From: "BobR" 

On Mar 21, 12:21 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> "BobR"  wrote in message
>
> news:1174496152.551015.115840{at}e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 11:04 am, "John D.Wentzky"

> > wrote:
> >> "BobR"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174486481.500611.229060{at}e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > RAPE is a CRIME and nobody besides the rapist should be
forced to pay
> >> > for that crime.
>
> >> Meaning that destroying evidence of the rape would be a serious crime.
>
> >> > YES, a woman should absolutely be offered the
> >> > opportunity to prevent the implantation of any possible
result of rape
> >> > in her womb.
>
> >> Destroying evidence is a serious crime.
>
> > You have got to be kidding me.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > NOBODY and I mean NOBODY can possibly
> > be that stupid and uncaring about a woman who has been raped as to
> > force her
>
> to become accessory to destroying the physical evidence that she was raped
> or to coercion to destroy the evidenceof her rape.
>
> > to carry to term in order to use the child as evidence in
> > prosecution of the rapist.
>
> You afraid misbehaved losers think the weirdest things.
> Why are you such an extremist?
> Who implied I would not allow medical termination of a pregnancy after the
> evidentiary process of discovery were complete?
> Seems like it is some idiot who goes by BobR. Yeah, that's who.
> Criminals are no different.
>
> > You are either the most uncaring bastard ever to be given birth to or the
> > sickest.
>
> Your lack of intelligence in no way makes me fearful.
> Shock and awe, huh?
> LOL!
> I am definitely not in awe right now.
>

Any you think anyone is in awe of you?  Not I that is for certain.  I find
your arguments somewhat pathetic but far from awsome.

> > On the other hand, I guess she could then wait until the pregnancy
> > progressed and then use the
> > remains for prosecution but that is also stupid and uncaring.
>
> Got your thinking cap on now, huh?
> Who said wait too long?
>

SO, you would still allow the abortion but after you think it is long
enough to gain evidence.  How long is that, one month, two, three? The
emotional scaring on the woman wouldn't bother you at all as long as your
agenda was satisfied.

Strange, very strange.

> >> > I am and have always been against abortion and I will
> >> > always be but with the exception of cases involving
RAPE, INCEST, and
> >> > where the health of the mother is at stake.
>
> >> I won't. I do not like abortion in the case of incest.
> >> And, I do not like emergency contraception in the case of rape if there
> >> is
> >> no semen to gather as evidence.
>
> > You know, what you like or don't like really doesn't and shouldn't
> > matter.
>
> The contest for total dominance of abortion rights isn't over, schmuck.
> Right now there is a contest, and right now it is because roevwade was
> unconstitutionally and criminally instituted.
>

Roe vs Wade was decided by the highest law of our land and somehow you have
decided that it was unconstitutional.  Interesting but still it is now the
law.

> > You were not the one raped
>
> How long did it take you to figure that one?
>
> > but somehow I suspect that you
> > might have been the one involved in incest.
>
> Meaning you hate children so much you would berate two persons who
> propagated the species?
> Incest isn't rape.
>

WOW, I was on the right track after all.  You do believe that incest is
acceptable.  Was it with your mother or your sister?  OR your daugher?

> > Just a suspicion based on
> > some of your comments.
>
> Your hunting dog nose must have had cocaine up it too much.
>

HAHAHAHA too late, you let that one out and now you can deal with it.

> >> > In those cases, society has no right to dictate that a
pregnancy be
> >> > carried through.
>
> >> Your error is that society does have a right to dictate what abortion
> >> policy
> >> should be.
> >> Your opinion is only relevant as it pertains to what you
'think' abortion
> >> policy should be.
> >> Your opinion is only one of some 300,000,00 persons' opinions.
>
> > And YOUR OPINION is not one bit more important than mine is it?
>
> My opinion is based in law and reason and on the will of Non-traitors.

Ok, now it is getting funny.  Law says abortion is legal but I will agree,
abortion is without reason as currently implemented.  It has absolutely
NOTHING to do with traitors though.  That was a real streech even for you.

>
> > Seems that right now, society has done us both one better and makes
> > abortion
> > avaiable to all without any restrictions.
>
> Hmm. You think so?
> It did a lot of people harm already.
>

I won't deny that, as I have mentioned before I am against abortion with
exceptions.  I have detailed those exceptions but you deny any exceptions
(especially incest) but then counter yourself by then saying it would be OK
after the fetus has grown enough to gather evidence from.  What a mixed up
set of beliefs you have.

> >> > In all other cases, abortion is taking a life and that
life should be
> >> > protected by society.
>
> >> But, in your world there are exceptions.
> >> LOL!
> >> What a joke.
>
> > Yes, in my world there are exceptions and not everything is so rigid
> > as to leave the only option of NO ABORTION or NO RESTRICTIONS ON
> > ABORTION.
>
> Exceptions is plural.
> Today there is only one exception and that is via gender-biased,
> unconstitutional policy gained via subterfuge.
>

WHAT?  You are crazy?

> > Thanks for the current NO RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION are more
> > a result of your NO EXCEPTIONS stance than my allowance for
> > exceptions.
>
> Nah. It is more the work of covering idiots without the public's approval.
>
> > So laugh all you want,
>
> I imagine I will continue to laugh.
>
> > Abortion is the legal law
>
> Wrong.
>
> > of the land
>
> Wrong.
>
> > and the sad joke is on you and not me.
>
> What joke?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are the JOKE!

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag