Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[lil Lily]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
How trivial, Lynne D is actually arguing the law under her "honorary law degree."
Well then, Ma Cherie, if a fetus is considered a "human being;" why then 1- Roe v. Wade is still law, and 2- why is there an exclusion for the legal termination of pregnancy?
Or are you suggesting that a fetus is only a human being, if injured when the mother wants it not to be?

I'm Lily, not Lynne D, and I'm not "arguing" the law, you ignorant buffoon.

Stating what a law says is not "arguing" it. You wouldn't know that since you're not only not a real lawyer, you're STUPID. Since I wasn't using it to argue "abortion" but using it to argue Kathwynn's claim that Connor Peterson was dead only after "popping out" of his mother, your questions to me are POINTLESS.

CD: "Or are you suggesting that a fetus is only a human being, if injured when the mother wants it not to be?"

I haven't suggested anything. That law seems to be suggesting it, though, doesn't it, bonehead?

[sassyliciouus]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
You criticize the Pro-Choicers because, as you and your other fellow idolaters call us, we're "pro-aborts." Notwithstanding the lie of the nick name (that's another commandment you're violating), now you criticize Foo for actually doing something you hypocrite idolaters actually endorse; adoption.
I suppose your Jeebus has his hands full with your shitmongers' attitude. His f*cking problem. Not mine.

You support abortion as choice but you feel *criticized* for it? Pro means to support. Abortion is killing a humans life. You are pro-abortion. So far,every proabort on here is in favor of restricting elective abortion after a certain point. With that said,you are clearly then,not pro-HER choice. You're not for choice,you are for what YOU think she should be able to do.

Not one proabort here has suggested adoption. In fact,most have poo-poo'ed it...claiming it's just better to abort than to adopt out.

Something just aint right with your conscience if you are offended by being called Pro(in favor of)abortion. Perhaps,your conscience is not fully dead yet?

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>Of course not Grumpy, she saw the words "unborn child" and "human being" written in the Unborn Victims Protection Act and understood it to mean that LEGALLY in the U.S a fetus is a human being. She failed to read that in paragraph (d) this same law refers to a fetus as a homo sapien and not a human being when referring to abortion. What U.S law differentiates between fetuses like that and in whose mind would this be ethical when writing and passing this law?

"Unborn Victims Protection Act and understood it to mean that LEGALLY in the U.S a fetus is a human being."

LOL, you DUMMY! I was stating that A LAW stated them as such. That they were considered unborn children and human beings "legally" by THAT LAW. I never once said that "legally in the US", you fool.

[lil Lily]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
The fetus is recognized as a 'child in utero' in complete opposition to the pro choice insistance that it is not. We were not talking about abortion in this case.
What can be said is that the court considers it a child but can still be killed legally by it's mother.

Exactly. I wasn't using the law to argue abortion as some PC fools claimed, or to state that "in the US they're legally" called unborn children and human being as that Ayakanewo fool claimed.

Their lack of adult ability to read for comprehension is so mind boggling.

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text> Ink that isn't the point that Lynne and NR are referring to. Both agree the "child in utero" is not part of the mothers body because it has it's own DNA. They both agree that genetic material passed on from both parents make a fetus a human being. I disagree. Genetic material from a human makes a human, not a human being. Why Lynne brought up that law to try and show that legally a fetus is a human being is beyond me. 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. It does not define an unborn child as a human being.

"Ink that isn't the point that Lynne and NR are referring to. Both agree the "child in utero" is not part of the mothers body because it has it's own DNA."

You Dumbell, it's you who is crossing 2 separate discussions.

The discussion NR was having with you about DNA had nothing to do with my reasons for posting that law. Holy cow you people are nit wits.

[sassyliciouus]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
It's human and it's alive. But, it's not independent existence until it's born, and that's when it becomes an individual, or a "human being."
Not even legally, is the fetus a person and Lynne D's continuous vain repetitions of what one law says, doesn't make it so, but for the sole purpose of that law. And that law has a clear an unambiguous exception for a woman's right to kill it and get it the hell out of her uterus, if that's what she wants to do.
That argument hols as much water as the Titanic did. And we know what happened to it.

"""And that law has a clear an unambiguous exception for a woman's right to kill it and get it the hell out of her uterus, if that's what she wants to do.'"""

Yeah,no. This is not true. If a woman wants to electively "kill it" and "get it the hell out of her uterus",she can't after the elective deadline. So,no,it's may not be "what she wants to do".

So to coin your phrase "That argument hols(sic)as much water as the Titanic did".

URwelcome.

[lil Lily]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
It's human and it's alive. But, it's not independent existence until it's born, and that's when it becomes an individual, or a "human being."
Not even legally, is the fetus a person and Lynne D's continuous vain repetitions of what one law says, doesn't make it so, but for the sole purpose of that law. And that law has a clear an unambiguous exception for a woman's right to kill it and get it the hell out of her uterus, if that's what she wants to do.
That argument hols as much water as the Titanic did. And we know what happened to it.

"Not even legally, is the fetus a person and..." LILY's "... continuous vain repetitions of what one law says, doesn't make it so, but for the sole purpose of that law. "

Wow you figured that out, did you? All by yourself? But you didn't figure out WHY I posted that law to begin with did you?

When the woman WANTS her unborn child, BY LAW no one can get away with killing her unborn child. The law stated "unborn child" and "human being" in utero.

At some point, the majority of people who are responsible for making and ammending laws will figure out that it's not sensible to consider those in utero to be unborn children and human beings ONLY when momma WANTS them. They ARE that, wanted or not.

IN the meantime, that law was huge in recognizing the human life in utero as a separate HUMAN BEING from its mother, and recognizing the pregnant woman as its mother, as well as recognizing that anyone killing the childs without mother's consent will be charged with that crime. Before 2004, that wasn't so for women who lost their unborn children due to violence, or both were killed due to violence.

[lil Lily]

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.

[sassyliciouus]

cpeter1313 wrote:

I didn't say anything about your choice; I just don't believe you'll carry it though. Stats show that teens who say they will wait until marriage tend not to follow through on it. Yo9u are obviously celibate out of fear; that can be overcome.
The science here is that sexual activity is healthy and necessary, both physically and mentally. Celibacy is like fasting--okay for a short time, but unhealthy if overdone. Safe sex can promote a healthy sex life without pregnancy or disease. You just have to apply the tenets correctly.
You might want to backpedal on the "stupid" remarks unless your IQ is over 160 like mine. I've been relatively nice thus far.
Self-control and self-denial are two different things; you may come to realize that eventually. You can see sex however you wish, but don't delude yourself that your opinion is better than anyone else's. In terms of aboirtion, our opinion is irrlevant--only the pregnant woman's rights matter.
<quoted text>

""""Stats show that teens who say they will wait until marriage tend not to follow through on it.""""

I disagree but let's see these so called STATS. Let us take into consideration that temptation in the midst of such an immoral society,makes this harder for teens to abstain. I think that much of that has to do with people like you who make it seem like kids have no self-control whatsoever. I disagree with that. It's no different than claiming that it is impossible for teens not to engage in drinking and drugs either. MANY parents feel that kids have no self-esteem. Truth is,most kids live by example. If they live with parents who show no signs of self-control,then they will lack it too.

Another unfortunate strick against these kids is that parents allow sexually explicit tv shows and movies for their viewing. Many also (divorced) will live with gf/bf'S OR sleep over their homes and think that kids will buy into the *Do as I say,not as I do* approach. Same goes with alcohol and recreational/prescription drug use.

Monkey see,Monkey do.

""""" The science here is that sexual activity is healthy and necessary, both physically and mentally""" ""

Within certain boundaries,yes. If not,then no it is not healthy OR necessary.

[lil Lily]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit. The Victims of Violence Act of 2004 does not trump Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not make such reference to life in uteri. BTW, it's in uteri, not in utero you dumb shit. Learn proper Latin medical terms. Did they not teach you that in "Honorary Medical School?"
Roe v. Wade protects a woman's right to abort. The Act protects a woman's right to carry to term by embellishing on a technicality, the purpose of which is mainly to give your kind a $.10 lolly pop, while Roe v. Wade gives our kind Key Lime Pie.
Go on and prove me wrong.

CD, "The Victims of Violence Act of 2004 does not trump Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not make such reference to life in uteri."

