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
265,021 - 265,040 of 305,182 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282192
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't retract it. No skin off my apple F. Lee. But the record will still show that you said protection of a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy was the "ONLY" reason for FHL's existence.
Not saying the same thing now are you ?
The record will only show a futile attempt to dumb something down for your benefit and your perpetual inability to even comprehend that.
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah....shall be deemed "murder". In Florida however, if the assault only injures the mother but results in the death of the fetus, the perp can still be tried for manslaughter, thereby establishing a mechanism where the perp can be punished beyond the punishment for just the mere assault. Which is all I said.

Are you sure about that?

There are two cases in Florida that control;

Williams v. State, 15 So. 760 (Fla. 1894), and State v. McCall, 458 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

In Williams the Florida Supreme Court stated in pertinent part:

"The proof shows further the premature birth and death, within a few hours after the assault and battery, of the child with which the wife was pregnant. The injury to the mother here, that resulted in the premature birth and death of the child, was inflicted upon her by the defendant under such circumstances as would have made it murder, had the injury resulted in the death of the mother, instead, simply, of producing the death of the child. When this is shown the crime is made out."

In McCall, the 2nd District Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

"Accordingly, we hold that in Florida there are no such crimes as vehicular homicide and DWI man-slaughter of a viable but unborn child. We do not hold that a viable fetus is not alive nor do we hold that a person should not be punished for causing its death. We simply adopt the traditional interpretation of the words “human being” under the homicide stat-utes as meaning one who has been born alive. There-fore, the court properly dismissed those counts of the information relating to the death of Michael Thomas Umbel."

In short, no birth followed by death of the "born" baby, no Fetal Homicide in Florida.

Good luck in charging the perp with "manslaughter" if the baby is born dead.

LMAO!!!

[QUOTE who="Doc Degall"]Yeah I get it alright. This was never about the mother's own actions anyway.....only the actions of others.
Win some lose some counselor.
Of course not. I only used that scenario to prove to you that the statute assumes a wanted pregnancy, which you emphatically deny. Yet, here you are conceding that, in Florida, if the mother sticks a coat hanger in her c*nt and kills her fetus, which unequivocally means an "unwanted pregnancy," she can't be charged with fetal homicide, or the "Unlawful Killing of an Unborn Quick Child." It has to be the actions of another, which unequivocally assumes she, meaning "mommy," didn't want the pregnancy ended.

And, I've shown you how even despite the language of the statute, the courts' interpretation is that there must first be a live birth, followed by death from the assault, for the statute to apply.

"Win some, lose some[?]" You haven't won one yet, errand boy.

;-)
Uber-Bro of the Unborn

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282193
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, too, STO. I think it's illegal anyway, so it's moot. Illegal abortions are not the norm so long as Roe v Wade is in effect. And thank you for commenting on this. JM probably won't go further than she already did; ZEF-focused to the exclusion of all else.
It was interesting your analysis of ac/pl working backward from one day prior to the due date and pc working forward from conception. I hadn't noticed it before yet it seems correct. It would definitely explain why it seems ac/pl and pc speak in different languages.
(i want jm to recognize she is no different than michael schiavo regarding refusing her daughter a life-saving abortion. that it is her right to do so, just like it was michael's right not to treat terri's infections and/or remove her artificial life support)
Have you ever explored the web-site of Life Dynamics Incorporated "Katie" and asked yourself whether or not there is a link between racism and abortion!?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282194
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could one of you pro-choice people explain it to me?
No, I've never seen an intestinal resection, nor do I know what it is.
You're pro-choice. Explain it to yourself... Look it up.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282195
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reposted with the quotation errors corrected.
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't retract it. No skin off my apple F. Lee. But the record will still show that you said protection of a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy was the "ONLY" reason for FHL's existence.
Not saying the same thing now are you ?
The record will only show a futile attempt to dumb something down for your benefit and your perpetual inability to even comprehend that.
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah....shall be deemed "murder". In Florida however, if the assault only injures the mother but results in the death of the fetus, the perp can still be tried for manslaughter, thereby establishing a mechanism where the perp can be punished beyond the punishment for just the mere assault. Which is all I said.
Are you sure about that?

There are two cases in Florida that control;

Williams v. State, 15 So. 760 (Fla. 1894), and State v. McCall, 458 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

In Williams the Florida Supreme Court stated in pertinent part:

"The proof shows further the premature birth and death, within a few hours after the assault and battery, of the child with which the wife was pregnant. The injury to the mother here, that resulted in the premature birth and death of the child, was inflicted upon her by the defendant under such circumstances as would have made it murder, had the injury resulted in the death of the mother, instead, simply, of producing the death of the child. When this is shown the crime is made out."

In McCall, the 2nd District Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

"Accordingly, we hold that in Florida there are no such crimes as vehicular homicide and DWI man-slaughter of a viable but unborn child. We do not hold that a viable fetus is not alive nor do we hold that a person should not be punished for causing its death. We simply adopt the traditional interpretation of the words “human being” under the homicide stat-utes as meaning one who has been born alive. There-fore, the court properly dismissed those counts of the information relating to the death of Michael Thomas Umbel."

In short, no birth followed by death of the "born" baby, no Fetal Homicide in Florida.

Good luck in charging the perp with "manslaughter" if the baby is born dead.

LMAO!!!
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah I get it alright. This was never about the mother's own actions anyway.....only the actions of others.
Win some lose some counselor.
Of course not. I only used that scenario to prove to you that the statute assumes a wanted pregnancy, which you emphatically deny. Yet, here you are conceding that, in Florida, if the mother sticks a coat hanger in her c*nt and kills her fetus, which unequivocally means an "unwanted pregnancy," she can't be charged with fetal homicide, or the "Unlawful Killing of an Unborn Quick Child." It has to be the actions of another, which unequivocally assumes she, meaning "mommy," didn't want the pregnancy ended.

And, I've shown you how even despite the language of the statute, the courts' interpretation is that there must first be a live birth, followed by death from the assault, for the statute to apply.

"Win some, lose some[?]" You haven't won one yet, errand boy.

;-)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282196
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Lol...
Yeah, okay, LLL. You have no facts, no proof of your claim. You have an opinion, nothing more.
Ummm, one cannot prove a negative, dummy.
I said proe me wrong and you come back with "one cannot prove a negative"? What kind fo stupidity is that?

Of course we can prove people wrong. We PLers do it with you PC all the time. Facts are facts, and the definition of humane and conscience are what they are. You display what you display, and have said what you have said. Put it all together and I stated a fact.

Now prove I'm wrong, by reasonably proving what I've stated is only opinion.
Guppy

Rotonda West, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282197
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

12 minutes ago

12 minutes ago

9 minutes ago

7 minutes ago

5 minutes ago

5 minutes ago

Would that be one person posting?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282198
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, you did no such thing. My link did not prove me wrong.
Your claim: "not married"

Your link info: "Never married".

You were wrong. You can be a child and say, "Uh uh I'm not" all day long. You were and that's been proven.

You can't see the difference between claiming "not married" and your link stating "never married". I get it. You don't, but I do.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282199
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no, lol. You're still full of shit, Troll.
lol, read my prior post, you child.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282200
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim: "not married"
Your link info: "Never married".
You were wrong. You can be a child and say, "Uh uh I'm not" all day long. You were and that's been proven.
You can't see the difference between claiming "not married" and your link stating "never married". I get it. You don't, but I do.
Women who have never married aren't also not married currently?

LOL, you're an idiot, Troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282201
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
LILY just beat herself at her own game. She cannot prove that abortion is morally wrong. No one can. She will spend all day rationalizing, explaining, defending. Lily, an opinion is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion based on your personal moral philosophy. You don't have facts to back up your moral philosophy. That's okay.
How many pages of ridiculously long, redundant diatribes will that woman frantically type before she collapses in emotional exhaustion? So sad:-\
Elise, it's ironic that when people from your own camp write 'ridiculously long, redundant diatribes" you don't whine about it. But when PLers are posting, you whine about sentences being too long for your taste, let alone the post itself? lol

We get it, you like to try to insult with stupidity to deflect from the fact that you can't converse or rebut with intelligence or facts.

I asked you to reasonably prove that what I said about YOU is just opinion and not fact, not about "abortion".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282202
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
lol, read my prior post, you child.
Yes, that one was full of shit too, Troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

You got nothing of substance to say, and are not worth a serious response. Let the other poster speak for himself, OCD.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282204
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "It is a civil right to "kill your own" ZEF, though. It is self-defense."
That "ZEF" is her unborn child. A child is a child no matter how big or small. That "self-defense" claim; illogical, irrational, unreasonable, in-friggin-sane.
Katie, you really are an irrational mental case. I'm serious.
I repeat legal facts and you call me an "irrational mental case"? You can't wish it away. Calling me names won't do a thing about it, either. You're not disappointed, are you?
raises eyebrows

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282205
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
No e-mail posted by you, Foo, no matter who you claim it's from, would ever prove your claim here about "mutual abuse".
Proving you e-mailed with Lynne still would never prove that.
So every single thing you said and did, posting King's gate trying to claim it's a picture Lynne took; the impotent "threat" of posting a picture of her house; and the impotent "threat" of posting e-mails is all IRRATIONAL.
No matter what you post, it still won't ever prove your claim of mutual abuse. Unless you can provide something posted HERE in the forum that you can link, your claim is unproven.
Reading the posts of yours and to you causes me to wonder if you're being harassed or stalked. Please be careful, some people are just not together upstairs, you know?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282206
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the thing about Foo and her "mutual abuse" -- she is an adult. She is capable of making her own decisions. Same with Lynne/Persy. Same with you. Same with me. Last but not least, I am not the "irrational" one here, tootsie roll. You just got done ignoring your own mistakes all while "verbally abusing" me with your aggressive name calling. If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. I'm certainly not going to give you an "eye for and eye" over it, though. Sorry if that disappoints you.
Giving people what they dish out is not "abusive", and what you get from me is far less than what you've dished out to others here, same with Foo. You people were the aggressors here, I didn't come into this forum that way.

