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 (Page 12,645)

Showing posts 252,881 - 252,900 of305,064
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269224
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>Cpeter: If you cloned humans, the DNA test would read the same as that of a non-clonal human.

Even your liberal ilk believe cloning humans is beyond the pail. It's illegal, and makes your point moot. Again.
Just as moot as all your fuss about abortion being murder, since it is legal.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269225
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion terminates a pregnancy. Cold, but true nonetheless.
Truth, reality, and facts just are not their best friends...

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269226
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Junket wrote:
<quoted text>Puddles, you can not seem to resist attacking a poster when you've run out of ways to counter a post.

It's childish on your part. Granted, my naming you "Puddles" is also immature, but I figured you liked it better than "Basement Boy" or "No Relevance".
Or Eunuch

Hiya Pippy!!!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269227
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>"pail"? Try "PALE" you moron.

[QUOTE] It's illegal, and makes your point moot. Again.
"

So are most LTA's except those for a woman's health - yet your kind keep babbling about them as if they're still happening.

Nice double standard there No Relevance.
Happy Hanukkah Foo. Best to your family.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269228
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, often it is.
actually it never is.

My Lai Massacre mean anything to you dunce?
the victims at my lai were not considered collateral damage. they were most certainly the intended targets of their killers.

research collateral damage before you decide to weigh in, dunce.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collateral+d...
HuskerDu

Falls City, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269229
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF are you babbling about Knutbar?
You were so upset that I said this woman made up her hate crime. YOU really believed this woman's story. I guess the crack you smoked is making you absent minded.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269231
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
That should read "they've broken out that shared SN again. Too cowardly is all.
Yeah. Not surprised, though.
Are you?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269232
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
actually it never is.
<quoted text>
the victims at my lai were not considered collateral damage. they were most certainly the intended targets of their killers.
research collateral damage before you decide to weigh in, dunce.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collateral+d...
I know what collateral damage is you dumbass. And your comment was

"and collateral damage during war is not intentional killing for inconvenience."

My Lei, being MURDERS certainly was considered collateral damage as it pertained to civillian deaths during the WAR.

Collateral damage encompasses of all the people who have killed or injured, whom nobody particularly intended to kill or maim, but who just happened to be in the way.

That was My Lei. Captain Ernest Medina who ordered the clearing of the village, did not intend for the civillians to be raped and killed, thus, they were collateral damage even tho they were intentionally murdered by Calley and his cronies.

And as CD pointed out, Hiroshima was yet another example.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269233
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

HuskerDu wrote:
<quoted text>You were so upset that I said this woman made up her hate crime. YOU really believed this woman's story. I guess the crack you smoked is making you absent minded.
Knutbar, I have NO idea what the hell you're babbling about. Your link didn't work, and I dont know what "her" you're raving about.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269234
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
yeah, really

So when there's a massacre at a movie theater, the deaths were not intentional?
of course they were. which means they were not collateral damage. they were the intended targets

Seems to me that there's little difference between deliberate targeting and happenstance.
duh, ya think?
You seem to disagree. Okey dokey.
"seem" to? your elevator doesn't seem to go all the way to the top floor

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269235
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, really
<quoted text>
of course they were. which means they were not collateral damage. they were the intended targets
<quoted text>
duh, ya think?
<quoted text>
"seem" to? your elevator doesn't seem to go all the way to the top floor
And you seem to be just another little pissant coward venting its spleen meaninglessly on a messageboard LOL!
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269236
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what collateral damage is you dumbass.
no you don't. and what's written below proves it.
And your comment was
"and collateral damage during war is not intentional killing for inconvenience."
accurate
My Lei, being MURDERS certainly was considered collateral damage as it pertained to civillian deaths during the WAR.
no it wasn't
not all civilian caualties during war are necessarily collateral damage
Collateral damage encompasses of all the people who have killed or injured, whom nobody particularly intended to kill or maim, but who just happened to be in the way.
my lai victims were most certainly their killers targets. by your own definition in order to be considered collateral damage "nobody particularly intended to kill or maim". my lai victims did not qualify
That was My Lei. Captain Ernest Medina who ordered the clearing of the village, did not intend for the civillians to be raped and killed, thus, they were collateral damage even tho they were intentionally murdered by Calley and his cronies.
ridiculous. if i as a commander give the order to "defeat the enemy", and my subordinates interpret that to mean that deliberate killing of civilians is the way to do that, it doesn't mean my subordinates' victims are collateral damage simply because i didn't intend for them to kill them.
And as CD pointed out, Hiroshima was yet another example.
civilians were targeted in those bombings. they were not considered collateral damage.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269237
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you seem to be just another little pissant coward venting its spleen meaninglessly on a messageboard LOL!
but in this instance, a right little pissant coward :-)

you think your countless vents here are any less meaningless than mine?
HuskerDu

Falls City, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269238
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Knutbar, I have NO idea what the hell you're babbling about. Your link didn't work, and I dont know what "her" you're raving about.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/prosecutor-neb...
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269239
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Right, so the medical and legal scholars recommend using Merriam?
merriam-webster "medical" dictionary genius. you think they just made it up?

