XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.religion.christian, alt.support.abortion   
   XPost: talk.abortion, talk.atheism   
   From: tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk   
      
   On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:48:55 +0200, "Warnock"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Thomas P."  wrote in message   
   >news:4vko30tmajlqqc5mb399eg8lfsuloc0bhh@4ax.com...   
   >   
   >   
   >> >> >****** 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.   
   >> >   
   >> >****** The husband is also very affected!   
   >>   
   >> Please try to be a little honest.  It is quite clear that the pregnant   
   >> woman is the one who is directly affected.  She has quite a bit more   
   >> at stake than the man does.  It is her body not his.  It is her   
   >> decision not his.   
   >   
      
   >****** It is half his foetus, she is carrying. He is most likely giving her   
   >moral, financial and TLC support! He is at least as immotionally upset as   
   >she is, if an abortion happens. Go full term - it's the right thing to do!   
      
   You still have not justified his equal interest.  In any case, even if   
   there was an equal interest, you have not even tried to justify why he   
   should have the casting vote if the woman decides on an abortion he is   
   opposed to.  You are, in short, a hypocrite with no real interest in a   
   "democratic" decision.   
      
      
      
      
   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)