| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Frank Dwyer" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2005 08:46:22 PM |
| Object: |
Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 09:06:53 PM |
|
|
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 11:17:02 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Utah 2, Houston 1 (SO) (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 23 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 11:38:57 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who actually
love children?
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a pregnancy
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
LOL!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 12:32:19 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
Evidently, you and your comrades have nothing left in your heads to hurt.
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court? Why is it that this
decision is not enough to discourage those who actually love children? Why
is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC decision?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that your fellow idiots keep trying to challenge it, with the same
result? Learning from experience apparently is something you're against.
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Just because no woman in her right mind would let YOU near her doesn't entitle
you to get the rest of us to pay for your hooker.
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a pregnancy
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
LOL!!!!!!!!
Are you nuttier than the Nantahala National Forest? That's damn near 100%
certain.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Utah 2, Houston 1 (SO) (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 23 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 09:58:25 AM |
|
|
In article <0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who actually
love children?
Are you saying you love children now?
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
17% is hardly "massive."
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because you can't accept defeat.
Why is it that...
<Yawn> Stop asking such stupid questions. We won. You lost. Live
with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:37:12 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758255674%spam@aol.com...
In article <0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Are you saying you love children now?
Always did.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
17% is hardly "massive."
Yet, in the same sex marriage sect it is enough to warrant changing the law?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because you can't accept defeat.
I feel undefeated.
Why is it that...
<Yawn> Stop asking such stupid questions. We won. You lost. Live
with it.
I do live with it.
You aren't aware of reality?
What choice do I have in that?
I know about accept it.
I accept the fact that I live amongst such.
Is that enough to ask me to accept it as proper policy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
24 Feb 2005 01:12:32 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758255674%spam@aol.com...
In article <0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them? And, why is it that they
feel unrepresentative in Court? Why is it that this decision is not
enough to discourage those who actually love children?
Are you saying you love children now?
Always did.
Let's hope at least some of your neighbors have access to Usenet, and can take
action to protect their children.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
17% is hardly "massive."
Yet, in the same sex marriage sect it is enough to warrant changing the law?
Unequal treatment by the law is generally not favored. Same-sex marriage
eliminates one instance of such treatment without abridging anyone's rights.
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because you can't accept defeat.
I feel undefeated.
So did Tsar Nikolai in 1917. Take the hint.
Why is it that...
<Yawn> Stop asking such stupid questions. We won. You lost. Live
with it.
I do live with it.
....and you whine about it incessantly.
You aren't aware of reality?
You surely aren't, given your sorry history in this newsgroup.
What choice do I have in that? I know about accept it. I accept the fact
that I live amongst such. Is that enough to ask me to accept it as proper
policy?
No one else is denying you your choice -- to oppose abortion. You -will- do
them the courtesy of letting them make their own conclusions about the issue,
or else you'll get the abuse you're getting in this newsgroup -- from officers
of the state. There's your choice to make.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Utah 0 (February 23)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 25 at Cincinnati, 6:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 11:25:31 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758255674%spam@aol.com...
In article <0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Are you saying you love children now?
Always did.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
17% is hardly "massive."
Yet, in the same sex marriage sect it is enough to warrant changing the law?
"'No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.'
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty
thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of
the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it
denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of
the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and
bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at
common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds,
delivering the opinion of the court in the matter of Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 03:48:31 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who actually
love children?
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a pregnancy
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
You REALLY need to update your information. How many times, exactly,
will this need to be debunked before it penetrates your tiny mind that
it's not true?
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti- Abortionists. Any other silly questions?
LOL!!!!!!!!
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 09:38:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:38:57 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentative in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti-choice, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:34:05 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jj8p11l63lsanojackqhpunsi4dqk0sio8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:38:57 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentated in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
These are not fetuses entering court.
Why are they not being represented?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Has nothing to do with children?
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Is that the probelm?
Is the care shown by the Pro-lifers while the "who cares, accept it" comes
from the Pro-Choicers?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
Why do Pro-Choicers raise their voices?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
How so?
Why are you Pro-Choice then?
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for
breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a
pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
Not quite a realistic statement.
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Since when?
Do you deny the assembled data because you are Pro-Choice?
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti-choice, of course.
How so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 09:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <Je2Td.28920$Rl5.15304@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jj8p11l63lsanojackqhpunsi4dqk0sio8@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:38:57 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<0BUSd.14809$hd6.9487@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkis4jsvn5.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> writes:
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentated in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
These are not fetuses entering court.
Why are they not being represented?
A fetus has no legal standing. That's why.
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Has nothing to do with children?
Parrot.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Is that the probelm?
Is the care shown by the Pro-lifers while the "who cares, accept it" comes
from the Pro-Choicers?
Studies show prolifers are less likely to adopt. You said you wouldn't
adopt. But you "care."
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
Why do Pro-Choicers raise their voices?
They have won - why would they?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
How so?
Why are you Pro-Choice then?
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for
breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a
pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
Not quite a realistic statement.
LOL! Liar. There is NO correlation. But you keep lying. (Like you
would care about women getting cancer if it did increase the
chances....)
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Since when?
Do you deny the assembled data because you are Pro-Choice?
I know the truth means nothing to you, but:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute, a branch of the
National Institutes of Health, convened a workshop that evaluated
studies on abortion and breast cancer and assessed whether an
association between abortion and breast cancer exists. Over 100 of the
world's leading experts on pregnancy and breast cancer, including
epidemiologists, clinicians and breast cancer advocates participated.
(See National Cancer Institute, Summary Report: Early Reproductive
Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, below)
These experts concluded that studies have clearly established that
"induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer
risk." This conclusion was reviewed and unanimously approved by the
NCI's top scientific advisors and counselors.
<http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 03:53:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:34:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Je2Td.28920$Rl5.15304@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentated in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
These are not fetuses entering court.
Why are they not being represented?
Why should they? If a wall is part of a case is the wall represented?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Has nothing to do with children?
Correct.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Is that the probelm?
There is no problem.
Is the care shown by the Pro-lifers while the "who cares, accept it" comes
from the Pro-Choicers?
Irrelevant.
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
Why do Pro-Choicers raise their voices?
To counter the loud mouthed fanatics and insure they will not stampede
the law their way.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
How so?
Why are you Pro-Choice then?
Because I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide for herself
whether to complete or terminate the process and not be forced into
one course of action.
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for
breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a
pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
Not quite a realistic statement.
Yes, it is.
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Since when?
Since ever. Why do you assume the motives involved in an abortion
when no explanation or justification is required?
Do you deny the assembled data because you are Pro-Choice?
No, because the 'data' is not correct.
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti-choice, of course.
How so?
Anti-choice would force a pregnant woman into one course of action
with no recourse or alternate available.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 04:52:02 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:7fup11tsg4ja0etht148ujsa07jfkd7odt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:34:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Je2Td.28920$Rl5.15304@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentated in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
These are not fetuses entering court.
Why are they not being represented?
Why should they? If a wall is part of a case is the wall represented?
You are calling citizens a wall?
You are calling an object without life in it a party to a case?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Has nothing to do with children?
Correct.
Liar.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Is that the probelm?
There is no problem.
*****.
Is the care shown by the Pro-lifers while the "who cares, accept it" comes
from the Pro-Choicers?
Irrelevant.
Your mother?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
Why do Pro-Choicers raise their voices?
To counter the loud mouthed fanatics and insure they will not stampede
the law their way.
Who can shout louder?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
How so?
Why are you Pro-Choice then?
Because I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide for herself
*****.
whether to complete or terminate the process and not be forced into
one course of action.
*****.
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for
breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a
pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
Not quite a realistic statement.
Yes, it is.
*****.
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Since when?
Since ever.
That was a very stupid, ignorant, idiotic, moronic statement to make.
A non-observant statement from someone who thinks children do not exist
before they are born.
