Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310327 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.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323795 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not."
Wrong. The purpose of FHLs is two fold. 1- to offer greater deterrence against violence towards women, specifically a pregnant woman, by subjecting the offender to the possibility of being charged for two (2) felonies; and 2- to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just as her right to terminate a pregnancy is protected. There is also an element of protecting a state's interest in the preservation of potential life, although pursuant to the holding in Roe, only kicks in at viability. I would argue that states who enforce FHLs at any stage prior to viability, are seeking unconstitutional punishment.
WRONG. Whether FHL's or ANY law for that matter, serve as a deterrent at all, is a matter for debate. The primary purpose and undeniable intent of any law is to provide a mechanism by which to punish the perpetrators of crime.
Beyond that, in the case of FHL's YOU above all do not get to determine what the purpose was. For that, before I relied on a partisan dunce like you, I would defer to those who actually wrote and introduced the bill, among those being Senator Lindsey Graham......

"“I believe most Americans want to protect life as much as possible," said Graham.“People who want to turn this into an abortion debate have an irrational view. The purpose of this bill is very simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323796 Apr 18, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
People on life-support are born and thus are persons under the constitution. Fetuses are not born and have no inherent rights; the woman is born and vested just like any other citizen.
<quoted text>
That's all well and good friend, but that wasn't his argument.
His claim was that a fetus could not be classified as a "person" SOLELY due to the fact that that for which it relies for survival is not a person. The argument is a complete fail.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323799 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're suggesting that a charge of double homicide, or murder, will result in two convictions of homicide/murder. And that's not always the case.
I suggested nothing of the kind. I said ONLY that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be CHARGED with double murder.
There is. You're just too stupid and narrow minded to see it. And I'm not going to educate you. Go to law school and then we can discuss it ad nauseum.
There is a connection ? So you mean to tell me you agree that a person could be charged with double murder if they murder a pregnant woman ? And that your Fed Ex analogy supports that ? Fine then, I stand corrected.
By the way, if you do agree then what the hell have you been arguing with me about ?
Woopty f*cking do.
Go and find out if in either case there were two convictions of murder.
What's wrong with you guy ? Are you unstable or what ? Convictions is irrelevant. All I ever claimed was that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be CHARGED with double murder. Take a few deep breaths pal and then go back and check my posts.

Whew ! Psycho booooooy !!!

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323803 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
So your rebuttal argument is the proverbial "liar, liar, pants on fire."
Duly noted.
Yeah, they usually resort to that or "I know you are but what am I?"

I sent you something.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323804 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lookie, lookie.
"I don't like myself here" you said.
You're a liar I said.
I was right.
Sure were.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323805 Apr 18, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. A born person is a person even if it is dependent on artificial life support. Funny thing about that. If a born persons brain function is such that it can no longer sustains its own bodily functions or consciousness, that born person is considered brain dead and can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support.
A fetus, which is NOT a person, or born, has a brain function that is equal to that of a brain dead person as it can not sustain its own bodily function or consciousness. A fetus which is NOT a person, therefore can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support since that life support BY its life support who is and actual PERSON.
So, your point was??
My point was too fold. One, that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder and two, that you aren't very bright at all.
NO ONE said you "couldn't" be charged with double homicide.
You did. Without any qualifier relative to jurisdiction or level of fetal development you said definitively "No actually you WON'T be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman."
That is just as WRONG as saying that you WILL be charged with double murder.
Why can't you anti-choicers ever follow the actual argument? Or are you just lacking honesty?? The actual statement was not incorrect. It depends on where you are, when you kill a pregnant woman, and sometimes on the length of gestation, whether or not you will be charged with double murder. Some states DO NOT HAVE fetal homicide laws. SO the incorrect statement was that if you kill a pregnant woman you WILL be charge with double homicide.
NOW you say this. Just who is lacking in honesty ? The fact is it was I who clarified to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in. You on the other hand said unequivocally and without any qualifier, that YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323806 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you thrive in coming across as making an argument in rebuttal when you're actually agreeing with me?
That depends. Do you thrive on creating arguments I've never made and then arguing against yourself ?
OTOH, not every law punishes a criminal. Anyone knows that and you should too. So your statement is false by the use of the word "any."
The fact that not every law punishes a criminal doesn't alter the fact that the mechanism to be able to punish is ANY law's intended purpose.
In addition, I'm not making a determination of the intent of FHLs.
Yes you are. You didn't disagree with my assessment of the purpose of FHL's. You stated definitively that I was WRONG, then proceeded to state authoritatively just what their purpose was. Don't tell me you weren't making a determination of their intent.
I'm making an argument. Arguments, dumbass, are affirmative statements that can reasonably be proven enough to convince a neutral third party. And you haven't yet made an argument worth the turd I just flushed.
You post on Topix from the bowl ? With your horrible diet that's got to be one awful stank in there. Does anyone use that computer after you ?
So you know, the words of senator Graham that you quote, unequivocally validate my argument. "Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence," is precisely my point. FHLs protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just like Roe v. Wade protects a woman's right to kill her unborn by way of a legal abortion.
Wrong. The statement "Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence," is clearly meant to distinguish the killing from a legal abortion. On the other hand, Graham's stated PURPOSE of the law is clear when he says WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD. He doesn't say we want to put them in jail for the damage done to the woman.
Unequivocally validates ? You are a hopelessly stupid.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323807 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was too fold. One, that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder and two, that you aren't very bright at all.


You mean "two fold"?

Huh. That's interesting because WE were discussing how a born person can be disconnected from its life support after being determined to be a brain dead born person and since a fetus has the equal brain function as a brain dead born person and a fetus is NOT a person......well you got the point. Loud and clear.

But now you are claiming your point was that a person could be charged with double murder? Funny but it looked to me as if you were trying to claim that a person was a person even if it was dependent on life support, which is what you actually said.

But its OK I can see why you would want to back pedal furiously away from that line of "reasoning" because it did not go where you thought it would. LMFAO

It is YOU that lacks honesty. Or you are just not very bright at all.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
You did.
Liar. I did not. I provided you with my EXACT words. No one ever said you "couldn't" be charged with double murder. Why lie? Can't admit when you are wrong??
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Without any qualifier relative to jurisdiction or level of fetal development you said definitively "No actually you WON'T be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman."
That is just as WRONG as saying that you WILL be charged with double murder.


Nope. It is true. I answered properly, based on Seventees claim, that "you" would NOT be charged with double murder and I am correct. It is not my fault that Seventee was not properly informed on the subject. Nor is it MY job to educate it. Its argument was that the FEDERAL Unborn Victims of Violence act would cause "YOU" to be "charged with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman". Seventee was trying to insinuate that a fetus could be the "victim" of "murder" anywhere, any time, and that proved a fetus is a person. Kind of along the lines of the crap you were spouting with the "life support" argument you just lost badly, you blithering imbecile.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
NOW you say this. Just who is lacking in honesty ? The fact is it was I who clarified to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in. You on the other hand said unequivocally and without any qualifier, that YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED.


Uh, nice try but like you said it was SevenTee who said without any qualifier that YOU **WILL** BE CHARGED WITH DOUBLE MURDER IF YOU KILL A PREGNANT WOMAN. I answered correctly you would not.

The Unborn Victims Act is a federal law. I said that. Then I asked why it did not know that.

And you KNOW what mistake Seventee was making (as did I AND several other PC posters) otherwise why would YOU have to clarify "to SevenTee that whether you could be charged with double murder was a function of what jurisdiction you were in."

So BITE ME.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323808 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)
Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.
Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.
You have to be kidding. This clown really claims he's an attorney ??? And you're buying it ?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323809 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Zip it you drunkard. I agreed to no such thing. Fetal homicide charges could absolutely be brought against someone who assaults (not kill) a pregnant woman thereby causing the death of her fetus.
http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archiv...
What I DID say is that fetal homicide laws do not necessarily prohibit abortion against a pregnant woman's will. They prohibit KILLING the fetus against a pregnant woman's will.
<quoted text>
.....you need to put down that bottle of Dewars.
<quoted text>
What....the "belittle the old coot" game ?
<quoted text>
Someone else waiting in the wings to say something irrelevant to the fact that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder ???
I'm not drunk yet, Dewar's is for pus*ies, and if the shoe fits, wear it, Cooty.

You fetus worshipers may think you've got this, but all you've got are your night sweats over women having sex, and your swollen nuts from thinking about it.

Why don't you get some, so you can quit worrying about everyone else's sex life, bud?

Next...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323811 Apr 18, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not drunk yet, Dewar's is for pus*ies, and if the shoe fits, wear it, Cooty.
You fetus worshipers may think you've got this, but all you've got are your night sweats over women having sex, and your swollen nuts from thinking about it.
Why don't you get some, so you can quit worrying about everyone else's sex life, bud?
Next...
Thrown in the towel huh ? Figures.

Next....

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323814 Apr 19, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
They can be charged with Double Murder because two people are dead at the hands of the criminal.
Both people have rights as human beings and need protection under the law against harm.
This fact makes it impossible to defend abortion-murder because the child has a Right to Life and should be protected from an unnecessary killing
Ya know, you can keep repeating this ignorant nonsense over and over again, and it still will nevet be true or factual.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323815 Apr 19, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be kidding. This clown really claims he's an attorney ??? And you're buying it ?
Now thats funny coming from a reprobate that what? Mows lawns?

So anyway, since you're such a genius *snicker* with a history of having no effing idea what you're talking about I'm going to point something else out.

Nowhere did Noah say a born person who needed mechanical life support was not a person. That claim is either your dishonest straw man created to cover that you couldn't answer his questions OR you simply did not understand the quesrion because, well, you're just not that bright.

So I am going to reiterate his point to see how you will weasel away from it this time.

You see, per the N. Dakota statute, the born, constitutionally protected pregnant woman is not a person. Per the N. Dakota law, the fetus is also not a person. So if the woman the fetus is located inside of and attached to and without whom a non viable fetus can not exist, per the statute, is NOT a person, the fetus can not be a person. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH whether or not a born person is dependent on machanical life support to exist, ya dummy.

You understand that, right?

And being as you're so smart how could you not understand the fed ex analogy? Perhaps your talent is not logical thinking?

Lol.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323818 Apr 19, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG. Whether FHL's or ANY law for that matter, serve as a deterrent at all, is a matter for debate. The primary purpose and undeniable intent of any law is to provide a mechanism by which to punish the perpetrators of crime.
Beyond that, in the case of FHL's YOU above all do not get to determine what the purpose was. For that, before I relied on a partisan dunce like you, I would defer to those who actually wrote and introduced the bill, among those being Senator Lindsey Graham......
"“I believe most Americans want to protect life as much as possible," said Graham.“People who want to turn this into an abortion debate have an irrational view. The purpose of this bill is very simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE UNBORN CHILD.
ROFLMAO. Lindsey Graham is the perfect example of a partisan dunce.

But his statement proves the law is to protect the woman's choice. How funny a smart guy like you proved Playas & Noahs points for them.

Next.....

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323819 Apr 19, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thrown in the towel huh ? Figures.
Next....
You wish we'd just 'throw in the towel', David, but it's not going to happen.

In the face of increasing restrictions on abortions, laws criminalizing miscarriage, State-mandated instrumental rape, comparisons of ladies to livestock, bans on health insurance coverage for contraception, and a dozen other things the right wields against women, we are getting more and more active. We are voting in our own best interests. And we are winning at the judicial level, on dozens of challenges to your so-called 'pro-life' legislation.

If the right-wing religious nuts get their way, women will go back to being a commodity. The 'right' would dearly love to return us to the days when the only currency women had was our virginity and fertility. Get a clue: women are not walking wombs. We are not baby factories. We are not subjects, second-class citizens, or property. We are half the population, and we don't need "daddies" to tell us whether or not to reproduce.

Get over yourself, and crawl back to your cave, Dave.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323820 Apr 19, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
This is what the Pro-Abortion crowd encourages and wants to happen every single day in this country.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abo...
And this is what the so-called 'Pro-life' crowd wants to see in every city, town, and village in America.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NqhdO5sZ4x4/TO_RZwu...

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/sites/d...

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/C8-uOXVv7nw/hqdefault....

See, once the fetus is born, it still has to eat. But that's not a concern for the so-called 'pro-life'. Because for you mealy mouthed souls, life begins at conception - and ends at birth.

Keep enjoying your abortion porn. Don't worry about children - just continue to worship fetuses. It'll be ok.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323821 Apr 19, 2014
Here is yet another glaring failure of your critical thinking skills and abilities to reason.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not always. Since abortion, as you and others are quick to point out, is merely the termination of pregnancy,
Are you under the impression the fetus continues to exist after a pregnancy is terminated?? Really? So why, pray tell, is abortion such a problem if the fetus isn't terminated during an abortion?
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
it is possible that a pregnant woman could be abducted and have a viable pre-term fetus surgically removed,
thereby aborting her pregnancy against her will.
Actually, you poor, deluded, feeb, delivering a viable fetus is called BIRTH. BIRTH against her will. Not abortion.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetal homicide laws would have no application in that case since no homicide occurred.
Right. So why would you make such an idiotic, irrelevant, comment?

We are discussing fetal homicide laws and that they were created to protect the womans choice to continue a pregnancy. Like abortion laws protect her choice to terminate a pregnancy. We are not discussing the laws that already exist to prohibit the kidnapping and forced birth of a woman against her will.

Did you forget or just think you could baffle us with bullshit?? Or are you just not that bright?

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323822 Apr 19, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you are the ignorant one, perhaps you need to do your homework before you engage in your political speech
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy
And none of them refer to a fetus as a person while they ALL exempt abortion.

So it still proves none of your nonsense to be factual.

And it appears the person commiting the act has to have known the woman was pregnant to be charged. If they didn't know she was pregnant, no homicide.

Do keep trying.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323824 Apr 19, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
This is what the Pro-Abortion crowd encourages and wants to happen every single day in this country.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abo...
You are simply a deluded lunatic. GFY.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323825 Apr 19, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
The most mean spirited, inhuman Pro-Abortion person is the RACIST Black and Hispanic Eugenics and Population Control type (like this poster). They will post a picture of a famished, war towrn African country then claim the answer is to wipe them out. Why not just nuke the entire area? The origin of thought from these sickos comes from Planned Parenthood. Here is an exert from the racist bigoted Planned Parenthood founder......
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
^^^^ Complete lies. Anti choice propaganda.

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) 1 min RoxLo 1,263,148
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 3 hr Poo-Bear 638
News Presidential Candidates Who Ignore Race Are Mak... 13 hr reality is a crutch 1
News Teen fatally shot after wounding officer (Jan '07) 23 hr bill cosby 248
News Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Wed Raptor in Michigan 116,321
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Jul 28 Samuel-7g-Jackson 20,089
Baltimores Big Mouth Prosecutor Jul 28 Seed from the Sower 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages