Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313678 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.

Gtown71

United States

#276860 Jan 15, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO any guy who seriously believes he should have total control over his wife is a guy any woman needs to AVOID marrying.
The more a woman knows about a guy and his views about women, marriage, and reproduction BEFORE marrying him, the better.
No -total control is in your own head and mind.
I'm sorry for how you were raised, but it don't mean everyone wants total control over a woman. I would never want a woman to do anything, that she didn't want to do, but if I'm married to her, and she decides on her own to kill our child, then I would choose to leave her with her own choices.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276861 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Inkstain, you give STUPID a whole new meaning.
Yes, its BELIEVED he MAY have been killed while she was still pregnant by many people, but even the coroner's report DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY STATE WHEN HE DIED.
Are you really THAT fking stupid that you think there was a law made because one man killed one pregnant woman? REALLY??
"WE" didn't need a law because HE died in or OUT of the womb you idiot child.
THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy.
Foo: "Inkstain, you give STUPID a whole new meaning.
Yes, its BELIEVED he MAY have been killed while she was still pregnant by many people, but even the coroner's report DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY STATE WHEN HE DIED.
Are you really THAT fking stupid that you think there was a law made because one man killed one pregnant woman? REALLY??"

You're the one who gives stupid a whole new meaning.

There's no "maybe" about it. The guy was CONVICTED of murdering his wife and UNBORN child. It's because of the publicity of THAT case that helped to pass that law at that time, when it hadn't been passed before.

Ink never said the law was made just because of that case.

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

No one gets convicted of MURDER for killing a " wanted pregnancy" you ignorant buffoon. It's because they killed a child in utero.

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.

You can post all the bullshit lies you want, but the more you try to sound like you know what you're talking about, the more full of shit you prove you are, because the FACTS speak for themselves.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276862 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Then why did you bring up the law in response to me saying this law legally defines a fetus as a human being? You were fed paint chips as a child?
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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276863 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and BTW you moron, the bill "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" was FIRST brought before congress in 1999 by its author Republican Lindsey Graham.
HOW many years was that BEFORE the Peterson murders?
Blows THAT theory huh?
ROFLMAO You and Lynne are really Sisters In Stupidity.
You read into what others say, then sound like an idiot when you reply with your stupidity. Ink never said that law wasn't presented before, or that the law was ONLY about Connor. Ink was only saying that the law is about UNBORN VICTIMS.

Connor's name is associated with THAT law because of that high profile case of his murder along with his mother's murder.

You're the one not understanding anything about the case or that law, so you think we're saying thinbgs we're not saying. That's all from your lack of reading for comprehension and your ignorance about the case and that law. What you're posting about isn't from anything we've posted.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#276865 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your heart has been so hardened, and your mind is so far from truth, that you would think anything written that is common sense would be bad to you.
And thanks for proving that, yes, you will project your own failing on every one.

But talk about what is written..

Lets see should I take as a fact a scientist that has studied and tested a theory. Published a peer reviewed paper. That supports and show his/her/their conclusions.

Or a collection of books that was written thousands of years ago. That are badly edited, mistranslated, and are in fact copies of copies..

Common sense says The fact remains with the scientists that has published peer reviewed papers of what was studied and is the latest knowledge of a subject.

Where you would take the word of a barely literate unknown person thousand years ago that copied the work of now an unknown author. That was a copy itself and has made hash of copying the book. While mistranslating the book at the same time. Often for political purposes.

Which begs the question. Who has the problem with common sense, again?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276867 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text> NR said a fetus is a human being, I disagree then you respond to me by posting a law and claiming it legally defines a fetus as a human being. The only one trying to make this into two different discussions so that she doesn't appear incorrect is you. Your law clearly legally defines a fetus as an unborn child in utero and the punishment for causing harm or the death of is the same as it would be had a human being (the mother) been harmed or killed.
"NR said a fetus is a human being, I disagree then you respond to me by posting a a law and claiming it legally defines a fetus as a human being."

