"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4510c9a7$0$34506$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

John D.Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1158677997.900197.236150@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1158639621.701598.197990@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

LOL!
A nice story other than a patriot was charged with a crime by the
charlatan
gooney boy tax leech patrol.

What patriot?

Ask your mother about people who ensure that you are born.

I do not need to. I was a wanted child. What's more, I was born
almost a decade before Row vs. Wade.

All this terrorist wanted to do was to punish women and make them
suffer as slaves by forcing them to continue unwanted pregnancies
against their wills. Just as you want to do.

Pregnancy isn't defined as indentured servitude or involuntary servitude.

Neither is picking cotton, idiot.

You actually got one right there.

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message

John D.Wentzky wrote:

Pregnancy isn't defined as indentured servitude or involuntary servitude.

But forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is.

Who is forcing any woman to continue a pregnancy?

Consensual sex doesn't make pregnancy involuntary servitude or indentured
servitude.

Consensual sex also does not obligate a woman to continue any resulting
pregnancy, especially if it is unwanted.

If the sex is consensual the pregnancy can not be unwanted.

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1158722285.616721.282720@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1158677997.900197.236150@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1158639621.701598.197990@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

John D.Wentzky wrote:

LOL!
A nice story other than a patriot was charged with a crime by the
charlatan
gooney boy tax leech patrol.

What patriot?

Ask your mother about people who ensure that you are born.

I do not need to. I was a wanted child. What's more, I was born
almost a decade before Row vs. Wade.

All this terrorist wanted to do was to punish women and make them
suffer as slaves by forcing them to continue unwanted pregnancies
against their wills. Just as you want to do.

Pregnancy isn't defined as indentured servitude or involuntary servitude.

But forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is.

Who is forcing any woman to continue a pregnancy?

Force is what is used to abort.

No force is used if a pregnancy is continued.

Consensual sex doesn't make pregnancy involuntary servitude or indentured
servitude.

Consensual sex also does not obligate a woman to continue any resulting
pregnancy, especially if it is unwanted.

If the sex is consensual the pregnancy can not be unwanted.

Pregnancy isn't illegal, as you suggest.

I never suggested that pregnancy was illegal.

Yes, you did.

You said that pregnancy is slavery.

Measuring your statement with the constitution would make all pregnancies
illegal.

If it were an illegal condition it would have to be abolished in every
case.

Which is why abortion is legal,

Abortion isn't legal on a demand basis when measured by the Constitutional
requirements for law and since there is no method to disallow personhood to
the unborn.

Abortion on demand is criminal.

so women that do not want to remain
pregnant are not forced to remain pregnant and continue their unwanted
pregnancies against their wills.

Abortion uses force.

Continuing a pregnancy does not use force.

There would be no exceptions.

There aren't now.

If there are no exceptions then all conceived humans must be aborted to end
the unconstitutional condition, according to you.

There is no choice, according to you, in the matter of pregnancy.

The woman has control of her own body and she
decides whether or not she want to remain pregnant. To force her to
remain pregnant against her will is to treat her as a slave with no
rights to control of her own body and its usage, as well as forcing to
her endure unnecessary and possibly permanent harm to her body and her
life.

Pregnancy is not slavery, idiot.

To say it is slavery is to require abortions in every pregnancy.

There can be no difference from woman to woman with regard to pregnancy.

What you propose is a situation where there would be no choice at all in any
case.

The guy was a blatant terrorist.

Nah, little wimpo in utero infanticide boy.

Yes, idiot, he was a terrorist and a criminal.

In your Harry Potter mind.

In actuality.

Nah. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and an idiot.

Pregnancy is not a form of outlawed slavery.

Forced continuation of pregnancy is slavery, however.

There is no forced continuation of pregnancy.

Only abortion relies upon force, and that force is used to abort a
pregnancy.

You are an idiot.

You are again showing me your ignorance.

You deny that any woman's choice to continue a pregnancy subjects her to
your assumed slavery that is inherent in any pregnancy.

Women have no right to subject themselves to slavery.

The Constitution does
not allow slavery.

Your position is illegal.

You present that it is an illegal condition.

Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is effectively an
illegal condition since she becomes a slave to the state and the fetus
against her will and to her detriment.

Women are forbidden from forcing themselves to remain pregnant in your
world.

If they do, they are creating an illegal situation, in your harry potter
world.

You are an idiot.

I can tell you this much: The State is not a slave to you or to anyone else.

You are in error.

