XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion
From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com
Robert B. Winn wrote:
> "David W. Barnes" wrote in message
news:<230620042249513709%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
>
>>In article <7943568.0406231955.44c4b75b@posting.google.com>, Robert B.
>>Winn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elmo wrote in message
>>>news:<230620041523539991%anto@sales.com>...
>>>
>>>>In article <7943568.0406222030.67ef7715@posting.google.com>, Robert B.
>>>>Winn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
>>>>>news:<2jhrssF10mp77U2@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:<2jf043F1138quU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Light Templar" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>While Attila was contemplating his or her navel in
>>>>>>>>>>news:iejsc0t27hojhnlhaukkkp2llibo9s0lko@4ax.com,
>>>>>>>>>> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the
>>>>>>>>>>following...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 14 Jun 2004 16:52:27 -0700, rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B.
>>>>>>>>>>>Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>><7943568.0406141552.705c13c3@posting.google.com> 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
>>>>
>>>>Roe v. Wade never said such a thing.
>>>
>>>So you claim that no children were killed as a result of Roe v. Wade.
>>>
>>>child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person
>>> Merriam-Webster dictionary
>>
>>He didn't say that. But if he had, he would have been correct.
>>
>>
>>>Robert B. Winn
>
>
> So what do you think was the cause of these 50,000,000 children in
> America being killed by abortion?
> Robert B. winn
Children can't be killed by abortion.
--
--sexkitten--Stop the Slaughter!
Boycott Baby Oil!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
