Subject: Re: Roe vs Wade based on perjured testimony
From: "Johnny"

Subject: Re: Roe vs Wade based on perjured testimony
From: "Johnny"

In a television interview in the late 1980s, the woman who sued in

above

mentioned case confessed that she had perjured herself. She had

the

fetus was the result of a rape.

Abortion was laready legal in the case of rape.
Roe V Wade is nothing more than god damned whores wanting to have

babies killed.

You missed the point. If she had told the truth about her fetus, she

not

have qualified for an abortion.

All I really desire in the entire quagmire of social discontent is a rule

live by.

The law will only tell you what you cannot do.

That is the essence of freedom.

If you tell me that abortion is legal in any pregnancy then I will seek

live up to that law.
Which tells me I am free to impregnate any female regardless of her

status or age or income level, etc.
If you tell me abortion is not permitted in cases of adultery and
fornication, then I will still be able to impregnate those women yet the
baby can not be aborted legally.

This is about choice, and I want to know what my choices are.
As it stands now, I can choose to have sex with any female who is capable

conceiving a child without any concern for the child being born.
I am a very reasonable person, and to tell me that I am not permitted to

so under current law is a transgression of reason and violates the
justification of abortion legalism itself and it violates my liberty as a
citizen of the USA.

You want a rule to live by, then if you say the current law is that, then

am once again permitted to impregnate any female who can conceive a child
because there is no risk of producing too many children that way.

Have you ever heard of contraceptives?You know, condoms,the pill,

spermicide, etc?If you prevent the pregnancy, the whole abortion issue

moot.

The law is not specific enough in this area, because it should mandate
abortions in cases rather than leaving it up in the air for so many to
decide.

Hogwash. What about if the woman wants to raise the child?

The standard is not solid enough, it is too uncertain, and it is too

Making decisions is part of being an adult.
Each person's situation is unique. In desiring whether to have a child,

must consider marital status, finances, available time, and what the

wants to do.

Joe Bruno

Si vis pacem, para bellum
(If you want peace, prepare for war)
Ancient Roman Motto

Visit my web page for pictures, music, and accounting services
http://www.msnusers.com/Joepictures2008/shoebox.msnw

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkoekfi3ur.fsf@fnord.io.com...

brunjoe219@aol.com (Joe Bruno) writes:

From: "Johnny"

"Joe Bruno" <brunjoe219@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040909070359.03318.00000389@mb-m17.aol.com...

In a television interview in the late 1980s, the woman who sued in the
above mentioned case confessed that she had perjured herself. She had
claimed the fetus was the result of a rape.

Abortion was laready legal in the case of rape.
Roe V Wade is nothing more than god damned whores wanting to have their
babies killed.

You missed the point. If she had told the truth about her fetus, she would
not have qualified for an abortion.

John Wentzky (the South Carolina nutbar who you responded to) is almost as
certifiably insane as the likes of Bradbury...fortunately, Bradbury's
automatic hatred of anything Jewish is the equivalent of Wentzky's
instinctiive hatred of any woman who won't do as he says.

Any woman who will not do as you say or as you do?

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

Simply put, abortion was not legal in the case which was presented except

the cas of rape which was claimed which means there was no reason to
prosecute or to widen the abortion rights.

Adultery and fornication were not covered, only rape, incest and life of

mother.

So? The Supremes correctly decided that the woman's rights to her own

outweighed any claimed rights of a fetus -- because the woman is a person

the fetus isn't.

Claiming rape could get her off of the conviction yuet ti was not enough

authorize abortion in so many other cases.

You're a drooling idiot, Wentzky. The statute specifically exempted

conviction was contemplated in that case.

So, if you tell me next that women's rights are not to use a coathanger
after they get pregnant via adultery or fornication or prostitution, then

know what is happening.

Since he hasn't told you anything, numbnuts, you're just pissing into the

and whining because you're wet, as usual.

ADULTERY, FORNICATION, and PROSTITUTION!

...are your obsessions. So what?

So, which way you wanna go with it now?

He doesn't have to beg women to service him. You do. Spot the

You wanna tell me that since only a fraction of the nation's women were
actually committing fornication or adultery or prostitution (which

making porno movies for cash), that the law shoulda been overtunrned for

benefit of those few 'unfaithful' women such that it corrupted so many of
the rest of our nation that you still think it is justifiable in law for

entire nation's people?

Idiot. Sex isn't against the law if it's consensual (within age
restrictions). Regardless of what you think, you don't dictate the morals

anyone other than yourself -- and you bugger that up badly, to boot.

Go ahead.

I never missed the point.

...because you never got within the same universe as the point, in the

place.

I do not need pat blanket pablumesque statements to tell me when abortion

permitted.

...because you don't decide when it is permitted.

All I need is very specific language when it is allowed, and the case

it is not allowed is even easier, and that is called "Thou shall not

Shove your bible back up your *****, Wentzky. You are powerless.