You do know he still committed adultery...
If he had proof she did it all he would have to do it report it to the MPs, and have her tried for adultery.
Did he report it? Did he try to do anything?
Did he go to the IG?
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
If he had proof she did it all he would have to do it report it to the MPs, and have her tried for adultery.
Did he report it? Did he try to do anything?
Did he go to the IG?
Abortion is a complicated issue for both sides of the aisle; men and women.
See, I'm pro-choice within reason, but my main issue is with how cavalier a lot of people are with it, as well as how men are actually shafted hard.
If a woman is raped and doesn't want to keep the baby? I agree that she should terminate if she wanted to. A man [is] raped [by a woman] and the attacker became pregnant as a result? He should get a deciding vote.
If a couple is unable to care for a child or do not want to be parents, and after discussing it in-depth they decide to terminate? I'm personally fine with that because they understand the gravity of what they're doing e.g. not allowing a human life to come to fruition, and they made the personal choice to go through with it.
I fully agree that if there's a medical reason why a fetus should be aborted, like it or the mother not surviving/coming to term, it should be done with consent.
Hell, I even feel empathy for the tiny, tiny percentage (like 0.00001%) of people who do use birth-control but it fails that have to make this terrible decision, too.
People need to understand the gravity of the decision they're making when deciding to abort or not. A human life won't exist.
However, a lot of women who go for abortions? The majority of the ones shrieking their heads off like chickens seeing a snake after this ruling? They're the fucking morons who think abortion is just a convenient method of birth-control over condoms and the Pill.
"Oh, I have an 'Oopsie Baby!'? One visit to the clinic and I'm free and clear to be used as another random man's cum-dumpster!"
They're what we like to call Cock Carousel Riders, since they pretty much act like unpaid prostitutes. And, sadly enough, this sort-of behavior starts in their late teens in this day and age.
"I've had twelve abortions since I was eighteen! I'm twenty-four now! I feel so empowered!"
Women do and should have autonomy of their bodies, but, again, they need to understand the gravity of abortion. These CC Riders do not or refuse to take personal accountability.
And, on the other side, you have men; what if the man wants the kid but she doesn't? Should she bring it to term, be compensated, and sign away rights so he can raise it on his own or with another partner? What about adoption?
What about those women who, by legal definition or by actuality, rape men by tampering with birth-control (holes in condoms) or actually directly sexually assault them e.g. when drunk, asleep, et cetera to get pregnant? Though, thankfully when the male birth-control jab is perfected, a lot of these women's plans would go up in smoke.
Depending on the situation, the mother either has the full right to take the chance of being a father away by termination or by forcing him to be a walking ATM for eighteen years, if he didn't want the child but she did.
sigh However, there's no clear-cut answer for either conundrum -- I find arguments on both sides a bit repugnant, especially those who believe that a woman's womb is basically property of the government (yes, there are people out there who believe this) or that they should be forced to bring a baby to term no matter the circumstances.
See, I'm pro-choice within reason, but my main issue is with how cavalier a lot of people are with it, as well as how men are actually shafted hard.
If a woman is raped and doesn't want to keep the baby? I agree that she should terminate if she wanted to. A man [is] raped [by a woman] and the attacker became pregnant as a result? He should get a deciding vote.
If a couple is unable to care for a child or do not want to be parents, and after discussing it in-depth they decide to terminate? I'm personally fine with that because they understand the gravity of what they're doing e.g. not allowing a human life to come to fruition, and they made the personal choice to go through with it.
I fully agree that if there's a medical reason why a fetus should be aborted, like it or the mother not surviving/coming to term, it should be done with consent.
Hell, I even feel empathy for the tiny, tiny percentage (like 0.00001%) of people who do use birth-control but it fails that have to make this terrible decision, too.
People need to understand the gravity of the decision they're making when deciding to abort or not. A human life won't exist.
However, a lot of women who go for abortions? The majority of the ones shrieking their heads off like chickens seeing a snake after this ruling? They're the fucking morons who think abortion is just a convenient method of birth-control over condoms and the Pill.
"Oh, I have an 'Oopsie Baby!'? One visit to the clinic and I'm free and clear to be used as another random man's cum-dumpster!"
They're what we like to call Cock Carousel Riders, since they pretty much act like unpaid prostitutes. And, sadly enough, this sort-of behavior starts in their late teens in this day and age.
"I've had twelve abortions since I was eighteen! I'm twenty-four now! I feel so empowered!"
Women do and should have autonomy of their bodies, but, again, they need to understand the gravity of abortion. These CC Riders do not or refuse to take personal accountability.
And, on the other side, you have men; what if the man wants the kid but she doesn't? Should she bring it to term, be compensated, and sign away rights so he can raise it on his own or with another partner? What about adoption?
What about those women who, by legal definition or by actuality, rape men by tampering with birth-control (holes in condoms) or actually directly sexually assault them e.g. when drunk, asleep, et cetera to get pregnant? Though, thankfully when the male birth-control jab is perfected, a lot of these women's plans would go up in smoke.
Depending on the situation, the mother either has the full right to take the chance of being a father away by termination or by forcing him to be a walking ATM for eighteen years, if he didn't want the child but she did.
sigh However, there's no clear-cut answer for either conundrum -- I find arguments on both sides a bit repugnant, especially those who believe that a woman's womb is basically property of the government (yes, there are people out there who believe this) or that they should be forced to bring a baby to term no matter the circumstances.
Last edited:
She wasn't a service member, so the USMJ didn't apply to her and it did to him, is my understanding of what the excuse was at the time of why she got away with it and he got the shaft.
Nevermind the guy she cheated on my buddy with never got any punishment, and she got all my buddy's benefits.
But nah, we are supposed to trust that the USMJ and JAG is any less corrupt, or open to corruption, than anything else that comes out of DC. We're supposed to not point out how the USMJ and JAG are both used for partisan and personal reasons at the whim of commanders.
Which is why we should not trust the USMJ or JAG officers to not fuck up abortion situations/laws in the military, now that they cannot fall back on RvW and the only laws relevant are state-level.
DarthOne
☦️
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
notthebee.com
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
When Ruth Ginsburg passed away in 2020, she was basically sainted by the left.
notthebee.com
When Ruth Ginsburg passed away in 2020, she was basically sainted by the left.
Now that three Trump-appointed justices provided the votes necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade? Not so much:
Roe v. Wade overturned: Liberal journalists rage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring
Liberal journalists blamed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade because she did not retire sooner.
WWW.FOXNEWS.COM
Roe v. Wade overturned: Liberal journalists rage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring
Liberal journalists blamed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade because she did not retire sooner.www.foxnews.com
Oh yes, they're mad indeed.
We've said it before and we'll say it again:
Among progressives, you either die a hero when a Democrat's in office, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain when a Republican's in control.
DarthOne
☦️
Undoing the court? Pelosi leads Democrats in effort to codify Roe v. Wade into law
justthenews.com
The SCOTUS Exposes the Lying, Lawless Left
www.americanthinker.com
Undoing the court? Pelosi leads Democrats in effort to codify Roe v. Wade into law
"Our summer of rage has just begun," vowed the Women's March, a left-wing advocacy organization. "We'll see you in the streets."
justthenews.com
The SCOTUS Exposes the Lying, Lawless Left
The SCOTUS Exposes the Lying, Lawless Left
The Left’s response to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in New York Rifle Association v. Bruen to strike down an unconstitutional New York gun law that restricted concealed carry was entirely predictable. The Left hates the Consti...
This is pretty much my out look with my wife feeling tje same way.
I feelblike a lot now other systems need to be changed as well to accommodate this as well.
Like the adoption system
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Most who are anti-abortion though would argue that's the wrong way to see it. In their eyes, it's not that a potential human life won't exist; you're just straight up murdering a child when you get an abortion.
It's the UCMJ, and IG and JAG are separate entities......
But I should note that the second the female married a service member she is a to fall under the UCMJ...
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
Last time someone tried to reform that they got executed in their own home.
I can see this too, but that also ties into the whole "when is it a child and not just a clump of cells" argument.
Either way, murder or just preventing it from coming to term, it's still not allowing a human life to come to be.
It's complicated.
I wonder what will happen when the supreme court stops tolerating this shit?
Highest court in the land, if they start purging people for not doing their jobs....
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
I don't think they can, actually, since they don't do sentencing.
Now, compromising prosecutorial discression so the corruptocrat DAs can be pinned to the wall if any law enforcement in the jurisdiction is willing to make the arrest, and revising/removing Qualified Immunity so the law enforcement corruptocrats have their ass on the line... maybe. Depends on their control over judicial proceedure.
I actually don't think it's all that complicated. A human life already exists, and unjustly killing a human life is wrong and evil and should be illegal. No matter the location of that human life.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
The problem is that the solution to this is frighteningly simple, that is, either they are humans and we don't kill them, thus not opening any Pandora's box and instead focusing on improving medicine. Or we don't, and then we start asking ourselves where the line is to eventually find out that there isn't one.
It's just that people make life unnecessarily complicated for themselves and others every time in these situations instead of saying Yes Yes, No No.
We like to say that there is no black and white but only shades of gray. And I say, that's bullshit. There is nothing in gray, and it's this kind of thinking that causes so many problems. Instead, we should look at black and white not as extremes in which only gray is true, but as the beginning and end of the colors of life in which gray is one of many colors along with red, yellow, and so on. That is, was, and will be the correct answer, but too many people like to complicate things to be able to bend the rules and feel blameless.
Or at least that's how I see it. And this dispute is one of those where it's either that or the other. No compromise will work for long because such two conflicting worldviews will not long endure a state in which they do not eventually dominate the other. It will be either red or green. For example.
In principle, yes. Those clusters of cell would develop into a human life if everything goes to plan, and destroying them would be stopping a human from coming into being.
However, at that point it's still, technically, a cluster of cells. A blueprint. It's not a person but will develop into one. That's the distinction.
When it goes from being a cluster of cells to a person is the point of contention. Is it when neural activity first starts in its few brain cells? When its heart starts beating? When it has a chance of surviving on its own? When it has most of its organs in place, even if they're not fully-formed?
Either way, even if it's viewed at just destroying a clump of cells or killing a person, the result is the same: it stops a person from coming into existence. It should never be taken lightly, regardless of why and if you're pro-life or pro-choice, and no matter what the parents' choices end up being (keep, abort, adopt., et cetera).
It's a terrible, serious choice.
That's the gravity of the situation people tend to overlook, ignore, or just don't understand -- especially dumb women who can't or won't keep their legs closed without using a fucking condom or the Pill, and thinking it's just another form of birth-control on those levels.
Sobek
Disgusting Scalie
I have noticed that many pro-choice people have completly abandoned the "is the fetus a human" argument. They are not even trying. It's just "my body my choice" and that's it. When you press them for limits they just make up more and more ludicrous scenarios to support a complete lack of any barrier to abortion, to the point I had some degenerate claim we need it so 13yo girls who vet pregnant at school can get rid of it without their parents knowing.