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:<2kd33sFslk3U19@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>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
>
>
> This one did not kill his mother.
One out of billions who did, so what?
Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his
> espoused wife, being pregnant.
> In fact, while he was being crucified, he assigned someone to take
> care of his mother.
> Robert b. winn
--
--sexkitten--Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may
be happy
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
