In article ,
Dave wrote:
I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all
States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more
than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State
should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is
supported by an overwhelming majority.

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.





--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all
States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more
than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State
should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is
supported by an overwhelming majority.

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.

Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women
make up fractionally over 50%.

As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and
amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so
badly out of line?

Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying
right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point
in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where
this whole debate gets real messy.

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

PDW

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.

Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women
make up fractionally over 50%.

Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right
to vote.

As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and
amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so
badly out of line?

Davey and BushCo don't have the balls, I mean the votes, to make it
happen. So, they try end runs around the law.

Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying
right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point
in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where
this whole debate gets real messy.

Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few
minutes, due to some terrible defect?

Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32
week foetus? Yes or no.

Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation,
something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 28 Oct 2004 16:00:03 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.


About time you started making some sense, Jon-boy. Maybe someday
you'll finally become a man.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2004 16:00:03 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying
is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the
whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those
very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to
choose
under federal law.


About time you started making some sense, Jon-boy. Maybe someday
you'll finally become a man.

He's saving up for the operation.

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2004 16:00:03 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying
is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the
whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those
very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to
choose
under federal law.


About time you started making some sense, Jon-boy. Maybe someday
you'll finally become a man.

I'm saving up for the operation.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2004 16:00:03 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is
that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim
of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very
same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose
under federal law.


About time you started making some sense, Jon-boy. Maybe someday
I'll finally become a man.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!