Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310372 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276756 Jan 14, 2013
Kathwynn's straight and my dance card's full through middle of march. I guess we aren't competition for you, although CD is unlikelyto be interested. Guess it's back to the playground for you...don't forget your bag of candy.
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you have done it. You have kathy and vlady fighting each other to get to you.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276757 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If he didn't die in the womb then we wouldn't have needed a law.
Inkstain, you give STUPID a whole new meaning.

Yes, its BELIEVED he MAY have been killed while she was still pregnant by many people, but even the coroner's report DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY STATE WHEN HE DIED.

Are you really THAT fking stupid that you think there was a law made because one man killed one pregnant woman? REALLY??

"WE" didn't need a law because HE died in or OUT of the womb you idiot child.

THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276758 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, everything posted is beyond you, Toots.
That is NOT why I brought up that law. You'd know that if you understood what you read and could discern which posts go with what discussions. Like the fool you are, you merged 2 different discussions into one and confused yourself. You then posted from your own confusion and tried to attribute your confusion as it being from my not knowing what I'm posting about. You're the one who doesn't know what she's talking about.
Then why did you bring up the law in response to me saying this law legally defines a fetus as a human being? You were fed paint chips as a child?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#276759 Jan 14, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>The fetus is never recognized as a person, with rights as a citizen. Huge point, there. Ignoring it, as usual, Ink?
True but he is getting more and more protections and considerations.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276760 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If he didn't die in the womb then we wouldn't have needed a law.
Oh and BTW you moron, the bill "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" was FIRST brought before congress in 1999 by its author Republican Lindsey Graham.

HOW many years was that BEFORE the Peterson murders?

Blows THAT theory huh?

ROFLMAO You and Lynne are really Sisters In Stupidity.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#276761 Jan 14, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Inkstain, you give STUPID a whole new meaning.
Yes, its BELIEVED he MAY have been killed while she was still pregnant by many people, but even the coroner's report DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY STATE WHEN HE DIED.
Are you really THAT fking stupid that you think there was a law made because one man killed one pregnant woman? REALLY??
"WE" didn't need a law because HE died in or OUT of the womb you idiot child.
THe law was made becuause of THOUSANDS of murders where the tragedy was twofold, the loss of the woman AND the wanted pregnancy.
Seven months gestation, where else would he be?

It wasn't just a wanted pregnancy, it was her baby boy, Conner.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276762 Jan 14, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask them the same question in the future, when they are on their deathbed, and I bet you'll get a different answer from them.
LOL When they're on their deathbed's, I'm sure the LAST thing they'll be thinking about is something that happened a lifetime ago that they never regretted to begin with.

Good lord you people are SERIOUSLY f'd up in your desprate desire for OTHER people to be as miserable as YOU think they should be.

@@

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276763 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted: "I haven't suggested anything. That law seems to be suggesting it, though, doesn't it, bonehead? "
Katie posted: "That is exactly what the law is suggesting. That the ZEF will be treated as a human being, same as its victimized mother, for purposes of sentencing punishment."
Why do you reply to my posts saying the exact same thing I said? Why not just post that you agree?
That's not what Ayakaneo was saying.
She's combining 2 different discussions, and the reason I posted that law had nothing to do with the reason that thouight I did. She thought it had something to do with a discussion she was having with NR. Can you people at least TRY to pay attention so you can stop looking like stupid fools who can't follow along?
NR said a fetus is a human being, I disagree then you respond to me by posting a law and claiming it legally defines a fetus as a human being. The only one trying to make this into two different discussions so that she doesn't appear incorrect is you. Your law clearly legally defines a fetus as an unborn child in utero and the punishment for causing harm or the death of is the same as it would be had a human being (the mother) been harmed or killed.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#276764 Jan 14, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
How DARE a woman choose to be something other than a brood mare?
You're saying she can't be a woman because she didn't have kids? Buy a dictionary and a fistful of clues. Did your god die and appoint YOU gender arbiter?
You'd think if alveda king was really suffering, she wouldn't have had MORE than one abortion?
My mom miscarried twice AND lost a child a month after birth; she said the two were NOTHING alike.
<quoted text>
Every time that broad posts her tripe, Jesus Christ cringes with embarrassment. Even his dad can't shut her up.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276765 Jan 14, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text> Wow, you are full of your own filth. Funny thing, I know women who have type one diabetes and have children, and are very sad when they miscarry,
I didn't say she wasn't sad about it Kuntbar - I said later on in her life she was THANKFUL it happened because of the level of illness on both her side AND my father's side of the family. At the time she was sad. But as the years went on and she learned more about how illnesses like MS and diabetes and genetic heart disease, she was thankful that stopped with HER.
my mom miscarried and felt the sadness way into her later years.
Goodie for her.
I would say you cannot speak for women because you refused to be a wife and mother by your choice.
Yet I am BOTH a wife AND a mother by my choice.

