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:7943568.0406231958.21ae3e36@posting.google.com...   
   > --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 person has rights in a pro-abortion police state.   
      
   With regard to taking up residence inside of  a woman and taking all your   
   nourishment from her for 9 months, yes, you have the same rights.  If you   
   attempted to do this to a woman against her will, in the small hours of the   
   night, so to speak, and told her that she must do your will in this regard   
   and that she might also die at the end of the nine months, she would be   
   perfectly justified in shooting you dead. You cannot force someone else to   
   use their body for your benefit, nor can you force it for the sake of a   
   second party, even if it is a fetus or even a child.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)