XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com   
      
   Robert B. Winn wrote:   
      
   > --sexkitten--  wrote in message   
   news:<2jf043F1138quU1@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >   
   >>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>"Light Templar"  wrote in message news   
   ...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>While Attila was contemplating his or her navel in   
   >>>>news:iejsc0t27hojhnlhaukkkp2llibo9s0lko@4ax.com,   
   >>>> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the   
   >>>>following...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On 14 Jun 2004 16:52:27 -0700, rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B.   
   >>>>>Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>>><7943568.0406141552.705c13c3@posting.google.com> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>A woman walks into planned parenthood today and proceeds with an   
   >>>>>>>abortion. Your contention is that abortion is not legal. Please   
   >>>>>>>explain your position that she is now in violation of the law.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>All states had laws in effect to prohibit what you describe.  A   
   >>>>>>Supreme Court opinion does not change that.   
   >>>>>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Actually it does since state law is secondary to federal law and the   
   >>>>>Constitution.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the basic framework of   
   >>>>all laws.  A state agrees to this by the act of ratifying the U.S.   
   >>>>Constitution upon admission into the union.  This is basic civics.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Well, you seem to have forgotten the preamble.  The Constitution has a   
   >>>purpose other than to be something lawyers can poke holes in.   
   >>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>   
   >>It's something states can't poke holes in either, since it supercedes   
   >>state law. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.   
   >   
   >   
   > How about that?  So providing for the common defense of all human   
   > beings would be Constitutional,   
      
   Which was accomplished with the creation of a military.   
      
     while killing children in compliance   
   > with a Supreme Court ruling would not be.   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   When the USSC hands down such a ruling, let me know and I'll answer you.   
     	   
   Definition   
   child   [Show phonetics]   
   noun [C] plural children   
   1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a   
   son or daughter of any age:   
   --   
   --sexkitten-- Why is it that theists tell me that I have to examine   
   every part of the universe and not find God anywhere in order to say   
   that there is no god, when in fact all I need to do is not find God in   
   one location since he is supposed to be omnipresent?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)