Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311360 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#282186 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Katie: "Wouldn't it have been pertinent of you to make sure you were in the current reporting period? You did not prove Bitner wrong, dolly. "
<quoted text>
LOL good call? I showed how YOUR link proved YOU wrong AND Katie, and it was "in the current reporting period", you lambrain.
LOL, you did no such thing. My link did not prove me wrong.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#282187 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't deflecting, because I flat out proved you WRONG, with your own link.
YOU claimed, "Incorrect. Less than half of all abortions are performed on women who are not married, or living with someone, at the time."
"who are not married"
The stat that was relevant to your claim was the following, and it stats "NEVER" married. Which means, that stat AND the other about 1 or more children,(measning they could have BEEN married before, but nothing stating they were at time of abortion), did not prove your claim was correct.
• Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]
You're the one posting bullshit lies and then arguing about it. I'm posting the facts. That's a fact, Jack.
Uh, no, lol. You're still full of shit, Troll.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282188 Feb 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a civil right to "kill your own" ZEF, though. It is self-defense.
Would you prefer a born child killed over something undeveloped and unrealized, something the size of a Tic Tac?
Katie: "It is a civil right to "kill your own" ZEF, though. It is self-defense."

That "ZEF" is her unborn child. A child is a child no matter how big or small. That "self-defense" claim; illogical, irrational, unreasonable, in-friggin-sane.

Katie, you really are an irrational mental case. I'm serious.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#282189 Feb 5, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK
Can you answer my question?
During an abortion. What takes place during an abortion.
No one seems to know. I find that odd. Especially for the posters who have been here since 1962.
You're the only one who "doesn't seem to know". Is there something wrong with your Google?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282190 Feb 5, 2013
LILY just beat herself at her own game. She cannot prove that abortion is morally wrong. No one can. She will spend all day rationalizing, explaining, defending. Lily, an opinion is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion based on your personal moral philosophy. You don't have facts to back up your moral philosophy. That's okay.

How many pages of ridiculously long, redundant diatribes will that woman frantically type before she collapses in emotional exhaustion? So sad:-\
Katie

Auburn, WA

#282191 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You're proof that enablers are still alive and well and posting here at Topix.
No amount of "mouthing off" justifies ANYONE striking another, and you don't have proof there was any "mouthing off" going on. You were there when she was punched, were you?
Foo mouths off here, would that justify someone punching her, and while pregnant no less? NO. NEVER. NORMAL people walk away, they don't resort to violence. So your theroy of what constitutes "mutual abuse" is irrational.
You people are mind bogglingly ignorant and have a scary ass screwed up way of looking at things.
Here's the thing about Foo and her "mutual abuse" -- she is an adult. She is capable of making her own decisions. Same with Lynne/Persy. Same with you. Same with me. Last but not least, I am not the "irrational" one here, tootsie roll. You just got done ignoring your own mistakes all while "verbally abusing" me with your aggressive name calling. If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. I'm certainly not going to give you an "eye for and eye" over it, though. Sorry if that disappoints you.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#282192 Feb 5, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't retract it. No skin off my apple F. Lee. But the record will still show that you said protection of a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy was the "ONLY" reason for FHL's existence.
Not saying the same thing now are you ?
The record will only show a futile attempt to dumb something down for your benefit and your perpetual inability to even comprehend that.
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah....shall be deemed "murder". In Florida however, if the assault only injures the mother but results in the death of the fetus, the perp can still be tried for manslaughter, thereby establishing a mechanism where the perp can be punished beyond the punishment for just the mere assault. Which is all I said.

Are you sure about that?

There are two cases in Florida that control;

Williams v. State, 15 So. 760 (Fla. 1894), and State v. McCall, 458 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

In Williams the Florida Supreme Court stated in pertinent part:

"The proof shows further the premature birth and death, within a few hours after the assault and battery, of the child with which the wife was pregnant. The injury to the mother here, that resulted in the premature birth and death of the child, was inflicted upon her by the defendant under such circumstances as would have made it murder, had the injury resulted in the death of the mother, instead, simply, of producing the death of the child. When this is shown the crime is made out."

In McCall, the 2nd District Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

"Accordingly, we hold that in Florida there are no such crimes as vehicular homicide and DWI man-slaughter of a viable but unborn child. We do not hold that a viable fetus is not alive nor do we hold that a person should not be punished for causing its death. We simply adopt the traditional interpretation of the words “human being” under the homicide stat-utes as meaning one who has been born alive. There-fore, the court properly dismissed those counts of the information relating to the death of Michael Thomas Umbel."

In short, no birth followed by death of the "born" baby, no Fetal Homicide in Florida.

Good luck in charging the perp with "manslaughter" if the baby is born dead.

LMAO!!!

[QUOTE who="Doc Degall"]Yeah I get it alright. This was never about the mother's own actions anyway.....only the actions of others.
Win some lose some counselor.
Of course not. I only used that scenario to prove to you that the statute assumes a wanted pregnancy, which you emphatically deny. Yet, here you are conceding that, in Florida, if the mother sticks a coat hanger in her c*nt and kills her fetus, which unequivocally means an "unwanted pregnancy," she can't be charged with fetal homicide, or the "Unlawful Killing of an Unborn Quick Child." It has to be the actions of another, which unequivocally assumes she, meaning "mommy," didn't want the pregnancy ended.

And, I've shown you how even despite the language of the statute, the courts' interpretation is that there must first be a live birth, followed by death from the assault, for the statute to apply.

"Win some, lose some[?]" You haven't won one yet, errand boy.

;-)
Uber-Bro of the Unborn

Norfolk, VA

#282193 Feb 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, too, STO. I think it's illegal anyway, so it's moot. Illegal abortions are not the norm so long as Roe v Wade is in effect. And thank you for commenting on this. JM probably won't go further than she already did; ZEF-focused to the exclusion of all else.
It was interesting your analysis of ac/pl working backward from one day prior to the due date and pc working forward from conception. I hadn't noticed it before yet it seems correct. It would definitely explain why it seems ac/pl and pc speak in different languages.
(i want jm to recognize she is no different than michael schiavo regarding refusing her daughter a life-saving abortion. that it is her right to do so, just like it was michael's right not to treat terri's infections and/or remove her artificial life support)
Have you ever explored the web-site of Life Dynamics Incorporated "Katie" and asked yourself whether or not there is a link between racism and abortion!?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282194 Feb 5, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could one of you pro-choice people explain it to me?
No, I've never seen an intestinal resection, nor do I know what it is.
You're pro-choice. Explain it to yourself... Look it up.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#282195 Feb 5, 2013
Reposted with the quotation errors corrected.
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't retract it. No skin off my apple F. Lee. But the record will still show that you said protection of a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy was the "ONLY" reason for FHL's existence.
Not saying the same thing now are you ?
The record will only show a futile attempt to dumb something down for your benefit and your perpetual inability to even comprehend that.
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah....shall be deemed "murder". In Florida however, if the assault only injures the mother but results in the death of the fetus, the perp can still be tried for manslaughter, thereby establishing a mechanism where the perp can be punished beyond the punishment for just the mere assault. Which is all I said.
Are you sure about that?

There are two cases in Florida that control;

Williams v. State, 15 So. 760 (Fla. 1894), and State v. McCall, 458 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

In Williams the Florida Supreme Court stated in pertinent part:

"The proof shows further the premature birth and death, within a few hours after the assault and battery, of the child with which the wife was pregnant. The injury to the mother here, that resulted in the premature birth and death of the child, was inflicted upon her by the defendant under such circumstances as would have made it murder, had the injury resulted in the death of the mother, instead, simply, of producing the death of the child. When this is shown the crime is made out."

In McCall, the 2nd District Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:

"Accordingly, we hold that in Florida there are no such crimes as vehicular homicide and DWI man-slaughter of a viable but unborn child. We do not hold that a viable fetus is not alive nor do we hold that a person should not be punished for causing its death. We simply adopt the traditional interpretation of the words “human being” under the homicide stat-utes as meaning one who has been born alive. There-fore, the court properly dismissed those counts of the information relating to the death of Michael Thomas Umbel."

In short, no birth followed by death of the "born" baby, no Fetal Homicide in Florida.

Good luck in charging the perp with "manslaughter" if the baby is born dead.

LMAO!!!
Doc Degall wrote:
Yeah I get it alright. This was never about the mother's own actions anyway.....only the actions of others.
Win some lose some counselor.
Of course not. I only used that scenario to prove to you that the statute assumes a wanted pregnancy, which you emphatically deny. Yet, here you are conceding that, in Florida, if the mother sticks a coat hanger in her c*nt and kills her fetus, which unequivocally means an "unwanted pregnancy," she can't be charged with fetal homicide, or the "Unlawful Killing of an Unborn Quick Child." It has to be the actions of another, which unequivocally assumes she, meaning "mommy," didn't want the pregnancy ended.

And, I've shown you how even despite the language of the statute, the courts' interpretation is that there must first be a live birth, followed by death from the assault, for the statute to apply.

"Win some, lose some[?]" You haven't won one yet, errand boy.

;-)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282196 Feb 5, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Lol...
Yeah, okay, LLL. You have no facts, no proof of your claim. You have an opinion, nothing more.
Ummm, one cannot prove a negative, dummy.
I said proe me wrong and you come back with "one cannot prove a negative"? What kind fo stupidity is that?

Of course we can prove people wrong. We PLers do it with you PC all the time. Facts are facts, and the definition of humane and conscience are what they are. You display what you display, and have said what you have said. Put it all together and I stated a fact.

Now prove I'm wrong, by reasonably proving what I've stated is only opinion.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#282197 Feb 5, 2013
12 minutes ago

12 minutes ago

9 minutes ago

7 minutes ago

5 minutes ago

5 minutes ago

Would that be one person posting?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282198 Feb 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, you did no such thing. My link did not prove me wrong.
Your claim: "not married"

Your link info: "Never married".

You were wrong. You can be a child and say, "Uh uh I'm not" all day long. You were and that's been proven.

You can't see the difference between claiming "not married" and your link stating "never married". I get it. You don't, but I do.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282199 Feb 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no, lol. You're still full of shit, Troll.
lol, read my prior post, you child.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#282200 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim: "not married"
Your link info: "Never married".
You were wrong. You can be a child and say, "Uh uh I'm not" all day long. You were and that's been proven.
You can't see the difference between claiming "not married" and your link stating "never married". I get it. You don't, but I do.
Women who have never married aren't also not married currently?

LOL, you're an idiot, Troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282201 Feb 5, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
LILY just beat herself at her own game. She cannot prove that abortion is morally wrong. No one can. She will spend all day rationalizing, explaining, defending. Lily, an opinion is an opinion. There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion based on your personal moral philosophy. You don't have facts to back up your moral philosophy. That's okay.
How many pages of ridiculously long, redundant diatribes will that woman frantically type before she collapses in emotional exhaustion? So sad:-\
Elise, it's ironic that when people from your own camp write 'ridiculously long, redundant diatribes" you don't whine about it. But when PLers are posting, you whine about sentences being too long for your taste, let alone the post itself? lol

We get it, you like to try to insult with stupidity to deflect from the fact that you can't converse or rebut with intelligence or facts.

I asked you to reasonably prove that what I said about YOU is just opinion and not fact, not about "abortion".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#282202 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
lol, read my prior post, you child.
Yes, that one was full of shit too, Troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

You got nothing of substance to say, and are not worth a serious response. Let the other poster speak for himself, OCD.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#282204 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "It is a civil right to "kill your own" ZEF, though. It is self-defense."
That "ZEF" is her unborn child. A child is a child no matter how big or small. That "self-defense" claim; illogical, irrational, unreasonable, in-friggin-sane.
Katie, you really are an irrational mental case. I'm serious.
I repeat legal facts and you call me an "irrational mental case"? You can't wish it away. Calling me names won't do a thing about it, either. You're not disappointed, are you?
raises eyebrows

United States

#282205 Feb 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
No e-mail posted by you, Foo, no matter who you claim it's from, would ever prove your claim here about "mutual abuse".
Proving you e-mailed with Lynne still would never prove that.
So every single thing you said and did, posting King's gate trying to claim it's a picture Lynne took; the impotent "threat" of posting a picture of her house; and the impotent "threat" of posting e-mails is all IRRATIONAL.
No matter what you post, it still won't ever prove your claim of mutual abuse. Unless you can provide something posted HERE in the forum that you can link, your claim is unproven.
Reading the posts of yours and to you causes me to wonder if you're being harassed or stalked. Please be careful, some people are just not together upstairs, you know?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282206 Feb 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the thing about Foo and her "mutual abuse" -- she is an adult. She is capable of making her own decisions. Same with Lynne/Persy. Same with you. Same with me. Last but not least, I am not the "irrational" one here, tootsie roll. You just got done ignoring your own mistakes all while "verbally abusing" me with your aggressive name calling. If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. I'm certainly not going to give you an "eye for and eye" over it, though. Sorry if that disappoints you.
Giving people what they dish out is not "abusive", and what you get from me is far less than what you've dished out to others here, same with Foo. You people were the aggressors here, I didn't come into this forum that way.

You're going to cry over name calling? Really? How does it "threaten" you, your life or your physical or mental well being in ANY way? It doesn't, you bonehead, unless your 5 years old.

You admit that it doesn't threaten you in any way, "If I felt threatened by it, I might report it to the mods. "

If someone says something verbally and another strikes them physically, the abuse is NOT "mutual".
Mutual: "reciprocal"

Your excuses for Foo's attacks on a teen being a victim of domestic violence, struck once and left him afterwards, is nothing short of irrational.



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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Nos TROLL is Waxman 1,396,265
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 min Into The Night 60,166
News Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Said Deporta... (Apr '09) 1 hr MNYC 26
Review: I Love Kickboxing 2 hr veronicas 14
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 5 hr zazz 98,088
News South Florida braces for affects of possible Ha... (Jan '10) 5 hr gem 15
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 hr TRD 70,732

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages