From: The Chief Instigator 

"John D.Wentzky"  writes:

>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?

No, she's content to choose to be a mother when *she* wants to be.  You
don't get any input into her decision, and neither do I - but then, I know
better than to interfere in something that isn't anyone else's business
(except for those she chooses to include in her decision, which you most
assuredly won't be).

>> 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?

Why are you a babbling maniac who's likely going to get to do some time in prison?

>> 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?

You drooling delusional idiot...she's Canadian, and our Constitution isn't
in force up there.  Keep on wrapping that noose around your neck!

--
   Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick{at}io.com)  Houston, Texas
    chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php  (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
                  LAST GAME:  Omaha 10, Houston 2 (March 24)
                 NEXT GAME: Friday, March 30 vs. Peoria, 7:35

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag