| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"John D.Wentzky" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2007 06:00:39 PM |
| Object: |
PLH's allegiance................. |
Houston, TX
Aalto Women's Center
713-662-3240
America's Women Clinic
713-784-3333 | 800-749-7264
Richard Cunningham MD
713-526-8585 | 800-526-8585
Houston Women's Clinic
713-868-4483 | 800-646-4483
Planned Parenthood Fannin Surgical Services
713-535-2400 | 800-831-6578
Bernard Rosenfeld M.D.
713-790-0099
Suburban Women's Clinic.
713-526-6500
Women's Medical Center of NW Houston
281-440-1796 | 800-233-0608
.
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
10 Mar 2007 06:01:37 PM |
|
|
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Houston, TX
Aalto Women's Center
713-662-3240
America's Women Clinic
713-784-3333 | 800-749-7264
Richard Cunningham MD
713-526-8585 | 800-526-8585
Houston Women's Clinic
713-868-4483 | 800-646-4483
Planned Parenthood Fannin Surgical Services
713-535-2400 | 800-831-6578
Bernard Rosenfeld M.D.
713-790-0099
Suburban Women's Clinic.
713-526-6500
Women's Medical Center of NW Houston
281-440-1796 | 800-233-0608
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 03:25:21 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Houston, TX
Aalto Women's Center
713-662-3240
America's Women Clinic
713-784-3333 | 800-749-7264
Richard Cunningham MD
713-526-8585 | 800-526-8585
Houston Women's Clinic
713-868-4483 | 800-646-4483
Planned Parenthood Fannin Surgical Services
713-535-2400 | 800-831-6578
Bernard Rosenfeld M.D.
713-790-0099
Suburban Women's Clinic.
713-526-6500
Women's Medical Center of NW Houston
281-440-1796 | 800-233-0608
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no one's
going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate what I support,
when you have more than a little difficulty trying to figure out how to get
through an open door.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 05:53:54 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Houston, TX
Aalto Women's Center
713-662-3240
America's Women Clinic
713-784-3333 | 800-749-7264
Richard Cunningham MD
713-526-8585 | 800-526-8585
Houston Women's Clinic
713-868-4483 | 800-646-4483
Planned Parenthood Fannin Surgical Services
713-535-2400 | 800-831-6578
Bernard Rosenfeld M.D.
713-790-0099
Suburban Women's Clinic.
713-526-6500
Women's Medical Center of NW Houston
281-440-1796 | 800-233-0608
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no one's
going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate what I
support,
when you have more than a little difficulty trying to figure out how to
get
through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 10:00:58 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no one's
going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate what I
support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying to figure out
how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of which tried
to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in August 1992.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 10:59:39 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabyjlt91.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no
one's
going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate what I
support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying to figure
out
how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of which
tried
to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in August 1992.
They were trying to talk their way into the clinic?
Not exactly sure why.
What if they had someone in there who was their daughter or sister or mother
or other kin?
What if someone was the biological father of the child the woman in the
clinic was there to have aborted?
How long do you think RoeVWade can hide and protect all these killers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 12:20:37 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabyjlt91.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no
one's going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate what
I support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying to figure
out how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of which
tried to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in August
1992.
They were trying to talk their way into the clinic?
Not exactly sure why.
That says quite a bit about *your* alleged thought process.
What if they had someone in there who was their daughter or sister or mother
or other kin?
Funny how none of the clinic staff could get a coherent answer from the ones
trying to slither in.
What if someone was the biological father of the child the woman in the
clinic was there to have aborted?
What if you hadn't decided to be insane fifteen years ago?
How long do you think RoeVWade can hide and protect all these killers?
How long until you're turned over to the nearest applicable MHC in your state?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 12:33:42 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmzk87u.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabyjlt91.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no
one's going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate
what
I support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying to
figure
out how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of which
tried to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in August
1992.
They were trying to talk their way into the clinic?
Not exactly sure why.
That says quite a bit about *your* alleged thought process.
So, you mean they were trying to go in to hand pamphlets to people inside
the clinic?
What if they had someone in there who was their daughter or sister or
mother
or other kin?
Funny how none of the clinic staff could get a coherent answer from the
ones
trying to slither in.
They were on a 'preching mission'?
What if someone was the biological father of the child the woman in the
clinic was there to have aborted?
What if you hadn't decided to be insane fifteen years ago?
Insane?
While you act as if no man's child was aborted without his consent?
How long do you think RoeVWade can hide and protect all these killers?
How long until you're turned over to the nearest applicable MHC in your
state?
Is anti-liberty and anti-free speech your only defense/hope?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 12:50:33 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmzk87u.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabyjlt91.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no
one's going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate
what I support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying to
figure out how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of which
tried to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in August
1992.
They were trying to talk their way into the clinic?
Not exactly sure why.
That says quite a bit about *your* alleged thought process.
So, you mean they were trying to go in to hand pamphlets to people inside
the clinic?
Their obvious intent was to disrupt the operations of the clinic.
What if they had someone in there who was their daughter or sister or
mother
or other kin?
Funny how none of the clinic staff could get a coherent answer from the
ones trying to slither in.
They were on a 'preching mission'?
Maybe you should read my above statement.
What if someone was the biological father of the child the woman in the
clinic was there to have aborted?
What if you hadn't decided to be insane fifteen years ago?
Insane? While you act as if no man's child was aborted without his consent?
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision. As it is, now,
the woman gets the final choice - for reasons so obvious that you refuse to
deal with them.
How long do you think RoeVWade can hide and protect all these killers?
How long until you're turned over to the nearest applicable MHC in your
state?
Is anti-liberty and anti-free speech your only defense/hope?
That's *your* delusion.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 01:17:15 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkbqizk6ty.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmzk87u.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkabyjlt91.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkveh8dw5q.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
Isn't this what you stand for there in Houston, PLH?
Dale and I have defended *one* of those clinics, and fortunately, no
one's going to pay attention to your delusions that you can dictate
what I support, when you have more than a little difficulty trying
to
figure out how to get through an open door.
Defended, why? Was it being attacked?
It was being watched by some of the anti-abort loons, a couple of
which
tried to talk their way in...HPD and HCSD were busy that week in
August
1992.
They were trying to talk their way into the clinic?
Not exactly sure why.
That says quite a bit about *your* alleged thought process.
So, you mean they were trying to go in to hand pamphlets to people inside
the clinic?
Their obvious intent was to disrupt the operations of the clinic.
What if they had someone in there who was their daughter or sister or
mother
or other kin?
Funny how none of the clinic staff could get a coherent answer from the
ones trying to slither in.
They were on a 'preaching mission'?
Maybe you should read my above statement.
Thanks for telling me.
What if someone was the biological father of the child the woman in the
clinic was there to have aborted?
What if you hadn't decided to be insane fifteen years ago?
Insane? While you act as if no man's child was aborted without his
consent?
When he can get pregnant,
When you can realize that men don't get pregnant, will that get you to start
representing men in the area of pregnancies they create?
he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
As it is, now, the woman gets the final choice - for reasons so obvious
that you refuse to
deal with them.
The Constitution is what is OBVIOUS to me, and the fact that RoeVWade is a
pile of crap.
How long do you think RoeVWade can hide and protect all these killers?
How long until you're turned over to the nearest applicable MHC in your
state?
Is anti-liberty and anti-free speech your only defense/hope?
That's *your* delusion.
You mean that sexism in law and the criminal defense of it has me deluded?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
11 Mar 2007 09:45:19 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
12 Mar 2007 04:18:04 PM |
|
|
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1173667519.342683.281320@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Men effect pregnancies.
They are entitled to a say in what is done with their effects.
They are exempt from unreasonable search and seizure in this area.
Sexism is insufficient in light of the 4th and 14th Amendment to determine
what is done with their effects.
Same thing applies to women.
Now, are you willing to stop being a radical feminist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
12 Mar 2007 09:07:16 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*, who has rights to her own body
and its contents.
They are entitled to a say in what is done with their effects.
Slavery was abolished almost 150 years ago.
They are exempt from unreasonable search and seizure in this area.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sexism is insufficient in light of the 4th and 14th Amendment to
determine what is done with their effects.
All right, I'll spell it out for you - "effects" means *property*.
Neither the woman nor the contents of her body are property of a man.
Same thing applies to women.
Now, are you willing to stop being a radical feminist?
If you think your incompetent and batshit crazy "reasoning" is
sufficient to change anyone's mind, you are dreaming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
12 Mar 2007 09:15:33 PM |
|
|
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1173751636.060905.75990@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
who has rights to her own body
and its contents.
Irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.
They are entitled to a say in what is done with their effects.
Slavery was abolished almost 150 years ago.
You're now calling abortion slavery?
They are exempt from unreasonable search and seizure in this area.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Trying to say that you aren't exempt from it?
Sexism is insufficient in light of the 4th and 14th Amendment to
determine what is done with their effects.
All right, I'll spell it out for you - "effects" means *property*.
Wrong, illiterate fool.
"Property" and "effects" are DISTINCT items in the 4th Amendment.
Neither the woman nor the contents of her body are property of a man.
No one was saying that, illiterate fool.
The man has as much claim to the conceived child as the woman does.
Same thing applies to women.
Now, are you willing to stop being a radical feminist?
If you think your incompetent and batshit crazy "reasoning" is
sufficient to change anyone's mind, you are dreaming.
You're doomed if you don't drop that lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
13 Mar 2007 10:39:08 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
You made the claims; you have the burden of proof.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
who has rights to her own body
and its contents.
Irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
They are entitled to a say in what is done with their effects.
Slavery was abolished almost 150 years ago.
You're now calling abortion slavery?
Learn to read, Wanksky.
They are exempt from unreasonable search and seizure in this area.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Trying to say that you aren't exempt from it?
It doesn't apply, Wanksky, at least not in "this area".
Sexism is insufficient in light of the 4th and 14th Amendment to
determine what is done with their effects.
All right, I'll spell it out for you - "effects" means *property*.
Wrong, illiterate fool.
"Property" and "effects" are DISTINCT items in the 4th Amendment.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1517&bold=effects||
personal effects
n. things which include clothes, cosmetics and items of adornment.
This is not the same as "personalty" which means all tangible property
which is not real property, money or investments. The expression is
often found in wills ("I leave my personal effects to my niece,
Susannah").
Here's a thought, Wanksky - why don't YOU do the necessary research
BEFORE you make a world-class jackass of yourself?
Neither the woman nor the contents of her body are property of a man.
No one was saying that, illiterate fool.
The man has as much claim to the conceived child as the woman does.
Actually you were, as you would have known if you weren't so addicted
to spouting off about things you know nothing about.
Same thing applies to women.
Now, are you willing to stop being a radical feminist?
If you think your incompetent and batshit crazy "reasoning" is
sufficient to change anyone's mind, you are dreaming.
You're doomed if you don't drop that lie.
You're *not* dreaming? What is it then? A hallucination brought on
by eating a discarded pizza you found in the dumpster?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 03:00:35 AM |
|
|
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects..."
Pregnancies are effected by men as much as by women..
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
You made the claims; you have the burden of proof.
Easy to see via the constitutional langauge.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion arena and
the rights of the conceived person regaarding their body?
Your biased, sexist, feminist, gender-based angle is unconstitutional.
who has rights to her own body
and its contents.
Irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion arena and
the rights of the conceived person regaarding their body?
Your biased, sexist, feminist, gender-based angle is unconstitutional.
They are entitled to a say in what is done with their effects.
Slavery was abolished almost 150 years ago.
You're now calling abortion slavery?
Learn to read, Wanksky.
Meaning you are against persons being subjected to the slavery of roevwade,
right?
They are exempt from unreasonable search and seizure in this area.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Trying to say that you aren't exempt from it?
It doesn't apply, Wanksky, at least not in "this area".
*****. Another lie to deny people their constitutional rights.
There are no areas that the Constitution does not apply to.
Sexism is insufficient in light of the 4th and 14th Amendment to
determine what is done with their effects.
All right, I'll spell it out for you - "effects" means *property*.
Wrong, illiterate fool.
"Property" and "effects" are DISTINCT items in the 4th Amendment.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1517&bold=effects||
personal effects
n. things which include clothes, cosmetics and items of adornment.
This is not the same as "personalty" which means all tangible property
which is not real property, money or investments. The expression is
often found in wills ("I leave my personal effects to my niece,
Susannah").
Effects can be considered to be anything that a person effects.
Men effect pregnancies.
Pregnancies are personal effects of men as well as effects of women.
Writings are effects.
Here's a thought, Wanksky - why don't YOU do the necessary research
BEFORE you make a world-class jackass of yourself?
Seems to me your pro-choice allegiance makes you the jack *****.
You can't justify pro-choice via the constitution.
Neither the woman nor the contents of her body are property of a
man.
No one was saying that, illiterate fool.
The man has as much claim to the conceived child as the woman does.
Actually you were,
When did I say that women or children are exclusively property of men?
as you would have known if you weren't so addicted
to spouting off about things you know nothing about.
Your knowledge is based in abortion delusions, not in conformance with law.
Same thing applies to women.
Now, are you willing to stop being a radical feminist?
If you think your incompetent and batshit crazy "reasoning" is
sufficient to change anyone's mind, you are dreaming.
You're doomed if you don't drop that lie.
You're *not* dreaming?
That you are an anti-constitutional abortion loon?
True.
What is it then? A hallucination brought on
by eating a discarded pizza you found in the dumpster?
Aborted babies aren't hallucinations.
That's why they have to get rid of the evidence in stem cell research
factories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 12:37:50 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects..."
That includes women.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
Men don't get pregnant, moron.
You made the claims; you have the burden of proof.
Easy to see via the constitutional langauge.
Easy to see that you're an idiot.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion arena
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 02:45:38 PM |
|
|
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects..."
That includes women.
Duh! So, why do you ignore men so much?
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
Men don't get pregnant, moron.
Meaning all the blame is on women, huh?
LOL!
Coward.
You made the claims; you have the burden of proof.
Easy to see via the constitutional langauge.
Easy to see that you're an idiot.
Nah. Pro-Choice is the idiot.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion
arena
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Why are you lying?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 10:48:28 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects..."
That includes women.
Duh! So, why do you ignore men so much?
I don't, moron.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether the
woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
Men don't get pregnant, moron.
Meaning all the blame is on women, huh?
No, moron. Men have as much right to abort their pregnancies as do
women.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion
arena
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
You're lying, moron. Name ONE man who was ever denied an abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 08:13:38 AM |
|
|
In news:45f8c20c$0$14087$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the
decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether
the woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects..."
That includes women.
Duh! So, why do you ignore men so much?
I don't, moron.
*****.
You ignore them every time someone says abortion.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether
the woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
Men don't get pregnant, moron.
Meaning all the blame is on women, huh?
No, moron.
You can't squirm out from under the rock that pins all you pro-choice men
under it as you lay it all upon women.
Men have as much right to abort their pregnancies as do
women.
The rock of blame has you pinned underneath it.
Are you blaming any men or are you going to stay under the rock that pins
you down for blaming all of it on women?
LOL!
COWARD!
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion
arena
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
You're lying, moron. Name ONE man who was ever denied an abortion.
Why don't you , you god damned abortionistic fool?
Surely you can think of many of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 12:11:41 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f8c20c$0$14087$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1173843548.845669.189730@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
spartakus@my-deja.com <spartakus@my-deja.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
When he can get pregnant, he might have a say in the
decision.
According to the Constitution he has a say now.
Say what? Where?
Wanna read the fourth amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 4th amendment gives a man a say as to whether
the woman he impregnates aborts or not.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects..."
That includes women.
Duh! So, why do you ignore men so much?
I don't, moron.
*****.
Your stupidity doesn't alter the truth.
You ignore them every time someone says abortion.
No, loser, I don't.
Wanna read the 14th Amendment?
Read it - there's nothing there to support your claim.
Another pro-choice, anti-constitutionalist lie.
So prove that the 14th amendment gives a man a say as to whether
the woman he impregnates aborts or not.
Equal protection, equal privilege........
Men don't get pregnant, moron.
Meaning all the blame is on women, huh?
No, moron.
You can't squirm out from under the rock that pins all you pro-choice men
under it as you lay it all upon women.
You're babbling again, moron.
Men have as much right to abort their pregnancies as do
women.
The rock of blame has you pinned underneath it.
Run away from the truth again, coward.
Men effect pregnancies.
A pregnancy happens inside a *woman*,
Irrelevant to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not take away anybody's right to privacy or
bodily autonomy, you foolish, foolish person.
So, why are you against the private rights of men in the abortion
arena
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
You're lying, moron. Name ONE man who was ever denied an abortion.
Why don't you , you god damned abortionistic fool?
Because there haven't been any, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 05:27:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 07:29:31 PM |
|
|
In news:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscalfjr@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
Abortion law does not mention men.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 11:44:34 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscalfjr@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
Abortion law does not mention men.
There's a logical reason for that - which you will never understand.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 08:10:19 AM |
|
|
In news:szkfy87xgi5.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscalfjr@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
Abortion law does not mention men.
There's a logical reason for that - which you will never understand.
Does the Constitution say that laws must be logical?
LOL!
I have you in a catch 22 on this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 08:47:05 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:szkfy87xgi5.fsf@eris.io.com,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> typed:
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
In news:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscalfjr@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
Abortion law does not mention men.
There's a logical reason for that - which you will never understand.
Does the Constitution say that laws must be logical? LOL! I have you in a
catch 22 on this one.
I'm glad you're off your meds - you're doing yeoman's work to demonstrate that
yes, you *are* severely mentally ill. Get thee to the AOP mental health
facility and do your neighbors a favor.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 3 (SO) (March 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 16 at Toronto, 6:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 07:36:22 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 8:29 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
No, he is not.
Abortion law does not mention men.
Probably because there are no known cases of men getting pregnant.
If a man did become pregnant, and he was denied an abortion (which
would be unlikely), then he would have a case for unequal treatment
and protection under the law. And pro-choice advocates would support
him as well in his quest to fix the law.
However, until men do become pregnant, there is no logical. reason why
abortion laws should mention men.
You have not yet present any reason why the law should be changed to
allow men to get an abortion.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 07:44:55 PM |
|
|
In news:1173918981.970990.270100@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <sebree@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:29 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
No, he is not.
Can baby sebree walk yet?
Abortion law does not mention men.
Probably because there are no known cases of men getting pregnant.
Which nullifies his right to protection of his personal effects how?
If a man did become pregnant, and he was denied an abortion (which
would be unlikely), then he would have a case for unequal treatment
and protection under the law.
If a man did become pregnant you would be against him carrying to term after
he was impregnated in a porno film.
LOL!
And pro-choice advocates would support
him as well in his quest to fix the law.
Why?
However, until men do become pregnant, there is no logical. reason why
abortion laws should mention men.
Only to purveyors of ignorace such as yourself.
You have not yet present any reason why the law should be changed to
allow men to get an abortion.
Because they may need an abortion sometimes.
You never figured that one, feminist male?
Are you sure you are male?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
14 Mar 2007 09:28:35 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 8:44 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1173918981.970990.270100@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:29 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
No, he is not.
Can baby sebree walk yet?
The youngest Sebree is 6 years old. That would be my brother's
daughter. My youngest niece or nephew is about 2 years old, and he is
walking just fine.
Your evasion is simply evidence that you cannot handle the facts.
Abortion law does not mention men.
Probably because there are no known cases of men getting pregnant.
Which nullifies his right to protection of his personal effects how?
Simple. It doesn't since there are no personal effects of the man
involved. The woman that is pregnant is not his personal effect. She
is NOT his property. She has first claim over what and how her body
may be used, and thus she has the ultimate say over whether or not she
will remain pregnant.
For the definition of personal effects, try this link.
http://www.medlawplus.com/legalforms/instruct/effects.tpl
Very simply, "personal effects" in the legal sense means movable
property including, but not limited to, clothing, jewelry,
photographs, personal papers, etc. They do not include real estate,
automobiles, and other high value items. Basically, they are things
that you wear or would put into your pockets, purse, briefcase, or
backpack. A woman would not fit into this category because a) people
are not property, and b) slaves were usually worth more than what is
generally considered to be personal effects.
If you want to claim that the woman or any part of her is part of his
personal effects, then you need to reconcile your claim with the 13th
Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude.
If a man did become pregnant, and he was denied an abortion (which
would be unlikely), then he would have a case for unequal treatment
and protection under the law.
If a man did become pregnant you would be against him carrying to term after
he was impregnated in a porno film.
First, you have no idea what I would be for or against, even though I
have told you such things many times. Second, porno films have
nothing to do with the discussion. They are one of your favorite lame
strawmen. And third, I would be in favor of letting HIM make the
decision about his own pregnancy. I would not try to force him to
continue his pregnancy against his will or force him to get an
abortion. Which is EXACTLY the same position that I take with
pregnant women.
LOL!
And pro-choice advocates would support
him as well in his quest to fix the law.
Why?
Because there would be a demonstrable inequity in the law in that the
man that is pregnant is being denied the right to choose for himself
whether or not to continue the pregnancy that he is experiencing. He
is being denied the right to choose, just as you want to deny women
the right to choose for themselves about their own pregnancies.
However, until men do become pregnant, there is no logical reason why
abortion laws should mention men.
Only to purveyors of ignorace such as yourself.
I am a purveyor of knowledge. Something that you cannot understand.
I leave the spreading of ignorance to people like you.
You have not yet present any reason why the law should be changed to
allow men to get an abortion.
Because they may need an abortion sometimes.
Men would have to be able to get pregnant first. And that is not a
reason why the law show be changed. Currently, it would be a
meaningless law that would just clutter up the books.
Therefore, that is not a reason why the law should be changed.
You never figured that one, feminist male?
I have figured out many, many things that you cannot understand.
Are you sure you are male?
Yes. I am more of a man that you can ever hope to be.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 08:09:01 AM |
|
|
In news:1173925715.423346.268990@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <sebree@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:44 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1173918981.970990.270100@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:29 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
No, he is not.
Can baby sebree walk yet?
The youngest Sebree is 6 years old. That would be my brother's
daughter. My youngest niece or nephew is about 2 years old, and he is
walking just fine.
Your evasion is simply evidence that you cannot handle the facts.
Me dodging?
Damn, you're an idiot.
Abortion law does not mention men.
Probably because there are no known cases of men getting pregnant.
Which nullifies his right to protection of his personal effects how?
Simple. It doesn't since there are no personal effects of the man
involved.
You need 666 written on your forehead.
All pro-choice, pro-gay types such as you need it wirtten on their
foreheads.
A name such as sebree should be obvious.
The woman that is pregnant is not his personal effect.
I didn't say she was, you god damned fool.
She is NOT his property.
Irrelevant, you god damned fool.
She has first claim over what and how her body
may be used,
Which includes consenting to sex, you god damned militaristic rapist ally.
and thus she has the ultimate say over whether or not she
will remain pregnant.
In your world she doesn't, you god damned cruel beast.
You are for raping women at gunpoint, you god damned fool.
For the definition of personal effects, try this link.
http://www.medlawplus.com/legalforms/instruct/effects.tpl
Very simply, "personal effects" in the legal sense means movable
property including, but not limited to, clothing, jewelry,
photographs, personal papers, etc.
Fetae are moveable, you idiot.
They do not include real estate, automobiles, and other high value items.
You are a evil, piece of *****, wimpy, ignorant, wicked, dishonest fool.
Basically, they are things that you wear or would put into your pockets,
purse, briefcase, or
backpack.
Your mind is warped.
Get away from the military, you anti-civilan FOOL!
All you warmongering assholes who can't separate foreign enemies from life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness civilians in the USA are hated by the public.
The people of the USA hate you god damned military scumbag rape boys.
The USA HATES YOU!
A woman would not fit into this category because a) people
are not property, and b) slaves were usually worth more than what is
generally considered to be personal effects.
Your mind is warped.
If you want to claim that the woman or any part of her is part of his
personal effects, then you need to reconcile your claim with the 13th
Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude.
No problem, idiot, fool.
Only in rape would the woman have a right to an elective abortion.
But, you dogshit 666 military scumbag rapists don't like that idea.
You are damned.
If a man did become pregnant, and he was denied an abortion (which
would be unlikely), then he would have a case for unequal treatment
and protection under the law.
If a man did become pregnant you would be against him carrying to
term after he was impregnated in a porno film.
First, you have no idea what I would be for or against, even though I
have told you such things many times.
Changing so quickly, you god damned Pro-Choice FOOL!!!!???
Second, porno films have nothing to do with the discussion.
*****!
YOU GOD DAMNED FOOL!
PORNO FILMS ARE YOUR LIFE YOU GOD DAMNED MILITARY BEAST!
ABORTION IS YOUR LIFE!
YOU ARE A GOD DAMNED ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA!
They are one of your favorite lame strawmen.
YOU AND ANYONE SUCH AS YOU IS DAMNED, YOU FOOL!
And third, I would be in favor of letting HIM make the
decision about his own pregnancy.
YOU WOULD STILL BE DAMNED.
I would not try to force him to continue his pregnancy against his will or
force him to get an
abortion.
But, you would force him to undergo an abortion.
That is your total agenda, you GOD DAMNED RULE BY FORCE AND LIES IDIOT!
YOU WOULD SUBJECT HIM TO FORCE VIA ABORTION, YOU GOD DAMNED FOOL!
