Subj : Re: fbi
To   : ALAN IANSON
From : Mike Powell
Date : Thu Sep 22 2022 16:42:00

> > We don't have that issue here. We have a federal gov and a state gov (don't
> > you have a national gov plus a provincial gov?) Our national (federal we
> > call it) gov has decided to back off the issue of abortion and let the
> > states handle it as they please.

> Sure, it's much the same here but we haven't tried to push the views of a mino
> ty on the majority. Such a thing is doomed to failure.

As Aaron pointed out, it is still readily available in places where the
majority wants it to be so, and not in places where the majority does not.

There were several years between the Roe v Wade decision and now where the
Democrats had both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to
codify it into national law.

> >> No more democracy.
> > It's much more democratic this way. Americans are diverse.
> It's much more democratic what way? But yes, Americans and Canadians and peopl
> of the world are very diverse.

Last I checked, we still have a greater freedom of speech, expression, and
especially to assemble than you do in Canada.  When we assemble, our Prime
Minister does not freeze our assets, for example.

> > However, we've got our *rightest* (love that word) Americans in other areas
> > who (democratically so) wish to restrict abortions. If you don't like it,
> > then move to Virginia, and they'll let you murder it even after it's been
> > born for a day.

> It's not about murder, it never was. It's about a woman's right to choose for
> rself what to do in such a situation.

It is murder if they can do it after birth.  I have not confirmed Aaron's
suggestion that they can in Virginia, but California was considering
allowing babies carried to term to be terminiated after birth.  I did not
keep track of how far that got.

> > The propagation continues.

> A woman in the US had this right up until an extremist SCOTUS over turned Roe
> Wade a few short months ago. Today they do not (many of them). That's not prop
> anda. That is a fact.

> Roe V Wade was spoken of as settled law, a precedent. This issue alone could s
> k any party since it is wanted by a majority of the people.

Being spoken of something does not make it so.  Aaron speaks of Trump being
good, but that does not make it so.  You speak of all sorts of things that
are not so, and sometimes you later claim not to have spoken them when you
realize as much.

There were several years between Roe v Wade and now where the Democrats had
both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into
national law.  That would have been a much better solution, if they wanted
one, vs. a "spoken of" SCOTUS ruling.


 * SLMR 2.1a * I don't have a solution, but I do admire the problem.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

.