Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311628 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.

Gtown71

United States

#276956 Jan 15, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, johnnycakes, evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creator, but you're too busy puking your ignorance on topix to be bothered to learn something.
Can you EVER prove anything you claim?
Yes, we all evolve from being babies into adults, but none of us came from slimmy rocks.

I believe the earth is about 7 thousand years old, and the mountains and valleys are from the flood we had about 4 thousand years old. Plus the flood is talked about in just about every culture known to man. Stories may vary, just like three people can sit and watch the same tv show, but explain what happened in three difderent ways.

People don't want a God, becouse they love sin.
They love sex, but don't love stds or being pregnant, so they push for meds and laws to help them get rid of the problems.
heck, even computers get viruses from porn. Lol

Sin has consequences.
When we die in our sins we have everlasting consequences.

Jesus died for us, and wants His rightfull place, that's all.
How hard is that?
very hard to pridefull, sinfull people.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276957 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No moron, I did not claim "it legally defines" a fetus as a human being.

That's how you MISREAD what was said.

I said that in THAT law, they "defined" the fetus as an "unborn child", and also a "human being".

A law is something LEGAL.
Alrighty then.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276958 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you understood they were defining the fetus as a "human being" in that law.
Now that you've put what Ayakaneo said next to what you had said, I see now that you didn't get it either.
Katie: "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."
Ayakaneo: "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."
The law states, "‘(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."
["If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall...be punished ...for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."]
They're not just "treating" the fetus "as" a human being as Katie claimed; and they're not saying the punishment for killing a fetus is "the same punishment one would get for doing the same to a human being".
Wrong on both counts. They're saying the fetus IS the human being the person who killed them will be punished for doing so.
They're not defining the ZEF as an unborn child or a human being. They're saying, for sentencing purposes (for punishment of the crime of violence against a pregnant woman), the ZEF will be treated as a human being, just like it's mother is.

You have to read and understand that "subparagraph A" states what the punishment HAD BEEN when a ZEF was killed by a 3rd party. And that NOW sentencing is "...provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

You've been C&Ping it for days now.
The law states, "(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."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276959 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "Oh and BTW, according to the autopsy and coroner report (link already provided) she was 9 months pregnant (your buddy Inkstain said 7 months) and MAY have given birth before they were murdered.
Nobody knows."
LOL bumbling buffoon. Her FAMILY knew how far along she was when she "disappeared" that Dec.. THEY said she was 8 months pregnant.
I dont really care what THEY said thanks, I'll go with the coroner's report and the court testimony, which I've provided and you're chosing to ignore for a Good Morning America fluff piece, because it says what you WANT it to say, as opposed to what the FACTS are.

Typical for you really.
Gtown71

United States

#276960 Jan 15, 2013
I forgot I was writing to 5 year olds. My sister is the only one left. You act like the man is asking his wife for a threesome. It is their child we are talking about. Sex is a small part of a long term marriage. And not all live for lust. The main purpoe of marriage, is to start a family. Yet the world we live in wants coffee shops by day, and sex bars by night. When folks get old, they never look back, when they are all alone, and are thankfull they had no kids.
cpeter1313 wrote:
Why would a loving husband want his wife to go through something she is opposed to? And who are you to tell anyone how they "should" feel?
Yes, people can CHOOSE to have kids...what a revelation. But it can't be a choice without an alternative, which would be a choice NOt to have kids.
Gays arent sterile idiot. Many have had kids, through various scenarios.
You enjoyed watching your sister die, and then have the temerity to judge anyone else?
<quoted text>

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276961 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion isn't substantiated fact,
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOO!! Anyone else catch that Lynnie found herself a new word, and she'd using it as often as she can?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276962 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Iproved it several times. Most noitably, the time when he knew he couldn't prove his claims and decided to "ignore" my posts.
When he claimed a late term abortion for eclampsia in late pregnancy is needed, and also claimed a c-section would "kill" her.
That's medical, he proved he's full of shit and doesn't know anything of a medical nature, and when I showed him proof that an LTA isn't needed for eclampsia then asked him to prove his claim, he sudedenly started ignoring my posts.
I prove my claims. You idiots are the ones who can't. You may try, but you don't prove what you claim, no matter how hard you try.
And as CPtr said, conveyed, and some of us also said, conveyed, extreme circumstances may call for extreme measures. Nobody was saying that every single case of pre-ecclampsia would have that kind of end-result. But it does happen to be necessary treatment for maybe 1 out of 250,000. But you want to deny a therapeutic abortion for that one.

This has been posted to you often enough, I'm surprised someone of your self-proclaimed intellectual level hadn't gotten it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276963 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't posted anything that was wrong. All you proved was that you can't read posts, or laws, or court documents for comprehension. What you haven't done is prove me wrong.
Actually, I've proven you wrong quite often, both in the past (when you claimed that you knew someone "born in a PVS" which has never happened in history for just ONE example, and in the present, when you claimed:
lil Lily wrote:
I posted that law because Kathynn the Dummy claimed Connor was born when he died. Another PCer went along with him in that. I proved them wrong by showing that law. That law was proving Connor was NOT BORN when he was killed.
And -
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided a law that substantiated he died before he was born.
The LAW didn't prove shit about whether or not he was alive or dead when born.

