Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 315280 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.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275916 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have been more specific. That's why I thought you meant the whole statement was a lie. Try to think before you type next time.
Try to exercise that lonely neuron of yours a little more. The gift of Discernment is something your Jeebus will give you for free and all you have to do is ask for it.

"The baby that doesn't cry doesn't suck." So get to sucking. I mean to crying.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275917 Jan 11, 2013
This is interesting from that same law.

"‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

‘(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’."

Even after it states the law specifically does not permit prosecution for abortion; section (d) states that the terms we pro-lifers have used is what lawmakers use too. ALL referring to a human life in utrero and they make it clear, "at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

Who are the pro-choice idiots who claimeds that an unborn child is not a member of the homo sapiens species? Petey? STO? Carbon?

Just goes to prove how mind bogglingly ignorant and full of lying shit they all really are.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#275918 Jan 11, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says we HAVE to have an opinion on it. Its simply none of ANYONE'S business, like ANY medical decision of this nature.
You have an opinion on everything else even stuff you know nothing about. You are just too chicken to have one on this subject, gender selection abortion.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275919 Jan 11, 2013
Oh, forgot to add this tidbit. Mrs. Jumbo is Dumbo's mother.

Asking if I'm projecting as if you didn't see the Disney movie, "Dumbo" is hilarious. You're the one who called KW "Dumbo" to begin with.

Just another fine example of you not knowing or understanding what others say, right?
<chuckle>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#275920 Jan 11, 2013
Not if she doesn't want to be pregnant. PP does refer women to adoption services if they ask, but PP is a medical facility, not a social-worker office.

And yes--mind your own business. What the woman has or does not have within her body is absolutely NONE of your business.
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, then wouldn't ADOPTION be the better choice? Abortion isn't the only choice a woman has. If you're so pro-"choice" then why do you sound like you're saying a mom only has the choice to have a baby or abortion? Those aren't the only two choices out there. But organizations like Planned Parenthood never say the word adoption. When people ask a woman why they had an abortion alot of them say "I had no choice." I love the old argument, "Mind your own buisness about women's health." Okay, so I should ignore the fact that a woman is carrying "something" with a beating heart. That's like telling an enviornmentalist to mind thier own buisness about not wanting trees in the rainforrest to be cut down. Like telling an abolitionist in the 1850's to mind their own buisness about a slaveowner owning his "property"(slavery, like abortion, was also considered a constitutional right) Just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275921 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you needed to clarify it and you have.
I do not think someone referring, in general, to a stranger's unknown ZEF, as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling to anyone.
The stranger is an unknown, as is the ZEF. And whatever that stranger determines her ZEF to be is what matters. Somebody else's opinion means squat. Even if that somebody else reveres the ZEF and refers to it as a baby or doesn't give it a second thought and refers to it as a "useless wad of cells."
Katie is a "useless" excuse for a human being.

That's not belittling to you, according to what you're saying. I don't know you, you're a stranger to me.

" 'Useless' wad of cells" IS belittling, you ignoirant twit.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275922 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward. There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook. CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
"Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance."

Surely you can prove your claim.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275923 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask your daughters.
You taught them "bodily autonomy"......to death.
You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?

(quit crawling with the snakes and leave my grown daughters out of your posts, out of your thoughts altogether)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275924 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward. There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook. CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
Would like to add, FYI, "baby" is considered "viable" or "non-viable" BEFORE birth. The determination of viability happens while the child is still in utero. So, any claim you pea brains make about viability occuring after being born is hogwash.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#275925 Jan 11, 2013
Then call the fu**ing natural law police.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural Law of Human Beings states Katie's aborted granddaughter had a right to life. She was created just as she was supposed to be, living & growing exactly where she was meant to be. Intentionally killing her (and Katie encouraging her daughter to kill her) violated the Natural Law of Human Beings.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275926 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No pain perceived prior to 29-30 gestational weeks. Yep. That is part of the science being ignored while states rush to push out fetal pain laws.
Fetal pain laws aside, whether or not a fetus feels pain should never be a determination as to whether or not killing them is okay.

I just saw a program yesterday of a little girl who can't feel any pain at all. She can break bones, burn herself etc. and not feel a thing. Does lack of pain sensation make it okay to hurt her? Of course not.

The "fetus doesn't suffer" so killing them isn't a bad/wrong/immoral thing argument is senseless.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275927 Jan 11, 2013
Same with the "sentience" argument PCers here try to use. Senseless.

Whether or not someone is aware that they're being ripped apart by some killer doesn't make what's done to them alright.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275928 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability."
That is abject, unmitigated bullshit.
It is because of morons like you (not a baby until cord cut....not a baby until 48 hours after birth to allow the brain to develop more...blah blah...) and cPeter (a newborn is not viable if requires medical assistance to survive) that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was signed into law (2002). The government had to spell it out for ignoramuses like you.
Learn more.
They each make bullshit claims that they can't substantiate with any proof.

We make claims we can substantiate. They hate that about us. akes them look even more ignorant than their own posts have done.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275930 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you know there is no deceased granddaughter, CD. And that I offered for NR to refer to my lost pregnancy (a male), but he hasn't. Yet.
"...my lost pregnancy (a male)..."

You think a "pregnancy" has a gender? Wow. Just...wow.
sickofit

Austin, MN

#275931 Jan 11, 2013
If you dont like abortions dont get one...OTHER WISE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS...

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275933 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. But if FHL's didn't exist there would not even be a mechanism to charge. You can't be convicted unless you're charged first.
And you really think an ADA could get a conviction for Fetal Homicide if the perp hurts mom and mom is in the waiting room of an abortion clinic, just about to walk in to have the abortion? Doc, don't be stupid.
Doc Degall wrote:
Then we agree ! And your statement that FHL's exist for one reason and one reason ONLY, is not accurate.
Cherry picking again, huh? Love how you only copied the word "true."
Doc Degall wrote:
Saying it's the crux of FHL's is a lot different than saying it's the ONLY reason for their existence.
Actually no. It only sounds different. My comment was that FHLs exist for one purpose only; to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term. You said that they exist to seek criminal penalties for the unborn and without them, no such criminal penalty can be sought. And you're wrong.

What's the crux of any given subject if not the very reason for why they exist? How many core reasons you think there are for the existence of FHLs?
Doc Degall wrote:
Strictly punitive. If my wife is hurt or killed and her fetus killed during an assault on her person, I want the perp to pay, for the crime against her, and for the crime of homicide against the human life she carried. For me that would be a compelling reason and at that point I couldn't care less if it was a future deterrent.
So it's fair to say that you're approaching the issue of FHLs from an emotional stance and not an objective stance?
Doc Degall wrote:
You miss the point. Do you do that a lot in court ?
I didn't say laws were never a deterrent....only that there effectiveness as a deterrent is debatable.
And my point was that the FHL was obviously NOT a deterrent in that specific case. And that in the absence of it acting as a deterrent in that specific case it also served as a mechanism to charge and hopefully convict and punish.
I never miss the point Doc. My livelihood depends on me never missing the point.

In what specific case? I don't recall we discussing any specific case.

The core purpose of laws is to deter behavior that is not conducive to foster the standards of decent society and prevent negative repercussions. It's the very reason why there are laws such as those against smoking in school grounds; such as school speed zones; such as construction speed zones.

Do you realize that in Florida, as I'm sure it may very well be in other jurisdictions; speeding fines in a school zone, and in a construction zone when workers are present are doubled?

Do you also realize that in Florida, as I'm sure is similar in other jurisdictions, you can't get a fine for speeding when you're traveling 5 MPH over the speed limit, or less, and that such does not exist in school zones and construction zones when workers are present?

Why do you think that is; to zap the speeder with a double fine, or to protect the kids' and the workers' rights to feel safe on the job or on their way to and from school, and to DETER adversities from happening?

It doesn't mean that adversities won't happen, but at least there is a mechanism to punish those who cause them, if they happen. But the, again, the punishment is merely the effect. The cause for that effect is the rights we have to be safe at work, or at school, or on the way to or from school.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275934 Jan 11, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The studies were in and about the USA because it is legal here.
Well, who would know these are taking place if nobody checked the box marked Gender Selection on reasons why they're aborting?

Less than a million annual abortions to over four million annual live births in America. And you're upset about women from other countries -- maybe naturalized citizens, maybe not -- who might have abortions for gender purposes?

It's not that I have no interest in abortion for gender selection. It's not that I agree with it or disagree with it. It's that I don't think it's an issue to get caught up in here in the states. I think my energies are better applied toward the countries where girl/boy ratios are seriously skewed.

Along the same line, female circumcision has been brought in the open and discussed. A decade or so later, is finally being addressed. Did you ever think female circumcision was an issue here in America? I think there's been one or two cases of it, but not by cultural Americans.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275935 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I'm not big, it's stupid to call me Jumbo. Is that another psychological projection?
Kathwynn didn't cite any court transcripts, he only claimed something about what was in them. As to his comment about what newspapers called the Peterson "baby", I provided a document that was about a law made which states "unborn baby" and "human being" as the terms for when a child IN UTERO is killed as Connor was, and is what I had replied to his ignorant post with.
"Lazy reporting" was ireelevant to what I had provided in my posts about the Peterson baby that was killed in utero.
If anyone has the court transcript that shows Connor died {after} he "popped out" as Kathwyn said, then provide it.
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004", aka "Laci and Connor's law" is about a pregnant woman and her UNBORN child being killed.
I provided that law to show Kathwyn that not only did Connor die BEFORE "popping out" and not AFTER, as Kathwyn claimed, but that the law itself uses the terms "unborn child", "a child who is in utero" and "human being" to describe the human life IN UTERO. It also refers to the woman who's pregnant as "the child's mother".
Obviously, legally, those terms apply to the human lives in utero, and I didn't see it stated that those terms apply only at full term or at viability.
Now, you tell me how your question applies to anything that was being posted by me, or Kathwynn in response to my posts, or how what you posted rebuts the facts I posted. Facts Kathwyn tried to rebut and only displayed he's another pro-choicer who doesn't know anything on the topic he posts about, like you, Foo et al.
{As to his comment about what newspapers called the Peterson "baby", I provided a document that was about a law made which states "unborn baby" and "human being" }

Mistyped a word: "I provided a document that was about a law made which states ["unborn child"] and "human being"}
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275937 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...my lost pregnancy (a male)..."
You think a "pregnancy" has a gender? Wow. Just...wow.
Still providing wonderful examples of your poor comprehension skills. No surprise there.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275938 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward.
Tinker Bell is a coward. He also claimed that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. And he backpedaled on that one also.
There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook.
Don't tell me what I overlook. I overlooked nothing.

CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
I not only saw it I acknowledged it and responded to it. You're lying again. Just like you did when you said I left off the word "right" in my discussion with Bitter.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
That's not THE basic concept of viability, that's HIS position on what the basic concept of viability is. Go back and read.
But even if we were to concede that his position is the correct one, even he acknowledges that the application of medical assistance to support the remaining 50% of the O2 exchange would not preclude a determination of viability. By Tinker Bell's definition ( and yours ) an infant requiring ANY medical assistance to survive is NOT viable.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,565,676
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 16 hr Twaune12 20,977
How DEPRESSING is it living in The State Of Con... (May '16) 20 hr udougy 5
Why are puerto ricans so lazy & don't work? (Nov '13) Sun SJws tears 10
News Connecticut governor visits woman taking sanctu... Sun Claude H 2
News Over-65 & Working - Don't Let Disappointment Show Sun tears of a clown 1
News Memorable Nights At The Shaboo -- Courant.com (Aug '07) Sat Norch 165

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages