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
258,961 - 258,980 of 305,178 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275623
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand why you pea brains keep trying to deflect with nonsense. Foo was OWNED again while she tried to argue what a pedophile is, and her response was nothing more than a desperate attempt at deflection. So is yours.
Lynne, you have a seriously PATHETIC need to "OWN" people, yet you are the one being OWNED pretty regularly.

LOL

I wasn't arguing what a pedophile is. I simply gave a singluar FACTUAL dictionary definition that states its when an older man is sexually aroused by a child.

YOU have chosen to argue about it by coming up with every explaination you can cut and paste - yet NONE of which proves Merriam-Webster wrong.

You aint arguing with me Lynniekins, you're trying to argue with a dictionary definition that doesnt say what you WANT IT TO.

ROFLMAO!

Like it or not, you were A CHILD. You were an immature brat back then - and the adult man that you claimed you were SO mature and could handle it .... you couldn't.

ANd you made THAT claim as an adult. Clearly you never grew out of the immature brat stage LOL!

By MANY, that man could and would be considered a pedophile, a predator, a statutory rapist.

Its a good thing in a way that you lost all those "children" - beacuse they'd have had a pedophile, a predator, a rapist for a papa, not to mention a lunatic for a mutha. LOL

Carry on Lynniekins. Its fun to wind your stupid ass up and see how long you go!
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275624
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What am I supposed to see that you think I don't?
You're the one who, after years of posting with me, can't remember I don't necessarily like abortion. However, the possibility of women losing their civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy disturbs me more than an individual woman safely and legally aborting an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy. For you, it's the opposite. You focus on drivel and call it good.
Only a good pro choicer would call aborting a baby drivel.

Only a good pro choicer would turn a blind eye to girl babies being aborted in favor of boys.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275625
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
What a shame that would be, to be in that condition (temporarily)and not even be able to trust your own mother to not have you ripped apart while being put to death. Imagine that.
Imagine what? You're MORONIC hypothetical that has NO basis in reality? No mother is having their child ripped apart while in a coma you dunce.

And YES Lynnie, I know you're now making the claim that this is what's happening during an abortion. But since zygotes, embryo's and fetus's dont have the capacity to trust, it makes your post just moronic.

For example - and this is using YOUR "logic":

Its a shame that your "children" couldn't trust YOU enough while they were in that condition, to have you protect them, and at least two of them ended up as fetal floaters in a toilet.

You didn't rip them apart, but you certainly sent them for a dip in some cold water, and the poor things couldn't even swim.....
Problem isn't being in that condition so much as having people, like your own mother for example, responsible for your care who can't be trusted to CARE FOR YOU.
Well we KNOW You couldn't be trusted.
Like way too many little ones in utero who can't trust their mothers to care for them.
And you're a living example of that at LEAST three times over.
Obviously, because there you sit typing stupidity over the internet and you were once one of those insentient Tic Tac sized nothings you describe.
And YOUR insentient Tic Tac's were fished out of a toilet, because they couldn't trust mommy to care for them properly. Funny how that works huh?

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275626
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Ink, do you have any proof that gender selection is taking place in the USA? If so, do you have further documentation that males are being favored?

If anything, fewer males are being born:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHeal...

**********
Granted, the link is dated. Likely not much has changed though - feel free to look if you are so inclined.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275627
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"I cry when I read about how hard he fought."
You HYPOCRITE!
You people have spent countless pages arguing that {manner of death} doesn't matter, because the END RESULT is the same; death. There you are proving [manner of death] DOES matter, and are proving why it matters.
It matters just as much when a fetus dies by natural causes or is killed by abortion. The result is the same, the MANNER OF DEATH is the difference. You just proved it with your own words.
Boneheads.
Lynne, you TRULY are demented.

Whether a woman has a natural abortion or a medical one, the manner does NOT matter to ANYONE except who its happening to.

Just look at your own case. Nobody gave a shit when you almost flushed the potty twins, Tic & Tac, OR when you lost ANOTHER pregnancy to that same pedophile/predator/rapist. Not your parents, not your doctor, nobody.

Gee. No wonder you're such a bitter old harridan now. It explains SO much actually. Negative attention is better than none for you Lynne.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275628
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
Scott peterSON rings a bell, idiot. And that "popping out" why he was convicted of murder for the child--that's called being BORN, and rights and status acrued at that moment, because evidence determined it was still alive when it popped out.
Yes, somepeople ARE in jail "becouse[sic] they did something to cause the death of some womans (choice)"; that's exactly what fetal homicide laws are--protection of the woman against those who would thwart her right to carry to term. EVERY such law contains language differentiating it from abortion. Some states have no FHL's at all, and those that do vary on when they kick in and what the punishment is.
Get your god to explain it, next time you speak to him, because it will take a miracle for you to grasp this concept.
<quoted text>
He won't understand that. You need to use simple words and short sentences.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275629
Jan 10, 2013
 
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not understand for one minute why LyingLynneLily would want to continue carrying on this farce. It's a new year. Year 3 of her claiming NOT to be Lynne D. We all know better, though. She and Lynne D share the same DNA.
She should 'fess up and be done with it. She'll feel so much better. And, perhaps, conversing with her would be a little more interesting.
Nah. Wont happen. She did as Perverse and look how badly that went for her. LOL

Nah, she can play this game, and it gets her all the negative attention she's ever wanted.

She ONLY deludes herself.

But you just came up with a new way for her to ignore/deny she's Lynne.

HEY LYNNIEKINS!!

If you and Lynne D were tested, would you share DNA?

LOLOL!
Forum Mod
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275630
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Well, then, you really are an idiot.
Please refrain from gratuitous name calling.
We reserve the right to remove any post we determine to be inappropriate.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275631
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So these fetal laws are only for protecting womens rights again?
Not for the protection of the fetus?
Plus, thanks for the education on how untill a (whatever you call it) comes out, so then we know we can call it a baby, that the (baby) feels no pain untill accualy born. I knew the dang pro lifers lied to me, when they said babies would cry and try to move Away From the death pipe, that was there to suck them up one piece at a time.
Wow, were you this ignorant be forever the Lawd took up residence in your brain?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275632
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I understand what sentient is. I'm not like you people. I actually understand the terms and understand what I read.
Apparently not since your ORIGINAL CLAIM was that a child is born not sentinent and cant say anything LOLOL!
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay...and when a child is born but not sentient and can't say anything?.
Just like you claimed you knew someone who was born in a PVS and lived that way for over 40 years, when NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED IN MEDIAL HISTORY.

If a child is born and alive Lynne, its sentinent.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275633
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should it be sad and hurt [you] "still", that the little boy suffered when he was killed?
No, no, according to PCers, there's "no difference" between a natural death and being killed, so whatever Rusty went through shouldn't be relevant to PCers if that's the case.
Truth is, what he went through IS relevant. Just as relevant as it is when Gandma gets shot in the heart, or when a fetus is killed in utero.
The "death is death, there's no difference how the death happened" argument the PCers tried to make just got shot to hell by Junket and Katie.
ROFLMAO! You're a moron Lynnikins.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275634
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't defend agaist the attacks, you ignorant buffoon. I have always and will always continue to prove that what you boneheads post is either wrong or a lie. That's all I've been doing. It's what I do with all of you PCers about any topic you post on.
Your attacks are childish and ineffective with me. The only thing your attacks accomplish is displaying the kind of person you are. Why shouild I defend against that, silly rabbit?
Clearly, they're effective enough that you feel a COMPULSION to keep defending yourself, exactly like you're doing right now!

ROFLMAO!!!!

**tosses Lynnie a Scooby snack**

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275635
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, you have also said partial birth abortion should be allowed because it isn't a baby until she breathes.
I would say you have an extreme position on abortion.
I'd say you're an extreme liar.

I'd like to see you prove she ever made that claim.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275636
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "Sentinence has NOTHING to do with being able to SAY something ."
You idiot. It's Junket who used the "saying something" as her argument.
Yet its YOU that asked the question that I copied DIRECTELY FROM YOUR POST.
I know what sentient is and proof of that is in my post following the one you took that sentence from. The post where I said,
~"A child on life support who is in a coma can't feel pain either. But is it okay to rip that child apart limb from limb? The obvious answer; NO.
The fact that you're trying to compare a woman having an abortion to "ripping a child in a coma from limb to limb" is proof of your INSANITY and not much else.

Again, clearly, you dont know shit and are DESPERATELY trying to play catch up to make OTHERS buy into your bullshit.

Newsflash Lynne - you haven't fooled anyone in a VERY long time.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275637
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^There she goes again, makiing a stupid fool of herself. The ignorant buffoon.
LOL! Yeah Lynne - YOU are the one trying to compare abortion to tearing a living child in a coma "limb from limb" and I'm the ingnorant buffoon??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Katie

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275638
Jan 10, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a good pro choicer would call aborting a baby drivel.
Only a good pro choicer would turn a blind eye to girl babies being aborted in favor of boys.
You're focusing on minutiae. I call that drivel.

See, you can't even get that without it being spelled out. But you think I'm the one who doesn't see?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275639
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Lynne, you have a seriously PATHETIC need to "OWN" people, yet you are the one being OWNED pretty regularly.
LOL
I wasn't arguing what a pedophile is. I simply gave a singluar FACTUAL dictionary definition that states its when an older man is sexually aroused by a child.
YOU have chosen to argue about it by coming up with every explaination you can cut and paste - yet NONE of which proves Merriam-Webster wrong.
You aint arguing with me Lynniekins, you're trying to argue with a dictionary definition that doesnt say what you WANT IT TO.
ROFLMAO!
Like it or not, you were A CHILD. You were an immature brat back then - and the adult man that you claimed you were SO mature and could handle it .... you couldn't.
ANd you made THAT claim as an adult. Clearly you never grew out of the immature brat stage LOL!
By MANY, that man could and would be considered a pedophile, a predator, a statutory rapist.
Its a good thing in a way that you lost all those "children" - beacuse they'd have had a pedophile, a predator, a rapist for a papa, not to mention a lunatic for a mutha. LOL
Carry on Lynniekins. Its fun to wind your stupid ass up and see how long you go!
Foo: "I wasn't arguing what a pedophile is. I simply gave a singluar FACTUAL dictionary definition that states its when an older man is sexually aroused by a child.
YOU have chosen to argue about it by coming up with every explaination you can cut and paste "

Yes, you were arguing what pedophile is, and you also have been trying to redefine what is meant by "young child" in the definition.

I provided clear information as to what is meant by "young child" and pedophelia;

http://www.familysafetyreport.com/pedophiles ....

"What is pedophilia?
According to Psychology Today, pedophilia is defined as "the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children...
"Is there a pedophile "profile"?
Pedophiles can come in any shape, socio-economic group, race or gender. While there's no standard, agreed-upon "profile" of a pedophile, certain characteristics seem to occur across the pedophile population. For one thing, each pedophile tends to gravitate toward a specific age group; some prefer very young children (5 to 10 years old), while others are attracted to pre-teen adolescents. "

~"...some prefer very young children (5 to 10 years old), while others are attracted to pre-teen adolescents."~

"Young child/ren is defined as pre-pubescent or pre-teen adolescent, so all your posts trying to redefine what the definitions of pedophile mean when they state "young child" is meaningless. It only proves you don't know how to understand what you read.

So, yes, you have been arguing what a pedophile is.

Foo: "By MANY, that man could and would be considered a pedophile,..."

No, only by people who don't understand what they read as to what a pedophile is.

You're argfuments are just you spitting in the wind and it's only hitting you in the face.

As to your opinions about another person's past relationships and you using your opinions as some sort of weapon here, it's useless.

You display your ineptitude in discussion and in proving your arguments correct by throwing in anything and everything to deflect from it.

It's silly, childish and downright pathetic on your part.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275640
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do not mischaracterize my post. I said nothing of the sort. I stated "sentient", nothing more, nothing less. Rusty, btw is the man that married Andrea, and for whatever reason believed that her post partum depression (if that's what it was) would be cured with a good dose of "Eve was evil" and of course another baby (Mary) in her arms. Guess he was wrong.
Oh she didn't mischaracterize your post, she was trying to get out of something stupid SHE said, so she had to blame it on SOMEONE - ANYONE.

Next, she'll be telling you what you said ISNT what you meant which lead to HER now having to endlessly justify her own stupidity.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275641
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine what? You're MORONIC hypothetical that has NO basis in reality? No mother is having their child ripped apart while in a coma you dunce.
And YES Lynnie, I know you're now making the claim that this is what's happening during an abortion. But since zygotes, embryo's and fetus's dont have the capacity to trust, it makes your post just moronic.
For example - and this is using YOUR "logic":
Its a shame that your "children" couldn't trust YOU enough while they were in that condition, to have you protect them, and at least two of them ended up as fetal floaters in a toilet.
You didn't rip them apart, but you certainly sent them for a dip in some cold water, and the poor things couldn't even swim.....
<quoted text>
Well we KNOW You couldn't be trusted.
<quoted text>
And you're a living example of that at LEAST three times over.
<quoted text>
And YOUR insentient Tic Tac's were fished out of a toilet, because they couldn't trust mommy to care for them properly. Funny how that works huh?
^^^Your stupidity and ignorance speaks for itself well enough on it's own.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275642
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
I find it a bit ironic that for the women 'who never wanted to GET pregnant in the first place' made the decision to have sex with a man. If they truly never want to get pregnant, the most logical solution is not to have sex with a man.
Oh PLEASE, what utter NONSENSE. Women have the right to have sex and NOT get pregnant. That's what reliable contraception is for, to AVOID unwanted pregnancy as much as physically possible. No woman has to punish herself with lifetime celibacy because she doesn't ever want pregnancy or children.

Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and women can reject it for any number of reasons. Deal with it.

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
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

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.

Other Recent Jackson-Heights Discussions

Search the Jackson-Heights Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 7 min momma chamberlan 35,006
What's wrong with Tman, good ole Momma Chamberlin 23 min jimi-yank 78
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 24 min NYStateOfMind 306,099
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 56 min SpaceBlues 45,881
NY Who do you support for U.S. Senate in New York ... (Oct '10) 1 hr Adam Wolff 6,367
Meet the Doctors Who Say They Can Reshape a Bab... 1 hr Chiropractor from Chicago 2
what is obama's strength 2 hr O Man 4
•••
•••

Jackson-Heights News Video

•••
•••

Jackson-Heights Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••