XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com   
      
   Robert B. Winn wrote:   
      
   > Elmo  wrote in message news:<23062004152353999   
   %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.   
      
   Yup.   
   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:   
      
   > child  n. 1.  an unborn or recently born person   
   >                       Merriam-Webster dictionary   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
      
   --   
   --sexkitten--   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)