DanielSananother *male* pretending to promote and defend "a woman's
right to...", disingenuously wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

DanielSan, another *male* pretending to promote and defend "a woman's
right to...", disingenuously wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Craig Chiltonanother *male* pretending to promote and defend "a
woman's right to...", disingenuously wrote:

On 28 Feb 2006 04:16:10 -0800, ["Sound of Hogs Squealing"] parroted:


[ ... ]

Ann Coulter

Posted: January 25, 2006
7:00 p.m. Eastern

"The Democrats are trying to "reframe" their message to make
people think they believe abortion is wrong."

If so, that would be abysmally STUPID of them, since
there is **nothing** wrong with abortion.

Evidently, leading Democrat pundits and politicians disagree with
you. Maybe you ought to reconsider <snicker>.

Why? Do you think that Democrats must march in lockstep with their
party?

Party leaders seldom get far in front of their followers, dannie.

Actually, you have it backwards. The American people are not "their
followers." The American people are the "party leaders'" bosses.

Uh-huh.

And thus is the disconnect between the right and left. The right sees
those in the government as "leaders" and the left see those as
government as "representatives."

*****. Don't ever forget that whining, crying guy with the ponytail
at the presidential debate in 1992 who said, "We are your children, we
have our needs. What will you do to take care of us-to take care of our
needs?" He was addressing this primarily to Clinton.

Maybe your whole party is abandoning you?

Or, perhaps our representatives are abandoning us.

Amazon.com is not Jeff Bezos. Amazon.com is the folks who work there,
and Bezos is their representative.

???

Face the facts, dannie - Democrats en masse are abandoning Roe.

Are you really so absolutely, iron-clad certain of your position,
dannie? Isn't that being *exactly* the sort of rigid, ideologically
blinded sort of lock-stepper that you accuse Republicans of being?
Hmmmm?

No, I am not absolutlely, iron-clad ceratin of my position. I am more
than willing to alter my position.

Uh-huh. You're sure not giving any indication of altering your position
on Roe and abortion-on-demand.

That's the
equivalent of claiming that something's wrong with aspirin
tablets. Both are merely valuable REMEDIES. Nothing more
and nothing less. Harmless and beneficial.

There's a huge moral difference. You are hopelessly morally confused.

There's a LOT wrong, however, with any loser who
is so mentally dysfunctional and sociopathic as to want to
see ANY remedy being DENIED to any person.

Gosh - I guess that means Andrea Yates was merely doing the
equivalent of popping a couple of aspirin tablets to "remedy" her
depression when she drowned her five children.


FACE THE FACTS, you pro-abortion hysterics: you are LOSING on Roe
v. Wade and abortion-on-demand.

What is "abortion-on-demand" again?

Heh heh heh heh heh...weak dodge, dannie.

And yet, you're unable to define it?

Your request for a "definition" is cynical and disingenuous, dannie.
You already know what it is,

and you know as well that it is the
prevailing regime.

It is GOING AWAY. That's all Coulter was
saying (well, actually, she was pretty well getting right in your
faces with it.) Roe is toast.

If the activist judges have their way, yes.

It has nothing to do with "activist judges", dannie. It was a
horrible decision,

...AKA "controversial" position... "Horrible" is an opinionated term.

It is widely thought by legal scholars all over the political spectrum
to be an atrocious bit of legal reasoning (using "reasoning" advisedly).

from the narrow standpoint of legal reasoning, from the beginning.
MANY legal scholars have always said that regardless of the possible
virtue of the abortion-on-demand regime that Roe brought in,

Except that "Roe" was not about abortion, per se. It was about the
right to privacy. The Texas law at the time unconstitutionally
violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

It was about abortion; there *is* no "right to privacy", and that's
precisely the finding that legal scholars say is so wretchedly wrong
with the decision. It fabricated a "right to privacy" out of thin air;
certainly not out of the Constitution.

the legal reasoning of the decision was an absolute disaster. Not
only was it a horrible decision in terms of the quality of the
reasoning, but it also federalized what many, including NOW a lot of
Democrats, consider to be the proper legal domain of the states.

And yet, it was up to each state to issue its own laws regarding
abortions.

Tell me. Why was the Supreme Court created?

I'll tell you why, among other matters (such as charges of treason,
maritime disputes, and others):

[snip pointless and irrelevant ramble about Constitution]

Face the facts, dannie - the tide is running out on Roe.

All the
hand-wringing in the world isn't going to change that.

And it is NOT merely the appointment of a couple of conservative
justices that is doing it, you DUMMIES. The American public does
*not* support abortion on demand, even if they also don't support a
total ban like the one in SD.

I doubt that the majority of the public even KNOWS what "abortion on
demand" is.

Yes, they know exactly what it is, dannie, even if they don't use
that term.

Then can you please explain it for me?

It's the current regime, dannie, that allows any pregnant woman quite
late into the pregnancy to go into a clinic whenever she wishes and buy
an abortion just as easily as I can go to the drugstore and buy a bottle
of aspirin. That's what it is, dannie.

But, let's look at the polls, shall we?

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
-------------------------
"Recently the South Dakota legislature passed a law that bans
abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother.
Would you support or oppose this law in the state where you live?"

Support: 35%
Oppose: 59%
Unsure: 6%

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or
more pro-choice?"
Pro-life: 41%
Pro-choice: 49%
Both/Mixed: 7%
Unsure: 3%


CBS News/New York Times
-----------------------
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be
generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be
available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion
should not be permitted."

Genrally avaiable: 38%
Stricter limits: 39%
Not permitted: 21%

RIGHT THERE, dannie, you idiot. 39% + 21% = 60% - virtually
*identical* to the percentage that opposes the SD near-total ban.

Yes, but how does one quantify "stricter limits"?

Meaning NOT just any pregnant woman can go get an abortion for whatever
reason she likes or even no reason at all, dannie - THAT'S what it
means. (You misused "quantify".)

Anyway, thanks for the implicit acknowledgment, dannie: that the *same*
percentage (even if not entirely the same people) that does NOT want a
total ban on abortion, *also* does not want abortion-on-demand. This is
why Roe is heading down the toilet.

This is exactly what I said, dannie: the same majority that does
*not* favor a near-total ban *also* wants to see stricter limits
placed on abortion, because they DO NOT SUPPORT abortion-on-demand.

Yet you have not quantified what "abortion on demand" even is.

You misused "quantify" again, dannie.

You know what abortion-on-demand is, dannie. Stop playing stupid.

Unsure: 2%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
--------------------
"Turning to abortion: Would you like to see the Supreme Court
overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or
not?"

Yes, overturn Roe V Wade: 25%
No, don't overturn Roe V Wade: 66%
Unsure: 9%

There are a bunch more on http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Enjoy seeing just how wrong you are on every poll.

See above, dannie.

The real point is, dannie - the point concerning which you and all
the other pro-abortion *males* in this group

I'm not pro-abortion.

You are. If you support Roe, you're pro-abortion.

See what the other
poster said in (fatuously) comparing abortion and taking an aspirin.

You're pro-over-the-counter pain relief - who wouldn't be? - and in
exactly the same way, you're pro-abortion.

have your heads in the sand - is that Roe is GOING AWAY.

That's what you think. 66% of America does not want it to "go away."

No, 66% of America does *not* say that, dannie. 60% of America thinks
abortion access should be more restricted from its current on-demand
availability.

That's all Coulter really was saying, even if she did say it with her
trademark shrill glee. Roe is GOING AWAY, and you idiots are still
making your obscene comparisons to aspirin.

Only due to the fact that you idiots are still trying to take away the
rights of the Supreme Court because it did its job and you don't like it.

No. There is a growing consensus that the 1973 court went far OUTSIDE
its job, and did a bad job in doing so.

You can invent whatever "only due to..." explanation make you feel
better, dannie. It won't change the fact that Roe is GOING AWAY.

You
just need to come to grips with that,

and begin to read the opinions of
other more realistic pro-abortion advocates who have recognized it and
accepted it,

and are already beginning to refocus their efforts on the
states. If all you do is ***** and moan in usenet about how great Roe is
and how it should be left alone, you're going to be entirely on the
sideline.