Why do you assume the motives involved in an abortion
when no explanation or justification is required?
You are assuming that Roe V Wade is enough to justify your evil.
You are wrong.
Do you deny the assembled data because you are Pro-Choice?
No, because the 'data' is not correct.
*****.
Maybe you do not know how to interpret data.
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti-choice, of course.
How so?
Anti-choice would force a pregnant woman into one course of action
with no recourse or alternate available.
What is wrong with one course of action?
You like forked roads where neither option is illustrated as the right
choice?
You like such a government, such a society, where the choice is there but NO
ONE agrees which road to take enough?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 05:37:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:52:02 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<gK7Td.7688$Q47.614@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:7fup11tsg4ja0etht148ujsa07jfkd7odt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:34:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Je2Td.28920$Rl5.15304@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
With seven of the nine Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, it
looks
like the fetus fanatics just took another kick in the head...
How is it that that kick did no harm to them?
And, why is it that they feel unrepresentated in Court?
Why should a fetus be represented? It is not a person.
These are not fetuses entering court.
Why are they not being represented?
Why should they? If a wall is part of a case is the wall represented?
You are calling citizens a wall?
A fetus is not a citizen.
You are calling an object without life in it a party to a case?
My toe is alive. Can it be a party to a case?
Why is it that this decision is not enough to discourage those who
actually
love children?
Because it has nothing to do with children?
Has nothing to do with children?
Correct.
Liar.
Nope. A fetus is not a child.
Why is it that the massive dissent will not be eliminated by such a SC
decision?
Who actually cares?
Is that the probelm?
There is no problem.
*****.
I like your fact filled replies.
Is the care shown by the Pro-lifers while the "who cares, accept it" comes
from the Pro-Choicers?
Irrelevant.
Your mother?
Meaning what?
Why is it that Roe VS. Wade has not rested yet?
Because a few loud mouthed fanatics will never be satisfied?
Why do Pro-Choicers raise their voices?
To counter the loud mouthed fanatics and insure they will not stampede
the law their way.
Who can shout louder?
Some people think loud is good. Most people know better.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that it will not rest until it is dead unless you can possibly
provide all men with the woman or women they need?
Which has nothing to do with the freedom of choice.
How so?
Why are you Pro-Choice then?
Because I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide for herself
*****.
Another fact filled reply.
whether to complete or terminate the process and not be forced into
one course of action.
*****.
Another fact filled reply.
And, will all women be content to know they are at a higher risk for
breast
cancer when they are expected to do everything to avoid or abort a
pregnancy
Which has not been proven. In facts, studies seem to refute this.
Not quite a realistic statement.
Yes, it is.
*****.
Another fact filled reply.
for the men who are not willing to love them enough to allow them to be
protected against breast cancer?
See above. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Since when?
Since ever.
That was a very stupid, ignorant, idiotic, moronic statement to make.
Because I am pointing out how you are attributing motives to others?
A non-observant statement from someone who thinks children do not exist
before they are born.
They don't.
Why do you assume the motives involved in an abortion
when no explanation or justification is required?
You are assuming that Roe V Wade is enough to justify your evil.
Evil is a judgmental term and as such has no place in a rational
discussion.
You are wrong.
I have a lot of company don't I?
Do you deny the assembled data because you are Pro-Choice?
No, because the 'data' is not correct.
*****.
Maybe you do not know how to interpret data.
In fact I have done a lot of that in the past.
Are women really being used more by Pro-Choicers or by Pro-Lifers?
Anti-choice, of course.
How so?
Anti-choice would force a pregnant woman into one course of action
with no recourse or alternate available.
What is wrong with one course of action?
That would depend on the course of action and the alternatives.
You like forked roads where neither option is illustrated as the right
choice?
Who does the labels?
You like such a government, such a society, where the choice is there but NO
ONE agrees which road to take enough?
