| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Rev. Donald Spitz" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 09:57:15 AM |
| Object: |
NOW's faces of death |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C5981A.1BE7E0C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert =
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the =
Line."=20
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of =
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," =
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result =
in unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.=20
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes =
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point =
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights =
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.=20
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when =
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its =
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.=20
And what about those four women?=20
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to =
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?=20
Coincidentally, 1929 and 1940 are key years in the discussion of =
abortion-related deaths. It was in 1929 that penicillin was discovered =
and 1940 when antibiotics were first used on humans. Pro-aborts admit, =
"[T]he introduction of antibiotics ... permitted more effective =
treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal =
abortion," which is why the number of reported deaths from illegal =
abortions plummeted from 2,700 in 1930 to 193 in 1965.=20
So Barbara Boxer was fictionalizing when she recently told the =
Associated Press that illegal abortions would mean, "[A] minimum of =
5,000 women a year will die."=20
The third of NOW's four faces of death, Becky Bell, died in 1988 - after =
abortion was legal. Pro-aborts championed Becky because she was 17 when =
she died of "septic abortion with pneumonia," according to the coroner, =
and Becky's home state of Indiana had recently passed a parental consent =
law. (Even so, minors may always obtain legal abortions via judicial =
bypass.)=20
But the medical examiner, John Pless, later clarified, "I cannot prove =
she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a =
spontaneous abortion" [miscarriage]. Becky's best friend said she had =
miscarried.=20
Five specialists evaluated the report, which stated there was no uterine =
infection or marks of abortion instruments in the birth canal or at the =
cervix.=20
It turned out Becky had been promiscuous since age 15 and was a known =
drug user. Her parents placed her in drug rehab earlier in 1988 for =
several weeks. The weekend before Becky died, she was, according to the =
coroner's report, "reportedly at a party where various drugs were being =
used [cocaine, 'speed,' and LSD] ... and later claimed that someone had =
put 'speed' in her drink."=20
The type of bacteria causing Becky's fast and deadly form of pneumonia =
did not originate in her reproductive system, but was consistent with =
that found in aspirated vomit. The specialists unanimously concurred =
that Becky died from pneumonia due to vomit inhalation.=20
When the coroner's report was made public, Becky's parents, who had been =
traversing the country with pro-aborts decrying parental notification =
laws, disappeared into the woodwork and haven't been heard from since. =
Pro-aborts know the truth, and yet almost 20 years later still promote =
the lie.=20
NOW's fourth face of abortion is Rosie Jimenez. Rosie also died after =
abortion was legal, in 1977. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde =
Amendment, which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Yet =
Rosie died with a $700 scholarship check in her pocket, and she was the =
single mother of a 5-year-old. So why isn't Rosie herself held =
responsible for an apparent pattern of reckless choices? And if the =
multi-million dollar abortion industry truly cares about women's lives, =
why doesn't it extend "charity" every so often?=20
At any rate, NOW's latter two examples make the point that legalized =
abortion does not stop illegal abortions. In fact, according to Planned =
Parenthood's research arm the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "The legal =
status of abortion does not appear to affect levels of abortion in a =
population in a straightforward way.=20
Are you sure you want to go there, NOW?=20
And what about the faces of death due to legal abortions? There are four =
timely faces NOW could showcase - four who have died just since 2003 =
from legal RU-486 abortions.=20
But abortion champions don't want to spotlight women who have died from =
legal abortions. That's because today's abortion champions are today's =
abortion profiteers. To make abortion illegal again would break up their =
monopoly.=20
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one =
as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, =
President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive =
Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one =
of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years.=20
--=20
=20
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell =
because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins =
and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and =
take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.ArmyofGod.com
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C5981A.1BE7E0C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D5>NOW's =
faces of=20
death</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3DPalatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, =
Times,=20
serif>By Jill Stanek<BR>The National Organization for Women recently =
posted an=20
<A =
href=3D"http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/supreme_popup.html">Emergency =
Alert</A> with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's =
Lives on=20
the Line." </DIV>
<P>In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces =
of women=20
who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," the =
false=20
threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in unsafe =
and=20
illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.=20
<P>
<SCRIPT type=3Dtext/javascript><!--
google_ad_client =3D "pub-9952085791529017";
google_ad_width =3D 300;
google_ad_height =3D 250;
google_ad_format =3D "300x250_as";
google_ad_channel =3D"";
google_color_border =3D "006633";
google_color_bg =3D "CCFF99";
google_color_link =3D "0000CC";
google_color_url =3D "0000CC";
google_color_text =3D "333300";
//--></SCRIPT>
<P>It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions =
comes from=20
a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point that =
many=20
mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights to keep =
women=20
barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.=20
<P>Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat =
when=20
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its=20
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.=20
<P>And what about those four women?=20
<P>If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have =
to scour=20
back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?=20
<P>Coincidentally, 1929 and 1940 are key years in the discussion of=20
abortion-related deaths. It was in 1929 that penicillin was discovered =
and 1940=20
when antibiotics were first used on humans. Pro-aborts admit, "[T]he=20
introduction of antibiotics ... permitted more effective treatment of =
the=20
infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion," which is =
why the=20
number of reported deaths from illegal abortions plummeted from 2,700 in =
1930 to=20
193 in 1965.=20
<P>So Barbara Boxer was fictionalizing when she recently <A=20
href=3D"http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=3D/n/a/2005/07/05/sta=
te/n130336D92.DTL">told=20
the Associated Press</A> that illegal abortions would mean, "[A] minimum =
of=20
5,000 women a year will die."=20
<P>The third of NOW's four faces of death, Becky Bell, died in 1988 =96=20
<I>after</I> abortion was legal. Pro-aborts championed Becky because she =
was 17=20
when she died of "septic abortion with pneumonia," according to the =
coroner, and=20
Becky's home state of Indiana had recently passed a parental consent =
law. (Even=20
so, minors may always obtain legal abortions via judicial bypass.)=20
<P>But the medical examiner, John Pless, later clarified, "I cannot =
prove she=20
had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a =
spontaneous=20
abortion" [miscarriage]. Becky's best friend said she had miscarried.=20
<P>Five specialists evaluated the report, which stated there was no =
uterine=20
infection or marks of abortion instruments in the birth canal or at the =
cervix.=20
<P>It turned out Becky had been promiscuous since age 15 and was a known =
drug=20
user. Her parents placed her in drug rehab earlier in 1988 for several =
weeks.=20
The weekend before Becky died, she was, according to the coroner's =
report,=20
"reportedly at a party where various drugs were being used [cocaine, =
'speed,'=20
and LSD] ... and later claimed that someone had put 'speed' in her =
drink."=20
<P>The type of bacteria causing Becky's fast and deadly form of =
pneumonia did=20
not originate in her reproductive system, but was consistent with that =
found in=20
aspirated vomit. The specialists unanimously concurred that Becky died =
from=20
pneumonia due to vomit inhalation.=20
<P>When the coroner's report was made public, Becky's parents, who had =
been=20
traversing the country with pro-aborts decrying parental notification =
laws,=20
disappeared into the woodwork and haven't been heard from since. =
Pro-aborts know=20
the truth, and yet almost 20 years later still promote the lie.=20
<P>NOW's fourth face of abortion is Rosie Jimenez. Rosie also died after =
abortion was legal, in 1977. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde =
Amendment,=20
which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Yet Rosie died =
with a $700=20
scholarship check in her pocket, and she was the single mother of a =
5-year-old.=20
So why isn't Rosie herself held responsible for an apparent pattern of =
reckless=20
choices? And if the multi-million dollar abortion industry truly cares =
about=20
women's lives, why doesn't it extend "charity" every so often?=20
<P><!-- Run of site Run of site, 300x250 Rectangle banner () --><!-- Run =
of site Run of site, 300x250 Rectangle banner () -->
<P>At any rate, NOW's latter two examples make the point that legalized =
abortion=20
does not stop illegal abortions. In fact, according to Planned =
Parenthood's=20
research arm <A =
href=3D"http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html">the=20
Alan Guttmacher Institute</A>, "The legal status of abortion does not =
appear to=20
affect levels of abortion in a population in a straightforward way.=20
<P>Are you sure you want to go there, NOW?=20
<P>And what about the faces of death due to <I>legal</I> abortions? =
There are=20
four timely faces NOW could showcase =96 four who have died just since =
2003 from=20
legal RU-486 abortions.=20
<P>But abortion champions don't want to spotlight women who have died =
from legal=20
abortions. That's because today's abortion champions are today's =
abortion=20
profiteers. To make abortion illegal again would break up their =
monopoly.=20
<P>
<P>
<P><FONT face=3Dpalatino, new roman, georgia, times><I> Jill Stanek =
fought to=20
stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at =
Christ=20
Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend =
his=20
signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World =
Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the =
past 30=20
years. </I></FONT></P></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><BR>-- <BR> <BR>SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear =
Jesus, I am a=20
sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you =
died on=20
the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask =
you now to=20
come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. <A=20
href=3D"http://www.ArmyofGod.com">http://www.ArmyofGod.com</A>=20
</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C5981A.1BE7E0C0--
.
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 02:23:48 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert with
the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," the
false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes from
a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point that
many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights to keep
women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted unwanted
fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort, the poor used
whatever method they thought would work including mixtures of herbs.
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
--
CR........
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Flannigan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 03:33:31 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42f11339$0$16527$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted
unwanted fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort, the poor
used whatever method they thought would work including mixtures of herbs.
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
--
CR........
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
Not to mention the fact that overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal.
That too is a damn lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 10:18:34 PM |
|
|
Mike Flannigan wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42f11339$0$16527$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted
unwanted fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort, the poor
used whatever method they thought would work including mixtures of herbs.
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
--
CR........
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
Not to mention the fact that overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal.
That too is a damn lie.
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Flannigan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 08:17:25 AM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123125514.801704.302070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mike Flannigan wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42f11339$0$16527$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on
the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result
in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because
it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the
point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also
fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and
ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat
when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted
unwanted fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort, the
poor
used whatever method they thought would work including mixtures of
herbs.
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
--
CR........
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible
gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*
Not to mention the fact that overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion
illegal.
That too is a damn lie.
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history. The integrity of the constitution and the rule of law demands it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 12:43:09 PM |
|
|
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Flannigan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 04:17:17 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dctk3d$nsb$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in
US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
Issuing moral edits from on high in violation of the constitution *is*
oppressive government dumb *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 08:22:03 PM |
|
|
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in
US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
Issuing moral edits from on high in violation of the constitution *is*
oppressive government dumb *****.
No, it's pro-liar ***** and idiocy. The government is not granted
the power to force women to gestate and give birth. The Constitution
expressly forbids such government actions. The Court correctly ruled
against such government force.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 02:01:22 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
From: (Ray Fischer)
Message-ID: <b8283v$jq...@bolt.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:06:56 GMT
DivaSycamore <notha...@none.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
DivaSycamore <notha...@none.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
If in
the event that the female turns out to be pregnant, then the man is
SUPPOSED to stick around.
Why? Is she a little girl who can't take care of herself?
Your words, not mine.
You're not answering the question.
No, she's NOT a little girl. There, happy now?
Why is he supposed to stick around?
It's his responsibility to BE A MAN and help out
Spare us the sexist *****.
So now it's sexist to be RESPONSIBLE?
And you should shut-up and attend to your RESPONSIBILITIES
around the home.
You don't want a man.
I already HAVE one dearie.
Then why the hell aren't you taking care of him instead of wasting
your time blathering about things you don't understand?
Get back to work, woman. Make yourself useful.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 08:20:54 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 10:04:42 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Take note: ***** fischer has taken a sentence and altered it to
something else.
I never admitted to any such thing. I couldn't be in law enforcement if
what ***** Fischer is trying to claim was true.
Also take note: ***** fischer is too afraid to contact authorities on
his claim.
***** fischer has now proven he doesn't care about children.
As well as it being proven he thinks women should stay inside and serve
men.
Keep digging your hole ***** fischer.
The original post in which ***** fischer has taken a sentence and
altered it to mean something else, which is forgery.
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:14 -0500
From: "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,talk.abortion
References: <yLKdndKhrs1R20XdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
<TsKdnbNUTNfB3ULdRVn-hA@comcast.com> <cbnir0$hpu$1@bolt.sonic.net>
<gtmdnVJZOv_QwULd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <cbpg64$n64$1@bolt.sonic.net>
<g9WdnVaD_IWB7X3dRVn-hw@comcast.com>
<fft0e0t355t4nmcb98sfmglp7eurg2326a@4ax.com>
<8912d58d.0406290044.77377a08@posting.google.com>
<szkd63i7h3g.fsf@fnord.io.com>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:10:15 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Lines: 230
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.55.86
X-Trace:
sv3-X9Xb6KlGPzK5Jie8/T7GT3j+ydhZaTOfd8QvrY1rXKsMgZgbONCiw0O5iZODix5WsWy9gH1nYl7gb7v!qrKGqNlZ/pqAdWSSf9FOT9cIIEl5k25jjd22YHnzGnZYIFPhdC1lXnRKQlw=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkd63i7h3g.fsf@fnord.io.com...
noneedtok...@mail.com (osprey) writes:
Somesappywriter <sappywri...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:<fft0e0t355t4nmcb98sfmglp7eurg2326a@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:25:05 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
news:cbpg64$n64$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
What I want to know is why you refuse to answer the questions on
why
you sympathize with Al Queda?
I already told you, MORON! I don't sympathize with people like
you.
I am not like Al Queda.
I said I hope we kill them all.
***** Heishman in <LsGdnfy6F_5hfUjdRVn...@comcast.com>
From: (Ray Fischer)
Message-ID: <cbdk7e$2b...@bolt.sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:10:22 GMT
[Reinserted rest of what heishman dishonestly snipped.]
You have no room to talk about "dishonestly snipping" when you snip
and ignore others who snip. Why don't you say something to Ray about
his snipping parts of my post and reposting them to mean something
different?
Why don't you learn what that advanced concept known as an analogy is, Cop
Reject?
Why don't you learn that you and krisblake are scared of Ray?
Tell us man reject...where is the analogy where Ray will do the
following...
In the post where he calls me a child molester...I replied...
"so you are saying I am a child molester?" With a question mark..in
other
words..asking Ray if that is what he is saying.
Ray in return...says I admit to being a child molester..and what he
does is
takes that post...and snips out the words...."so you are saying"
And only leaves the part "I am a child molester"...saying that is
proof.
Where is the analogy in that man reject? Go ahead and explain that
one. I
realize you are afraid to stand up to Ray...so you will just whine some
pathetic excuse.
I suppose you are going to want proof...not a problem.
This is going to be the long part and most likely you will not even
read it.
But it has all the proof that you need to show what Ray does...and they
are
NOT analogies
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:23:29 -0600
From: "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
References: <6f9e1b49.0403091359.1d4fd...@posting.google.com>
<6f9e1b49.0403111606.6fa3d...@posting.google.com>
<405139dd.1011...@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
<6f9e1b49.0403120847.29e15...@posting.google.com>
<c2sqdk$ts...@bolt.sonic.net>
<8912d58d.0403132205.6de98...@posting.google.com>
<c3lef6$sr...@gnamma.connect.com.au>
Subject: Re: Ray Fischer forges
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:26:57 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <5YOdnbrgkd6M3cPdRVn...@comcast.com>
Lines: 136
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.55.86
X-Trace:
sv3-dNBPhtL5rrfFEuc7cHRv9Pm+k3GZJW0dTcFLDykHKAr0RxGaXr1nB+Z6D87n6JU9JJcG42w2
w815HbM!+EWLva9K4TP2Aws06tDg467rZTkpM6SzpcvTg/3IcRwm/FW6G2nFGpgz4+s=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
"Murdoc" <murdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3lef6$srh$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
Captian's Log: 14/03/04 - osprey of the Cyborg Race wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<c2sqdk$tsm$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Papa Jackass <papaj...@stic.net> wrote:
elcoy...@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message
This is a God Damned Fucking LIE! Papa Jack is a
Forger who creates messages and then claims that
other people wrote them. Anyone can look at the
above cited message in Google and see that I did
NOT post all of the following crap that Papa Jack
claims I did.
Whooowe! El Coyote is all hot and bothered because
I reinserted MY OWN WORDS WHICH HE HAD DELETED in his
reply.
You inserted your words and pretended that he had posted them.
That is what a forgery is, Jackass.
Ray Fischer forges more than anyone else in this NG. He takes your
post, cuts apart your sentences, and repost them to make them appear
that you said something different.
example: Ray Fischer accuses people of being child molesters. He has
accused me of this often. In a few post I would reply, "you are
saying I am a child molester"
Ray Fischer will take that sentence and take out the words "you are
saying"
And then in another post claim I said something I never said, of
course taking out the words "you are saying".
Can you post these alleged forgeries by Ray?
Not a problem.
Here is the entire post
From: (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion
Subject: Re: This argument ended all ready
Organization: Sonic, San Jose
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <bv246o$a7...@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <71077e7a.0401231921.1fe7c...@posting.google.com>
<eP2dnWcT8sCgpondRVn...@comcast.com> <bv1ma7$om...@bolt.sonic.net>
<SZKdnWZgSq4HwondRVn...@comcast.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:14:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1075090456 208.201.242.18 (Sun, 25 Jan 2004
20:14:16 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:14:16 PST
Osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
No, your quote wasn't taken out of context,
Just like this wasn't taken out of context:
"I was a child molester."
You in
Do a search on your message ID and this is what comes up
Your search - alt.abortion -
did not match any documents
Try again
Does it hurt to be such a complete, regular, and total screwup,
Idiot Heishman?
How about this one?
"I was a child molester."
You in
Or this?
I got a dishonorable discharge
You in
Or this?
I am a criminal
You in
Or this?
I was a child molester, and a child abuser.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
--------------------------------------Now, go to each one of those
message
ID's and look at the entire sentence, and see where Fischer snips them
apartNeed me to do this for you? Ok, no problem.First one "I was a
child
molester."
You in
The original sentence isYou claimed I was a child molester
You see, Fischer snips out "you claimed"Second oneI got a dishonorable
discharge
You in Original sentence isWhere is
your
evidence on the claim I got a dishonorable discharge?
Ray snips out "where is your evidence on the claimThird oneI am a
criminal
You in Original sentence saysWhere
is
your evidence I am a criminal?
Ray snips out "where is your evidence"And finally the last oneI was a
child
molester, and a child abuser.
The original sentence isYou
you
took your comments in a manner that meant to convince others I was a
child molester, and a child abuser.
Ray snips out "you took your comments in a manner that meant to
convince
others"So, there you have it. Forgery. To snip and/or alter the
original
message to convey a false message.Open and shut case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I never claimed what ***** fischer is saying
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 07:06:52 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1123211082.196642.23360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in
<T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
I never admitted to any such thing.
sure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 12:37:55 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 20:04:42 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Take note: ***** fischer ...
Give up, loser--you'll be nothing better than what you are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 10:55:03 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Take note: ***** fischer has taken a sentence and altered it to
something else.
Take note: ***** Robert Heishman has taken an article, altered it
to say something else, and then has lied about what it says.
I never admitted to any such thing.
That's the point, you blithering moron. You're such a STUPID *****
that you lie about what people write and then squeal like a pig when
somebody does the same thing to you.
So not only are you a liar, an *****, and a moron, you're also a
pathetic little hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 11:49:25 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Take note: ***** fischer has taken a sentence and altered it to
something else.
Snipping Ray's crying
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed. You did do that to one of my sentences.
Deal with it moron, you forged and you lied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 11:21:46 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial
fiat in US history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional
rights of people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in
<T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
Take note: ***** fischer has taken a sentence and altered it to
something else.