No moron, I did not claim "it legally defines" a fetus as a human being. That's how you MISREAD what was said. You people seriously don't have ANY adult reading comprehension skills. It's mind boggling. Then you make posts from your own ignorance of what was said as though we're the idiots when you each prove you are.

I said that in THAT law, they "defined" the fetus as an "unborn child", and also a "human being". A law is something LEGAL. Can you put 2 and 2 together and come yup with 4, you fool?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276868 Jan 15, 2013
Ayakaneo: Your law clearly legally defines a fetus as an unborn child in utero and the punishment for causing harm or the death of is the same as it would be had a human being (the mother) been harmed or killed. "

Aain, wrong, moron.
"(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

That is ONLY about the UNBORN CHILD and they're defining the unborn child as a "human being".

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276869 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>you are a lying sack of trash. You posted that law in response to me and not anything Kathwynn said. You said it legally defined a fetus as a human being. I said it defines a fetus as a victim and the punishment for harming or causing the death of is the same. LOL.
Listen, Toots, don't call me a "lying sack of trash" just because you have no knowledge of the reason I brought that law into discussion in the first place. It was because of what Kathwynn said, as I told you.

I brought it up AGAIN, in reply to you claiming a fetus is not a "human being", and you were making that claim as a fact.

THAT law I provided in reply to your claim clearly showed that the fetus was being legally defined (in THAT law) not only as an "unborn child", but also as a "human being", to show YOU that your statement that a fetus isn't a human being is just your OPINION, and not fact.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276870 Jan 15, 2013
Ayakaneo: "I said it defines a fetus as a victim and the punishment for harming or causing the death of is the same. LOL. "

Laugh away, Toots, the jokes on you.

From that law: "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

Nowhere is it saying the punishment is "the same as" killing a human being. No, it's saying the punishment is for killing a human being.

It says, "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,... be punished...for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276871 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh no Lynne, that may have been YOUR "point", but as usual, you're a moron with NO idea what she's talking about.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first introduced in Congress in 1999 by then-Congressman (later Senator) Lindsey Graham.
1999. Years BEFORE their deaths.
It had NOTHING to do with the Petersons.
At one time, the year it was finally passed (years AFTER their deaths) it was nicknamed Laci and Conner's Law.
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.
California HAD a fetal homicide law intact at the time.
And the FACT is that it is NOT KNOWN if he died before or after, despite your bullshit claims.
The Unborn Victims of Violence act had nothing to do with the Petersons EXCEPT the family lent their name to the cause to get federal legislation going because of the publicity of the murders.
You seem to think the law was drafted BECAUSE of the kid, when NOTHING could be further from the truth and that your claims are legitimized BY the law.
You're an idiot. But its HYSTERICAL to watch!! THANK You for the laugh!
Foo: "It had NOTHING to do with the Petersons."

It did, in that the high profile case helping to push it through.

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.

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.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#276872 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize a woman who feels the need to control others, like you, truly believe this, but it is also up to a MAN, if the woman gets married or not. The man should have a say in the making of their child as well, and you're right about knowing as much as you can about the other. Is she's will to kill her own child, then the man needs to run.
A man does have a say in "the making of their child." He can wear a condom to prevent pregnancy. If he wants her to get pregnant, all he can do is make sure that he marries someone who wants what he wants. Even if she changes her mind, he just has to accept it. Sure, he can state his wishes, but in the end, the woman is one who is pregnant and the only one who should decide what will be. Do you think a man should have the right to force his woman to have babies? Really?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#276873 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No -total control is in your own head and mind.
I'm sorry for how you were raised, but it don't mean everyone wants total control over a woman. I would never want a woman to do anything, that she didn't want to do, but if I'm married to her, and she decides on her own to kill our child, then I would choose to leave her with her own choices.
That's your right. Enjoy it:-)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276874 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I never SAID It was there IN the law you FLIPPING DUMBASS!! LOL!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I never said OR inferred.
I'm talking about why the laws were created to begin with.
THese laws were written because tragedies were compounded when a woman with a wanted pregnancy was murdered, PARTICULARLY when it was a late term pregnancy with a viable fetus, and NO laws existed that would punish the perpetuator of the crimes for the dead fetus.
There were cases where the woman lived and the fetus died, and all the perpetuator got was a slap on the wrist.
These laws were written and created because the law RECOGNIZED THE POTENTAL CHILD, and they HAD to come up with laws to effectively punish those that until the early 2000's, were walking away effectively unpunished and unscathed.
In FACT the law was SPECIFICALLY crafted from cases like Tracy Marciniak back in 1992, who's husband tried to kill her, instead killed the fetus 5 days before her due date.
He went to jail for less than a year.
THAT is why these laws were written, to cover the cases where the woman DIDN'T die, but her WANTED fetus was, and to be able to prosecute EFFECIVELY the perpetuators of the crimes.
Foo: "These laws were written and created because the law RECOGNIZED THE POTENTAL CHILD, and they HAD to come up with laws to effectively punish those that until the early 2000's, were walking away effectively unpunished and unscathed."

No they weren't, you ignorant buffoon. They were created and obviously passed for the unborn CHILD as it's stated in THAT law. Not the "potential" child as you claim.

Foo: "I never SAID It was there IN the law you FLIPPING DUMBASS."

That's not what I said, you moron. I said BECAUSE the word "potential" wasn't stated in THAT law, you'r claim that it's about the "potential" child is just another of your bullshit lies.

If they meant "potential" child, that's what would be stated in that law. Instead, what was stated was "unborn child", and "human being", because that's what they MEAN.

No one has been saying that the law with Laci and Connor's name on it has never been presented before. You only get that idea from not being able to read for comprehension, and you think your posts are presenting information we don't already know, and posting as though you're schooling us on anything. You're such a mess.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276875 Jan 15, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an old lesbian living with another old lesbian. You may have had a pretend secular pagan wedding ritual. The Judeo-Chrisitan God does not recognize your abomination as a marriage.
There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian g-d". CHristians think Jesus is g-d and Jews know better. So if your jebus doesn't recognize it, well, who really cares? LOL
Gtown71

United States

#276876 Jan 15, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
And thanks for proving that, yes, you will project your own failing on every one.
But talk about what is written..
Lets see should I take as a fact a scientist that has studied and tested a theory. Published a peer reviewed paper. That supports and show his/her/their conclusions.
Or a collection of books that was written thousands of years ago. That are badly edited, mistranslated, and are in fact copies of copies..
Common sense says The fact remains with the scientists that has published peer reviewed papers of what was studied and is the latest knowledge of a subject.
Where you would take the word of a barely literate unknown person thousand years ago that copied the work of now an unknown author. That was a copy itself and has made hash of copying the book. While mistranslating the book at the same time. Often for political purposes.
Which begs the question. Who has the problem with common sense, again?
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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276877 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I am paying attention. Here, for those "stupid fools who can't follow along."
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
I thought you understood they were defining the fetus as a "human being" in that law.

Now that you've put what Ayakaneo said next to what you had said, I see now that you didn't get it either.

Katie: "That is exactly what the law is suggesting. That the ZEF will be treated as a human being, same as its victimized mother, for purposes of sentencing punishment."

Ayakaneo: "It clearly says the punishment for intentionally causing harm to or the death of a child in utero is the same punishment one would get for doing the same to a human being."

The law states, "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

["If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished ...for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."]

They're not just "treating" the fetus "as" a human being as Katie claimed; and they're not saying the punishment for killing a fetus is "the same punishment one would get for doing the same to a human being".

Wrong on both counts. They're saying the fetus IS the human being the person who killed them will be punished for doing so.
Gtown71

United States

#276878 Jan 15, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>A man does have a say in "the making of their child." He can wear a condom to prevent pregnancy. If he wants her to get pregnant, all he can do is make sure that he marries someone who wants what he wants. Even if she changes her mind, he just has to accept it. Sure, he can state his wishes, but in the end, the woman is one who is pregnant and the only one who should decide what will be. Do you think a man should have the right to force his woman to have babies? Really?
Do you think a woman should have the right to force a man to be ok with killing his (their) child? Really?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276879 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Dictating how others should converse now?
"Sieg Heil"
Not dictating anything. Just telling you how NOT to make yourselves look like completely ignorant buffoons.