Oh, you mean because I ADOPTED one of the unwanted kids your kind rejected for years that means I cant speak for women?? ROFLMAO!! Oh fk you and the horse you rode in on Knutter.

Yeah, God gave you free will, you chose wrong,
Says who? YOU DONT MAKE THAT CALL y'dumb thing.

You will be accounted for your choice when you meet Christ face to face. AND YOU WILL.
Uh no. I wont. If G-d has an issue with my life and my choices, it will be between myself and Him.

If your jesus has an issue with it, he can fk himself too (and your horse as well), since he's not MY G-d. I certainly do NOT have to account to anyone that means LESS than nothing to me, not now and not ever.

If anything I would spit in his face for allowing idiots like you to DARE to think your kind speak for g-d.
Many women do suffer from an abortion, many have regretted it and spent years in therapy,
If they've spent years in therapy, they've got a LOT more issues that having an abortion.
Martin Luther King Jrs neice and others have gone through years of pain.
Oh horseshit. Alveda had her abortions and when she was beyond her slutty stage, and couldn't make any legitimate money, she decided to pimp herself out to the extremist right. I'm sure she's hurting a whole lot on her way to the bank.@@
You cannot speak for God when your views are so demonic.
I NEVER try to speak for G-d.

YOU do however, and that makes YOU demonic, since last I checked, nobody died and no gray smoke made YOU pope.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#276767 Jan 14, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do not use NFP. I cannot use NFP due to occasional antihistamine use for sinus headaches. I use the Rhythm Method and I was only able to do so in the last 7 years or so when my cycle became somewhat regular. Prior to that, my cycle was very irregular, I would've never been able to successfully use RM and my SO and I used condoms and spermicide. With that said, RM is not a method that I highly recommend unless one is truly open to the possibility of having another child simply because the failure rate is high. If one is truly adamant about preventing pregnancy, there are better and more effective methods to use. As with all methods of birth control, I always suggest that women research all methods, whether they be artificial or natural, and use the one that is best for them.
Thank you so much for clarifying that. Yes, anyone practicing NFP or RM must be aware that she is at high risk for pregnancy.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276768 Jan 14, 2013
Your opinion is as useful as your appendix.
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Pro-Choice people get upset that us Pro-Life people try to 'interfere with their business', yet when they get an abortion they are interfering with the continuing development of a human being. This makes them hypocrites in my opinion.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276769 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "The Victims of Violence act recognizes the fetus as AN ADDITIONAL VICTIM to the woman doing the gestating...
Exactly what I saisd.
Foo, "... but it does NOT recognize or grant PERSONHOOD to that fetus."
Never said it did, you ignorant buffoon. None of you fools gets that I only posted that for the purpose of proving Kathwynn wrong in his claim that Connor died "after popping out" of his mother. He died BEFORE, while still in utero, was the point.
You all post off of each other's stupidity in what you think someone posted or why they posted it.
you are a lying sack of trash. You posted that law in response to me and not anything Kathwynn said. You said it legally defined a fetus as a human being. I said it defines a fetus as a victim and the punishment for harming or causing the death of is the same. LOL.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276770 Jan 14, 2013
It actually would be, but that's not what I did.
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
"I worked in the medical field for years"
Cleaning up after all the abortions at the Planned Deathhood clinic is not working in the medical field, pagan.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276771 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

Never said it did, you ignorant buffoon. None of you fools gets that I only posted that for the purpose of proving Kathwynn wrong in his claim that Connor died "after popping out" of his mother. He died BEFORE, while still in utero, was the point.
Uh no Lynne, that may have been YOUR "point", but as usual, you're a moron with NO idea what she's talking about.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first introduced in Congress in 1999 by then-Congressman (later Senator) Lindsey Graham.

1999. Years BEFORE their deaths.

It had NOTHING to do with the Petersons.

At one time, the year it was finally passed (years AFTER their deaths) it was nicknamed Laci and Conner's Law.

It had NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the kid died in or out of his mothers womb you dumbass, it was that they were VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE.

California HAD a fetal homicide law intact at the time.

And the FACT is that it is NOT KNOWN if he died before or after, despite your bullshit claims.

The Unborn Victims of Violence act had nothing to do with the Petersons EXCEPT the family lent their name to the cause to get federal legislation going because of the publicity of the murders.

You seem to think the law was drafted BECAUSE of the kid, when NOTHING could be further from the truth and that your claims are legitimized BY the law.

You're an idiot. But its HYSTERICAL to watch!! THANK You for the laugh!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#276772 Jan 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
True but he is getting more and more protections and considerations.
Most of those little actions are so narrow and localized that they are fairly ineffective. A fetus will never have the status of "person," or citizen. You, of course, just dismissed that fact with your little, "True, but..." Again, it's a huge point. Huge, and it is what will always protect a woman's right to choose.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#276773 Jan 14, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL When they're on their deathbed's, I'm sure the LAST thing they'll be thinking about is something that happened a lifetime ago that they never regretted to begin with.
Good lord you people are SERIOUSLY f'd up in your desprate desire for OTHER people to be as miserable as YOU think they should be.
@@
I take care of dying people. I work overnight shift. That's the quiet time when my patients think, reflect and talk about their lives. We hear a lot of very personal stuff. I have yet to hear one woman say one word about an abortion.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276774 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Fo: "Its for the purposes of adding more charges to the perpetuator of the crimes, and that's ALL its about.
The law recognizes the POTENTAL of the ZEF to BECOME a human being, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy, and its acting ON that potental -..."
No it's not, liar. It's clear on what it means by the law, and nowhere does it state "potential" unborn child, or "potential".
You're making shit up and posting it like it's fact and it's nothing but more of your lies.
You provide where, in that law it states the word "potential". If you won't, it's because you know you can't because it's not there.
I never SAID It was there IN the law you FLIPPING DUMBASS!! LOL!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I never said OR inferred.

I'm talking about why the laws were created to begin with.

THese laws were written because tragedies were compounded when a woman with a wanted pregnancy was murdered, PARTICULARLY when it was a late term pregnancy with a viable fetus, and NO laws existed that would punish the perpetuator of the crimes for the dead fetus.

There were cases where the woman lived and the fetus died, and all the perpetuator got was a slap on the wrist.

These laws were written and created because the law RECOGNIZED THE POTENTAL CHILD, and they HAD to come up with laws to effectively punish those that until the early 2000's, were walking away effectively unpunished and unscathed.

In FACT the law was SPECIFICALLY crafted from cases like Tracy Marciniak back in 1992, who's husband tried to kill her, instead killed the fetus 5 days before her due date.

He went to jail for less than a year.

THAT is why these laws were written, to cover the cases where the woman DIDN'T die, but her WANTED fetus was, and to be able to prosecute EFFECIVELY the perpetuators of the crimes.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#276775 Jan 14, 2013
The bible also says you can kill them if they are disobedient, or just dash their brains against the rocks.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It only goes against the dehumanizing terms that pro choicers use instead of a child. He/she is called a child in the Bible and now in the Law.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#276776 Jan 14, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted: "I haven't suggested anything. That law seems to be suggesting it, though, doesn't it, bonehead? "
Katie posted: "That is exactly what the law is suggesting. That the ZEF will be treated as a human being, same as its victimized mother, for purposes of sentencing punishment."
Why do you reply to my posts saying the exact same thing I said? Why not just post that you agree?
That's not what Ayakaneo was saying.
She's combining 2 different discussions, and the reason I posted that law had nothing to do with the reason that thouight I did. She thought it had something to do with a discussion she was having with NR. Can you people at least TRY to pay attention so you can stop looking like stupid fools who can't follow along?
I am paying attention. Here, for those "stupid fools who can't follow along."
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>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.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

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) 4 min Dagger Waxman 1,264,828
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 15 hr Oh well 20,085
News How Black Women Have Been Leaning In Forever 17 hr Fart news 8
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 23 hr Ariel Sharon 70,149
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Sun budd 54,341
News Memorable Nights At The Shaboo -- Courant.com (Aug '07) Sun Neil SS Bluesfest 151
News Dining Detour: Restaurants near Nassau Coliseum (Jan '09) Jul 31 Joan 12
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages