Religions > Atheism > 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
23 Feb 2005 11:33:54 AM |
| Object: |
1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
Considering it was the devil herself who brought the suit, there is
little suprise that the appeal was not heard.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022208.html
1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade
Challenge
WASHINGTON, February 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Supreme Court
refused today to hear an appeal of the court's 1973 Roe v Wade
decision which permitted abortion in the United States. The appeal was
launched by Norma McCorvey, the same woman who, over thirty years ago,
was used by pro-abortion forces as the "Jane Roe" which led to
abortion's legalization.
In response to the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case,
McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, president of The Justice
Foundation, said "It is tragic and disappointing that the Court is
not willing to consider the aftermath of 32 years of abortion and its
devastating affect to women, their families, and our culture."
McCorvey's attempted appeal brought a thousand more witnesses than
did the original Roe case in 1973. They submitted over 5,000 pages of
evidence, including expert testimony of which the Court had none in
1973.
"This year alone, 100,000 women will be in abortion recovery programs
across the nation. We find it sad and tragic that their voices have
been rejected," said Parker. "It is also disturbing that the
highest court in the land is not willing to consider the compelling and
significant scientific and medical evidence and at least formally
re-evaluate its far-reaching decision."
Parker noted that the Supreme Court's denial does not reflect its
views on the merits of the case. "The denial order merely expresses
the Court's discretionary refusal to give appellate review to a lower
court decision," he said. "A denial is not a reaffirmation of Roe
v. Wade. We believe this decision sends an important message that the
High Court needs compassionate judges who care about the pain and
suffering of women hurt by abortion."
The case is McCorvey v. Hill, 04-967.
jhw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing.
Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but
acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 05:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:44:08 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Babies were born that were unwanted and punishingly neglected.
Women lived lives of misery trying to provide for children never
wanted.
So bill says it's ok to kill them.
Thousands of women were killed and maimed by unskilled back
alley abortionists.
Stupid women.
Thousands of unwanted pregnancies occur do to the Catholic
churches prohibition of the use of contraceptives. Additional unwanted
pregnancies occurred do to the failure of birth control methods.
Bill doesn't understand that the RCC is not against abortion, the RCC says that
God is against it.
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
A fetus in the womb is part of and dependent on the women. She should
have the right to make decisions about her own body without the interference
of a religiously/politically motivated government.
Fine. Just don't hurt the unborn because the unborn is not the woman.
Every active opponent of the freedom of women to make the abortion
decision should be required by law to adopt and raise at least one unwanted
or unintended child. If this were the law, the opposition to abortion
would quickly disappear
Sorry, that's unAmerican.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 06:03:09 PM |
|
|
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 11:58:06 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c872a185fcfd57d98c16d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children
to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility. That's why it's true that if men got pregnant,
abortion would e a sacrament.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 11:59:59 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-I-dnQ8gLYN48YDfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c872a185fcfd57d98c16d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children
to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility.
that's pretty absurd considering that men are routinely sued for child
support
financial responsibility is part of responsibili
whit
That's why it's true that if men got pregnant,
abortion would e a sacrament.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 12:45:06 AM |
|
|
In article <3858qsF5fu0p4U2@individual.net>, says...
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility.
that's pretty absurd considering that men are routinely sued for child
support
financial responsibility is part of responsibili
I was unaware that child support is charged before there is a child to
be supported (ie. before birth)...
After birth, both parents are held responsible for supporting the new
child, whether by cash, kind or a combination of the two.
Before birth, only the woman is held responsible for the 'support' of
the embryo/foetus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 08:41:05 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c87884dd5220dbc98c177@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <3858qsF5fu0p4U2@individual.net>, says...
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility.
that's pretty absurd considering that men are routinely sued for child
support
financial responsibility is part of responsibili
I was unaware that child support is charged before there is a child to
be supported (ie. before birth)...
After birth, both parents are held responsible for supporting the new
child, whether by cash, kind or a combination of the two.
Before birth, only the woman is held responsible for the 'support' of
the embryo/foetus.
correct. but only the woman is given the locus of control to decide on
whether to abort or not also
so, with choice and power comes responsibility, so to speak
only the woman has the power to make the ultimate decision (to abort or
not), so it's not surprising that only the woman is held responsible for
support of the fetus.
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 09:20:18 AM |
|
|
In article <3867bsF5cpb0mU1@individual.net>, says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c87884dd5220dbc98c177@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <3858qsF5fu0p4U2@individual.net>, says...
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility.
that's pretty absurd considering that men are routinely sued for child
support
financial responsibility is part of responsibili
I was unaware that child support is charged before there is a child to
be supported (ie. before birth)...
After birth, both parents are held responsible for supporting the new
child, whether by cash, kind or a combination of the two.
Before birth, only the woman is held responsible for the 'support' of
the embryo/foetus.
correct. but only the woman is given the locus of control to decide on
whether to abort or not also
so, with choice and power comes responsibility, so to speak
only the woman has the power to make the ultimate decision (to abort or
not), so it's not surprising that only the woman is held responsible for
support of the fetus.
If *anyone* is to be help responsible for supporting an embryo/foetus, I
agree, it should be the one who is pregnant. (And if/when men become
pregnant that might be the man who is pregnant, not the woman).
However, why should *anyone* be help responsible for the support of an
embryo/foetus? Why should they be under any obligation to ensure that
the embryo/foetus later becomes a child (ie. is provided with the use of
a person's body, metabolism and resources until a live birth can occur)?
Remember, that embryo/foetus has no legal rights (it isn't a person or
human being while an embryo/foetus), and cannot have any without
removing rights from the person who is pregnant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanggfr" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 10:28:21 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c880109ea04d50798c180@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <3867bsF5cpb0mU1@individual.net>, says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c87884dd5220dbc98c177@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <3858qsF5fu0p4U2@individual.net>, says...
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
You notice that all the blame falls on the women who have to risk
their
lives carrying and delivering. Not a peep about the men who should
have half the responsibility.
that's pretty absurd considering that men are routinely sued for
child
support
financial responsibility is part of responsibili
I was unaware that child support is charged before there is a child to
be supported (ie. before birth)...
After birth, both parents are held responsible for supporting the new
child, whether by cash, kind or a combination of the two.
Before birth, only the woman is held responsible for the 'support' of
the embryo/foetus.
correct. but only the woman is given the locus of control to decide on
whether to abort or not also
so, with choice and power comes responsibility, so to speak
only the woman has the power to make the ultimate decision (to abort or
not), so it's not surprising that only the woman is held responsible for
support of the fetus.
If *anyone* is to be help responsible for supporting an embryo/foetus, I
agree, it should be the one who is pregnant. (And if/when men become
pregnant that might be the man who is pregnant, not the woman).
However, why should *anyone* be help responsible for the support of an
embryo/foetus? Why should they be under any obligation to ensure that
the embryo/foetus later becomes a child (ie. is provided with the use of
a person's body, metabolism and resources until a live birth can occur)?
Remember, that embryo/foetus has no legal rights (it isn't a person or
human being while an embryo/foetus), and cannot have any without
removing rights from the person who is pregnant.
it's about competing interests and balance
i think a woman has an Absolute Right (tm) to abort in the first trimester,
but not in the 3rd, for example
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 03:32:13 PM |
|
|
In article <386dl1F5kmg0eU1@individual.net>, says...
However, why should *anyone* be help responsible for the support of an
embryo/foetus? Why should they be under any obligation to ensure that
the embryo/foetus later becomes a child (ie. is provided with the use of
a person's body, metabolism and resources until a live birth can occur)?
Remember, that embryo/foetus has no legal rights (it isn't a person or
human being while an embryo/foetus), and cannot have any without
removing rights from the person who is pregnant.
it's about competing interests and balance
i think a woman has an Absolute Right (tm) to abort in the first trimester,
but not in the 3rd, for example
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 11:27:09 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c885836f1fd7cee98c184@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <386dl1F5kmg0eU1@individual.net>, says...
However, why should *anyone* be help responsible for the support of an
embryo/foetus? Why should they be under any obligation to ensure that
the embryo/foetus later becomes a child (ie. is provided with the use
of
a person's body, metabolism and resources until a live birth can
occur)?
Remember, that embryo/foetus has no legal rights (it isn't a person or
human being while an embryo/foetus), and cannot have any without
removing rights from the person who is pregnant.
it's about competing interests and balance
i think a woman has an Absolute Right (tm) to abort in the first
trimester,
but not in the 3rd, for example
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
"remove?"
first of all, it's not about removing anything, because currently women
DON'T have an Absolute Right (tm) to an abortion in the 3rd
second of all, i am pro-choice. it does not therefore follow that i believe
a fetus is "her own body"
furthermore, in the USA, a person doesn't have unlimited rights to their own
body
see: laws against prostitution, drug use, and selling of organs for profit
hth
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 04:56:04 PM |
|
|
In article <3895f7F5hojegU1@individual.net>, says...
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
"remove?"
Yes, remove.
The only way a foetus could get rights to remain in a woman's body is if
some of *her* rights (eg. the right to have foreign objects removed from
her body) are taken away from her.
Any right that may be given to a foetus is bound to reduce the woman's
rights.
Rights can be given to children without taking rights away from their
parents, since children are not competing for use of the body of the
parents per se. For instance, if a child is given the right to have
someone take care of it, then pretty much anyone can take care of it. It
need not be the parents so obliged.
It's different for a foetus or implanted embryo because that competes
directly with the woman for the use of her body. For instance, say the
woman is short of some bodily resource such that there is only enough
for her alone. If the embryo/foetus also needs that resource, does the
woman or the foetus get it awarded to them as of right... and under what
justification?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v WadeChallenge |
25 Feb 2005 06:00:07 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <3895f7F5hojegU1@individual.net>, says...
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
"remove?"
Yes, remove.
The only way a foetus could get rights to remain in a woman's body is if
some of *her* rights (eg. the right to have foreign objects removed from
her body) are taken away from her.
Any right that may be given to a foetus is bound to reduce the woman's
rights.
Rights can be given to children without taking rights away from their
parents, since children are not competing for use of the body of the
parents per se. For instance, if a child is given the right to have
someone take care of it, then pretty much anyone can take care of it. It
need not be the parents so obliged.
It's different for a foetus or implanted embryo because that competes
directly with the woman for the use of her body. For instance, say the
woman is short of some bodily resource such that there is only enough
for her alone. If the embryo/foetus also needs that resource, does the
woman or the foetus get it awarded to them as of right... and under what
justification?
Pregnancy is a natural condition, the first part of motherhood. Only a
sick psychotically selfish woman would insist her child obtain some kind
of "permission" to continue its life that the *woman* was responsible
for bringing into being.
It's just that kind of sick crap that justifies killing preborn humans
even if they ARE children:
"Mind you, it still wouldn't have any right to use the body of some
other huuman [sic] being against the ongoing consent of that other... no
human being or person has that right."
--Pat Winstanley
You are a very very sick person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
26 Feb 2005 03:22:00 AM |
|
|
In article <421FBC07.BBA49BC6@yahoo.com>,
says...
Pregnancy is a natural condition
So is cancer!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 08:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:00:07 +1300, Sergeant America
<sergeant_america@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Pregnancy is a natural condition
So is a broken leg. So is cancer. I assume that, due to your belief
that no one should attempt to alleviate a "natural condition", you'll
never seek medical care, right?
Only a
sick psychotically selfish woman would insist her child obtain some kind
of "permission" to continue its life that the *woman* was responsible
for bringing into being.
You're accusing billions of women of being psychotic over tens of
thousands of years.
It's just that kind of sick crap that justifies killing preborn humans
even if they ARE children:
The FACT that they're not "preborn humans" NOR children.
You are a very very sick person.
Looking in a mirror, are we?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 05:24:41 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <3895f7F5hojegU1@individual.net>, says...
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
"remove?"
Yes, remove.
The only way a foetus could get rights to remain in a woman's body is
if
some of *her* rights (eg. the right to have foreign objects removed
from
her body) are taken away from her.
Any right that may be given to a foetus is bound to reduce the
woman's
rights.
Rights can be given to children without taking rights away from their
parents, since children are not competing for use of the body of the
parents per se. For instance, if a child is given the right to have
someone take care of it, then pretty much anyone can take care of it.
It
need not be the parents so obliged.
It's different for a foetus or implanted embryo because that competes
directly with the woman for the use of her body. For instance, say
the
woman is short of some bodily resource such that there is only enough
for her alone. If the embryo/foetus also needs that resource, does
the
woman or the foetus get it awarded to them as of right... and under
what
justification?
Exactly which right does a woman forfeit that would supercede a childs
right to life? Should a woman's right to keep a lazy life-style be
paramount?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
26 Feb 2005 03:18:50 AM |
|
|
In article <1109373881.417524.86940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <3895f7F5hojegU1@individual.net>, says...
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
"remove?"
Yes, remove.
The only way a foetus could get rights to remain in a woman's body is
if
some of *her* rights (eg. the right to have foreign objects removed
from
her body) are taken away from her.
Any right that may be given to a foetus is bound to reduce the
woman's
rights.
Rights can be given to children without taking rights away from their
parents, since children are not competing for use of the body of the
parents per se. For instance, if a child is given the right to have
someone take care of it, then pretty much anyone can take care of it.
It
need not be the parents so obliged.
It's different for a foetus or implanted embryo because that competes
directly with the woman for the use of her body. For instance, say
the
woman is short of some bodily resource such that there is only enough
for her alone. If the embryo/foetus also needs that resource, does
the
woman or the foetus get it awarded to them as of right... and under
what
justification?
Exactly which right does a woman forfeit that would supercede a childs
right to life? Should a woman's right to keep a lazy life-style be
paramount?
The issue is about embryos and foetuses, not children.
Neither embryos nor foetuses have a right to life, and nor do they have
the right to use a woman's body against her ongoing consent.
Children don't use a woman's body, metabolism, organs etc. Children do
no inhabit women's bodies. Children *do* have rights, just as adults do.
Any rights given to an embryo or foetus would have to be at the same
time removed from the woman in whose body the embryo/foetus currently
exists. For instance, if the embryo/foetus were given the right to
inhabit the woman's body regardless of her wishes, then the woman would
have to *lose* the right to have unwanted objects removed from her body.
You can't have your cake and eat it! ;-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 08:01:10 PM |
|
|
On 25 Feb 2005 15:24:41 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Exactly which right does a woman forfeit that would supercede a childs
right to life?
Care to quote anything that gives anyone any "right to life"?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 03:39:26 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
Nothing angers them more than the idea of a woman being in charge of
her own sexuality. Pregnancy is punishment for what they see as
"recreational sex."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 11:28:05 AM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1109281166.604032.28800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
Nothing angers them more than the idea of a woman being in charge of
her own sexuality. Pregnancy is punishment for what they see as
"recreational sex."
angers who?
i'm pro-choice dipshit
fwiw, most people in the US are pro-choice
being pro-choice does not (necessarily) mean you believe in unlimited access
to abortion in the 3rd trimester
nor does the law say that
whit
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 09:48:07 PM |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2005 13:39:26 -0800, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> said
in alt.atheism:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Why do you want to remove a person's rights to their own body?
Nothing angers them more than the idea of a woman being in charge of
her own sexuality. Pregnancy is punishment for what they see as
"recreational sex."
Recreational sex for women. There's nothing wrong, in their eyes, if
a man indulges.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 08:38:15 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c872a185fcfd57d98c16d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
Because nice women don't enjoy sex.
Then again, where are all these guys going to get the sex to which *they*
are so *obviously* entitled....?
<rolling eyes>
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 06:01:52 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c872a185fcfd57d98c16d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
Perhaps puke should wonder why the men couldn't keep it in their pants or
use a condom :P
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 08:38:38 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:384jraF5lsp6pU1@individual.net...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c872a185fcfd57d98c16d@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children
to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
Perhaps puke should wonder why the men couldn't keep it in their pants or
use a condom :P
But that would force him to act as tho' he had a brain.
Susan
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 12:05:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:03:09 -0000, Pat Winstanley
<boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
In article <033q11h1rq8kd5jor700c2seoc1f1b8ru7@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
Why?
Earl's jealous of anyone who can get sex.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 06:01:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:08:38 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> thought
hard and said:
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
"Sorry about the rape but, ***** it, you should have kept your knees
together."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
24 Feb 2005 09:49:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:01:36 -0600, Daniel Kolle
<Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:08:38 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> thought
hard and said:
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
"Sorry about the rape but, ***** it, you should have kept your knees
together."
Daniel, if she's of age she has the right to consent to sex without it
being considered consent to pregnancy.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
25 Feb 2005 05:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:49:05 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:01:36 -0600, Daniel Kolle
<Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:08:38 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> thought
hard and said:
Why should we condemn women to unwanted children and condemn children to
mothers that did not want them?
They should have kept their knees together.
"Sorry about the rape but, ***** it, you should have kept your knees
together."
Daniel, if she's of age she has the right to consent to sex without it
being considered consent to pregnancy.
That was sarcasm, you know.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge |
23 Feb 2005 11:51:24 AM |
|
|
Yes usual you show your hypocrisy and how EVIL your Christianity is.
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109180034.476856.49020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: Considering it was the devil herself who brought the suit, there is
: little suprise that the appeal was not heard.
:
:
: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022208.html
:
: 1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade
: Challenge
:
:
: WASHINGTON, February 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Supreme
Court
: refused today to hear an appeal of the court's 1973 Roe v Wade
: decision which permitted abortion in the United States. The appeal was
: launched by Norma McCorvey, the same woman who, over thirty years ago,
: was used by pro-abortion forces as the "Jane Roe" which led to
: abortion's legalization.
:
: In response to the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case,
: McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, president of The Justice
: Foundation, said "It is tragic and disappointing that the Court is
: not willing to consider the aftermath of 32 years of abortion and its
: devastating affect to women, their families, and our culture."
:
: McCorvey's attempted appeal brought a thousand more witnesses than
: did the original Roe case in 1973. They submitted over 5,000 pages of
: evidence, including expert testimony of which the Court had none in
: 1973.
:
: "This year alone, 100,000 women will be in abortion recovery programs
: across the nation. We find it sad and tragic that their voices have
: been rejected," said Parker. "It is also disturbing that the
: highest court in the land is not willing to consider the compelling
and
: significant scientific and medical evidence and at least formally
: re-evaluate its far-reaching decision."
:
: Parker noted that the Supreme Court's denial does not reflect its
: views on the merits of the case. "The denial order merely expresses
: the Court's discretionary refusal to give appellate review to a lower
: court decision," he said. "A denial is not a reaffirmation of Roe
: v. Wade. We believe this decision sends an important message that the
: High Court needs compassionate judges who care about the pain and
: suffering of women hurt by abortion."
:
: The case is McCorvey v. Hill, 04-967.
:
: jhw
:
:
:
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
: (c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing.
: Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but
: acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
