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:<2lqrhdFf49ukU7@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
news:<2l79vjF9no19U5@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--sexkitten-- wrote in message
news:<2juk0lF15dcltU5@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message
news:<75ab6396.0406231050.7f96c945@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message
news:<7943568.0406230409.4f4f2838@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"David W. Barnes" wrote in message
news:<220620042140401999%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <7943568.0406222039.771c2baa@posting.google.com>, Robert
B.
>>>>>>>>>>Winn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You seem to be forgetting they do have jurisdiction over
constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Homicides of children is not a constitutional issue.
>>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You see Robert, an unborn fetus is not a child.
>>>>>>>>You can say it is, but both I and the Supreme court
>>>>>>>>disagree. What about all those frozen fertilized
>>>>>>>>embryos used to create babys by invetro fertilization,
>>>>>>>>I suppose you would call them children too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would. They were children before they were artificially put into a
woman.
>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frozen embryos are already born?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they are already embryos.
>>>>>Robert B. winn
>>>>
>>>>But they're not children till they're born.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you do not seem to have read the Bible. Luke 2:5 To be taxed
>>>with Mary his espoused wife, being pregnant.
>>
>>
>>
>>>As you will notice, Jesus Christ was a child before he was born.
>>
>>I notice no such thing. I also don't get my definitions from ancient
>>works of fiction.
>>
>>
>>>Robert B. Winn
>
>
> You get your definitions from whatever source that will justify
> homicides of children.
> Robert B. Winn
You get yours from whatever source will justify your sexual interest in
the torture and killing of pregnant women.
--
--sexkitten--Want a taste of religion? Bite a minister.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