CD didn't know uteri was the plural uterus. He said he'd ask his wife,(who supposedly has some background in medicine) and get back to you. He made himself look like an ignorant buffoon who can't even look up a friggin' word on his own, he needed his WIFE to tell him.

You made your self look like and ignorant buffoon by stating you would look forward to what he finds out.

"In utero" is the proper term used when stating something about the fetus IN the uterus.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276880 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the court transcript's of the trial MORON. I gave you the link to the coroners office as well.
Do you need THOSE spoon fed to you as well?
<quoted text>
You TRULY are a moron Lynne.
The family lent their name, because of the publicity, in an effort to get the FEDERAL bill PASSED, that had failed for YEARS BEFORE THE MURDERS to pass.
ROFLMAO
You REALLY are a jackass Lynniekins.
"Laci Peterson's family has entered the political arena, lending their names
Wednesday to legislation that would make killing a fetus a distinct federal crime.
The family support represents a considerable public relations push for
conservative lawmakers who have been working toward the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act for several years.
The House passed similar legislation in 1999 and 2001 by relatively comfortable
margins, but it did not win Senate approval."
PLEASE keep being stupid Lynnie, I'm LOVING watching you dig your hole deeper and deeper!
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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276881 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws dont determine when someone's died you STUPID SHIT!
<quoted text>
You're a LYING SACK OF SHIT Lynniekins!
Right here you claim that the "law was proving Connor was NOT born when he died."
<quoted text>
You actually said this NUMEROUS times, including when you said the law "substantiated" your claim WHEN the kid died.
The FACT is that the family did nothing but lend their name to a political cause that had been floundering in congress since long BEFORE the murders.
It doesn't MATTER when the kid died, since California ALREADY HAD FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS in place when Laci and Connor were murdered.
****PAY ATTENTION TO THAT LYNNIEKINS*****
California ALREADY HAD FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS IN PLACE WHEN THE MURDERS HAPPENED.
California had it covered EITHER way. In fact, when you read the inital charges when he was arrested, they charged him with pretty much everything they could, including illegally aborting a fetus AND murdering a baby to cover every possiblity.
The act they lent their names to LATER ON, was to help pass FEDERAL legislation.
It in reality had NOTHING to DO with the family other than being politically handy.
Grow the hell up Lynne, this is REALITY.
Foo: "Laws dont determine when someone's died you STUPID SHIT!"

I replied that I didn't say that.

Foo, "You're a LYING SACK OF SHIT Lynniekins!
Right here you claim that the "law was proving Connor was NOT born when he died."
and reposted what I said.

"lil Lily wrote:
I posted that law because Kathynn the Dummy claimed Connor was born when he died. Another PCer went along with him in that. I proved them wrong by showing that law. That law was proving Connor was NOT BORN when he was killed. "

I was saying what I said only with regard to the law being FOR UNBORN VICTIMS, you moron. Peterson was convicted of killing his wife and their UNBORN CHILD. Unlkess and nuntil that coinvcition is overturned, it's BEEN PROVEN the child was a fetus when he died.

The "Unborn Victims Of Violence Act of 2004" wasn't for victims of violence AFTER being born, and Connor's name being on it. The law with Connor's name on it does substantiate that he was a fetus when murdered. Laci was 8 months pregnant. The family lent their support and Laci and Connor's name were attached to the law in honor of those 2 high profile victims. Both mother and UNBORN child.

Everything else you posted, is already known and it's irrelevant to what I've been posting about.

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 27 min Lem 43,567
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... 29 min Bloody Bill Anderson 2,990
Trump and the FBI 1 hr Mike 2
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 1 hr NYStateOfMind 335,672
The United Hates of America (Sep '10) 2 hr Buckaroo Banzai 2,835
Review: ARTLOOK GLASS COMPANY NEW YORK 2 hr The Lord Loves a ... 66
I've been living a lie for 20 years 6 hr Count Teleky 1

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages