XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com   
      
   Robert B. Winn wrote:   
      
   > "MrD"  wrote in message news:...   
   >   
   >>"Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   >>news:7943568.0406250511.7eea6846@posting.google.com...   
   >>   
   >>>--sexkitten--  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:<2k1rsvF16ngduU16@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >>   
   >>>>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   
   >>>   
   >>>Women too.  No woman has a right to kill a child.   
   >>   
   >>The question could be put; does a child have the right to kill a woman?   
   >   
   >   
   > So which children were going to kill women?   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   The ones you keep insisting are in the womb. Since you insist they are   
   children...   
   http://www.safemotherhood.org/resources/facts/globaldata.html   
   http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/matmort/matmort.html   
   www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html   
      
      
      
   --   
   --sexkitten--   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)