You're going to cry over name calling? Really? How does it "threaten" you, your life or your physical or mental well being in ANY way? It doesn't, you bonehead, unless your 5 years old.

You admit that it doesn't threaten you in any way, "If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. "

If someone says something verbally and another strikes them physically, the abuse is NOT "mutual".
Mutual: "reciprocal"

Your excuses for Foo's attacks on a teen being a victim of domestic violence, struck once and left him afterwards, is nothing short of irrational.



“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282207
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Women who have never married aren't also not married currently?
LOL, you're an idiot, Troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.
Bitner, the more you post, the more unreasonable you become.

You claimed less than half of women "not married" had abortions.

The link said less than half of women "never" married.

There are MORE than half of "not married" (<your claim) women who had abortions, who were once married but not necesarily at the time of the abortion. So they aren't partof the "never" married stat.

Get your head out of your butt, will you? Holy cow.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282208
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Elise, it's ironic that when people from your own camp write 'ridiculously long, redundant diatribes" you don't whine about it. But when PLers are posting, you whine about sentences being too long for your taste, let alone the post itself? lol
We get it, you like to try to insult with stupidity to deflect from the fact that you can't converse or rebut with intelligence or facts.
I asked you to reasonably prove that what I said about YOU is just opinion and not fact, not about "abortion".
You're not being fair or correct. Elise and I have poked fun at my own run-on sentences.

You've got to reach for something, anything, to feel you're in the right, dontcha? Why?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282209
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat legal facts and you call me an "irrational mental case"? You can't wish it away. Calling me names won't do a thing about it, either. You're not disappointed, are you?
I'll call you mental case again, because what you repeated were not "legal" facts.
Just like stating a newborn is a fetus until 1st breath and cord is cut is not a medical or legal fact.

Prove killing a fetus in utero is legally "self-defense".

Prove that killing a ZEF isn't also killing the woman's unborn CHILD.

You're mind bogglingly ignorant, and senseless.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282210
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

raises eyebrows wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading the posts of yours and to you causes me to wonder if you're being harassed or stalked. Please be careful, some people are just not together upstairs, you know?
None of them are together upstairs.

I'm not the one that needs to worry, but I do agree that the poster she's targeting does.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282211
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner, the more you post, the more unreasonable you become.
You claimed less than half of women "not married" had abortions.
The link said less than half of women "never" married.
There are MORE than half of "not married" (<your claim) women who had abortions, who were once married but not necesarily at the time of the abortion. So they aren't partof the "never" married stat.
Get your head out of your butt, will you? Holy cow.
"You claimed less than half of women "not married" had abortions."

No, that's not what I said, Moron.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282212
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Giving people what they dish out is not "abusive", and what you get from me is far less than what you've dished out to others here, same with Foo. You people were the aggressors here, I didn't come into this forum that way.
You're going to cry over name calling? Really? How does it "threaten" you, your life or your physical or mental well being in ANY way? It doesn't, you bonehead, unless your 5 years old.
You admit that it doesn't threaten you in any way, "If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. "
If someone says something verbally and another strikes them physically, the abuse is NOT "mutual".
Mutual: "reciprocal"
Your excuses for Foo's attacks on a teen being a victim of domestic violence, struck once and left him afterwards, is nothing short of irrational.
Ahh, but there's the rub. Nobody here knows for certain if what Lynne claimed was even true. The *only* one who'd know is Lynne, herself. And you claim you're not Lynne. So you wouldn't know.

Society has always held women responsible for their own abuse. Still does so to an extent. It has been one long fight for women to be seen as and treated as equal to men.

YOU are undermining that by claiming babies are aborted. All your emotional rhetoric being applied to a ZEF could be redirected in helping abused women -- those who say and do absolutely nothing before being abused. Those who are asleep in their beds when the abuse begins or those who are turned away from their abusers and don't see it coming.

Domestic violence is not always as one-sided as you're trying to claim above. New research and new evidence explains it. Why don't you look into it and educate yourself.

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.

13 Users are viewing the Baltimore Forum right now

Search the Baltimore Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Grey Ghost 1,083,973
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 18 min tony bennedetto 18,594
Baltimore Stands with Israel 34 min boo ya 26
Review: Wanda Hicks Dating Service 18 hr Joe Clinton 1
The Fed is dumpig illegals in different states. Wed Bob Rooney 1
In a WAR between RUSSIA and GLOBALISTS, I'm "RO... Tue SnuffAGlobalist 4
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Tue Raptor in Michigan 121,143
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••