From: "CafeWriter" 


"Paul Duca"  wrote in message
news:C231DBE4.10802%p.duca{at}comcast.net...
> in article 3VWOh.88359$zU1.68740{at}pd7urf1no, CafeWriter at
> cafewriter{at}shawRemoveThis.ca wrote on 3/29/07 6:16 PM:
>
>>
>> "John D.Wentzky" 
wrote in message
>> news:KQUOh.21943$nV1.6029{at}bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> In news:8FUOh.87764$DN.8411{at}pd7urf2no,
>>> CafeWriter  typed:
>>>> "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:ssROh.21875$nV1.17948{at}bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> In news:SuHOh.85093$DN.81609{at}pd7urf2no,
>>>>> CafeWriter  typed:
>>>>>> "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ipEOh.21628$nV1.20189{at}bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>> In
news:1175091728.446228.99600{at}n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>>>>>>> J Young  typed:
>>>>>>>> How dare anyone or any institution try to
suppress this young
>>>>>>>> man's First Amendment rights! Thank God
that this judge was such
>>>>>>>> a wise and insightful man; who knows how
many lives are being
>>>>>>>> saved by his ruling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Honorable Victoria Roberts is a
woman, there, JY.
>>>>>>> A very nice decision indeed.
>>>>>>> I am sure the public would be pleased to read
this ruling in their
>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>> And, I am sure that any opposing viewpoints
would be viewed with
>>>>>>> much consternation and suspicion into why
would anyone want to
>>>>>>> oppose such a ruling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would welcome any suspicions and etc... because
I do oppose her
>>>>>> ruling.
>>>>>> Oh why would I want to oppose such a ruling? Well because it
>>>>>> basically takes away a woman's right to decide
whatever or not to be
>>>>>> a mother and change the status, making the fetus to be more
>>>>>> important than women.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not regard the fetus as being more important
than the woman,
>>>>> you hypocrite.
>>>>> Your stance is what regards women as more important than other
>>>>> members of humanity.
>>>>> You must submit or be dominated.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not going to be a mother and I am going to stick to that
>>>> decision. Oh and to be ordered to submit to the other members of
>>>> humanity or be dominated... no thanks.
>>>
>>> Oops.
>>> You mean to say you are content with pro-choice dominators telling you
>>> what to do?
>>>
>>>> I'd rather be a single woman.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess what, if a fetus cannot live without a
woman, what does that
>>>>>> makes it exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dependent and worthy of love.
>>>>>
>>>> Then I am so happy that I got myself fixed because I do not want
>>>> children!!!
>>>
>>> So, why are you against living in utero humanity if you can not get
>>> pregnant?
>>>
>>>> Just for once get it in your tiny head that not every woman wants to
>>>> be a mother nor go through the horrifying labour.
>>>>
>>>> Don't even say "labour of love" because of
course, it involves blood
>>>> loss, etc...
>>>>
>>>> So get over it!!!
>>>
>>> Get over it when it is unconstitutional roevwadedom?
>>> How?
>>>
>> No, I just think that it's time to stop treating women like baby machines
>> because women can do much much more than just have children.
>> Unfortunately,
>> some of you cannot believe that could be true so that's why I have my
>> tubes
>> snipped.  I'm a woman, I have no plans to be a mother, and I do have
>> plans
>> for a better future, something I cannot do if I have a child or worse,
>> children.
>>
>> I'm just a supporter of women's right to choice and some people look at
>> it
>> like women's right to kill a fetus.  Unfortunately, I don't see it this
>> way
>> because hey, if women keep on giving birth every single day, then we are
>> in
>> big trouble.  No, I don't mean crimes, abuses, etc...  I mean the famous
>> case of the overpopulating the world.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>        You're fairly new here...you may not know John Wentzky claims a
> woman's perjury cost him his job. And his religiosity has only compounded
> his miscogeny.
>
>
>
> Paul
>

Now that is something new to me.  Thanks for letting me know.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag