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:<2jti7hF15c6rrU8@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >   
   >>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?   
   >   
   >   
   > I have the same rights as the next child scheduled to be killed by   
   > abortion.   
      
   No children are killed by abortion. Does that mean you are imaginary too?   
      
     No person has rights in a pro-abortion police state.   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   Good thing we only have half of one.   
      
   --   
   --sexkitten--Facts are stupid things.   
        Ronald Reagan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)