Why not leave it to each individual? Especially when the result of
each choice is clear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 10:46:56 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 11:19:57 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously haven't
grasped that concept yet. Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort supporters.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Utah 2, Houston 1 (SO) (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 23 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
22 Feb 2005 11:34:42 PM |
|
|
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that are riding with the blood of conceived children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who
like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about those who are not infatuated with it?
Too bad, iyo?
What about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead of
for the party?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 12:44:57 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept? The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in
reality?
The concept that your friends are beating their heads against the wall and
expecting a different result. That's one sign of insanity.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers? LOL!!!!!!!!!!
It says they're a bit more aware of reality than you'll ever be.
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I have no idea how you process what you read, because I'm not a mental case
like you are.
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that are riding with the blood of conceived children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families? Are you telling
me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm telling you your comrades are wasting their time, and refusing to learn
from their experience.
What about those who are not infatuated with it? Too bad, iyo? What about
those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead of for the
party?
Maybe you should find something else to be obsessed with, other than
controlling women.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Utah 2, Houston 1 (SO) (February 21)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 23 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 09:58:24 AM |
|
|
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case "without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that are riding with the blood of conceived children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you? And doctors make FAR
more money doing other things. The ones who perform abortions have
this funny thing about "liberty" and choice.
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who
like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
What about those who are not infatuated with it?
Too bad, iyo?
What about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead of
for the party?
To all you "pro-lifers" out there. This is who you are. Think about
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:29:18 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted?
Why do you want to live in denial and act as if it accepted by everyone
here?
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort
supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
To offer?
You mean in words?
I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine.
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
While you know I am telling you about the cash machine of abortion on demand
and its associated industries which would not be as prosperous without
abortion on demand?
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that they are riding with the blood of conceived
children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you?
Not really.
I observe the social phenomena and the rules and decisions handed down.
And doctors make FAR
more money doing other things.
So, why be an abortion doctor?
The ones who perform abortions have
this funny thing about "liberty" and choice.
Do you call that a real physician?
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who
like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
I hear it on the television. You don't listen to the words?
What about those who are not infatuated with it?
Too bad, iyo?
What about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead
of
for the party?
To all you "pro-lifers" out there. This is who you are. Think about
it.
Who are we?
I don't quite get your drift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
24 Feb 2005 01:56:43 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is
settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't grasped that concept yet.
What concept? The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in
reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted? Why do you want to live in denial and act as if
it accepted by everyone here?
It doesn't have to be accepted by everyone. It _does_ have to be in
accordance with the fundamental law of the land -- that Constitution you're so
intolerant of.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a different result
doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
To offer? You mean in words? I have no fetus to offer to the abortion
machine.
You never will, since no woman will ever be subjected to your foul presence.
(Not that it matters -- since no one's forcing you to offer your supposed
fetus up for anything. It'd be your choice -- if 1) you found a woman
clueless enough to let you even touch her, and 2) _she_ chose to give birth.)
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
While you know I am telling you about the cash machine of abortion on demand
and its associated industries which would not be as prosperous without
abortion on demand?
Such questions as that only support the opinion that you ARE just plain nuts.
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that they are riding with the blood of conceived
children in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you?
Not really. I observe the social phenomena and the rules and decisions
handed down.
Your perception and reality are estranged from each other.
And doctors make FAR more money doing other things.
So, why be an abortion doctor?
Maybe because they choose to be of service to people?
The ones who perform abortions have this funny thing about "liberty" and
choice.
Do you call that a real physician?
Take it up with the state boards who certified them, who are a bit better
qualified to judge their talents than you will ever be.
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who
like the party? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
I hear it on the television. You don't listen to the words?
So, it's true because you heard it on TV? Thanks for confirming that
P.T. Barnum knew whereof he spoke.
What about those who are not infatuated with it? Too bad, iyo? What
about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead of for
the party?
To all you "pro-lifers" out there. This is who you are. Think about
it.
Who are we? I don't quite get your drift.
So much for that education you supposedly got at Furman...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Utah 0 (February 23)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 25 at Cincinnati, 6:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:34:41 AM |
|
|
In article <ea2Td.28910$Rl5.944@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted?
It is. Do you suggest that because you don't accept it, it isn't
settled?
Why do you want to live in denial and act as if it accepted by everyone
here?
LOL! I get it. It isn't settled law until you agree with it! It is
"settled law" meaning the court system has pretty much decided all the
big issues. Look up Stare Decisis.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort
supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
To offer?
You mean in words?
I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine.
So you are crazy.
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
While you know I am telling you about the cash machine of abortion on demand
and its associated industries which would not be as prosperous without
abortion on demand?
When you need propaganda, it is because reality fails.
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into the
money flow that much or that they are riding with the blood of conceived
children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you?
Not really.
I observe the social phenomena and the rules and decisions handed down.
17% of society wants abortion banned.
And doctors make FAR
more money doing other things.
So, why be an abortion doctor?
Social conscientiousness.
The ones who perform abortions have
this funny thing about "liberty" and choice.
Do you call that a real physician?
The cream of the crop.
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those who
like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
I hear it on the television. You don't listen to the words?
Not it the order you put them in.
What about those who are not infatuated with it?
Too bad, iyo?
What about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game instead
of
for the party?
To all you "pro-lifers" out there. This is who you are. Think about
it.
Who are we?
I don't quite get your drift.
I know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:43:11 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050834416281%spam@aol.com...
In article <ea2Td.28910$Rl5.944@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled
law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted?
It is.
By whom?
Do you suggest that because you don't accept it, it isn't
settled?
I observe the contest.
Why do you want to live in denial and act as if it accepted by everyone
here?
LOL! I get it. It isn't settled law until you agree with it!
You think it is settled law when there is such a contest?
It is
"settled law" meaning the court system has pretty much decided all the
big issues. Look up Stare Decisis.
I can do that.
I do not feel like doing so, but if you can paste it I will read it, and
will be thankful for your doing so.
Maybe I can get to it myself.
Stare Decisis.
Thanks.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort
supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
To offer?
You mean in words?
I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine.
So you are crazy.
Since I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine I am crazy?
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
While you know I am telling you about the cash machine of abortion on
demand
and its associated industries which would not be as prosperous without
abortion on demand?
When you need propaganda, it is because reality fails.
You are speaking of pamphlets geared at changing the mindset of members of
the public to support Pro-Choice?
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into
the
money flow that much or that they are riding with the blood of
conceived
children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you?
Not really.
I observe the social phenomena and the rules and decisions handed down.
17% of society wants abortion banned.
Totally?
More want a more well-defined abortion policy rather than one left to
choice.
And doctors make FAR
more money doing other things.
So, why be an abortion doctor?
Social conscientiousness.
Social conscientiousness?
The ones who perform abortions have
this funny thing about "liberty" and choice.
Do you call that a real physician?
The cream of the crop.
Ridiculous.
Are you telling me that the entertainment we see is arranged by those
who
like the party?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
I hear it on the television. You don't listen to the words?
Not it the order you put them in.
How about listening to them verbatim, word for word, in their presented
order then?
What about those who are not infatuated with it?
Too bad, iyo?
What about those who actually go to the super bowl for the game
instead
of
for the party?
To all you "pro-lifers" out there. This is who you are. Think about
it.
Who are we?
I don't quite get your drift.
I know.
So you are drifting?
When will you come ashore?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 09:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <fn2Td.28937$Rl5.15565@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050834416281%spam@aol.com...
In article <ea2Td.28910$Rl5.944@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled
law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted?
It is.
By whom?
The courts.
Do you suggest that because you don't accept it, it isn't
settled?
I observe the contest.
I get it. You think a bunch of abortion loons decide whether the law
is settled or not.
Why do you want to live in denial and act as if it accepted by everyone
here?
LOL! I get it. It isn't settled law until you agree with it!
You think it is settled law when there is such a contest?
