XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com   
      
   Robert B. Winn wrote:   
      
   > "David W. Barnes"  wrote in message   
   news:<220620042140401990%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...   
   >   
   >>In article <7943568.0406222030.67ef7715@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   >>Winn  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   
   >>   
   >>That wasn't it.  Strange how you are indignant when your rights are   
   >>infringed, but when others rights are infringed you don't care.   
   >   
   >   
   > So why were all of these 50,000,000 American children killed by abortion?   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   To avoid infringing upon the rights of pregnant women not to be   
   tortured. Is it OK with you to allow women to be infringed upon, as long   
   as you and only you are granted rights?   
      
   --   
   --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)