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:<2m7ithFjhlgdU7@uni-berlin.de>...   
   >   
   >>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>"David W. Barnes"  wrote in message   
   news:<230620040745474906%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>In article <7943568.0406230409.4f4f2838@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   >>>>Winn  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>"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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>A woman's privacy is.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Homicides of children has nothing to do with any woman's privacy.   
   >>>Robert b. Winn   
   >>   
   >>No, that's very true, homicides of children have nothing to do with a   
   >>woman's privacy. Abortion has EVERYTHING to do with a woman's privacy.   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, let's see how private you think abortion is when Jesus Christ   
   > returns to judge the earth.   
   > Robert B. Winn   
      
   Sure. And at that point you will be free to enforce your definitions,   
   but not before.   
      
   --   
   --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)