Christ.
Keep in mind too, that 'privacy' is an evolving concept, not exactly in the constitution as such; the judges have to do creative thinking to get at issues like contraception and abortion. So they won't be perfect and the decision is not writ in stone. (Indeed rights of due process, Miranda, etc. are not writ in stone as the Patriot Acts prove; they are going to be--and have been--adjusted.)
While I favor the human's right to decide about human life (including one that's 'within' a body), there's going to be some changes, in part because of the dissatisfaction of person's like amicus, who aren't rare (I'd guess maybe 30% of the US population.)
BUT Amicus shows no awareness that humans take human lives--both innocent and guilty [if the distinction makes any sense]--all the time, i.e., in the wars that amicus supports. Further, I don't recall any comment from him on the classic 'life of the mother' situation (where only one may be saved). The simplistic 'sanctity of life' [amicus and RC] position cannot avoid saying, 'it's a toss up,' or 'let nature take its course [RC position, usually]'.
In simplest terms, amicus, some of the core abortion scenarios are solvable in terms of a person's right to self defense (including using lethal force).
Amicus and his ilk have, in a way, a harder problem than the SC: they have to explain *who* it is they want to kill, without guilt, and why-- most of them maintain a fairly *long* list of who may be killed, while they are honoring Ayn Rand or the Blessed Christ.
Last edited:
Look the reality is this: the Pro Life people are just as stupid and selfish as the Pro Choice people.
The Pro-lifers fail to realize that life can be so bad as for it to have been better never to have been born. It's not really their fault because for them it is easier to imagine being blind from birth and understanding 'blue'.
The Pro-choicers think to birth or not to birth is a simple matter of choice and not an issue of the greatest responsibility.
While both of you are spending all your efforts arguing back and forth about it, all over the damned place kids are being neglected, abused, killed/maimed in wars, etc.
The only true answer to eliminating this as an issue is to making the world a place where no child comes into this world that is not wanted.
That means:
Pro-Choicers: Shut up and think about what you're doing. Stop trying to legitimize single parenting--sure it happens, but stop trying to make it a "good thing". Stop wanting to have your cake and eat it too by waiting until after biology says you should have a kid to have a kid. And stop thinking it's a choice: bringing a kid into the world is the single greatest hubris (and the easiest thing to do), with it you have the greatest responsibility there is.
Pro-lifers: shut up until there are no children in orphanages, and no children starving or being killed. Make the world a place where no one imagines what it is like to wish to never have been born. Stop insisting on popping out your own babies while exising babies wither and die.
But both of you would rather spend your time arguing about it.
---
OK, so now everybody can hate me. But, maybe you all will stop bickering between yourselves for a bit in the process
The Pro-lifers fail to realize that life can be so bad as for it to have been better never to have been born. It's not really their fault because for them it is easier to imagine being blind from birth and understanding 'blue'.
The Pro-choicers think to birth or not to birth is a simple matter of choice and not an issue of the greatest responsibility.
While both of you are spending all your efforts arguing back and forth about it, all over the damned place kids are being neglected, abused, killed/maimed in wars, etc.
The only true answer to eliminating this as an issue is to making the world a place where no child comes into this world that is not wanted.
That means:
Pro-Choicers: Shut up and think about what you're doing. Stop trying to legitimize single parenting--sure it happens, but stop trying to make it a "good thing". Stop wanting to have your cake and eat it too by waiting until after biology says you should have a kid to have a kid. And stop thinking it's a choice: bringing a kid into the world is the single greatest hubris (and the easiest thing to do), with it you have the greatest responsibility there is.
Pro-lifers: shut up until there are no children in orphanages, and no children starving or being killed. Make the world a place where no one imagines what it is like to wish to never have been born. Stop insisting on popping out your own babies while exising babies wither and die.
But both of you would rather spend your time arguing about it.
---
OK, so now everybody can hate me. But, maybe you all will stop bickering between yourselves for a bit in the process