I have made no error. Your error is your lack of comprehension. You
cannot understand the difference between a pregnancy that the woman
wants to continue and one that she wants to end, and the differences
her opinion makes in the situation.

You are so in error you are being failed.

Your statements, however, have nothing to do with the fact that the man
committed blatant crimes against law-abiding citizens and a business,
most obviously arson, in an attempt to terrorize them into stop doing
their completely legal jobs of helping and caring for others.

You have no idea why the alleged crimes were committed.

His goal was to terrorize law abiding citizens into not help others
that he disagreed with.

Seems like your goal, militaristic tax leech.

Nope. Where have you ever seen me advocate terrorism, especially
against law abiding citizens?

Every time you post and advocate infecting the people of the USA

and
stealing from them to support overseas military occupation forces

and
killing unborn persons within the USA.

Every time you post and your words show me you are for committing crimes
against the people of the USA.

Where have you seen me endorse or
support such blatantly criminal acts as the ones that he committed?

Every time you post in here almost.

The crimes you support are as blatantly obvious to me and more so than the
alleged crimes you are referring to above.

You, however, have shown that you completely support the oppression of
others, especially when they support things that you disagree with,
like freedom, equality, and liberty.

Nah. That is what you are doing by going against persons who hate
unconstitutional criminals such as yourself.

And I am neither militaristic, nor am I on welfare, which means that I
am not a tax leech.

Tax leech doesn't mean you are on welfare,

tax-paid military contract leechboy.

You're a wimp.

That would be you, not me. You fear the truth, and you call criminals
patriots. You consider terrorists patriots.

I consider pro-choicers anti-patriotic.

Too bad, because most of us are far more patriotic that you since we
value liberty, freedom, and equality.

*****, anti-peace, child-killing fanatic, anti-patriot, liar.

Your opinion has no bearing or
relationship to reality.

On the contrary, it is your opinion that is a losing position to uphold.

Unlike you, I am a patriot and a veteran. Unlike you, I am not a wimp.
Unlike you, I do not fear liberty, equality, or freedom.

You seem to live in fear of liberty,equality and freedom for all
non-pro-choice and all non-gay persons.

Not at all. For starters, I do not hate myself, as you seem to think
that I do. And pro-choice people are unlike anti-choice people because
they generally do not exhibit the hatred and violence that is so common
among anti-choice people like you, nor do pro-choice advocates
habitually lie about the facts, nor do they try to shut anti-choice
advocates up.

You are the one that seems to fear liberty, equality, and freedom given
how much you argue against it. What you do not seem to understand is
that equality applies equality to pro-choice and anti-choice advocates.
And what you do not seem to understand is that the pro-choice
advocates are the ones that are supporting the equality and freedom
since they are saying that the women can make their own decisions about
their own pregnancies for themselves. It is anti-choice advocates like
you that are against equality and liberty because you are saying that
you have the right to demand and determine what the woman can do with
respect to her pregnancy, and she has not say in the matter.

And as far as homosexual rights, again you show that you are against
equality there. I have been arguing that they should not been denied
the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry the
single, unrelated, consenting adult of their choice just as
heterosexuals can. You want to prevent them from having those rights.

You are the one that is against freedom, liberty, and equality. I am
the one that supports those things.

Maybe it is hate that you have in your heart for non-gays and
non-pro-choicers.

I have no such hatred. Unlike you, I do not hate myself as you seem to
think I do. And anti-choice advocates have their right to say what
they think. They just cannot force women to conform and suffer for
their anti-choice beliefs like they want to do to women.

[again replace snipped text that you could not face]

And the crimes that he
was charged with have been on the books for many, many years.
Arson,
destruction of private property, possibly reckless endangerment.
All
of these are felonies, and always have been. How could you
possibly
think that a terrorist like this was a "patriot"? Or at least a
American patriot?

So, why can't you answer this question? Why do you think that this
terrorist is an American patriot?

According to the story his intent was patriotic.

There is nobody of your stripe, i.e. a "charlatan gooney boy tax
leech
patrol", mentioned in the article at all except the accused. And
given
the things that it says that he admits to, it is likely to be an
"open
and shut case", since "everything that [he] says can and will be
used
against [him] in a court of law." (That is from the Miranda Rights,
by
the way.)

He is going to get exactly what he deserves. A long stay in the
"House
of Many Doors". I hope that he appreciates his new roommate and
"husband".

[end replaced text]

Mark Sebree