The LAW didn't "substantiate" anything of the kind.

In fact, that law had very little to do with the Peterson murders at all, since ALL it was, was the family jumping into the political arena by lending their name to it because of the publicity at the time.

Just one MORE example of you being wrong.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#276964 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
This question is for you married Pro-Choice women.
If your husband was to have an affair and get another woman pregnant and you then found out that she has decided to have his child, would you consider her choice wrong/immoral, or would you respect her decision since every woman has the right to make her own choices in life and nobody has the right to try to make her change her mind?
Why do you have such a low opinion of PC'ers in general and women in particular?

If my husband had an affair he wouldn't have to worry about packing his bags. My neighbors, if watching, would think it was snowing clothing. What would happen to him after that would be none of my business. Much like the uterine contents of another.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276966 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't legally define a fetus as a human being. It clearly defines a fetus as an unborn child with the same rights of protection against harm as any other born person. There is no legal definition of human being.
I didn't say it was a "legal definition", you bonehead. I said for the purposes of THAT law, a fetus was defined IN THAT LAW as an unborn child and also as a human being.

You don't even know what the word "define" means, do you? If you did, you'd know you sound mind bogglingly ignorant about this. Bad enough your claims of what I've said make you sound that way already.

You sound as uneducated about what you post on as the PC boneheads who tried to claim RvW didn't define viability, when it did, and clearly. You were one of those boneheads too, weren't you?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276968 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not defining the ZEF as an unborn child or a human being. They're saying, for sentencing purposes (for punishment of the crime of violence against a pregnant woman), the ZEF will be treated as a human being, just like it's mother is.
You have to read and understand that "subparagraph A" states what the punishment HAD BEEN when a ZEF was killed by a 3rd party. And that NOW sentencing is "...provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
You've been C&Ping it for days now.
<quoted text>
Mind boggling ignorance you display.

That part states they will be punished for a separate crime against a second HUMAN BEING, the unborn child. They are defining that separate crime is against another human being, other than the mother. That is WHY they're defining fetus as meaning the OTHER human being killed, the unborn child in utero.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276970 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Ramble on, Toots. I asked for proof I said the law was about the Petersons..
Sure. No problem.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Connor obviously died while in utero or he wouldn't have been named in that particular law, would they?
Clearly you didn't have a CLUE that why he (AND HIS MOTHER BTW) were named because the family wanted to lend their name to help push the law through congress, and thats about it.

The FACT is that at the TIME OF THE LAWS PASSAGE, the coroner's report had not been released, and in FACT it is STILL NOT KNOWN if he died in utero OR after he was born. There is no SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE either way.

You and inkstain BOTH believed that their deaths were directely related to this law, but in FACT, the bill had been before congress for YEARS before the murders.

Its very clear that you didn't have a clue about the history of the bill, because IF you did, you wouldn't have spent two days babbling such bullshit LOLOLOL!!
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276971 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
This question is for you married Pro-Choice women.
If your husband was to have an affair and get another woman pregnant and you then found out that she has decided to have his child, would you consider her choice wrong/immoral, or would you respect her decision since every woman has the right to make her own choices in life and nobody has the right to try to make her change her mind?
There are some wives who've raised their husbands' "indiscretions". There are some who wouldn't dream of it. There are some who'd welcome the "indiscretion" into the family, and some who wouldn't.

And V. C. Andrews writes stories about control freak women who tie pregnant women to beds throughout pregnancy and delivery.

I picture you as one of V. C. Andrews' control freak character.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276975 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
And as CPtr said, conveyed, and some of us also said, conveyed, extreme circumstances may call for extreme measures. Nobody was saying that every single case of pre-ecclampsia would have that kind of end-result. But it does happen to be necessary treatment for maybe 1 out of 250,000. But you want to deny a therapeutic abortion for that one.
This has been posted to you often enough, I'm surprised someone of your self-proclaimed intellectual level hadn't gotten it.
"Nobody was saying that every single case of pre-ecclampsia would have that kind of end-result. But it does happen to be necessary treatment for maybe 1 out of 250,000. But you want to deny a therapeutic abortion for that one."

Prove that Petey wasn't talking about all pregnant women in late pregnsancy with eclampsia. We had been talking about VIABLE fetuses in late pregnancy.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276976 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I've proven you wrong quite often, both in the past (when you claimed that you knew someone "born in a PVS" which has never happened in history for just ONE example, and in the present, when you claimed:
<quoted text>
And -
<quoted text>
The LAW didn't prove shit about whether or not he was alive or dead when born.
The LAW didn't "substantiate" anything of the kind.
In fact, that law had very little to do with the Peterson murders at all, since ALL it was, was the family jumping into the political arena by lending their name to it because of the publicity at the time.
Just one MORE example of you being wrong.
You haven't proven me wrong either time, because I know the facts of both items you mentioned.

