Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310231 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

#241563 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Its over
When she changed her tune from "roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to " uh well that's obviously the definition they USED." then started denying they claimed Roe defined viability AT ALL and claimed that doctors defined it cuz it was already defined by doctors, she was admitting she was wrong in her own warped little way.
It's over. We win. FACTS MATTER.
You really are too stupid for words, as I've stated before.

""roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to ""

We claimed RvW "defined viability" [as pertaining to their decision about abortion] as being THE definition which included "albeit with artificial aid", bonehead. That never changed. We never said the judges created the definition, or that they didn't use a medical definition, or that they didn't use a definition at all.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/define

define:
"1.
a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)."

Which RvW did. They stated the precise meaning of the word viability that pertained to their decision about viability.

The only ones wrong are you idiots who thought for one second that we were claiming RvW defined it, like a dictionary would have "defined" it. No, fool, we meant they clearly stated what [they meant] by "viability", which was the definition they USED in their decision that included "albeit with artifical aid".

The more you try to claim something we didn't do, the more irrational and desperate you look. You're obviously trying to distance yourself from the fact that YOUR claim was that viability with regard to a fetus means [born and surviving [without] medical assistance], which we proved wrong 100 times over. Also you made a claim as though that the meaning of viability,[which included albeit with artificial aid] wasn't made clear in RvW, when it was.

Just because the lightbulb went on over YOUR head when we said certain things, doesn't mean those same things haven't been said by us 100 times over and the lightbulb over your head didn't go on.

“All HOMAGE to”

Since: Jun 12

The FETUS

#241564 Jun 4, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>How bigoted of you.
Oh dear, how incredibly judgemental of you.
:(

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241565 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure if I can post under registered name or not. Not sure why Topix is not allowing my posts whether signed in or not. Nothing profane about any of 'em. Just countering the PLers involved in this drawn out discussion that Chicky recently claimed we won because facts matter. Obviously Topix doesn't think facts matter because they're not letting my TOS-followed posts show. I mean, it's not like I was posting to Lynne D and telling her she's FOS (spelled out even). Or like I was calling anyone names that regularly get put up here (liar, b*tchy, moron, stupid, cnut, etc.). And it's not like I did anything more than stand up to those who refuse to listen to facts by posting excerpts from the Roe v Wade documents from Cornell -- when KW and Chicky and others have done the exact same thing. So no, unless there's people reporting my posts, there's no reason whatsoever for these not to show up. And if people are reporting my posts, it just goes to show how afraid of the truth they are; more a reflection on them than on me.
However, I am fed up over the whole fiasco. What happened to innocent before proven guilty? And who started the whole mess? I'd guess Lynne D, but she'll gleefully deny it (like she did when was banned around Easter (those loving christians and all)).
I do believe it is just a glitch, my friend. Please don't take it personally :(

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241566 Jun 4, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks. And that simply isn't the case. Florida's abortion law, for example, makes no definition of viability at 24 weeks. In fact, in the definitions section of Chapter 390 Florida statutes, what is defined as the period "after 24 weeks," is the third trimester, not viability. What you're failing to grasp is that while SCOTUS opined on the point of viability, this is a portion of the opinion that isn't binding on the states, and pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the decision of what will be the point after which a legal abortion is not be allowed, belongs to the states. Nebraska is a perfect example. No abortion is allowed after 20 weeks, and viability has no bearing on that decision.
<quoted text>
Maybe you should say something to many on your side of the fence who believe it is.
<quoted text>
The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way. It only indicates the point at which the states can restrict her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life.
<quoted text>
Actually, you made both arguments.
12 states? Wow. How many states in the union? You'd think that if your point is accurate, and RvW made a demarcating point of what viability is, and/or when a fetus becomes viable, ALL states would have such law.
"What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks."

Prove Badaxe said that.

No one said that artificial assistance is "required". Prove Doc, Badaxe or I said that.

Chicky: "The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way.
It only indicates the point at which the states [can restrict] her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life."

Be sure to let Katie know that. She tried arguing that RvW was clear that the state's interest is [not] in the interest of preserving "potential life". She even argued stating that it wasn't about fetal rights, and yet, you admit that it's about preserving fetal life.

Also, can you read your own post for comprehension?

You just admitted that a state's right to [restrict a woman's right to elective abortion][is no indication that her "right to privacy" is affected in any way.] It's that a state "can restrict her right to elective abortion." Exactly as PLers have said all along; elective abortion is not about a [right to privacy] and a [woman's right to privacy isn't affected] even if she wouldn't have a right to elective abortion.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241567 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Love your posts, CD.
Absolutely HATE when people deny making arguments they've clearly made. Especially when they deny it, and then make it again. Smh
Your lack of reading for comprehension is not anybody else making wrong claims, pea brain.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241568 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure if I can post under registered name or not. Not sure why Topix is not allowing my posts whether signed in or not. Nothing profane about any of 'em. Just countering the PLers involved in this drawn out discussion that Chicky recently claimed we won because facts matter. Obviously Topix doesn't think facts matter because they're not letting my TOS-followed posts show. I mean, it's not like I was posting to Lynne D and telling her she's FOS (spelled out even). Or like I was calling anyone names that regularly get put up here (liar, b*tchy, moron, stupid, cnut, etc.). And it's not like I did anything more than stand up to those who refuse to listen to facts by posting excerpts from the Roe v Wade documents from Cornell -- when KW and Chicky and others have done the exact same thing. So no, unless there's people reporting my posts, there's no reason whatsoever for these not to show up. And if people are reporting my posts, it just goes to show how afraid of the truth they are; more a reflection on them than on me.
However, I am fed up over the whole fiasco. What happened to innocent before proven guilty? And who started the whole mess? I'd guess Lynne D, but she'll gleefully deny it (like she did when was banned around Easter (those loving christians and all)).
You have nothing to offer here but erroneous claims, whining about being a victim (of PLers and now of Topix) and posting things about deaths in your life, as though NO ONE ELSE here has deaths in their lives.

If you can't handle what goes on here, stop entering. It's as easy as that. If you want to keep coming to the forum, then deal with what goes on like a mature adult and not like a whiny, self-pitying child.

If you made a post and it didn't show up as soon as you clicked on it, it has NOTHING to do with anyone reporting your posts, you paranoid nut. Topix just does that sometimes, and not just to you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241569 Jun 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe it is just a glitch, my friend. Please don't take it personally :(
LOL, proof Katie's a paranoid nut. Even this^^ bonehead realizes it's just a Topix glitch,

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#241570 Jun 4, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, this from a lawyer? Many cases defer to expert opinion to make their determinations, that's why they require they be qualified as "expert". No one suggested that the justices ever made their own, unqualified, determination in "defining" what viable was. My argument is, and has been, that the R v W decision's definition of "viable" is precedence/guideline to any abortion law. Do you wish to argue that? You jumped into this conversation suggesting that I'm arguing things I'm not, or are you bloviating for the sake of hearing your self talk, as usual? If you want to discuss it, read and listen to my arguments first, thanks.
And the basis for your argument is, and has been, that RvW defined viability, and/or the point of viability. And that's not true. SCOTUS affirmed what medicine defined. Not the opposite.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Where the F' do you get that I'm suggesting that artificial aide is a "requirement" of "viable"? It "includes" artificial aide, albeit- "not withstanding", not required. Come on man, that's as simple as a lawyer understanding that calling your wife a bitch does not constitute assault charges in Florida, oh sorry, I didn't mean to bring that up again.
So you're saying that a viable fetus can survive without any artificial aid?

BTW, keep the argument between you and me; ok? The only one who can bring my wife into the mix is me.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241571 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>You really are too stupid for words, as I've stated before.

""roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to ""

We claimed RvW "defined viability" [as pertaining to their decision about abortion] as being THE definition which included "albeit with artificial aid", bonehead. That never changed. We never said the judges created the definition, or that they didn't use a medical definition, or that they didn't use a definition at all.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/define

define:
"1.
a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)."

Which RvW did. They stated the precise meaning of the word viability that pertained to their decision about viability.

The only ones wrong are you idiots who thought for one second that we were claiming RvW defined it, like a dictionary would have "defined" it. No, fool, we meant they clearly stated what [they meant] by "viability", which was the definition they USED in their decision that included "albeit with artifical aid".

The more you try to claim something we didn't do, the more irrational and desperate you look. You're obviously trying to distance yourself from the fact that YOUR claim was that viability with regard to a fetus means [born and surviving [without] medical assistance], which we proved wrong 100 times over. Also you made a claim as though that the meaning of viability,[which included albeit with artificial aid] wasn't made clear in RvW, when it was.

Just because the lightbulb went on over YOUR head when we said certain things, doesn't mean those same things haven't been said by us 100 times over and the lightbulb over your head didn't go on.
Yeah, uh huh, sure.

You lie because your wrong. You keep flipping and spinning because your stupid.

You have never proved anything.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#241572 Jun 4, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, look, the argument is that because a fetus may need artificial aide to survive outside the woman's womb does not mean it's not viable. If it doesnt need artificial aide, of course it's viable as well, what does the power being out have to do with what R v W legally define as "viable"?
Why the sudden shift in your position to agree with mine? If that's the case, why can't you just say, "I agree?"
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>What is relevant to all State laws regarding abortion is that R v W found that the State's interset to protect life was more "compelling" than the woman's mere implied right to privacy at the point of "viability", and it defined "viable" as the point the fetus was able to survive outside the woman's womb, albeit ( not requiring, WTF?) artificial aide.
Roe v. Wade defined viable? Really? Are you sure it didn't merely affirm what Medical professionals defined?

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241573 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>"What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks."

Prove Badaxe said that.

No one said that artificial assistance is "required". Prove Doc, Badaxe or I said that.

Chicky: "The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way.
It only indicates the point at which the states [can restrict] her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life."

Be sure to let Katie know that. She tried arguing that RvW was clear that the state's interest is [not] in the interest of preserving "potential life". She even argued stating that it wasn't about fetal rights, and yet, you admit that it's about preserving fetal life.

Also, can you read your own post for comprehension?

You just admitted that a state's right to [restrict a woman's right to elective abortion][is no indication that her "right to privacy" is affected in any way.] It's that a state "can restrict her right to elective abortion." Exactly as PLers have said all along; elective abortion is not about a [right to privacy] and a [woman's right to privacy isn't affected] even if she wouldn't have a right to elective abortion.
Fetuses don't have rights you blithering moron.
LadiLulu

Hempstead, NY

#241575 Jun 4, 2012
BTW, katie?

Please be sure to take advice from THE biggest WHINER on the thread (LyinLoriLynneD). I am sure it is more heartfelt and sincere than it sounds!

LOL!
Kenose

Westbury, NY

#241576 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, uh huh, sure.
You lie because your wrong. You keep flipping and spinning because your stupid.
You have never proved anything.
It should be *You're* stupid ;)

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241577 Jun 4, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>And the basis for your argument is, and has been, that RvW defined viability, and/or the point of viability. And that's not true. SCOTUS affirmed what medicine defined. Not the opposite.

Badaxe wrote, "<quoted text>Where the F' do you get that I'm suggesting that artificial aide is a "requirement" of "viable"? It "includes" artificial aide, albeit- "not withstanding", not required. Come on man, that's as simple as a lawyer understanding that calling your wife a bitch does not constitute assault charges in Florida, oh sorry, I didn't mean to bring that up again."

So you're saying that a viable fetus can survive without any artificial aid?

BTW, keep the argument between you and me; ok? The only one who can bring my wife into the mix is me.
Yeah Badaxe NEVER brings the oppositions FAMILY in to the debate.

He has far to much honesty and integrity for that.

*eyeroll*

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241578 Jun 4, 2012
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>It should be *You're* stupid ;)
Actually, it should be LoonD is stupid as hell.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241579 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, uh huh, sure.
You lie because your wrong. You keep flipping and spinning because your stupid.
You have never proved anything.
Projection, Toots.

Obviously you had nothing to refute the facts in the post I made so you could only ineptly came up with the above stupidity.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241580 Jun 4, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>Why the sudden shift in your position to agree with mine? If that's the case, why can't you just say, "I agree?"

Badaxe wrote, "<quoted text>What is relevant to all State laws regarding abortion is that R v W found that the State's interset to protect life was more "compelling" than the woman's mere implied right to privacy at the point of "viability", and it defined "viable" as the point the fetus was able to survive outside the woman's womb, albeit ( not requiring, WTF?) artificial aide."

Roe v. Wade defined viable? Really? Are you sure it didn't merely affirm what Medical professionals defined?
OMG.

He really should make up his mind.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241581 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetuses don't have rights you blithering moron.
I posted,~Be sure to let Katie know that. She tried arguing that RvW was clear that the state's interest is [not] in the interest of preserving "potential life". She even argued stating that it wasn't about fetal rights, and yet, you admit that it's about preserving fetal life.

Also, can you read your own post for comprehension?

You just admitted that a state's right to [restrict a woman's right to elective abortion][is no indication that her "right to privacy" is affected in any way.] It's that a state "can restrict her right to elective abortion." Exactly as PLers have said all along; elective abortion is not about a [right to privacy] and a [woman's right to privacy isn't affected] even if she wouldn't have a right to elective abortion.~

All you come back with is "Fetuses don't have right"?

Nothing I stated made that claim, so how about speaking to what was actually posted, bonehead? All you can do is speak to things that weren't said. That's ALL you've done throughout, with Doc, Badaxe and myself.You haven't been able to prove one claim you've made, we've all proven you wrong.

If you can't dazzle with brilliance,(and you absolutely can't), then all you have is to try to baffle with bullshit. Epic fail. People who know the facts and know what they're talking about,(which leaves you PCers out), won't be baffled by your bullshit distractionary posts trying to speak to things we haven't claimed.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241582 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>Projection, Toots.

Obviously you had nothing to refute the facts in the post I made so you could only ineptly came up with the above stupidity.
I have refuted your stupid nonsense ad nauseum.

You are simply too defective to grasp reality. Good luck with that.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241583 Jun 4, 2012
Katie claimed it wasn't about "fetal rights", because she was trying to argue the claim that the states that restrict abortion at viability aren't doing it for the sake of the fetus.

"Fetal rights" was Katie's term, but it was about protecting potential life.

Again, take it up with Katie, because she's the one who posted a term that had nothing to do with what was being talked about, which was; "protecting fetal life".

You pinheads can't follow any discussion so none of you knows what's being said or why it's said.

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.

Allentown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,276,288
News Purse Snatching Reported In Allentown 16 hr silly rabbit 1
Is 40 Below the best club in the Lehigh Valley?? (Apr '08) 18 hr Richard Kranium 75
News Allentown man dies after jumping from bridge, c... Sun silly rabbit 3
stirr allentown's political pot of blue juice (Oct '14) Sun silly rabbit 26
News Dawn Timmeney - About NBC 10 News Story - WCAU ... (Feb '08) Sat Mad 13
News 'Skeevy' man who groped teen he met at church c... Aug 28 silly rabbit 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Allentown Mortgages