Which is EXACTLY the same position that I take with
pregnant women.
WHICH IS DAMNED!
YOU ARE A FOOL!
ABORTION ON DEMAND IS DAMNED IN ETERNITY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: PLH's allegiance................. |
15 Mar 2007 09:36:18 AM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 9:09 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1173925715.423346.268990@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:44 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Innews:1173918981.970990.270100@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> typed:
On Mar 14, 8:29 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:sktgv2tcuonphaqcaebl39c6g8ppnk9l44@4ax.com,
Tom S <tscal...@cox.net> typed:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:38 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Innews:45f832ee$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
<snip>
Men have an equal right to get an abortion, idiot.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Any man who gets pregnant and doesn't want to
carry the pregnancy to term can get an abortion.
You're wrong.
No, he is not.
Can baby sebree walk yet?
The youngest Sebree is 6 years old. That would be my brother's
daughter. My youngest niece or nephew is about 2 years old, and he is
walking just fine.
Your evasion is simply evidence that you cannot handle the facts.
Me dodging?
Yes. You dodge the issue and questions directed to you constantly.
Damn, you're an idiot.
Nope. That would be you again.
Abortion law does not mention men.
Probably because there are no known cases of men getting pregnant.
Which nullifies his right to protection of his personal effects how?
Simple. It doesn't since there are no personal effects of the man
involved.
You need 666 written on your forehead.
No, I do not. This is another example of you dodging what was being
said because you cannot handle the facts.
All pro-choice, pro-gay types such as you need it wirtten on their
foreheads.
Because we are intelligent, compassionate, egalitarian, and educated,
which means that we are your exact opposites? You have lost.
A name such as sebree should be obvious.
Meaning that you are admitting that you have lost the debate and you
cannot defend your position in an intelligent manner. As usual.
And by the way, the name "Sebree" is an Anglicization of the French
phrase "de Brie", or "of Brie".
The woman that is pregnant is not his personal effect.
I didn't say she was, you god damned fool.
That was implied by your asking about how the fact that men cannot get
pregnant nullifies his right to protect his personal effects.
Personal effects is property. If you consider a fetus to be a person
(however incorrect that perception is), then you are considering a
person to be property. And since the fetus is inside the woman, that
means that you also consider the woman to be his property as well,
since he cannot affect the fetus nor claim that it belongs to him
without making the same claim about the woman that it is in.
She is NOT his property.
Irrelevant, you god damned fool.
Nope. It is highly relevant to your argument. Perhaps you can
explain why you seem to think that women are property.
She has first claim over what and how her body
may be used,
Which includes consenting to sex, you god damned militaristic rapist ally.
I am none of the ad hominems that you have directed at me, as usual.
Your lies about me are getting more and more hateful the worse your
position becomes.
And consent to sex does NOT imply consent to continue any resulting
pregnancy. The decisions are completely different.
YOUR claim is that she does not have the right to determine how and
why her body can be used, since you claim that she should be forced to
continue any unwanted pregnancies that she experiences. That is
inherent in your position, and implied by statements of yours such as
this: "Only in rape would the woman have a right to an elective
abortion."
and thus she has the ultimate say over whether or not she
will remain pregnant.
In your world she doesn't, you god damned cruel beast.
Actually, in your imagination, she does not have any say over whether
or not she remains pregnant. I am the one that is pro-choice,
remember? I am the one that wants her to choose for herself whether
or not she continues her pregnancy, and not require that she make
either decision without the possibility of choosing the other.
You are for raping women at gunpoint, you god damned fool.
Again, you are telling hateful lies about me. Not to mention you are
continuing to show that you know nothing about what I am for or
against even though I have told you that many times.
For the definition of personal effects, try this link.
http://www.medlawplus.com/legalforms/instruct/effects.tpl
Very simply, "personal effects" in the legal sense means movable
property including, but not limited to, clothing, jewelry,
photographs, personal papers, etc.
Fetae are moveable, you idiot.
No, they are not. They are a part of the body. The female body. If
fetuses are moveable, then they should be easily removed, put down, or
handed to another, just as clothing, jewelry, or personal papers
could be.
You continue to show that you are the only idiot in this thread. And
a hateful one at that.
They do not include real estate, automobiles, and other high value items.
You are a evil, piece of *****, wimpy, ignorant, wicked, dishonest fool.
I see | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
