XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion
From: ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com
Robert B. Winn wrote:
> "Light Templar" wrote in message news:
a%YKc.4301$iK.3946@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>>While --sexkitten-- was contemplating his or her navel in
>>news:2m3071Fia5npU5@uni-berlin.de,
>> he or she gave us all a good laugh with
>>the following...
>>
>>
>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
>>>>news:<2m1pogFhs2aiU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
>>>>>>news:<2lqrooFf49ukU10@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:<2jth00F150k14U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>message news:<2j6t9cFttssmU4@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron Nicholson wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> news:...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <7943568.0406140511.7c4652eb@posting.google.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron Nicholson wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> news:...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><7943568.0406131710.3015ad82@posting.google.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron Nicholson wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> news:...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><7943568.0406131254.1688b26b@posting.google.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The basic fact is that you keep claiming that evil is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>going to triumph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that way. Abortion has been legal for 25
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>years and abortion is said to be evil. Evil1, Good 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, as a United States citizen, I say that abortion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>has never been legal. Evil 0, good 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heard of Roe? Have you seen statutes on abortion by state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly, this is your phantasy and not the reality of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>history of abortion in the US.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A court opinion is not a law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the constitution, so
>>>>>>>>>>>their opinion DOES change that. And what laws do the states
>>>>>>>>>>>have to prevent abortion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The law I was born under that prevented abortion was
>>>>>>>>>>California Penal
>>>>>>>>>>Code sections 274, 275, 276. That law is still in effect
>>>>>>>>>>because the
>>>>>>>>>>United States Supreme Court does not have original
>>>>>>>>>>jurisdiction in
>>>>>>>>>>capital cases. They cannot sentence people to death. It has
>>>>>>>>>>to be
>>>>>>>>>>done by a lower court.
>>>>>>>>>>Robert b. winn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All states are subject to federal laws, and CAN be negated by
>>>>>>>>>the USSC if they are in conflict with federal laws (that would
>>>>>>>>>be the Constitution, Robert). A good example would be Furman v.
>>>>>>>>>Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972) which struck down the death
>>>>>>>>>penalty nationwide- the DP laws conflicted with the
>>>>>>>>>constitution, and were therefore invalidated by the nine guys
>>>>>>>>>empowered to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not nine
>>>>>>>>guys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You mean the nine guys established by the Constitution
>>>>>>>*specifically* to interpret the Constitution, and rule on what
>>>>>>>the Constitution says? Those nine guys?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In recent years, if it did not have anything to do with
>>>>>>>>distributing
>>>>>>>>pornography or coordinating homicides of children, the nine guys
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>done almost nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Somebody hasn't been paying a whole lot of attention to the news
>>>>>>>in "recent years".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The nine guys are about as meaningful as the abortions and
>>>>>>>>pornography
>>>>>>>>they generated.
>>>>>>>>Robert B. winn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is nothing in the Constitution about anyone interpreting the
>>>>>>Constitution. The Constitution was intended to mean what it says.
>>>>>>Robert B. Winn
>>>>>
>>>>>Article III
>>>>>
>>>>>Section. 2.
>>>>>
>>>>>Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
>>>>>Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
>>>>>States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
>>>>>Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
>>>>>Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
>>>>>Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be
>>>>>a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a
>>>>>State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between
>>>>>Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State
>>>>>claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
