> On Sep 1, 8:29 pm, Davej hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 1, 9:57 pm, wilson netscape.net> wrote:

>>> On Sep 1, "Anthony Buckland" <..@telus.net> wrote:

>>>> Here's what women not already committed to Obama need to
>>>> consider:
>>>> ... [the horrors of a pro-life V.P.]

>

>>> They need more to consider all the other liberal vs. conservative
>>> issues. The anti-utopia that you warn against is not remotely
>>> likely to come true any time in the foreseeable future. The
>>> country is firmly in the grip of the abortion-on-demand interest,
>>> and dislodging it would take far more than the election of a
>>> pro-life V.P., or her ascension to the presidency.

>

>> "Firmly" in the grip? The oldest Supreme Court justices are liberals
>> while the youngest are conservatives. Don't pretend that women
>> deserve the right to decide on the functioning of their own bodies.
>> Religious law takes precedence. Every cell is sacred. Every
>> miscarriage deserves a murder investigation. Jesus says so.

>
> Isn't the beef with abortion really that roe v wade was a judicial
> decision by force and fiat, not voted on by representatives of the
> people, and that it would settle better with the people if it were
> decided by the normal channels of government, like each state
> and/or through legislation from and executive or legislator?