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmed...

here's still another for you.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/ar...

but what do you say instead of beating up every medical definition i come up with, you provide one of your own that proves me wrong?
HuskerDu

Falls City, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269240
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Knutbar, I have NO idea what the hell you're babbling about. Your link didn't work, and I dont know what "her" you're raving about.
Here's another one http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-c...

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269241
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
merriam-webster "medical" dictionary genius. you think they just made it up?
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmed...
here's still another for you.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/ar...
but what do you say instead of beating up every medical definition i come up with, you provide one of your own that proves me wrong?
Well your Merriam Webster says OR UNBORN OFFSPRING. So there ya go. There does not have to be a developing fetus in the uterus. Unborn alive or unborn dead she's still pregnant.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269243
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
no you don't. and what's written below proves it.
***pat pat***

You keep thinking that Sparky.
<quoted text>
no it wasn't
Yes actually it was.
not all civilian caualties during war are necessarily collateral damage
If they were not intentionally targeted, or if their deaths were not specifically anticipated, then yes, they are.

<quoted text>
my lai victims were most certainly their killers targets.
They were not the MILITARY'S targets. And CERTAINLY not in that manner.
by your own definition in order to be considered collateral damage "nobody particularly intended to kill or maim". my lai victims did not qualify
Except they DID qualify, since their deaths was not intended by Calley's superiors.
ridiculous. if i as a commander give the order to "defeat the enemy", and my subordinates interpret that to mean that deliberate killing of civilians is the way to do that, it doesn't mean my subordinates' victims are collateral damage simply because i didn't intend for them to kill them.
If you as a commander are a moron, and fail to give SPECIFIC enough orders that fail to include "and oh by the way guys, lets not rape and murder innocent women and children and toss them in ditches" then YOU are as much at fault as your murdering subordinates.

HOWEVER, that was NOT the military's intention, thus, they WERE collateral damage in that way. If only because of the military's failures to judge the readiness and sanity of its soldiers and their failure to anticipate such atrocities.
civilians were targeted in those bombings. they were not considered collateral damage.
SOME were targeted, but the DEGREE of the deaths and destruction was NOT anticipated. Everything out of the ANTICIPATED kill and damage zones was collateral damage, and that was ENORMOUS. The decision to use the first atomic bombs in history to halt the worst war the world had ever known created collateral damage in both cities bombed. They crippled the nation of Japan for many years, and THAT was not anticipated, nor was the long term affects of the radiation - ALL collateral damage, in some cases still felt to this day.

Was SOME of it anticipated? Yes, but not all, and THAT is where the collateral damage comes in.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269244
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HuskerDu wrote:
<quoted text> Here's another one http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-c...
SOrry dimbulb, but all that link takes one to is something that says "Sorry, that page doesn't exist!
The page you requested isn't here, but there are a few things you can try…"

"Another one" what jackass? What the hell ARE you babbling about?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269246
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well your Merriam Webster says OR UNBORN OFFSPRING. So there ya go. There does not have to be a developing fetus in the uterus. Unborn alive or unborn dead she's still pregnant.
If she's got a fetus in her, she's pregnant, dead or alive, which is why they discuss having to "deliver" the dead fetus.

A rare condition is called "stone pregnancy" which can go on for years.

http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/03/04/4...

http://www.doctorsreview.com/history/fetal-ro...

Then there's "nonviable pregnancies"

http://www.babymed.com/prematurity/pregnancy-...

Women with non-viable pregnancies are STILL PREGNANT.

"3. The pregnancy or fetus is nonviable: A nonviable pregnancy would be a pregnancy where there is no heart beat or where the hCg is not rising normally. It could be a pregnancy with a dead fetus. A nonviable pregnancy is a pregnancy without a chance of a live infant being born or without the fetus having a chance to survive if born alive."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 252,881 - 252,900 of305,064
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••