Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313669 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.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#276630 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think that you get pregnant with eight babies through NFP? WOW
It was a joke...duh.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#276631 Jan 14, 2013
Forum carlsbad nm wrote:
<quoted text>
When you hear his voice talking to you, you know him.
So you all have schizophrenia...that explains a lot.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276632 Jan 14, 2013
Wow...back off of the sacramental kool-aid. Not everyone equates a fetus with a born child, and they don't have to. Many married women abort for their own reasons, often with the husband's agreement.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but if married, and if hubby isn't pro death, and she wants to abort, it is a good chance the marriage won't last, but I doubt a woman willing to have her own baby killed worries much about a marriage though.
Mabey she can remarry and get pregnant again, but want to keep the baby this time and the hubby want her to abort, so the cycle of "love and marriage " continues :)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276633 Jan 14, 2013
That's what doctors DO...they help patients to heal. All the rest of your post was crap.
Forum carlsbad nm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would the doctors care?
He gave you life. He will take
your life when he wants to. He breathes life into us just like the wind. Maybe he likes you.
I know that I have died many times. I am here.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#276634 Jan 14, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a joke...duh.
Keep your day job because you don't have a feel for humor.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#276635 Jan 14, 2013
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?
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.
Gtown71

United States

#276636 Jan 14, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I strongly believe that a couple needs to resolve the important issue of whether to have children or not long BEFORE marriage is even considered. Why? Simple, because if one partner absolutely wants children and the other partner does NOT want them, this particular couple should NOT get married.
There are quite a few married couples out there who have chosen to be childFREE, which simply means "no kids by CHOICE." Just because a couple decides to get married DOESN'T mean that children will be part of the marriage.
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.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276637 Jan 14, 2013
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.
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.
Gtown71

United States

#276638 Jan 14, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Bullshyt.. you are trying to generalize and the world does not work that way.
You know and if were honest would acknowledge it.
You are not honest. you are a delusional at best and moronic f*cktard at worse.
Here is how it works out in the real world..
She gets pregnant. She decides to allow her husband to know she is pregnat. he may or may n be happy about this situtation.
Depending on where their lives are both economically, as a married couple, Her health, and what their long term plans are, if any.
She decides on what choice to keep or abort. It is her decision. He does not necessarily have to like it. But at the end will accept it as being her choice. As a mature adult should.
In your scenario he acts out like a spoiled brat for not getting his way. An immature little shyt. Which really points out a problem with their relationship. She needs to make a decision. Which Roe V Wade makes plain is hers alone.
As man I find the fact that many men, invariably are part of one of the Abrahamic religions, act as though they should always get the final word on what their wives should do with their bodies. The flimsy excuses of they love their wives or the worse one. Their god some how says so. Is just an immature response that is both pathetic and stupid.
In the real world a man support his partner and understands that it is not always about him. That sometimes the hardest decision is made when no one else can make it for you.
This is one such place in the real world. A woman does not need her husband having a snit. When she is the one that has to make and live with the decision. Regardless of which one she makes.
I know I just made to much sense again..
I realize that we don't live in a perfect world, and that sin abounds.
You act as if a child is no different then a 4- wheeler.
The husband has a right in Gods eyes to have what the two created.

God created evil, for without evil, then freewill would not truly be freewill.
you and those like you call evil good, and good evil.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#276639 Jan 14, 2013
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.
What would an 'unborn child' be other than a human being.

It is human and it is alive which makes it a being.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276640 Jan 14, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>That law defines that there are two victims, it doesn't define an unborn child as a human being.
Yes, it did "define" it that way, and by "define"; the words in that law clearly state the meaning of unborn child and human being were about the human life in utero.

You people NEVER understand what you read. I wish I could say it's just sometimes, but it's ALL the time.

""Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children"

That's about the victim in utero only, bonehead.

"‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother."

Do you see the words "separate offense" and "is the same punishment as..."? That's about the victim in utero only.

"‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child." That's about unborn child.

"‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

Again about the unborn child and is distinguishing that human life from that of its mother, and calling that human life in utero an unborn "child" and a "human being".

I could go on and cite each paragraph of that law having to do with the unborn child only, but you probably won't even understand the law even when I held your hand and broke it down FOR you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276641 Jan 14, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>bman is sassy trolling the thread.
Where's your proof of that claim?

I can claim you're a liar trolling the thread, and I have more proof than you do with your claim.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276642 Jan 14, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read this part?
"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;"
Yes, I did, nit wit. Since I wasn't using that law to say anything about ABORTION, it's not necessary to have it pointed out, is it? I was using that law to point out that the PCers who claimed that baby Connor died AFTER he "popped out" of his mother was a lie. He died in utero, and the UNBORN VICTIMS of Violence Act proved it.

Also using the law to point out that the human life in utero is considered an unborn "child" and a "human being" when the mother does NOT want it killed. THAT will come into play at some point in time to display the idiocy of claiming that those aborted are NOT a child or human being when it comes to abortion laws.

The child in utero being a sperate human being has already been in play when RvW made the provision for states to make abortion after viability illegal.

The Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is clea r in stating that the life in utero is an unborn child/human being at any time during gestation.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276643 Jan 14, 2013
Forum Mod wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stick to the topic and refrain from personal attacks.
We reserve the right to remove any post that violates Topix TOS.
Please feel free to kiss our collective asses. We reserve the right to ignore your stupid trolling, and ridicule the moronic mindset that thinks its fooling anyone.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276644 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you, some genes should not be passed on.
Sadly its too late for your people.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#276645 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What would an 'unborn child' be other than a human being.
It is human and it is alive which makes it a being.
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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276646 Jan 14, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
She ignored that part. She ignores everything she doesn't like.
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.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276647 Jan 14, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a joke...duh.
Inkstain simply isn't bright enough to figure these things out on her own.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276648 Jan 14, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Lily: "Are you and your mom the same human being? Yes or no?"
AyaDontKnow: "I'm not deflecting from answering the question, I can't answer the question"
______
'Nuf said.
Next..........
Exactly.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276649 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep your day job because you don't have a feel for humor.
Actually, LNM has a great sense of humor. On the other hand, you dont have ANY feel for intelligence.

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) 2 min Cheech the Conser... 1,509,421
News 16 Members And Associates Of La Familia Gang Ar... (May '08) 4 min Righteous 303
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 24 min Patriot AKA Bozo 8,071
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 34 min Patriot AKA Bozo 63,570
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 18 hr WPWW 20,933
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Sat doG mnaDed lyHo p... 71,273
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) Sat jhawki 322

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages