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:<2k0jorF161kviU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>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.
>
>
> Children have the right to be called what they are.
You're right.
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:
Rights cannot be
> taken away. They exist even if they are denied.
Does that mean women too?
> Robert B. Winn
--
--sexkitten--What's worse than a knee- jerk liberal? A kneepad
conservative, that's who, forever groveling before the rich and
powerful. -Edward Abbey
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
