XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   XPost: talk.atheism, us.issues.abortion   
   From: tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk   
      
   On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:35:11 +0200, "Warnock"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Thomas P."  wrote in message   
   >news:ubf8301i7dlh7vf0ibh44otdno8m6qvf1k@4ax.com...   
   >   
   >   
   >> >****** Equal rights should mean that if she wants an abortion, we both   
   >have   
   >> >an equal say.   
   >>   
   >> That is impossible.  It is also an example of your dishonesty, because   
   >> you have indicated more than once that, in the case of a disagreement,   
   >> you would accept only one conclusion.  In other words you do not want   
   >> an "equal say"; you want the final word.   
   >   
      
      
   >****** Let's be fair, if there are two people and you have a split vote -   
   >how do you resolve it? There's no intrinsic reason why the woman should have   
   >the casting vote,   
      
   Of course there is.  She is the one who is directly affected.   
      
      
   >nor the man. So we have to allow 'right action' to have   
   >the casting vote.   
      
   There is no such person as "right action".   If the woman does not   
   agree with the man, she is the one who has the most at stake and   
   should be the one who decides.   
      
      
      
      
   Thomas P.   
      
   None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.   
   "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)