XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: nachobiznez@all.com   
      
   "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   news:7943568.0406230407.7c3b79d8@posting.google.com...   
   > "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?   
      
   50 million American abortions?  How do you arrive at that number?  I have   
   shown you that there are less than 1 million abortions per year,   
   considerably less, in fact.   
   I think you are bearing false witness with this assertion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)