Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 345697 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

#276897 Jan 15, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently, that horrid harridan is the exception to her own rule. What a hypocrite. Yuck...
Call me whatever you want it makes no difference to me, but I'm still dead on in my posts. You people are just too stupid to understand the law or what we've posted about it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276898 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "It had NOTHING to do with the Petersons."
It did, in that the high profile case helping to push it through.
CONTEXT Lynniekins you dumb bitch. You dont get to pick a sentence out of context and comment as if it has something to do with your comments.

The law was ORIGINALLY written in 1999 and it had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PETERSONS.
Foo: "It had NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the kid died in or out of his mothers womb you dumbass, it was that they were VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE."
No moron, it's the "UNBORN" victims of violence act. Not the vitims of violence act.
And since its not known if Conner was born or not when he was killed, if he WAS, that would REALLY make your point moot you moron.

AGAIN, I maintain, that the Petersons murder had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAW other than the family lending their name to it to use the publicity to move it forward.
The rest of your post is more stupidity based on your ignorance. I don't have all day to cite all of your ignorance line by line.
What stupdity Lynne, go ahead, take it line by line. Are you going to claim that California didn't already HAVE a fetal homicide law? Are you going claim defintively that he was born or not?

Who do you think you're kiddng Lynnekins? You have all the time in he world to prattle on trying to justify your stupidity with endless doubletalk, but SUDDENLY you can't refute the FACTS that I've posted?

ROFLMAO!!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276899 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Lynne, I know, which is why I had to point it out when you and inkstain were trying to claim that the law was written BECAUSE of the Peterson murders.
<quoted text> Actually, both Inkstain AND you made that claim.
<quoted text>
I didn't say that you MORON. Try reading the sentence you even quoted Lynniekins.
I said "THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy."
Read the words one at a time. Move your lips if you need to. I was discussing WHY the law was written, becuase at the time the tragedy was two-fold, the murder of the woman, and the destruction of the wanted pregnancy - and there was NO recourse for that in the law.
<quoted text>
Y'know Lynne, you like calling people "ignorant buffoon's" a lot, and then you say some SERIOUSLY stupid shit.
In order to kill a "child in utero" the WOMAN must be attacked and usually murdered herself.
Yes, its about the mother you f'kin MORON - its HER wanted pregnancy that was destroyed.
Its ALL about the woman, and the inability of the courts to prosecute back in the day.
Its ALL ABOUT women like Tracy Marciniak who were the original champions of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/MarciniakT...
<quoted text>
And the FACTS speak to its about the WOMAN and her WANTED PREGNANCY which were going unpunished on a federal level before the 1999 act was introduced and finally passed in 2004.
Only an IGNORANT BUFFOON like yourself Lynne would try to claim the bullishit you've claimed about this case and this act.
"I know, which is why I had to point it out when you and inkstain were trying to claim that the law was written BECAUSE of the Peterson murders."

Prove it. Provide the post/s by me which stated I said the law was written "BECAUSE" of the Peterson murders. You're so full of shit and such a pathological liar.

I wrote: "No one gets convicted of MURDER for killing a 'wanted pregnancy' "

You reply, "I said "THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy."

I know what you said, you moron. It's the loss of the woman and her unborn CHILD. Not her "pregnancy". Pregnancy is a condition and no one gets convicted of murdering a condition. Your wording is idiotic. You are so intellectually dishonest, you can't even use the words the law used.

Lily: "The "Unborn victims of violence Act of 2004" is not about the mother, but about the unborn child. That's why it's the UNBORN VICTIMS of violence act. "

Foo: "In order to kill a "child in utero" the WOMAN must be attacked and usually murdered herself.
Yes, its about the mother you f'kin MORON - its HER wanted pregnancy that was destroyed."

No, it's about her wanted UNBORN CHILD that was KILLED.

Foo: "Only an IGNORANT BUFFOON...would try to claim the bullishit you've claimed about this case and this act.

^^Psychological projection.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276900 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo, the hole is yours and you buried yourself in it with your stupidity and ignorance.
You aren't posting anything I didn't already know. It's irrelavnt to everything I've posted. You haven't proven me wrong in anything I posted with any of it. Not even once.
ROLFMOAOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

You keep thinkin that Lynniekins!

For someone that claims they knew it all already, you've spent a few days posting some stupid shit that was WRONG about it!

I think you're gonna need a bigger shovel Lynniekins....

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276901 Jan 15, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text>The more you spew the blasphemies aqainst GOD, the more it shows your are proving you uphold the most evil over God. You are in big big spiritual trouble. Christ is God, deal with it. NOTHING that you post shows you are a decent person, nothing.
Knutter, seriously, take your jesus, go to your hell and swim and fornicate with the spawns of satan or whatever.

@@ No Knutter, your jebus is NOT my g-d. Deal with it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276902 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
CLearly, I've understood much more about that law than you do or did, since all you're doing now is repeating what I posted TO you last night.
Are you REALLY going to claim you didnt say that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act "substantiated" that Conner was murdered BEFORE birth?
Think carefully as you desperately try to backpedal now Lynnieksin - because G-d knows you're not smart enough to just shut up let it drop and move on - I can (and will) certainly pull up at least about a dozen posts of you making variations of this claim.
"CLearly, I've understood much more about that law than you do or did, since all you're doing now is repeating what I posted TO you last night."

LOL, wrong, moron. You didn't understand what was being posted and went about posting THE OBVIOUS about why the law was written and when, as well as why the Peterson's names were associated with the law, to those of us who alrerady knew that.

"Are you REALLY going to claim you didnt say that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act "substantiated" that Conner was murdered BEFORE birth?"

No, I'm not going to deny I said that it substantiates that Connor was killed before birth. That's not "time of death" as you claimed I was stating. That's just a claim of where he WAS located when he died, which was IN UTERO, as the wording of the law states the law is about. She was 8 months pregnant.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276903 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I never once said it was "all about" the Peterson's, liar. You're a mess and you prove it with each post you make.
I didn't say you said was it "all about" the Petersons. So dont put YOUR words in quotes and act like I said it.

Lynne, you're desperation is showing.

Yes, you HAVE acted like the IMPETUS for the law being written was ABOUT the Petersons however - when they had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

You clearly didn't know the history OF the act when you were babbling about it for the last two days.

Again, its been fun to watch. Typical white trash dropout is all you are. LOL Keep going, its fun!

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#276904 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you choose evolution, is becouse there is no God involved, and that is your main problem. You know if there is a God, then your in trouble.(There is, and you are.) Both take faith. Noone has ever seen anything evolve.
And no one has seen a Deity(s) that is faith.

I am Wiccan. I do not care if your god exists or not any more than you care if my Gods and Goddesses exist. We both have faith with in our own religions and Deity(s)

As for evolution.

I cite the Southern Pacific Rattle Snake toxicity has seen a large jump in recent years.And the squirrels in which they prey upon. And more contact with humans. As a case in point of evolution.

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Nationa...
"Some scientists speculate that the increasing potency of some rattlesnakes may be the product of an arms race between predator and prey. Texas A&M University researcher John C. Perez studied 40 mammal species that are natural prey of rattlesnakes and found 16 had chemicals in their blood that have evolved over time to block the venom effects of western diamondback rattlers. Researchers at the University of California-Davis found substances in the California ground squirrel that did the same for the venom of northern Pacific rattlesnakes. King snakes, which prey on rattlesnakes, have developed immunity to rattlesnake poison that works so well, says Dr. Sean Bush, professor of Emergency Medicine at the Loma Linda University Medical Center, that “rattlesnakes don’t bite or coil when they see a king snake.” They just try to get away.

With animals capable of evolving immunity to rattlesnake venom, is it possible that the snakes have had to adjust their venoms upward to avoid going hungry? Bush admits he sees more neurotoxic envenomations, but he thinks the increase in serious bites has more to do with greater numbers of people pushing into snake territory than with the snakes getting more toxic. He does not rule out the possibility that snake venom could evolve greater toxicity in response to prey resistance, but, he says,“this is something that has happened over the millennia, not in the last few years."

That is evolution. So, yes, we all have seen evolution at work.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276905 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you're OPINION that its a human being is also not fact.
The law HAS to make a dermination for the purpose of making a claim for the victim, in this case, the fetus AND for the woman doing the gestating.
You like to play semantics a lot, but you're simply not bright enough to play well Lynne.
And why SHOULDN'T we call you white trash? That's what you are after all.
No, THAT law is just about the unborn victims, being separate human beings killed. It's not my opinion of whether or not a human life in utero is a human being. It's the opinion of those who wrote that law that passed. That's what I said.

Foo: "And why SHOULDN'T we call you white trash? That's what you are after all."

LOL, moron. More proof you can't read for comprehension. She said "lying sack of trtash", not "white trash".

Doesn't matter what you call me. I'm not a child, and your name calling doesn't affect my self-esteem. lol.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#276906 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
KNutter, that's YOUR version of hell. YOU burn in it.
You phony christians really come up with some nasty shit in regard to your "faith".
Knutter, certainly does show what a hypocritical christian looks like here and most likely in the real world.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276907 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"CLearly, I've understood much more about that law than you do or did, since all you're doing now is repeating what I posted TO you last night."
LOL, wrong, moron. You didn't understand what was being posted and went about posting THE OBVIOUS about why the law was written and when, as well as why the Peterson's names were associated with the law, to those of us who alrerady knew that.
Actually, I clearly DID understand it, while you didnt - as evidenced by your moronic comments for two days about this.
"Are you REALLY going to claim you didnt say that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act "substantiated" that Conner was murdered BEFORE birth?"
No, I'm not going to deny I said that it substantiates that Connor was killed before birth. That's not "time of death" as you claimed I was stating. That's just a claim of where he WAS located when he died, which was IN UTERO, as the wording of the law states the law is about. She was 8 months pregnant.
Except as has been proven, its not KNOWN IF HE WAS IN UTERO WHEN HE DIED you moron.

You can ignore that all you like, but you're NOT going to lie about it as if the truth isn't out there.

Oh and BTW, according to the autopsy and coroner report (link already provided) she was 9 months pregnant (your buddy Inkstain said 7 months) and MAY have given birth before they were murdered.

Nobody knows.

Thus NO, the law doesn't substantiate ANYTHING about when Laci and Conner were murdered, they were just figurehead names added to the bill to propel it through congress.

LOL You're NOT very bright Lynne. But its fun to watch you act as if you're the most intelligent thing in the room, THEN make an immediate fool of yourself!!

This is some funny shit!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276908 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
CONTEXT Lynniekins you dumb bitch. You dont get to pick a sentence out of context and comment as if it has something to do with your comments.
The law was ORIGINALLY written in 1999 and it had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PETERSONS.
<quoted text>
And since its not known if Conner was born or not when he was killed, if he WAS, that would REALLY make your point moot you moron.
AGAIN, I maintain, that the Petersons murder had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LAW other than the family lending their name to it to use the publicity to move it forward.
<quoted text>
What stupdity Lynne, go ahead, take it line by line. Are you going to claim that California didn't already HAVE a fetal homicide law? Are you going claim defintively that he was born or not?
Who do you think you're kiddng Lynnekins? You have all the time in he world to prattle on trying to justify your stupidity with endless doubletalk, but SUDDENLY you can't refute the FACTS that I've posted?
ROFLMAO!!
Ramble on, Toots. I asked for proof I said the law was about the Petersons. I said that BECAUSE their name was ASSOCIATED with THAT law, and because it's a law about UNBORN VICTIMS of violence, obviously Connor is being recognized as an UNBORN VICTIM, you ignorant buffoon.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276909 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROLFMOAOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
You keep thinkin that Lynniekins!
For someone that claims they knew it all already, you've spent a few days posting some stupid shit that was WRONG about it!
I think you're gonna need a bigger shovel Lynniekins....
I haven't posted anything that was wrong. All you proved was that you can't read posts, or laws, or court documents for comprehension. What you haven't done is prove me wrong.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#276910 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Call me whatever you want it makes no difference to me, but I'm still dead on in my posts. You people are just too stupid to understand the law or what we've posted about it.
I don't give a rat's ass about your little argument. I'm also dead on in my posts. You are truly one egomaniacal jerk. Yikes!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276911 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say you said was it "all about" the Petersons. So dont put YOUR words in quotes and act like I said it.
Lynne, you're desperation is showing.
Yes, you HAVE acted like the IMPETUS for the law being written was ABOUT the Petersons however - when they had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
You clearly didn't know the history OF the act when you were babbling about it for the last two days.
Again, its been fun to watch. Typical white trash dropout is all you are. LOL Keep going, its fun!
Foo: "I didn't say you said was it "all about" the Petersons. So dont put YOUR words in quotes and act like I said it."

lol, What?

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

276888
Foo: "You've been ranting on for days about how the Unborn Victim of Violence act was all about the Peterson murders..."

Those are YOUR words I put in quotes, because nowhere did I post it was "all about" the Petersons.

Foo:"you're desperation is showing."

^^Psychological projection.

Foo: "Yes, you HAVE acted like the IMPETUS for the law being written was ABOUT the Petersons however - when they had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."

Backpeddaling. First you claim I anted for days about hoiw it was all about the Petersons, now you claim I "acted like" it was all about the Petersons. Still no post where I even implied it was "all about" the Petersons.

Foo: "You clearly didn't know the history OF the act when you were babbling about it for the last two days."

Yes, actually I did, but didn't realize any of you morons would try to make claims about the case and what I posted that weren't true. Discussing the particulars of the case wasn't necessary to the point [I] was making in presenting that law.
It was you ignorant buffoons who turned the discussion into something different and I then responded with the facts to the bullshit you idiots were posting.

Foo; "Again, its been fun to watch. Typical white trash dropout is all you are. LOL Keep going, its fun!"

^^ lol From the incompetent mind of a childish adult who expects to be taken seriously by intelligent adults who are competent in presenting facts, AND in reading for comprehension.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276912 Jan 15, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I don't give a rat's ass about your little argument. I'm also dead on in my posts. You are truly one egomaniacal jerk. Yikes!
Your opinion isn't substantiated fact, so no, you aren't "dead on" at all. I was dead on with the substantiated facts I posted.

Maybe next time you want to try to look clever, know what you're using so you don't look inept at it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276913 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You reply, "I said "THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy."

I know what you said, you moron. It's the loss of the woman and her unborn CHILD. Not her "pregnancy". Pregnancy is a condition and no one gets convicted of murdering a condition. Your wording is idiotic. You are so intellectually dishonest, you can't even use the words the law used.
***sighs*** Holy shit you're stupid Lynne. Lets see if I can dumb it down so even a HS white trash dropout like you can get it.....

My wording is 100% correct and factual. "THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the loss of the wanted pregnancy."

THe discussion was about HOW that bill came to be written back in 1999.

I repeat again - FACTUALLY:

THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy.

So for the THIRD time, I give you the name Tracy Marciniak and the link to her congressional testimony as to WHY and HOW they were trying to shape this law.

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/marciniak07...

Again, ALL they could do BACK THEN was give the perpetuator a slap on the wrist, thus the law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy.

Oh and just an intersting aside, Tracy is pro-choice when it comes to abortion. She's frankly a wonderful example of someone that's able to help people from both sides find the compromises needed to make progress with these issues.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276914 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion isn't substantiated fact, so no, you aren't "dead on" at all. I was dead on with the substantiated facts I posted.
Maybe next time you want to try to look clever, know what you're using so you don't look inept at it.
@@ Lynne, the only thing you look like is a jerk, who really DOSENT know quiet as much as you think you do.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276915 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I brought it up to you because you were claiming to NR that a fetus isn't a human being. I brought it up to show you that you're wrong, and even laws are made about those "human beings", and in that specific law it stated exactly what they meant by "human being" and "unborn child", which was; the human life in utero.
So, for you to claim that a fetus isn't a "human being" is just your opinion and not fact because obviously there are others of the opinion that they are human beings, and it's stated in a law designed specifically to prosecute anyone who murders those human beings in utero.
Exactly Lynne, it's my opinion that a fetus isn't a human being. There is no legal definition of human being. You actually think the US government says a fetus is a human being in that law? Why does it say "unborn victims" act and not unborn human beings act? Why then is abortion still legal? Why does the law clearly differentiate between a fetus when it's aborted and a fetus when it's harmed or killed? Why isn't the government locking up women for killing their own unborn? Why aren't the fetuses killed by their own mother protected under that act? Because the law doesn't define it as a human being. Because there is no legal definition of a human being.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276916 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

Foo: "You clearly didn't know the history OF the act when you were babbling about it for the last two days."

Yes, actually I did, but didn't realize any of you morons would try to make claims about the case and what I posted that weren't true. Discussing the particulars of the case wasn't necessary to the point [I] was making in presenting that law..
Uh right. So you claim you DID know the facts about the history of the case, but thought it would be a good idea to make stupid claims that you knew were wrong only made yourself LOOK like you knew nothing in an attempt to make yourself look smarter.

Got it.@@ ROFLMAO!!

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.

Catasauqua Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min President Dump 1,780,031
I'm swimming in beer right now 1 hr Chuckie Larson 3
Mr. Richard Kranium 1 hr Wexler 52
Paw Patrol is coming after weapon x and Kranium 1 hr Lenther 26
I just farted 1 hr Lenther 24
Weapon x buys condoms that he never uses 1 hr Lenther 18
Weapon x has never had worms or lice 1 hr Sammie 41

Catasauqua Jobs

Personal Finance

Catasauqua Mortgages