XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: DumpBushInNovember@usa.com   
      
   In article <7943568.0406231955.44c4b75b@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   Winn  wrote:   
      
   > Elmo  wrote in message   
   > news:<230620041523539991%anto@sales.com>...   
   > > In article <7943568.0406222030.67ef7715@posting.google.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   
   > > > > >>>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.   
   > > > >   
   > > > Roe v. Wade 1973   
   > >   
   > > Roe v. Wade never said such a thing.   
   >   
   > So you claim that no children were killed as a result of Roe v. Wade.   
   >   
   > child  n. 1.  an unborn or recently born person   
   >                       Merriam-Webster dictionary   
      
   He didn't say that.  But if he had, he would have been correct.   
      
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)