I didn't say it did, nit wit.

CD, "BTW, it's in uteri, not in utero you dumb shit. Learn proper Latin medical terms. Did they not teach you that in 'Honorary Medical School?'

Argue with those who wrote out the law, you ignorant buffoon, because "In utero" is used in that law.

"‘Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero..."

[Conservative Democrat]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't ignore that part. I didn't USE that part because it wasn't what the point of using that law was about, dummy.
PCers, like Kathwynn, were claiming Connor died AFTER "popping out" of his mother, and trying to claim Peterson was convicted of that second offense of murder because the child was "born". Connor obviously died while in utero or he wouldn't have been named in that particular law, would they? It's the UNBORN Victims of Violence Act of 2004.
The section about abortion had nothing to do with the point I was making using that law, you ignorant buffoon.

This is most interesting; you say that "Connor obviously died while in utero[.]"

Yet, the one thing, on which all medical professionals could agree, was that the exact cause of death for both Laci and "Conner," could not be determined, due to the advanced decomposition of the bodies.

So, you're just trying to re-float the Titanic, with only a 25 lb lift bag.

It ain't going to work Lynne.

Maybe you're really trying to atone for the two fetuses you dropped in the toilet, after allowing your boyfriend to beat you up, and that's why this case is of such interest to you.

[sassyliciouus]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Let me guess--catholic school?
PP discusses the options with women; the women make their own decisions. They treat abortion as an option, and in some cases, abortion may well BE the best solution.
I've done more research on PP than you ever will, little boy. For instance, I understand that PP is a mnedical facility, and that the woman involves the medical staff in her reproductive and medical decisions--making it their business. The woman's right to privacy means SHE decides who knows about the pregnancy and her decisions, even if she is married. You might want to look up HIPAA, as well. And yes, ultimately, the woman is in it alone--she and she alone take the risks and problems of pregnancy.
Anti-choicers are all for giving the woman help, right up until the kid is born. Then they can go to hell; the holy fetus has been delivered.
<quoted text>

Just wondering if you've done research on those who were former employees of PP? I bet that you're not interested in what they have to say about what REALLY goes on behind closed doors. After all, these are the abortionist,and staff who performed these thousands of abortions?

You don't care?

Okay. What about the abortionist and staff who STILL are practicing? Are you interested in their stories about the truths behind closed doors?(of course I am referring to those who have revealed much truth because they didn't care). Go google their stories. You just might be surprised. My former MIL worked at PP. She told us the truths. Just so you know,she is still a proabort(that I know of).

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text> ... Why, Lily (sic) brought up that law to try and show that legally a fetus is a human being is beyond me...

Yeah, everything posted is beyond you, Toots.

That is NOT why I brought up that law. You'd know that if you understood what you read and could discern which posts go with what discussions. Like the fool you are, you merged 2 different discussions into one and confused yourself. You then posted from your own confusion and tried to attribute your confusion as it being from my not knowing what I'm posting about. You're the one who doesn't know what she's talking about.

[Conservative Democrat]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm Lily, not Lynne D, and I'm not "arguing" the law, you ignorant buffoon.
Stating what a law says is not "arguing" it. You wouldn't know that since you're not only not a real lawyer, you're STUPID. Since I wasn't using it to argue "abortion" but using it to argue Kathwynn's claim that Connor Peterson was dead only after "popping out" of his mother, your questions to me are POINTLESS.
CD: "Or are you suggesting that a fetus is only a human being, if injured when the mother wants it not to be?"
I haven't suggested anything. That law seems to be suggesting it, though, doesn't it, bonehead?

Yeah, yeah, yeah..

If it makes you sleep better at night Lynne, keep saying it.

You know damn well that you cry yourself to sleep every night for staying in an abusive relationship and letting your boyfriend beat up on you as you did, so shut your pie hole. That's the reason why you had such a "hard-on" for my comment that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship is a moron. Just like you; a certified MORON!!

I have no pity for your sorry ass, bonehead.

[sassyliciouus]

cpeter1313 wrote:

DEFINITELY catholic school. That's a huge papal lie--NFP is ar more likely to result in pregnancy than any other method of contraception. That's why the RCC backs it. It's only effective if the woman's cycles are invariably regular, and most aren't.
<quoted text>

Michele has used NFP for over like 16yrs. She is a proabort too.

FTR,you are being dishonest. There is much success with NFP. Are you aware that over half of abortions done,are done on women who used b/c?

Doesn't sound too effective to me.

[cpeter1313]

Or, they can do what they want and you can butt out.

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and I agree, if married couples don't want kids, then they don't have to have kids, and if they are certain they Never want kids, then they can have medical procedures done to make sure they never do, but again to wait and decide if you want kids After the wife is pregnant, is no different then waiting to see if you really want to be married, After you get married. It is just a bad deal all the way around. Even Hilary Clinton said abortion, should be legal, safe, and RARE.

[sassyliciouus]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
I say they're one and the same. As soon as this "b.s. man" claimed "he" was okay with abortion to save the life of the mother I KNEW it was Sassy because she had already denied being "bsman", and then she threw that in to cover her identity deception.

I will say this one more time. I am not anyone else but sassy. If you don't believe me,don't. I really don't care.

But let me ASSURE you that I would never EVER joke about supporting abortion in any way,shape or form. That is well known of me.

Now,carry on....

[lil Lily]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
This is most interesting; you say that "Connor obviously died while in utero[.]"
Yet, the one thing, on which all medical professionals could agree, was that the exact cause of death for both Laci and "Conner," could not be determined, due to the advanced decomposition of the bodies.
So, you're just trying to re-float the Titanic, with only a 25 lb lift bag.
It ain't going to work Lynne.
Maybe you're really trying to atone for the two fetuses you dropped in the toilet, after allowing your boyfriend to beat you up, and that's why this case is of such interest to you.

CD, your obscene descriptions of the miscarriage a teen had is duly noted. You're a sick ass. We got it loud and clear, thank you.

As to your stupidity about Laci and Connor; "Yet, the one thing, on which all medical professionals could agree, was that the exact cause of death for both Laci and "Conner," could not be determined, due to the advanced decomposition of the bodies."

Prove it. Provide something to substantiate your claims. Like Kathwynn who claimed Connor died after he "popped out" of his mother, he provided NOTHING to substantiate that claim.

I provided a law that substantiated he died before he was born. He didn't die from drowning when he popped out did he? How could he, he was in the womb with amniotic fluid that also enters the lungs of the fetus. There's a reason newborn babies don't drown during water births. Common sense is not your forté.

[Conservative Democrat]

sassyliciouus wrote:

<quoted text> You support abortion as choice but you feel *criticized* for it? Pro means to support.

And just who told you I "feel" criticized? Cake boss? I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy, or carry her pregnancy to term. And I support both choices EQUALLY.

sassyliciouus wrote:

Abortion is killing a humans life.

Woopty f*cking doo.

sassyliciouus wrote:

You are pro-abortion. So far,every proabort on here is in favor of restricting elective abortion after a certain point. With that said,you are clearly then,not pro-HER choice. You're not for choice,you are for what YOU think she should be able to do.

I'm not only pro-choice, I'm also pro-law. And the law says that there are limits to elective abortion. I support that as well.

sassyliciouus wrote:

Not one proabort here has suggested adoption. In fact,most have poo-poo'ed it...claiming it's just better to abort than to adopt out.

Is there any better suggestion for adoption than actually adopting?

sassyliciouus wrote:

Something just aint right with your conscience if you are offended by being called Pro(in favor of)abortion. Perhaps,your conscience is not fully dead yet?

Not that it offends me, because nothing you or any other idolater hypocrite could say can offend me, but fact is, you pout, kick and scream every time you're called an anti-choicer and a hypocrite. So if it's good for the goose..........

[lil Lily]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah..
If it makes you sleep better at night Lynne, keep saying it.
You know damn well that you cry yourself to sleep every night for staying in an abusive relationship and letting your boyfriend beat up on you as you did, so shut your pie hole. That's the reason why you had such a "hard-on" for my comment that a woman who stays in an abusive relationship is a moron. Just like you; a certified MORON!!
I have no pity for your sorry ass, bonehead.

Obviously no intelligent rebuttal from you. Only idiocy.