Science > Abortion > The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
16 Mar 2007 05:36:11 PM |
| Object: |
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
.... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
....A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
....Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Read the whole thing.
Speaking for myself, I was not an anti-abortionist until after I read
the decision of Roe v. Wade. It was in fact the very first legal
decision we read: it was passed out during orientation in Law School.
It was also the poorest bit of legal reasoning of all the cases I read
in all three years of Law School: it quotes no authority, no
precedent, gives no guidelines to distinguish the case under
considerations from parallel cases.
It was not until I saw a picture of my firstborn in the womb that I
became committed emotionally to antiabortion. The doctor advised us to
abort Orville. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to kill
my son, whom I am honor bound to love and protect, washed the scales
from my eyes.
I was also raised to believe in the axioms of the sexual revolution.
It was merely part of the atmosphere of the age: everyone from Robert
Heinlein to Ayn Rand told me that sex was recreation, not
reproduction. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to
fornicate, to cheat on my wife before I even had a wife, when honor
demands self-control, began to offend my cold Vulcan heart. Why were
all of them cheering for the lack of self-command? Why, suddenly, was
self-discipline, trustworthiness, purity, honor, and goodness to be
mocked? Why was virginity shameful and harlotry admirable? Would
Epictetus or Seneca or Cicero or Marcus Aurelius have said, "Well, if
your emotion is stronger than your reason, indulge! Wallow like a
swine in heat with a sow! You need no live like an honest man.
Surrender your brain to your loins, and act without regard to
consequences."
It also began to offend my ferocious poet's heart. Where was the
romance, the glamour, the allure? The Sexual Revolution made sex
boring, robbed it of meaning, robbed life of its adventure. Why are so
many romance novels set in the years long before this revolution?
Because the mystique was still alive.
As far as the sexual revolt goes, count me as loyal to the ancient
regime.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 01:24:59 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 11:45:40 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2007 11:24:59 -0700, wrote:
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
Read your Bible - men have a God-given right to have sex with their
property. And to have the issue of that sex aborted if they see fit.
Women have the right to do what men tell them to do.
The ONLY prohibition of rape in the Bible is as a property tort - you
can't rape the property of another man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
18 Mar 2007 07:57:13 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 2:24 pm, wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
applauding those who kill sub-person human embryos
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1153489662.014861.278290%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_
by Mark Fuhrman
http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Witness-Untold-Story-Schiavos/dp/0060853379/ref=sr_1_4/002-5875444-0041604?
2006 _Fighting for Dear Life: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo and
What It Means for All of Us_
by David C. Gibbs and Bob DeMoss
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Dear-Life-Untold-Schiavo/dp/076420243X/ref=sr_1_1/002-5875444-0041604?
2005 _Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman_
by Diana Lynne
http://www.amazon.com/Terris-Story-Court-Ordered-Death-American/dp/1581824882/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-5875444-0041604?
was the killing of Dylan Walborn via starvation moral? immoral?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166540626.099512.85610%4080g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
18 Mar 2007 08:49:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
sparta...@my-deja.com wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
18 Mar 2007 09:21:20 PM |
|
|
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
18 Mar 2007 11:47:29 PM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: 757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002 |
20 Mar 2007 05:45:26 PM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote in "Re:
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine":
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
Uh huh.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-2002.htm
In 2002, an estimated 757,000 pregnancies among
teenagers 15-19 years resulted in 425,000 live
births, 215,000 induced abortions, and 117,000 fetal
losses.
Do you consider a gestating human embryo:
human?
life?
human life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002 |
20 Mar 2007 10:30:55 PM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote in "Re:
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine":
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
Uh huh.
When reality and ideology conflict, it is the ideology which must
give way.
Cope.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002 |
21 Mar 2007 09:17:40 PM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote in "Re:
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine":
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
Uh huh.
When reality and ideology conflict, it is the ideology which must
give way.
Cope.
I'll try.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002 |
21 Mar 2007 10:44:07 PM |
|
|
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote in "Re:
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine":
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
Uh huh.
When reality and ideology conflict, it is the ideology which must
give way.
Cope.
I'll try.
Try harder.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002 |
22 Mar 2007 06:56:21 AM |
|
|
On Mar 21, 11:44 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote in "Re:
The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine":
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
Uh huh.
When reality and ideology conflict, it is the ideology which must
give way.
Cope.
I'll try.
Try harder.
Do you approve of this method of coping?:
having those who disagree with me tossed into prison.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 02:40:29 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 12:47 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, wrote:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction;
Demonstrating once again the spiritual/emotional retardation of anti-
choicers. We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they
can't distinguish life from mere metabolism. Now we see that they
can't tell the difference between copulation and sex. Heck, rape is
the same thing as sex to them.
"We previously saw during the Terri Schiavo fiasco that they can't
distinguish life from mere metabolism."
Is a growing human embryo:
"life"?
"mere metabolism"?
It's part of a woman, who is incontravertibly "life".
Is it possible for "a woman" to have:
a penis?
two brains?
two hearts?
two different blood types?
If she's pregnant, yes.
--
Ray Fischer
"Your talking way over our heads, Fischer.. And speaking for the Lord,
we don't like it."
PDW
PDW's groups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metaphysassasin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/timecentral
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tymewarp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPFFC
http://groups.google.com/group/meta-assasin?hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 06:41:06 PM |
|
|
I understand your metaphor, but it seems better to tell people actually what
is happening in terms of the current practices; e.g. shouldn't we say in
utero humans are being executed and then sent to warehouses to sell to stem
cell research corporations where they are placed into blenders?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sara" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
22 Mar 2007 07:45:18 AM |
|
|
On 16 Mar, 22:36, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
...A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
...Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Read the whole thing.
Speaking for myself, I was not an anti-abortionist until after I read
the decision of Roe v. Wade. It was in fact the very first legal
decision we read: it was passed out during orientation in Law School.
It was also the poorest bit of legal reasoning of all the cases I read
in all three years of Law School: it quotes no authority, no
precedent, gives no guidelines to distinguish the case under
considerations from parallel cases.
It was not until I saw a picture of my firstborn in the womb that I
became committed emotionally to antiabortion. The doctor advised us to
abort Orville. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to kill
my son, whom I am honor bound to love and protect, washed the scales
from my eyes.
I was also raised to believe in the axioms of the sexual revolution.
It was merely part of the atmosphere of the age: everyone from Robert
Heinlein to Ayn Rand told me that sex was recreation, not
reproduction. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to
fornicate, to cheat on my wife before I even had a wife, when honor
demands self-control, began to offend my cold Vulcan heart. Why were
all of them cheering for the lack of self-command? Why, suddenly, was
self-discipline, trustworthiness, purity, honor, and goodness to be
mocked? Why was virginity shameful and harlotry admirable? Would
Epictetus or Seneca or Cicero or Marcus Aurelius have said, "Well, if
your emotion is stronger than your reason, indulge! Wallow like a
swine in heat with a sow! You need no live like an honest man.
Surrender your brain to your loins, and act without regard to
consequences."
It also began to offend my ferocious poet's heart. Where was the
romance, the glamour, the allure? The Sexual Revolution made sex
boring, robbed it of meaning, robbed life of its adventure. Why are so
many romance novels set in the years long before this revolution?
Because the mystique was still alive.
As far as the sexual revolt goes, count me as loyal to the ancient
regime.
'757,000 girls aged 15-19 had male organ during 2002!'
must be some mistake, thats would make it a FEMALE ORGAN
not a male one. Hows about a line,
'757 boys aged 15-19 had female organ during 2002!'
would that mean more young men retain their virginities
than in previous years, or that hes actually woman?
and what has this got to do with his thread?
sara
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 05:50:27 AM |
|
|
On 16 Mar, 23:36, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
...A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
...Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Read the whole thing.
Speaking for myself, I was not an anti-abortionist until after I read
the decision of Roe v. Wade. It was in fact the very first legal
decision we read: it was passed out during orientation in Law School.
It was also the poorest bit of legal reasoning of all the cases I read
in all three years of Law School: it quotes no authority, no
precedent, gives no guidelines to distinguish the case under
considerations from parallel cases.
It was not until I saw a picture of my firstborn in the womb that I
became committed emotionally to antiabortion. The doctor advised us to
abort Orville. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to kill
my son, whom I am honor bound to love and protect, washed the scales
from my eyes.
I was also raised to believe in the axioms of the sexual revolution.
It was merely part of the atmosphere of the age: everyone from Robert
Heinlein to Ayn Rand told me that sex was recreation, not
reproduction. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to
fornicate, to cheat on my wife before I even had a wife, when honor
demands self-control, began to offend my cold Vulcan heart. Why were
all of them cheering for the lack of self-command? Why, suddenly, was
self-discipline, trustworthiness, purity, honor, and goodness to be
mocked? Why was virginity shameful and harlotry admirable? Would
Epictetus or Seneca or Cicero or Marcus Aurelius have said, "Well, if
your emotion is stronger than your reason, indulge! Wallow like a
swine in heat with a sow! You need no live like an honest man.
Surrender your brain to your loins, and act without regard to
consequences."
It also began to offend my ferocious poet's heart. Where was the
romance, the glamour, the allure? The Sexual Revolution made sex
boring, robbed it of meaning, robbed life of its adventure. Why are so
many romance novels set in the years long before this revolution?
Because the mystique was still alive.
As far as the sexual revolt goes, count me as loyal to the ancient
regime.
Christians have never had any trouble with baby killing. Through the
long history of the church babies and grown up babies have been killed
with church sanction. Heretics, members of other cultures, enemies of
the state, collaterally damaged babies in sanctioned wars, sects,
jews, slaves and so on, have all been killed with church authorization
and even inspiration. That this included many women, none of whom I
am sure were checked to see if they were pregnant with the innocent
foetus, is a truth that christians forget for their own purposes.
And this was all above board out in the open killing.
It does not speak of all the babies created adn killed in silence by
the church.
Why not be honest:
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: The Religious Right Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 08:52:36 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 6:50 am, "Sammybaby" <roastfreest...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 16 Mar, 23:36, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
...A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
...Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Read the whole thing.
Speaking for myself, I was not an anti-abortionist until after I read
the decision of Roe v. Wade. It was in fact the very first legal
decision we read: it was passed out during orientation in Law School.
It was also the poorest bit of legal reasoning of all the cases I read
in all three years of Law School: it quotes no authority, no
precedent, gives no guidelines to distinguish the case under
considerations from parallel cases.
It was not until I saw a picture of my firstborn in the womb that I
became committed emotionally to antiabortion. The doctor advised us to
abort Orville. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to kill
my son, whom I am honor bound to love and protect, washed the scales
from my eyes.
I was also raised to believe in the axioms of the sexual revolution.
It was merely part of the atmosphere of the age: everyone from Robert
Heinlein to Ayn Rand told me that sex was recreation, not
reproduction. Seeing that these people were trying to get me to
fornicate, to cheat on my wife before I even had a wife, when honor
demands self-control, began to offend my cold Vulcan heart. Why were
all of them cheering for the lack of self-command? Why, suddenly, was
self-discipline, trustworthiness, purity, honor, and goodness to be
mocked? Why was virginity shameful and harlotry admirable? Would
Epictetus or Seneca or Cicero or Marcus Aurelius have said, "Well, if
your emotion is stronger than your reason, indulge! Wallow like a
swine in heat with a sow! You need no live like an honest man.
Surrender your brain to your loins, and act without regard to
consequences."
It also began to offend my ferocious poet's heart. Where was the
romance, the glamour, the allure? The Sexual Revolution made sex
boring, robbed it of meaning, robbed life of its adventure. Why are so
many romance novels set in the years long before this revolution?
Because the mystique was still alive.
As far as the sexual revolt goes, count me as loyal to the ancient
regime.
Christians have never had any trouble with baby killing. Through the
long history of the church babies and grown up babies have been killed
with church sanction. Heretics, members of other cultures, enemies of
the state, collaterally damaged babies in sanctioned wars, sects,
jews, slaves and so on, have all been killed with church authorization
and even inspiration. That this included many women, none of whom I
am sure were checked to see if they were pregnant with the innocent
foetus, is a truth that christians forget for their own purposes.
And this was all above board out in the open killing.
It does not speak of all the babies created adn killed in silence by
the church.
Why not be honest:
It's still going on today. Evangelical Christians have been the
main and most loyal support group for George Bush and his many
wars.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
19 Mar 2007 05:28:05 AM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 10:36 pm, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
From the pen of the highly esteemed Mr. Barbieri:
... What is certain is that the "sexual revolution" begins with a
complete falsification of the nature and purpose of sexual activity.
Are you god to determine the "purpose" of a thing?
The mere mechanics of sexual activity, of course, point to
reproduction; and its emotional collateral points to life as a couple.
However, the "sexual revolution" is based on a number of assumptions
that are incompatible with them. Sex, it assumes, is a human need
which must not be suppressed or denied. The important thing is not who
to have it with, or for what purpose, but to have it....
Behavioural characteristics have evolved by accident, there is no
purpose here.
Benobo ***** all day long - it has nothing to do with reproduction.
...A woman who places her sense of self-worth in her sexual
fulfillment cannot but regard any restriction in the danger-free,
responsibility-free condition of sex as a direct threat, not just to
her living standards, but to her self-worth....
Purile opinion!
...Abortion is the place where this appalling pack of lies meets
reality....
Abortion is the place where potentially unwanted babies can be
avoided.
It's *****-heads like you that discourage contraception too.
Embryos are not "babies". Are you also guilty of a mis-direction of
purpose when you last had a wank?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
16 Mar 2007 10:09:40 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts hate abortion solely because it allows women to
have sex without suffering. It's the same reason they hate
contraception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 06:42:49 PM |
|
|
In news:45fb5bf4$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
You are anti-sex because you are for exterminating any sex in utero.
hate abortion
But, you don't.
Why?
Why do you love abortion?
solely because it allows women to
have sex without suffering.
Again, ignorance is failing you.
It's the same reason they hate
contraception.
A drug pusher's line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 07:10:01 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
When was the last time you had sex, pervert? We all know that you're
a ***** loser who doesn't have a job, can't get a job, and can't get
a woman to talk to you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 07:18:14 PM |
|
|
In news:45fc8359$0$14079$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
When was the last time you had sex, pervert?
Last time?
We all know that you're a ***** loser who doesn't have a job, can't get a
job, and can't get
a woman to talk to you.
You know that I am not pro-choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 08:01:21 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
When was the last time you had sex, pervert?
Last time?
Idiot.
We all know that you're a ***** loser who doesn't have a job, can't get a
job, and can't get
a woman to talk to you.
You know that I am not pro-choice?
You're an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 08:30:01 PM |
|
|
In news:45fc8f61$0$14143$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
When was the last time you had sex, pervert?
Last time?
Idiot.
Missed.
We all know that you're a ***** loser who doesn't have a job,
can't get a job, and can't get
a woman to talk to you.
You know that I am not pro-choice?
You're an idiot.
Au contraire.
It is you who exposes himself as a pro-choicer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 08:54:48 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45fc8f61$0$14143$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts
That would be you.
When was the last time you had sex, pervert?
Last time?
Idiot.
Missed.
You're still an idiot.
We all know that you're a ***** loser who doesn't have a job,
can't get a job, and can't get
a woman to talk to you.
You know that I am not pro-choice?
You're an idiot.
Au contraire.
No, you really are an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 01:51:21 AM |
|
|
Is that analogous to women hating rapists?
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message news:45fb5bf4$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts hate abortion solely because it allows women to
have sex without suffering. It's the same reason they hate
contraception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 05:44:52 AM |
|
|
On 17 Mar, 07:51, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is that analogous to women hating rapists?
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in messagenews:45fb5bf4$0$14130$=
742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts hate abortion solely because it allows women to
have sex without suffering. It's the same reason they hate
contraception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
No. Clearly. Nice try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 11:51:42 AM |
|
|
Giving birth is not suffering, it is just an act of nature.
Sex had no meaning without procreation.
Abortion is abuse of SEX!
"Sammybaby" <roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174128292.161369.297290@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 17 Mar, 07:51, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is that analogous to women hating rapists?
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in
messagenews:45fb5bf4$0$14130$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/77878.html
The Sexual Revolution, or, sending babies to the Guillotine
The anti-sex perverts hate abortion solely because it allows women to
have sex without suffering. It's the same reason they hate
contraception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net- Dölj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
No. Clearly. Nice try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 01:17:38 PM |
|
|
Mettas Mother <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Giving birth is not suffering, it is just an act of nature.
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information at http://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 02:19:09 PM |
|
|
these deaths are results of human females being unfit due to laziness. Women nowadays claim
laziness as an human right. Laziness leads to unfitness and that leads to death in pregnancy.
Women should start doing more home chores and be more fit.
Besides women should not delay pregnancy and should be married as early as possible so they are more
healthy during pregnancy. And above all sexual intercourse should only be administered for
procreational rather than recreational purposes.
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message news:45fc30c2$0$14093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Mettas Mother <Mettas_Mother1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Giving birth is not suffering, it is just an act of nature.
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information at http://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: The Sexual Revolution Is Sending Babies To The Guillotine |
17 Mar 2007 03:03:21 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
these deaths are results of human females being unfit due to laziness. Women nowadays claim
laziness as an human right. Laziness leads to unfitness and that leads to death in pregnancy.
Women should start doing more home chores and be more fit.
Besides women should not delay pregnancy and should be married as early as possible so they are more
healthy during pregnancy. And above all sexual intercourse should only be administered for
procreational rather than recreational purposes.
...Boy, ain't you just the progressive woman lover, Mother.
PDW
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in messagenews:45fc30c2$0$14093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Mettas Mother <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Giving birth is not suffering, it is just an act of nature.
STUDY REPORTS RISE IN CHILDBIRTH DEATHS
San Jose Mercury News (SJ) - Tuesday, June 11, 1996
By: New York Times
UNITED NATIONS In the first comprehensive survey in a decade to look at
maternal deaths worldwide, UNICEF reported Monday that about 585,000 women die
each year during pregnancy and childbirth, many needlessly.
Millions more, perhaps as many as 18 million women, suffer debilitating
illnesses or injuries that often disable them.
The figures are nearly one-fifth higher than previous estimates of about
500,000 deaths, according to the report by UNICEF, the United Nations Childrens
Fund, which compiled the new data with the World Health Organization and Johns
Hopkins University.
Much of the tragedy is preventable, the study says.
"For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill, or the very old,
or the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives," says the
report, the Progress of Nations 1996.
Data from the report indicate that one in 13 women in sub-Saharan Africa
and one in 35 in South Asia dies of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth,
according to UNICEF officials, compared with one in 3,200 in Europe, one in
3,300 in the United States, and one in 7,300 in Canada.
The survey faults the shortage of obstetric care in many nations. It calls
for the proper medical training of more midwives who would be better qualified
than traditional birth attendants to assist mothers before, during and after
delivery.
About 75,000 women die annually of botched abortions and another 75,000 of
brain and kidney damage in eclampsia, a disorder that can cause high blood
pressure and convulsions late in pregnancy. At least 100,000 die of blood
poisoning and 40,000 of obstructed labor.
The report on maternal risks, prepared under UNICEF's director, Carol
Bellamy, a former New York City Council president and director of the Peace
Corps who took over the agency last year, is notably stronger in its language
and imagery than many U.N. publications.
The new figures produced in the UNICEF report raised some questions among
experts, who say that getting accurate information on maternal mortality is
notoriously difficult. At Harvard University, Lincoln Chen, professor of
international health and head of the Center for Population and Development
Studies, said that the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the
previously accepted figure, and 585,000 or 600,000 may fall within a margin of
error, since all such numbers were "insecure."
More information athttp://www.unicef.org/pon96/contents.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
