Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.
Comments
257,921 - 257,940 of 305,077 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274530
Jan 4, 2013
 
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I've always agreed with the right abort when there is a threat to maternal life.
I'm sure women all over the country can sleep soundly at night now knowing you agree with them having the right to abort if their life is in danger.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274531
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>You just told TomTom in a post that Bobby was right with what he said regarding what your religion says about FORBIDDING ELECTIVE ABORTION. That you had no reason to backpeddle.

Now here ^^^^ you are saying "Hey, you want to take the word of an atheist(booby) who was born a Jew over the word of two practicing Jews..blah blah..be my guest"""" """

LMAO
Deflecting dweeb? You know that no matter what you say, or how you twist what others say to suit your agenda, the fact, I'll repeat that; THE FACT, is that women have a choice to have an abortion, and there isn't a G-damned thing you can do about it, other than squirm, rant, rave and throw a hissy fit over what is LAW.

And it kills you!

Squirm dweeb. You're good at that.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274532
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>liar liar pants on fire
That's some defense dweeb.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274533
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another death threat.

Yet another display of your hatred(bigotry) for Chrisitans by mocking Jesus.

You are a very angry man. Your unresolved guilt is apparent by your emotional breakdown while spewing intolerance for Christianity.

Sad.
Hook, line and sinker!!!!

Not a death threat if I'm reasonably incapable of fulfilling it dweeb. Unless, of course, you think I could kill you. Do you???? Of course not.

See how easy it is to show how you lack discernment and twist things to augment and embellish your agenda?

I love it when you Xtians deflect your idolatry to what you perceive as others' hatred for Christianity.

Want to know something dweeb? My mother is a Christian. Unlike you, she doesn't blame me for denying jesus. You think I would ever be capable of hating her?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274534
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure women all over the country can sleep soundly at night now knowing you agree with them having the right to abort if their life is in danger.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted and misplaced. Why would they even care since right now they have the right to kill even without such a threat ?

The guy asked me a hypothetical question. I answered. Butt out.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274535
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>After reading the quotes from some of those who sponsored the legislation I can safely say I am not speculating.

[QUOTE]But, if you care to re-hash this matter, let's start by stipulating that Fetal Homicide exists ONLY when an unborn fetus dies in a manner other than by a legal, or natural abortion (miscarriage), and that all FHLs carry an exception for legal abortions.
I think you're smart enough to not dispute this."

Who could dispute it ? The fact is they had to include such an exception or else they would have directly conflicted with RvW which legalized abortion. Moreover, and more to the point, the legislation would have never passed without such an exception

[QUOTE]You state:
"The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death."
There is an undeniable amount of truth in your claim above."

If you acknowledge that then it's apparent we agree.
All I did was dispute your inaccurate claim that FHL's existed for one reason and one reason only.

[QUOTE] However, while it's easy to see how a person without legal expertise would view that as the sole purpose, fact is that your claim is missing the underlying element, or the mechanism that allows FHLs to exist; the mother MUST be the first victim. Making the fetus a separate, or distinct victim, means squat if mommy isn't hurt first, and any temporary personhood status granted by the statutes of the given individual jurisdiction, is conditioned on the illegal death of a fetus SOLELY when mommy is the first victim."

No disagreement here but none of this changes anything I've said.
Love how you cherry pick Doc, especially how you chose to only stipulate to 1/3 of what I proposed.

My intent was not to change what you said. I can't change what you said. I can, however, challenge what you said. I have, and you haven't said anything to rebut, or debunk what I've stated. Ralistically speaking, you can't.

That's ok. I knew you couldn't.

This matter has been put to bed long ago. Let sleeping dogs lie Doc, including your babble about viability.

Seems like regurgitating already digested matters is your m.o.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274537
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

He's also impressed that tape is only sticky on one side.
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what my husband says ;

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274538
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
(continued)

<<<deleted for character restriction>>>>.
"Are you trying to say that she didn't have that right or that right wasn't protected prior to the enactment of FHL's ? And if so, are the states that don't have FHL's being negligent in not protecting a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy ?"

No, no, and no.

A woman always has had that right. When it was recognized she had it,'is a different story.

A woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term was not protected prior to FHLs anymore than a black woman's right to vote was protected before the 15th amendment.

I am not in the position to question the legislature of states who do not have FHLs.

My statement was not inaccurate. Your statement fails because it suggests that FHLs only exist for the purpose of augmenting criminal penalties and fails to recognize the underlying reason for why criminal penalties exist.

Pro-choicers are not adamantly and uniformly opposed to FHLs. Only to those that impose criminal penalties at a point when quite plausibly the woman herself may not know she's pregnant.

If a man intends to kill his girlfriend or his wife, and neither know she's pregnant, and they live in a state where FHLs apply from the moment of conception, he could be charged, unconstitutionally, with two counts of murder 1, when legally he would only be charged with one. That's what we oppose it is an injustice.

"And if they existed solely for the reason you state then someone assaulting a woman ( resulting in the death of her unwanted fetus ) who was walking into a clinic to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, could not and would not be charged with fetal homicide."

That would depend on whether she was going in to actually have the procedure, or start the process of having the procedure, and on who is the attacker. Any 3L could successfully argue that in the case of the former, the woman, having received all the information the pro lifers want her to have in the hopes she changes her mind, and having had the time in which to change her mind, no longer intended to remain pregnant. It's a thin argument, but it could persuade a jury.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274539
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You acknowledge there is a difference in your own immediately preceding sentence. One is spontaneous and the other is induced.
You didn't mean there was no difference. Because there most definitely IS. What you meant is that while there is a difference, it doesn't matter to you.
I'm here to help.
The only difference between spontaneous and induced abortion is one is controlled by the body, the other by the mind. I do understand the ZEF is dead either way. In case you missed it, the original claim was PC couldn't possibly understand this simple fact.

You're not so helpful putting unnecessary words in my mouth, Doc. You're probably better at helping your son take care of his basement. Hope they are well, Doc.
grumpy

Pomona, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274540
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I've always agreed with the right abort when there is a threat to maternal life.
I knew you always said that but now it is apparent that you're not "pro-life" as far as the majority of the pro-lifers here is concerned.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274541
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Why put something to bed once and for all, when it that has already been done? We had this discussion about a year and a half ago.
Judges are charged with interpreting the intent of the legislature and youíre neither a Judge, nor a lawyer. So, you can speculate 'till your heart's content as to what the intent of the legislature was in the creation of FHLs, but in the final analysis, your speculation will not amount to much other than cheap argument.
But, if you care to re-hash this matter, let's start by stipulating that Fetal Homicide exists ONLY when an unborn fetus dies in a manner other than by a legal, or natural abortion (miscarriage), and that all FHLs carry an exception for legal abortions.
I think you're smart enough to not dispute this.
You state:
"The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death."
There is an undeniable amount of truth in your claim above. However, while it's easy to see how a person without legal expertise would view that as the sole purpose, fact is that your claim is missing the underlying element, or the mechanism that allows FHLs to exist; the mother MUST be the first victim. Making the fetus a separate, or distinct victim, means squat if mommy isn't hurt first, and any temporary personhood status granted by the statutes of the given individual jurisdiction, is conditioned on the illegal death of a fetus SOLELY when mommy is the first victim.
Further, the sole purpose of laws that punish criminal behavior, is deterrence of criminal activity. What better way to deter criminal activity towards a pregnant woman and protect a womanís right to have a child, than for the State to circumvent the 8th Amendment by conveniently subjecting a potential aggressor to additional punishment? Itís a hell of a way for the politicians to show the state takes an aggressive stance in the preservation of potential life.
You also state:
"that could have been accomplished simply by increasing or enhancing the punishment for already existing laws involving assaults on women which result in pregnancy loss."
Doing this would be unconstitutional, given the protection of the 8th Amendment. When a criminal defendant is deemed competent to stand trial, the law is (or in the alternative should be) blind to the gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and stage of pregnancy of the victim. A defendant charged with say, manslaughter, cannot be sentenced to any more time if he caused the death of a pregnant woman, than if he caused the death of a sterile man under the same circumstances.
So, given the 8th Amendment, and the fact that FHLs do not attach but for mommy being hurt first, and the fact that all FHLs carry an exception for a doctor performing a legal abortion with the consent of the mother, itís axiomatic that the crux of what's being protected is a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose whether the pregnancy will be carried to term, or aborted within the legal period of time.
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. READ THE COVER OF THE LATEST "TIME" MAGAZINE. THE ARTICLE IS GREAT. BASICALLY THE PROABORTIUON PAGANS HAVE BEEN LOSING THE ABORTION ON DEMAND WAR SINCE ROE V.W.
THEY HAVE LIED, EXTORTED AND BULLIED THE RIGHT TO AN "ABORTION" INTO SOMETHING THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC ABHORS.
IT IS FASINATING THAT CRAZY PROABORTS LIKE OCEANS/MORGAZIM, BITER AND FOOMUFFCHEW, WILL BE THE VERY REASON THE "ABORTION ON DEMAND" LOBBY WILL FAIL IN THE FURTURE.
SO ANY COMMON SENSE SOLUTION TO THE MASS KILLINGS WILL BE THROWN OUT BECAUSE OF THE INSANE PROABORT POSITION.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274542
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
"pooping and backpedaling." Wow dweeb; you're a true original!! LMAO!
Bobby doesn't play, and neither do I, nor Foo. We say it like it is as well. I have no issues with what Bobby says, and I'm sure neither does Foo, because the three of us know our religion. In fact, Bobby and I probably know your religion more than you do.
Moreover, the three of us, know that Judaism, in complete opposite to Catholicism, does not deprive a woman of her ability to exercise her free will, and holds her life more valuable than that of her unborn.
Foo's post with the position of the official American Jewish Conference, is as clear as a cloudless day in standard atmosphere (29.92 inches of mercury and 59 degrees Fahrenheit). If you can't muster up the ovaries to admit Judaism doesn't trample on a woman's decisions like Catholicism does, then it's me who has to say
YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR RELIGION, OR MINE, WELL ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT EITHER.
So, shut your pie hole and go have more cake boss, tragaleche. You're nothing but a hypocritical idiot who is more guilty of blasphemy against your own faith than what you could ever accuse me of being, because I'm a Jewish convert.
"even if our religion does not approve of it as a means of casually terminating potential life. Judaism may not endorse elective abortion, per se,..."

Or in honest real words, it soes not promote abortion on demand, which means it limits a womans choice, soemthing you and fofud have been denying for weeks.

The pedals going backwards are going faster and faster.

Either you enodrse a woman's right to her choice when she wants to freely exercise her choice of an abortion for any reason, or you don't. If you do, then don't use the Blessed Faith of Judaism to support your hedonistic proabortion pagan stance.

You and fud got busted.

Ingenita levitas et erudita vanitas
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274543
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Love how you cherry pick Doc, especially how you chose to only stipulate to 1/3 of what I proposed.
My intent was not to change what you said. I can't change what you said. I can, however, challenge what you said. I have, and you haven't said anything to rebut, or debunk what I've stated. Ralistically speaking, you can't.
That's ok. I knew you couldn't.
This matter has been put to bed long ago. Let sleeping dogs lie Doc, including your babble about viability.
Seems like regurgitating already digested matters is your m.o.
Neither you or anyone else has been able to defend or definitively expalin "vbiability". For you proabort pagans the isssue was put to bed like a ten dollar whore but not for the rest of we rational folk.

You pagans use it as a crutch but it is a crutch made of pseudo-science.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274544
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you always said that but now it is apparent that you're not "pro-life" as far as the majority of the pro-lifers here is concerned.
As always my anti-Chritian bigot friend, you are wrong. That old brain of yours is slipping more everyday.

I, as many other prolife folks have said that in the case of a legitimate concern for the life of the mother, abortion becomes a choice of one of two people dying.

If the woman will die without an abortion, myself and others have said we can see the need to abort. Was it killing an unobrn chold, yes. However, it was also saving a life.

What you proabortion zealots like to gloss over is that less than 1% of abortions in America are beccause the mothers life is in danger. The health of the mother has been played to mean, it may make my fingernails brittle.

Sorry, once again your extermism, much like your Zionism, is misplaced and founded on anger noi science or facts.

Please don't bring up Catholisim to me, I'm Christian but not Catholic, and will let the Cahtolic Christians speak for themselves.

Back to the hate mines for you.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274545
Jan 4, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
He's also impressed that tape is only sticky on one side.
<quoted text>
Dude what a bout the but plug. You are dragging your feet.
bird man

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274546
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You do know that catholic teaching is not christian teaching don't you?
I feel sorry for all the people sucked into believe that anything from the pope on down has anything very godly about it.
They are the largest scam on earth, set up by satan himself! They have built many very nice church buildings with their god cookie. Mass is the worse thing ever and it spits in the face of christ each time the priest does his hocus pocus over a cookie and places it in someones mouth. They use it to threaten others by witholding mass. After all if no god in you, then no god in you.

I believe that some catholics are christians but very few.

In the book of revalations in call the catholic church a whore and begs people to come out from among her. Many have.
yet there were real christians before the catholic church came about. Real christians put faith in christ not cookies or child molesters.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So sayeth the catholic hypocrite who follows all of her Jeebus' commandments to the "T."
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274547
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
Yes I understand they had it bad "many women today have it bad ".the same spirit in those men that used their wives like mules, is the same spirit, that causes men to walk away from His wife and kids today, except now, thanks "in part 'to womens lib,no one shuns the man, when he shacks up with another woman "who will help raise, the fisrts wifes kids " plus the single moms are EXPECTED to WORK, while she drops her kids off to ANOTHER WOMAN to help raise, so that she can get gov. Assistance.
I watched a show once, about a woman who had her law degree, only to "help " her husband, which was also a lawyer. It upset me!
I'm just saying, even though women do have more ops today, things are not better for most women, or men, which means the family unit is in much trouble, but I don't have to say that, becouse we all know it as truth.
If you want to believe "things are not better for most women" or something equally ridiculous, fine. I'm not buying it.

I think things are MUCH better for women now than they were in the 19th century, and I'm very glad we women are free to make our OWN decisions without interference from church or state officials. We can now decide when or IF we want to get married and/or have children. If some women decide they prefer to be career women instead of wives and mothers, they're free to make that choice as well. Marriage and motherhood are CHOICES for women these days, and if some women choose to reject both, that's their decision.

If you have issues with women having such freedom, that's YOUR problem. I really ENJOY having this kind of freedom, no matter whether you like it or not.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274549
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
Not sure what you're asking? A baby is part of the mother. A mother must give up some of herself, for her baby.
Only if she WANTS to to "give up some of herself for her baby." If she doesn't want to stay pregnant, give birth, or be a mother, that's HER choice, not yours to make for her.

Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens, and a woman can REJECT motherhood if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Contrary to what you and other regressive religionists believe, there's NOTHING wrong with women or men who don't want children. Women who don't like or want children are making the wise and responsible decision not to have them. Women have the same right NOT to have children as they do to be mothers.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274550
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sassyliciouus wrote:
This girl has got issues. Methinks she either wants to be a male or she is a woman who is enslaved by her husband. Sounds like she was treated subhuman hy some male in her life. She resents being a fertile woman. Most women embrace their feminity. She hates stay at home moms too.she called women who are.forced.to be slaves to the home.
Riiiiiiiiiiight, and I'm going to care what a religionist nutjob like you "thinks." Not bleeping likely, sASSy.

Furthermore, WHEN did I say I "hate stay at home moms?" I'll tell you; NEVER. So your last statement was one more LIE. I just thought I would make that clear.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274551
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
You make a good argument for why "most " women have abortions, they are selfish, and don't want to share the life, or give up any of "their " life for anyone./
And you're just pissed that you can't force ANY woman to get/stay pregnant, give birth, and be a mother. Too bleeping bad, pal. You don't get to make sexual and reproductive choices for anyone but yourself.

Personally, I believe a lot of girls/women never think for a second about the very real HARDSHIPS of motherhood, and some are actively DIScouraged from doing so. I've actually read lines like "if you think TOO much, you'll never have kids" or words to that effect, from posters on other boards. The appropriate response to such a statement is, "and a person deciding NOT to have kids would be a bad thing...WHY, exactly?"

When a woman has one or more children because she truly loves and wants kids, despite all the hardships and challenges motherhood brings, that's a good reason. When a woman has children because she is PRESSURED into doing so by family members and/or religious community, even if she may have been undecided or unwilling to have them but caved to the pressure, that's NOT a good reason.

Yes, there's a 50% chance she MAY "fall in love with the child" later on, but there's also the 50% chance she may NOT, and the results in the latter case could be tragic. My feeling has always been that if a girl/woman has ANY doubts about motherhood, then DON'T do it. It's too important a decision to "roll the dice" about, and as I said, the choice NOT to be a mother is just as valid and responsible as the choice to be one.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Baltimore Discussions

Search the Baltimore Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min LRDII 1,079,040
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) 9 hr IMGKNEE 121,137
In a WAR between RUSSIA and GLOBALISTS, I'm "RO... 10 hr SnuffAGlobalist 2
16 Members And Associates Of La Familia Gang Ar... (May '08) 14 hr true one 295
Baltimore Stands with Israel 15 hr informant 19
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Tue bee 6335 18,536
SnuffAGlobalist Mon SnuffAGlobalist 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••