Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309765 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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287346 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think Peterson would've been charged with killing his "unborn child" if his wife was still in the first trimester?
In California ? Yes.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287347 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference between what? The embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus whether pregnancy is accepted or rejected.
If pregnancy is accepted by the woman, the embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus even while pregnant woman thinks of it as her baby. Still, medically, it's an embryo/fetus.
If pregnancy is rejected by the woman, the embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus even while pregnant woman makes her appointment to terminate the pregnancy and thinks of it as a blob of cells. Still, medically, it's an embryo/fetus.
Now, where your question lies regarding fetal homicide laws, it's still an embryo/fetus. Regardless. If woman accepted pregnancy, began to refer to her embryo/fetus as a baby and planned for its delivery, but some 3rd party jerk came along out of the woodwork and caused fetal injury or death, the woman is allowed recourse for the loss or injury of her embryo/fetus. If woman dies, her family is allowed recourse.
Again, where is the hypocrisy? It's not with me or my side.
Then he should have been charged with the assult of a fetus, and it should be a lesser crime because there was no child involved. If it isn't a crime for a woman, or abortionist, to assult a fetus then it shouldn't be a crime for anyone else.I

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287348 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we know you don't have a friend who is a mod? Clearly the posts of mine that were removed were the ones where I had answered your questions. Not any of the others, at all. Go figure.
So now you're NOT denying that you said I had the posts removed ? Make up your mind.
Let me get this straight now. I have a friend who is a Topix moderator and I had him remove some benign posts of yours simply so I could say that you never responded ? Moreover, these posts would have had to have been up and viewable prior to their being removed which means they were visible to anyone on here at the time who could verify that the posts in fact did exist. So how was ole Doc ever gonna get away with it.....even if we accept the absurd supposed motivation on my part. Amazing.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287349 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should have been charged with the assult of a fetus, and it should be a lesser crime because there was no child involved. If it isn't a crime for a woman, or abortionist, to a fetus then it shouldn't be a crime for anyone else.I
Your perspective completely overlooks woman's autonomy. She has sole discretion of carrying or rejecting pregnancy. No other 3rd party has this unless they are a durable power of attorney for her if she's incapacitated.

It has nothing to do with calling fetus an unborn baby/child at all. It is the PLM who insists on using emotional terms rather than clinical ones. Perhaps you can write to Operation Rescue or Jill Stanek and tell them to rewrite their documents for clarity's sake. Just an idea, Sue.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287350 Feb 27, 2013
For Sue and Doc (not ignoring you Doc),

"In Fetal Homicide Statutes:

Laws that treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double murder arguably affirm fetal rights in a statutory manner. Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will, it could be argued that the state's interest in protecting potential life is unrestricted in cases of fetal homicide. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter of whether fetal homicide, on its own, may constitute grounds for capital punishment."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/f...

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287351 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perspective completely overlooks woman's autonomy. She has sole discretion of carrying or rejecting pregnancy. No other 3rd party has this unless they are a durable power of attorney for her if she's incapacitated.
It has nothing to do with calling fetus an unborn baby/child at all. It is the PLM who insists on using emotional terms rather than clinical ones. Perhaps you can write to Operation Rescue or Jill Stanek and tell them to rewrite their documents for clarity's sake. Just an idea, Sue.
"Your perspective completely overlooks woman's autonomy."

No, it really doesn't. It either is an unborn child or it isn't. If it is, then they are both guilty of assulting an unborn child, if it isn't then neither of them are.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287352 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"What difference does it make except for the pretense?"
Because people are being charged with killing something that pro"choicers" say don't exist. If a woman was being charged with assulting her unborn child, the pro"choicers" would be out fighting, using the arguement that there is no unborn child, yet they are strangely quiet when it comes to anyone else being so charged. Heck, they won't even acknowledge their own hypocricy.
How can a woman be charged with assaulting her own unborn child without assaulting herself first? There is no hypocrisy, it can't be done. I guess this is why some pregnant women are not charged with abuse when they use drugs while pregnant. In some states (Florida) they can be, in others (Kentucky)they can't. It's not our hypocrisy, it's the systems hypocrisy. A charge doesn't always mean conviction. Haven't done the research but I bet the conviction rate is extremely low.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287353 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
For Sue and Doc (not ignoring you Doc),
"In Fetal Homicide Statutes:
Laws that treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double murder arguably affirm fetal rights in a statutory manner. Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will, it could be argued that the state's interest in protecting potential life is unrestricted in cases of fetal homicide. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter of whether fetal homicide, on its own, may constitute grounds for capital punishment."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/f...
The article that I posted wasn't about murder, it was about assult and whether it was a fetus or an unborn child-you can't kill or assult what doesn't exist.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287354 Feb 27, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>How can a woman be charged with assaulting her own unborn child without assaulting herself first? There is no hypocrisy, it can't be done. I guess this is why some pregnant women are not charged with abuse when they use drugs while pregnant. In some states (Florida) they can be, in others (Kentucky)they can't. It's not our hypocrisy, it's the systems hypocrisy. A charge doesn't always mean conviction. Haven't done the research but I bet the conviction rate is extremely low.
How can someone be charged with assulting what doesn't exist?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287355 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should have been charged with the assult of a fetus, and it should be a lesser crime because there was no child involved. If it isn't a crime for a woman, or abortionist, to assult a fetus then it shouldn't be a crime for anyone else.I
Well we could take it a step further and just make assaulting anyone not a criminal act.@@

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287356 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"When a woman miscarries she aborts."
There is a difference between the fetus, or unborn child, dying and killing them.
There is no difference in the process. They both die, they both get expelled, both pregnancies are terminated.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287357 Feb 27, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Well we could take it a step further and just make assaulting anyone not a criminal act.@@
Or we could make all assults criminal.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287358 Feb 27, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>There is no difference in the process. They both die, they both get expelled, both pregnancies are terminated.
Are you really this stupid?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#287359 Feb 28, 2013
Lol! Funny stuff!
hello

Allentown, PA

#287360 Feb 28, 2013
hi
Ocean56

AOL

#287361 Feb 28, 2013
The Prince wrote:
Was your mother punished with her pregnancies?
If a woman WANTS pregnancy and children, obviously not. Pregnancy IS a punishment for any woman who DOESN'T want pregnancy or children.

That's why women use contraceptives, "genius," to AVOID the unwanted outcome of pregnancy to the best of their ability. Militant religionist imbeciles like yourself don't seem to like the idea of women using contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy either. Too bad for you. Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required, which means women can reject it for any reason.
Ocean56

AOL

#287362 Feb 28, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
Anyone watching, "Makers," on PBS? Fantastic show! Please, Gtown71, et all, see it.
I watched it, and you're right, it IS a fantastic program. I had wanted to see a documentary produced that was a kind of follow-up to the first one, NOT FOR OURSELVES ALONE, which was about the women's movement beginning in the 19th century and ending with the passage of the 19th amendment. On Tuesday, my wish finally came true. lol

I have already put in my order for the DVD when it comes out. MAKERS is definitely one program I want to see more than once.:-)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287363 Feb 28, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"The exceptions don't disprove the rule."
Good point, but yet you condem Catholic hospitals for not performing abortions. It is rare that an abortion is necessary. Why should they be forced to perform abortions when medically necessary abortions are the exception, not the rule?
LOL, stop trying to change the subject, Spin Queen.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287364 Feb 28, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
It's either a fetus, or unborn child, both times or neither time.
It's a fetus, both times.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287365 Feb 28, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you finally agree that there it is wrong to charge someone with assult of an unborn child.
Yes, but there is nothing wrong with charging them with assAult on the woman, and forced abortion if she then loses her wanted pregnancy. It's anti-choicers that insisted there must be more to the charges, and used the emotionally charged terms in a failed attempt to use those laws to get at legal abortion through some sort of backdoor.

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) 3 min red and right 1,225,036
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 53,075
News Reputed mobster Vincent Artuso receives $225,00... (Jan '08) 4 hr Sal ubottz 16
News Goldenberg gets the Group 34 nod (Jul '08) 5 hr Lily 21
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 10 hr zazz 97,190
News Tips on caring for your aging parents (Feb '14) 11 hr anonymous 11
Review: YOGA AURA (May '14) 13 hr Jennie Ambrosio 4
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]