What contest is that? Abortion is legal. It will always be legal.
You are like the last of the slave owners swearing up and down that
slavery will be legal again some day.
It is
"settled law" meaning the court system has pretty much decided all the
big issues. Look up Stare Decisis.
I can do that.
Then do it!
I do not feel like doing so, but if you can paste it I will read it, and
will be thankful for your doing so.
Maybe I can get to it myself.
Stare Decisis.
Thanks.
LOL! Stare Decisis: Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The
principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the
courts. To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim
that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent
which is not afterwards to be departed from.
Repeating the same action in the hope of getting a
different result doesn't say much for your fellow anti-abort
supporters.
What does it say about the Pro-Choicers?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
What does it say? Do you have anything at all to offer?
To offer?
You mean in words?
I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine.
So you are crazy.
Since I have no fetus to offer to the abortion machine I am crazy?
Porno, abortion, fetal body parts money makers rule?
Is that what you are telling me?
I'm tell you I think you are nuts.
While you know I am telling you about the cash machine of abortion on
demand
and its associated industries which would not be as prosperous without
abortion on demand?
When you need propaganda, it is because reality fails.
You are speaking of pamphlets geared at changing the mindset of members of
the public to support Pro-Choice?
I'm speaking of you.
Are you telling me that the people who associate with the SC are into
the
money flow that much or that they are riding with the blood of
conceived
children
in their pockets via themselves and/or their own families?
You just make up this crap as you go, don't you?
Not really.
I observe the social phenomena and the rules and decisions handed down.
17% of society wants abortion banned.
Totally?
More want a more well-defined abortion policy rather than one left to
choice.
Is that what you support?
And doctors make FAR
more money doing other things.
So, why be an abortion doctor?
Social Consciousness
Social consciousness
You have a problem with Social Consciousness?
The ones who perform abortions have
this funny thing about "liberty" and choice.
Do you call that a real physician?
The cream of the crop.
Ridiculous.
You asked - I told you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court rejects McCorvey appeal |
23 Feb 2005 10:19:04 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220051940524597%spam@aol.com...
In article <fn2Td.28937$Rl5.15565@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050834416281%spam@aol.com...
In article <ea2Td.28910$Rl5.944@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230220050758245641%spam@aol.com...
In article <%wUSd.14808$hd6.8140@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkekf7svia.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220220051906530059%spam@aol.com...
In article <28SSd.10215$KY5.10123@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html
Shot down without comment.
Yep. And when the United States Supreme Court declines a case
"without
comment" that means, "There is nothing to say. This is settled
law."
If it is settled then why the contest?
Because your philosophical comrades who launched the suit
obviously
haven't
grasped that concept yet.
What concept?
The concept that something is settled which is unsettled in
reality?
What? Are you nuts? It is settled. Accept it.
Why isn't it being accepted?
It is.
By whom?
The courts.
How many citizens is that?
Do you suggest that because you don't accept it, it isn't
settled?
I observe the contest.
I get it. You think a bunch of abortion loons decide whether the law
is settled or not.
Either it is settled in society or it isn;t.
Which do you think is the case?
Where is the agreement to signify that it is really settled?
Why do you want to live in denial and act as if it accepted by
everyone
here?
LOL! I get it. It isn't settled law until you agree with it!
You think it is settled law when there is such a contest?
What contest is that? Abortion is legal. It will always be legal.
You are like the last of the slave owners swearing up and down that
slavery will be legal again some day.
Your side is the side that is akin to the slavery issue.
It is
"settled law" meaning the court system has pretty much decided all the
big issues. Look up Stare Decisis.
I can do that.
Then do it!
Why?
You want me to?
I do not feel like doing so, but if you can paste it I will read it, and
will be thankful for your doing so.
Maybe I can get to it myself.
Stare Decisis.
Thanks.
LOL! Stare Decisis: Lat. "to stand by that which is decided."
Thank you. I did not get a chance to look it up.
The
principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the
| | | | | | | | | | |
