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:<2jhrssF10mp77U2@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >   
   >>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>--sexkitten--  wrote in message   
   news:<2jf043F1138quU1@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>"Light Templar"  wrote in message ne   
   s:...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>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.   
   >>  	   
   >   
   > Roe v. Wade 1973   
   > Robert B. winn   
      
   Which legalized abortion, not killing a   
   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:   
      
   So when they hand down a ruling about killing CHILDREN, let me know.   
   --   
   --sexkitten--They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little   
   temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.   
   -Benjamin Franklin   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)