Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311478 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.

Brilliant_Chicky

“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*

Brilliant_Chicky

“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.

Brilliant_Chicky

“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.

Brilliant_Chicky

“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.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241584 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Wow.

You are either a liar or you don't understand your own posts.

You've lost this debate, dear. Get over it.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241585 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
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.
We don't follow your repeated, frantic, incoherent rants full of lies and denials.

Prove Katie said that.

You lost this debate, Lynne. Get over it.

Besides that, you are LynneD pretending your not and thinking you're fooling people. That makes you a pathetic liar.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241586 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?"
<quoted text>
Roe v. Wade defined viable? Really? Are you sure it didn't merely affirm what Medical professionals defined?
"Roe v. Wade defined viable? Really? Are you sure it didn't merely affirm what Medical professionals defined?"

That proves it's you people who didn't understand in the first place, and now trying to claim we didn't know what we were talking about.

When each of us stated that RvW "defined" viability, INTELLIGENT people who have some semblence of sense would have understood what that meant which was; RvW "defined" [as in "stated the precise meaning") of the word viability that THEY were USING in making their decision, which was the meaning that included "albeit with artificial aid".

The SCOTUS judges probably "defined" ("stated the precise meaning") because, as Chicky has displayed, there are idiots in the world who wouldn't know exactly what they meant unless they stated the precise meaning/DEFINED what they were USING in their decision, and would try to argue that viability meant "born and surviving without medical aid", just as Chicky the Idiot did, and you and Katie have been supporting.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241587 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I have refuted your stupid nonsense ad nauseum.
You are simply too defective to grasp reality. Good luck with that.
^^Impotent post of a person who knows they've got nothing else to refute the facts.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241588 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
You are either a liar or you don't understand your own posts.
You've lost this debate, dear. Get over it.
I'm not a liar and I understand a lot more than you realize.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241589 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>"Roe v. Wade defined viable? Really? Are you sure it didn't merely affirm what Medical professionals defined?"

That proves it's you people who didn't understand in the first place, and now trying to claim we didn't know what we were talking about.

When each of us stated that RvW "defined" viability, INTELLIGENT people who have some semblence of sense would have understood what that meant which was; RvW "defined" [as in "stated the precise meaning") of the word viability that THEY were USING in making their decision, which was the meaning that included "albeit with artificial aid".

The SCOTUS judges probably "defined" ("stated the precise meaning") because, as Chicky has displayed, there are idiots in the world who wouldn't know exactly what they meant unless they stated the precise meaning/DEFINED what they were USING in their decision, and would try to argue that viability meant "born and surviving without medical aid", just as Chicky the Idiot did, and you and Katie have been supporting.
Liar

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241590 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.
Excuse me, lol. I read the post and forgot it was CD who had written it. In the midst of it the post sounded so much like Chikcy that I posted her name instead of CD's.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#241591 Jun 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe it is just a glitch, my friend. Please don't take it personally :(
Yeah, I thought it was just a glitch until this weekend, too, La. It has been going on for months. More of my posts did not show this past weekend than those that did. And there's no call for it.

If we can tolerate all the lies from the PL camp, they can tolerate all the facts from the PC camp. Since they have to keep it all divided in order to understand it, there's no point in trying to mesh as individual people with some things in common (like what'd been prevalent here for a few years). The PLs here drew a line and declared "war" on the PC and that's exactly what they're doing. I doubt any of it is on the up and up.

We have all been told we are worse than pedophile priests for supporting women's reproductive rights. We have all been called liars when providing facts countering their BS claims. We have all been bullied, harassed, badgered (Lynne's own definition of "badgering" is "...10 posts or more of the same topic..."), and reported for standing up to their menacing ways.

These are people who would not or could not speak the truth if their lives depended on it. These are people who hold "fetal rights" above women's rights and justify any means to reach their end.

My forgiving nature has reached its peak and patience has run so thin as to be nonexistent at this point. But to read some nonsense from a known liar that I don't have a thick-skinned approach here is enough to get me laughing and in better spirits than I would've imagined! Bonus!!

Happy Monday :)
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#241592 Jun 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
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.
I claimed what? I claimed it why? You don't know what I was talking about and are not in any position to paraphrase my words or meanings because these so elude you in every way possible.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241593 Jun 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I think at 3 weeks gestation it's still an embryo.
Look at the criteria. If it can survive outside the womb with the best of medical technology, i.e. an artificial womb, and so be declared viable, then why not inside the woman's womb? What's the difference regarding the defintion you are using for "viable"?
If you believe a fetus at 10 weeks gestation could be declared "viable" outside the womb given futuristic medical technology, why wouldn't it be declared "viable" inside the womb where it implanted, in the first place?
And if we're gonna keep going with this, you'd have to declare frozen embryos viable, as well. Because medical technology can implant them in a woman...or perhaps in the future, in an artificial uterus.
Absurd. The whole concept of fetal viability is based on the concept of it's ability to survive OUTSIDE the womb...independent of the mother.

"Look at the criteria" he says. Unbelievable.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241594 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I thought it was just a glitch until this weekend, too, La. It has been going on for months. More of my posts did not show this past weekend than those that did. And there's no call for it.
If we can tolerate all the lies from the PL camp, they can tolerate all the facts from the PC camp. Since they have to keep it all divided in order to understand it, there's no point in trying to mesh as individual people with some things in common (like what'd been prevalent here for a few years). The PLs here drew a line and declared "war" on the PC and that's exactly what they're doing. I doubt any of it is on the up and up.
We have all been told we are worse than pedophile priests for supporting women's reproductive rights. We have all been called liars when providing facts countering their BS claims. We have all been bullied, harassed, badgered (Lynne's own definition of "badgering" is "...10 posts or more of the same topic..."), and reported for standing up to their menacing ways.
These are people who would not or could not speak the truth if their lives depended on it. These are people who hold "fetal rights" above women's rights and justify any means to reach their end.
My forgiving nature has reached its peak and patience has run so thin as to be nonexistent at this point. But to read some nonsense from a known liar that I don't have a thick-skinned approach here is enough to get me laughing and in better spirits than I would've imagined! Bonus!!
Happy Monday :)
haha!

Bonus, indeed!!

I've contacted Topix, BTW...

Happy Monday!

xoxoxoxoxo!!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241595 Jun 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. But I don't believe you. Unregistered Mary posts exactly like you, has all your "trademarks". As for the rest, eh, don't really believe you. Guys don't generally sit around kissing one guy's ass all day. But I could be wrong. Maybe your pals do.
Don't whine like a real "mary" about nonexistent denials when you know you're not gonna believe them anyway.
My trademarks....gotta love it. What'd she do...sprinkle in a few well placed "ya dope ya's" ?

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241596 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>I claimed what? I claimed it why? You don't know what I was talking about and are not in any position to paraphrase my words or meanings because these so elude you in every way possible.
The ignorant twit doesn't understand what anything means. Not even her own posts.

I knew she was full of shit. She is simply a deluded nut who spouts meaningless bullshit and then swears by it.

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) 6 min carmino seranni 1,402,807
News Allentown police working to improve community r... 1 hr silly rabbit 8
turtle beach Reich 5 hr silly rabbit 8
News Governor visits Allentown to highlight new addi... 19 hr palumpskioxicandyman 7
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 23 hr USS LIBERTY 72,033
the truth about the jews and israel Fri silly rabbit 15
Trolling the silly rabbit is getting old Fri silly rabbit 9

Allentown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Allentown Mortgages