On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:11:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

That's right. You don't get to guess on that one. We don't want to hear you
say, "oops," when you haven't a freaking clue about where it will come down
and there are people all around.


Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

How so? Do you care to tell us where the faulty reasoning is in Roe v. Wade?
Have you read Roe v. Wade?

No, I haven't. I'm not active in the abortion issue although I know a
number of people including my sister that are.

Perhaps you can instruct me on what the basis is for the decision. My
understanding, which may be wrong, is that it's a privacy issue. It
is up to the woman, her doctor and her God to decide what is right or
wrong about abortion, not the government.

That is why I say it's based on faulty reasoning. It's as if the
court is saying that truth and reality are realtive. It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous. If the fetus is a life then it is a life
regardless of your or my opinion on the issue.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.