Snipping Ray's crying
In other words, running away before anyone notes your refusal to stay with the discussion.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed. You did do that to one of my sentences.
Deal with it moron, you forged and you lied.
Who was that wannabe cop who altered text in one of Ray's quoted responses?
Never mind...that was that Robert John Heishman moron from Delaware.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 12:27:37 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, what a pathetic loser you are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 10:12:53 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, I didn't alter the meaning. I posted it EXACTLY how it was
posted originally. You just don't like the fact that some people are
recording your words and using them against you later.
*****, what a pathetic loser you are.
Hey, I have no problem with that...it just shows me how frustrated you
are...LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 11:27:08 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, I didn't alter the meaning.
You're a liar.
I posted it EXACTLY how it was
posted originally.
You're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 11:37:31 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, I didn't alter the meaning.
You're a liar.
Sorry, your delusions do not mean anythign.
If you can prove that I altered something, you should have done it a
long time ago instead of going on this long rampage, as you normally
do.
You did, in "FACT", change the sentence and added the word Jews.
I posted it EXACTLY how it was
posted originally.
You're a liar.
Too bad you can't prove that, so your ranting is just that..more
ranting by ***** fischer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneekers" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
05 Aug 2005 12:18:16 PM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2005 09:37:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, I didn't alter the meaning.
You're a liar.
Sorry, your delusions do not mean anythign.
If you can prove that I altered something...
It's already been proven to you on numerous occassions that you
altered the meaning of the article Ray posted.
How many more time do you need to be publicly kicked in the virtual
***** for you to understand, stupid?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
09 Aug 2005 12:09:43 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mike Flannigan <mflannigan@jam.rr.com> wrote:
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wonderful. So then you won't mind when Roe is overturned?
Of course not. Roe v Wade was the most egregious act of judicial fiat in US
history.
Yeah, what business did they have protecting the constitutional rights of
people from oppressive government?
You are in no position to talk since you have openly stated you wish to
keep women oppressed by having them serve men.
In the same way you admitted to being a child molester.
I admit to being a child molester
"Osprey" aka Robert Heishman in <T4mdne4B5NQi9HzdRVn-hw@comcast.com>
***** Heishman is such a coward and a control freak that he tries to
force people to say what he wants them to say and then runs away from
the truth.
***** - I did not alter or change the meaning of any sentence you
typed.
I didn't say you did, MORON. I said you altered the meaning of the
article I posted.
*****, I didn't alter the meaning.
You're a liar.
Sorry, your delusions do not mean anythign.
You're still a liar, *****.
If you can prove that I altered something,
Trivially.
I posted it EXACTLY how it was
posted originally.
You're a liar.
Too bad you can't prove that,
Sure can. People have pointed out repeatedly how you left out several
lines of text that were in the version I posted.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 02:39:22 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42f11339$0$16527$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
Four faces is somehow equivalent to 46,000,000 aborted children?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
The risk of giving birth is what? A child?
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
Not good for Pro-Choice that there are millions more aborted lives than the
four faces NOW uses.
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
LOL!!!!!!!!
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted
unwanted fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort,
The airplane was around for centuries?
the poor used whatever method they thought would work including mixtures
of herbs.
Four faces from 1929 'til when makes people think abortions are unsafe?
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
Yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 05:19:00 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:P8uIe.9677$hp.7835@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
Four faces is somehow equivalent to 46,000,000 aborted children?
$$ Four faces of who? Am I missing a post somewhere?
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
The risk of giving birth is what? A child?
$$ Torn uterine ligaments, dropped or prolapsed uteruses, rectoceils and
worse, infections, hormonal imbalances, fatal hemorrhage, torn cervixes and
vaginas resulting in ruined sex lives...... you must be the most ill
informed and ignorant man I have come across on Usenet.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
Not good for Pro-Choice that there are millions more aborted lives than
the four faces NOW uses.
$$ But it's not your business! Why don't you understand about that? It's
NOT your decision to make. ;-)
## What makes you think they weren't prevalent? Women have aborted
unwanted fetuses for centuries. The rich flew abroad to abort,
The airplane was around for centuries?
$$ Did I say it was? Before this century abortion was legal.
the poor used whatever method they thought would work including mixtures
of herbs.
Four faces from 1929 'til when makes people think abortions are unsafe?
$$ Are you saying illegal abortions are safe? ???
Anti-choice and anti-women propaganda snipped.
Yours?
$$ No yours,... you can't stand it that you can't PUNISH women and make
them suffer for the sin of having sex! You want them forced to bear the
unwanted fetus at any cost to themselves, their loved ones and society!
Well tough crapola! You can't. Now deal with it. :-))
--
CR.....
"Men never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hirn" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 02:59:44 PM |
|
|
In article <P8uIe.9677$hp.7835@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42f11339$0$16527$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
## It will. Do you honestly think women will stop aborting because it's
considered legal one day and illegal the next?
Four faces is somehow equivalent to 46,000,000 aborted children?
Children cannot be aborted. Facts seem to elude you.
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
## Just like the anti-choicers want to keep women barefoot and ignorant
about the risks of giving birth.
The risk of giving birth is what? A child?
Death of the mother is also a risk.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
## Like you and your ilk make aborted fetuses a spectacle for your
anti-choice propaganda campaign?
Not good for Pro-Choice that there are millions more aborted lives than the
four faces NOW uses.
Yawn! How many unwanted born children do you help care for?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geneo1234" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 10:22:18 AM |
|
|
Go drown yourself with that fucking piece of crap you call the word of god
you idiotic neo-con.
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert with
the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," the
false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes from
a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point that
many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights to keep
women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
Coincidentally, 1929 and 1940 are key years in the discussion of
abortion-related deaths. It was in 1929 that penicillin was discovered and
1940 when antibiotics were first used on humans. Pro-aborts admit, "[T]he
introduction of antibiotics ... permitted more effective treatment of the
infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion," which is why
the number of reported deaths from illegal abortions plummeted from 2,700 in
1930 to 193 in 1965.
So Barbara Boxer was fictionalizing when she recently told the Associated
Press that illegal abortions would mean, "[A] minimum of 5,000 women a year
will die."
The third of NOW's four faces of death, Becky Bell, died in 1988 – after
abortion was legal. Pro-aborts championed Becky because she was 17 when she
died of "septic abortion with pneumonia," according to the coroner, and
Becky's home state of Indiana had recently passed a parental consent law.
(Even so, minors may always obtain legal abortions via judicial bypass.)
But the medical examiner, John Pless, later clarified, "I cannot prove she
had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous
abortion" [miscarriage]. Becky's best friend said she had miscarried.
Five specialists evaluated the report, which stated there was no uterine
infection or marks of abortion instruments in the birth canal or at the
cervix.
It turned out Becky had been promiscuous since age 15 and was a known drug
user. Her parents placed her in drug rehab earlier in 1988 for several
weeks. The weekend before Becky died, she was, according to the coroner's
report, "reportedly at a party where various drugs were being used [cocaine,
'speed,' and LSD] ... and later claimed that someone had put 'speed' in her
drink."
The type of bacteria causing Becky's fast and deadly form of pneumonia did
not originate in her reproductive system, but was consistent with that found
in aspirated vomit. The specialists unanimously concurred that Becky died
from pneumonia due to vomit inhalation.
When the coroner's report was made public, Becky's parents, who had been
traversing the country with pro-aborts decrying parental notification laws,
disappeared into the woodwork and haven't been heard from since. Pro-aborts
know the truth, and yet almost 20 years later still promote the lie.
NOW's fourth face of abortion is Rosie Jimenez. Rosie also died after
abortion was legal, in 1977. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde
Amendment, which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Yet Rosie
died with a $700 scholarship check in her pocket, and she was the single
mother of a 5-year-old. So why isn't Rosie herself held responsible for an
apparent pattern of reckless choices? And if the multi-million dollar
abortion industry truly cares about women's lives, why doesn't it extend
"charity" every so often?
At any rate, NOW's latter two examples make the point that legalized
abortion does not stop illegal abortions. In fact, according to Planned
Parenthood's research arm the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "The legal status
of abortion does not appear to affect levels of abortion in a population in
a straightforward way.
Are you sure you want to go there, NOW?
And what about the faces of death due to legal abortions? There are four
timely faces NOW could showcase – four who have died just since 2003 from
legal RU-486 abortions.
But abortion champions don't want to spotlight women who have died from
legal abortions. That's because today's abortion champions are today's
abortion profiteers. To make abortion illegal again would break up their
monopoly.
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a
registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President
Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection
Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent
pro-life leaders of the past 30 years.
--
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell
because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and
to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take
away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.ArmyofGod.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 12:24:32 PM |
|
|
"Geneo1234" <francis1234@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:a1751$42f0e138$d844286e$22371@FUSE.NET...
Go drown yourself with that fucking piece of crap you call the word of god
you idiotic neo-con.
Hmmm. You sound like a person torn between your christianity and political
correctness. Would you have said that if he had mentioned Allah?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott." |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
04 Aug 2005 05:28:42 PM |
|
|
"Geneo1234" <francis1234@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:a1751$42f0e138$d844286e$22371@FUSE.NET...
Go drown yourself with that fucking piece of crap you call the word of god
you idiotic neo-con.
Poor little frustrated Liberal.
http://www.kevindiehl.com/humor/Manual%20Recount.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Native American" |
|
| Title: Re: NOW's faces of death |
03 Aug 2005 10:39:55 AM |
|
|
--
If there were a goofy cult that prescribed eating your own excrement,
liberals would ponder its
deeper meaning and treat it with respect.
--Ann Coulter
"Geneo1234" <francis1234@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:a1751$42f0e138$d844286e$22371@FUSE.NET...
Go drown yourself with that fucking piece of crap you call the word of god
you idiotic neo-con.
It's amusing to observe how you pro-aborts are totally unable to refute
anything that Reverend ?Spitz just wrote.
"Rev. Donald Spitz" <Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> wrote in message
news:1Z4Ie.5202$MZ6.4706@lakeread01...
NOW's faces of death
By Jill Stanek
The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert
with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee ... Women's Lives on the
Line."
In the alert, NOW posted photos of four women it said "are the faces of
women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions,"
the false threat being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will result in
unsafe and illegal abortions and ultimately women's deaths.
It's interesting that this emergency alert about "safe" abortions comes
from a group that fights abortion clinic safety regulations to the point
that many mills have lower standards than animal clinics and also fights
to keep women barefoot and ignorant about abortion risks.
Likewise, NOW's sacrosanct concern for "women's privacy" falls flat when
considering it has no problem making a spectacle of dead women for its
propaganda campaign who had no say in the matter.
And what about those four women?
If deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to
scour back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?
Coincidentally, 1929 and 1940 are key years in the discussion of
abortion-related deaths. It was in 1929 that penicillin was discovered and
1940 when antibiotics were first used on humans. Pro-aborts admit, "[T]he
introduction of antibiotics ... permitted more effective treatment of the
infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion," which is why
the number of reported deaths from illegal abortions plummeted from 2,700
in 1930 to 193 in 1965.
So Barbara Boxer was fictionalizing when she recently told the Associated
Press that illegal abortions would mean, "[A] minimum of 5,000 women a
year will die."
The third of NOW's four faces of death, Becky Bell, died in 1988 - after
abortion was legal. Pro-aborts championed Becky because she was 17 when
she died of "septic abortion with pneumonia," according to the coroner,
and Becky's home state of Indiana had recently passed a parental consent
law. (Even so, minors may always obtain legal abortions via judicial
bypass.)
But the medical examiner, John Pless, later clarified, "I cannot prove she
had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous
abortion" [miscarriage]. Becky's best friend said she had miscarried.
Five specialists evaluated the report, which stated there was no uterine
infection or marks of abortion instruments in the birth canal or at the
cervix.
It turned out Becky had been promiscuous since age 15 and was a known drug
user. Her parents placed her in drug rehab earlier in 1988 for several
weeks. The weekend before Beck | | |