Do you know what the word "substantiate" means? It means verify with proof OR competent evidence.

The competent evidence has already been provided to you by me, with the links. Problem is, it takes a competent person to understand the competent evidence. You won't.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276977 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Junket: "Why do you have such a low opinion of PC'ers in general"
_____
You answered your own question in your final sentence:
"What happens to uterine contents of another is none of my business."
You refer to the most vulnerable human beings as "uterine contents".....you do not value human life in the least.....you do all you can to dehumanize innocents.....you selfish pig.
Well, now, I thought I'd never say this to another woman, much less someone who claims to be a guy (virginal or not). But have you seen a doctor about your hysterical over-reactions? They have better treatments these days. I urge you to go.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#276978 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some wives who've raised their husbands' "indiscretions". There are some who wouldn't dream of it. There are some who'd welcome the "indiscretion" into the family, and some who wouldn't.
And V. C. Andrews writes stories about control freak women who tie pregnant women to beds throughout pregnancy and delivery.
I picture you as one of V. C. Andrews' control freak character.
So, what I getting from you and the other PC women in here is that you would not want the woman to get an abortion, is this correct?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276979 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make any wrong claims.
SUre you did. Here's just a few more.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No moron, I did not claim "it legally defines" a fetus as a human being. That's how you MISREAD what was said. You people seriously don't have ANY adult reading comprehension skills. It's mind boggling. Then you make posts from your own ignorance of what was said as though we're the idiots when you each prove you are.
I said that in THAT law, they "defined" the fetus as an "unborn child", and also a "human being". A law is something LEGAL. Can you put 2 and 2 together and come yup with 4, you fool?
You're wrong. AGAIN.

They did NOT "define" the fetus as a "human being" in ANY way. In fact the words "human being" ONLY are in that law once - and its in reference to the PUNISHMENT.

"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."

You've also made the claim that the law is not about the mother but ONLY about the "unborn victim" when in FACT, its ALL about the mother as well - which is why Laci - the name of the MOTHER - is in the title too - and the law recognizes that for ANYTHING that creates an "unborn victim", MUST ALSO HAVE HAPPENED TO THE WOMAN DOING THE GESTATING.

"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."

So AGAIN - you're wrong.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276980 Jan 15, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
And just who told you I "feel" criticized? Cake boss? I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy, or carry her pregnancy to term. And I support both choices EQUALLY.
<quoted text>
Woopty f*cking doo.
<quoted text>
I'm not only pro-choice, I'm also pro-law. And the law says that there are limits to elective abortion. I support that as well.
<quoted text>
Is there any better suggestion for adoption than actually adopting?
<quoted text>
Not that it offends me, because nothing you or any other idolater hypocrite could say can offend me, but fact is, you pout, kick and scream every time you're called an anti-choicer and a hypocrite. So if it's good for the goose..........
""""" And just who told you I "feel" criticized""" """

You said that prolifers "criticize" prochoicers by referring to them as proaborts. So,it is you that told me that you felt criticized.

""""I'm not only pro-choice, I'm also pro-law""" "

You are not prochoice if you side with the law that restricts a womans choice as to when,why and how she can kill/abort her child in the womb.

""""" "you pout, kick and scream every time you're called an anti-choicer""" ""

No,I actually AM anti-choice to kill/abort. I've made that crystal clear. See,I say what I mean,mean what I say. YOUR side doesn't.

Sorry Charlie.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276981 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. No problem.
<quoted text>
Clearly you didn't have a CLUE that why he (AND HIS MOTHER BTW) were named because the family wanted to lend their name to help push the law through congress, and thats about it.
The FACT is that at the TIME OF THE LAWS PASSAGE, the coroner's report had not been released, and in FACT it is STILL NOT KNOWN if he died in utero OR after he was born. There is no SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE either way.
You and inkstain BOTH believed that their deaths were directely related to this law, but in FACT, the bill had been before congress for YEARS before the murders.
Its very clear that you didn't have a clue about the history of the bill, because IF you did, you wouldn't have spent two days babbling such bullshit LOLOLOL!!
I posted: "I asked for proof I said the law was 'about' the Petersons."

Foo provides the following as proof:

Lil Lily, "Connor obviously died while in utero or he wouldn't have been named in that particular law, would they? "

LOL, you buffoon. That's not saying the attempts to pass that law haven't been made before, and it doesn't imply it's 'all about' the Petersons" either. I was ONLY saying something about Connor being UNBORN and is why HIS NAME is included in a law on UNBORN VICTIMS of violence.

Damn you're stupid.

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) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,420,109
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 18 min Ize Found 70,974
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 19 min Into The Night 61,076
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Sat Hipocrit 20,505
Chris Powell Editor of the JI investigated for ... Aug 22 HCourantsub 1
News SEA CLIFF: Paramedic arrested on child harm cha... (Jun '08) Aug 21 Greg 55
CAR Accident on Friday April 22, 2016 Apr '16 MarcusT20073 1

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages