Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313383 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275961 Jan 11, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is convenient to go back to the Laci Peterson case where Scott was convicted of killing his unborn child. If I remember right that child was in utero.
You do remember right and I provided proof of it. There's a law based on it called "Laci and Connor's law", which I provided in a post. The law is abouit protection of unborn children, and prosecuting those who intentionally kill unborn children. Connor was killed IN UTERO. The PCers don't know any facts when they post. All they do is make unsubstantiated claims.

The wording in that law is as follows. Note what terms are used for the human life in utero:

"‘Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

"Unborn child", "human being" and the woman who's pregnant as "the unborn child's ~mother~".
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275962 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I have complete bodily autonomy and ALL without ever needing to have any of my unborn children killed. That's because bodily autonomy is about MY body. Imagine that.
Good for you. That's what choice is all about.
Don't like abortion, don't have one. Nobody will legally force you or the generations following you to abort against your will provided women's civil rights aren't chipped away to nothing substantial.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275963 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to call Doc having that hands down a stalemate, then so be it.
Call it whatever you want, he still has it hands down.
You have a right to your opinion.
So do I.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275964 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD's Mom: "Look, honey, baby CD has an inny."
CD's Dad: "What do you mean? His cut unbilical cord is poking out."
CD's Mom: "When I say 'an inny' I'm not talking about baby CD's navel."
CD's Dad: "Oh. I thought he was a girl...."
Funny how things develop all on their own after birth. Wanna peak take a look NR????

Wait, strike that. You may then see me as a priest.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275965 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you know there is no deceased granddaughter, CD. And that I offered for NR to refer to my lost pregnancy (a male), but he hasn't. Yet.
I know that darling. Hence the reason why granddaughter was in "" marks.

NR is little boy forced into celibacy due to his lack of reason and money to pay a prostitute.

Pobrecito.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275966 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a complete unknown to me. I don't know you from Adam, Toots. You're a bunch of words on a computer screen to me. To think you're anything more than that to me is senselessness.
You don't know me in any way either.
I'm just a moniker and words on a page. As much a stranger to you as you are to me. We are not personally acquainted in any way, since that would require knowing each other in person, which we don't.
You ARE an unknown to me, you nit wit. You people think this is real life here, or what?
I am not an unknown quantity. Even if you equate my person to nothing but a bunch of words, it's known words. Fim

(look who's really "dehumanizing" here, folks)
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275967 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
That has always been my position Katie. Thanks!
Thank you! Unfortunately, Doc is still trying to argue. I've called it a stalemate and have moved on.

On a different note, was sorry to read about your shoulder issues. I have similar issues, but it's with soft tissues. Didja know damaged soft tissues feel like broken glass inside your arm? It's been 3 years since I broke my elbow and damaged my shoulder. Still haven't reached full range, probably won't, but it does what I want it to do.

:)

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275968 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "Pain is not subjective. Ask anyone you know to stick their hand in an active fireplace, and everyone will experience the same pain."
If I have to ask them about their pain, I'm seeking a subjective report.
(unbelievable)
__________
cPeter: "Didn't you say that sentience is not reached until a certain level of maturity?"
Where did I say that? What I did say to you is that the baby wants to live. Even instinctually s/he demonstrates she is meant to live by moving from the death weapon & inflicted pain.
["Multiple lines of evidence thus corroborate that the key mechanisms of consciousness or conscious sensory perception are not dependent on cortical activity" - Anand, 2006]
__________
Research is gaining insight into thalamic involvement in pain perception, along with the cortical subplate zone.(Pain peception no later than 20 weeks gestation....likely sooner....thus, the multiple-state abortion pain laws.....learn more.)
I'm not CPeter pinhead.

And the mere fact you'd ask anyone about their pain does not make it a subjective topic, especially when all would tell you the same thing.

"Research is gaining insight into thalamic involvement in pain perception, along with the cortical subplate zone.(Pain peception no later than 20 weeks gestation....likely sooner....thus, the multiple-state abortion pain laws.....learn more.)"

Post a link to any credible, unbiased source that supports that horse manure.

NR, go get your slid sown shut and see if your balls drop and your clit grows to an inch's length.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275969 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD: "How's that for a rebuttal?"
It's as non-existent a rebuttal as your last non-existent rebuttal.
(Is this real life?)
Then it matches your conformity with the teachings of your Jeebus.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275970 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion isn't determined by fetal pain or lack of it. Abortion is determined by a woman and her doctor.
The fetal pain argument is a PLM fallacy. Am glad to see you concede it isn't realistic. However, it's disheartening to see you pick up a new fallacy and fling it toward the PC. I don't know anyone, anywhere who thinks abortion is okay because the fetus doesn't suffer.
Women's civil rights are okay because it's morally right to give women the same opportunities to determine their lives' outcomes without interference from the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parkers (like you).
"Abortion isn't determined by fetal pain or lack of it. Abortion is determined by a woman and her doctor."

Right, abortion isn't determined by fetal pain or lack of it.

I misspoke. What I meant to be posting was PCers using the "fetus doesn't suffer/doesn't feel pain" argument as being the "difference" between a fetus being killed and a born child being killed. That's the context of this particular discussion, and I wasn't completely focused when typing that post.

To claim that's what makes a differene is senselessness. Using that same logic and turning it around; if a born child (say 10 yrs old) doesn't feel pain, is unconscious and unaware of what's happening to them and doesn't suffer, then some killer sending them into a wood chipper is no different than a fetus that's aborted. There IS no difference because sentience and pain aren't what reasonably MAKES the difference. The MANNER of death DOES make a difference. Killing as opposed to natural death is what the difference is.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275971 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "The legal terms are not based on medical scientific terms. "
They're obviously terms recognized in LAWS. You know, the kind of thing you PCers stand behind, like RvW.
Katie: "Anyone can call the ZEF anything they want and it has no impact on anything or anyone."
Bullshit. It had an impact in that law being made, and in the wording of that law.
Katie: "In a debate, though, both sides need to agree on terms and definitions or the debate will not progress."
Again, bullshit. You people don't even understand definitions and try to redefine what's already been defined, by law, so there's no way any intelligent person would agree to your terms on that matter.
Katie: "That pretty much sums up the issues in this forum with this group of people. Most of the PCers use medical terms while most of the PLers use emotional terms."
Bullshit again. Are you suggesting that the terms we use that have also been used in "The Laci and Connor's law" were "emotional" terms? You'd have to be if you're going to make that kind of claim.
Katie: "That creates a stalemate (and silly post exchanges like we're having about KW's post.)
There's no stalemate. I have this hands down. The only cause for any silly exchange is the silliness coming from you PCers.
You have a right to your opinion.
I have a right to mine.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275972 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "...to refer to my lost pregnancy..." flew in one eye and out the other or over the top of your head? Why do I need to explain this?
You're like NR. Pull partial quotes without supplying context, try to make it mean whatever you want it to mean, then point your fingers and play the blame game.
It's your fallacy. Jesus is so proud.
None of it passed by my eyes, Toots, and is why you referring to your "lost pregnancy" as "male" is ridiculous.

Your "lost pregnancy" wasn't "male". Your lost unborn child was male. So why not chooser to just say it instead of choosing to make yourself sound so mind bogglingly stupid.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275973 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
That has always been my position Katie. Thanks!
Well then, your position is wrong.

Katie posted, and you agreed, "Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability. "

Viability is determined while the child is IN UTERO before being born.

How then can the child possibly "handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance", when it's still sucking on amniotic fluid at the point in time "viability/non-viability " is determined?

That view you claim is yours that Katie posted is NOT as Katie stated as being "the basic concept of viability." Not in any way, shape or form; not medically or legally or even sensibly.

Reason: because viability is the POTENTIAL to survive outside of the womb, and with or without medical assistance.
Non-viable is obviously the LACK OF POTENTIAL to do so.

Katie

Seattle, WA

#275974 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no, actually YOU are, since you didn't get my comment, dummy.
You obviously understand a "pregnancy" wouldn't have a gender. The pregnancy is a CONDITION. So, for you to claim your "lost pregnancy" was "male", is just more of your type of senselessness, trying to avoid claiming what you lost was your unborn son. Your fetus was your son, since you know he was male.
Saying your "lost pregnancy" was male is just a STUPID way to avoid stating the facts. Pregnancies don't have genders.
Whooboy ...(male) was in reference to NR's claim of "granddaughter".

Again, thank you for provided such a wonderful example of your awful comprehension skills. This time, it did surprise me.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275975 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a right to your opinion.
So do I.
You don't have a right to make a claim as though it's a fact when it's not. You claimed, "It's a stalemate". No, it wasn't. Not even close. That fact is already proven in your lack of understanding posted as to what viability is about.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275976 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you. That's what choice is all about.
Don't like abortion, don't have one. Nobody will legally force you or the generations following you to abort against your will provided women's civil rights aren't chipped away to nothing substantial.
Girls ARE forced to have abortions, by fathers or boyfriends etc. To deny that would be a lie.

Abortion being legal does allow for that type of abuse to go unreported. Abuse OFTEN goes unreported and that's because of fear of the consequences of reporting it.

"Don't like abortion, don't have one."

Don't like stabbing people, don't do it. But by golly, how dare anyone make a law to stop others from doing it.

That's how what you said sounds to sensible people.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275977 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
None of it passed by my eyes, Toots, and is why you referring to your "lost pregnancy" as "male" is ridiculous.
Your "lost pregnancy" wasn't "male". Your lost unborn child was male. So why not chooser to just say it instead of choosing to make yourself sound so mind bogglingly stupid.
Because it wasn't the point. Maybe you should go back to the full sentence and properly diagram it in order to correctly comprehend the message given to CD. The portion you quoted is mismatched anyway.

Katie wrote to CD: I hope you know there is no deceased granddaughter, CD. And that I offered for NR to refer to my lost pregnancy (a male), but he hasn't. Yet.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...my lost pregnancy (a male)..."
You think a "pregnancy" has a gender? Wow. Just...wow.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275978 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a right to make a claim as though it's a fact when it's not. You claimed, "It's a stalemate". No, it wasn't. Not even close. That fact is already proven in your lack of understanding posted as to what viability is about.
It's a stalemate. Not your concern. Not yours to judge. Not your decision.

Just like some stranger's pregnancy.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275980 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Girls ARE forced to have abortions, by fathers or boyfriends etc. To deny that would be a lie.
Abortion being legal does allow for that type of abuse to go unreported. Abuse OFTEN goes unreported and that's because of fear of the consequences of reporting it.
"Don't like abortion, don't have one."
Don't like stabbing people, don't do it. But by golly, how dare anyone make a law to stop others from doing it.
That's how what you said sounds to sensible people.
I would question how sensible these "sensible people" truly are.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275979 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not an unknown quantity. Even if you equate my person to nothing but a bunch of words, it's known words. Fim
(look who's really "dehumanizing" here, folks)
LOL, oh stop, you Drama Queen. I'm not saying anything to you that you haven't been saying about the human life/child/human being in utero.

Weird how you don't like what you say about other human beings,(the ones in utero) being said about you. That human life is NOT just a "useless wad of cells", and it IS belittling, whether you know that human life or not. That's the point and your posts to me getting all defensive about what I've posted to you proves it.

Here's YOUR senseless logic again:

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"No, you needed to clarify it and you have.
I do not think someone referring, in general, to a stranger's unknown ZEF, as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling to anyone.
The stranger is an unknown, as is the ZEF. And whatever that stranger determines her ZEF to be is what matters. Somebody else's opinion means squat. Even if that somebody else reveres the ZEF and refers to it as a baby or doesn't give it a second thought and refers to it as a "useless wad of cells." "

You ARE an unknown, and stranger to me, and what I say about you is as non-belittling to you,(according to your "stranger" logic), as what you say about a fetus you don't know is. Deal with that, Toots.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min flack 1,497,547
How do we deal with a girl (wife's sister) that... 5 hr Jeremy 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Wed democrat 20,852
News Merger announced between Kopernik Bank and St. ... Feb 21 Sarah 2nd Grade 4
Review: Independent Chem-dry Feb 20 Anonymous 1
Wish our BALT N(EYE)GGERS had some FLINT MI WATER! Feb 20 Philbert 2
News In immigrant crackdown, a 'fine-tuned' police s... Feb 19 Rose Tokoyo1 1

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages