Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311364 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.

“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.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276982 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "boundaries" are ONLY defined by two consenting adults. YOU and your kind do not define those boundaries.
Yeah dumbo,but we are discussing TEENS.

Pay attention.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276983 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
AyakaNeo and Bhitler need to split the cost & share a Thesaurus.
They both play this odd verbal gymnastics game of saying "a human" (noun) is not a synonym for "a human being".
They are either really, really stupid, or are so defensive & emotionally weak that they have to play psychological mind games with themselves.
Not one of those people knows how to understand the definitions even if they looked words up. I provide definitions and still they miss it and try to redefine what's already been defined. Most of them don't know the meaning of the word "define", so seriously, they're totally screwed in trying to understand what they read and what they've argued with us about. They don't even have what we've been saying right. How the hell can they argue intelligently? They can't, and they don't.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276984 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.
Exactly.

The ONLY time it mentions the words "human being" at all, is when discussing punishment.

Lynnie likes to bitch about OTHERS reading comprehension abilities, when CLEARLY her own are in question!

Its pretty funny really!
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276985 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know? You claim never to've experienced abortion. How would you know what every woman feels or goes through? Are you every woman?
First you say "won't regret it" then you say "finally admitted their guilt" then you say "live evil lives".
Which one is it? Does every woman regret it or not?
Here's proof positive it's you who is "a mess".
Regret isn't always admitted to at first. I do believe that women who abort will always feel the truth in their heart. Our consciences don't deceive us at first. MANY will cover the guilt up. Some for a short period of time,and others it will take a life time. The FACT that they are covering it up shows me that they know that something isn't right with what they did.

Sin doesn't escape anyone Katie. I don't care what fascade one puts on.

Let's take a look at these women on here who have aborted OR ones that have driven/supported women for their abortions. Guilt is obvious. See,abortion is legal. WHY in the world would you people be spending your every waking hour on an abortion forum?

Guilt.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276986 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
SUre you did. Here's just a few more.
<quoted text>
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.
Foo: "They did NOT "define" the fetus as a "human being" in ANY way. In fact the words "human being" ONLY ..."

You're just as wrong as Katie was when she posted that very same thing you just repeated from her.

As I posted to Katie when she tried that stupidity; 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.
Gtown71

United States

#276987 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.
Peterson murders?
So the unborn child did count.
Since it was only after the unborn popped out of the mother, when the police had a lead.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#276988 Jan 15, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>That makes you a hypocrite and not really pro-choice as you are limiting the right of a woman to do as she wants with her body.
LMFAO!!!

1- The title of hypocrite belongs to you Xtian idolaters.

2- I'm not powerful enough to limit my own wife's choices, let alone any woman.

Nice try dumbdumb.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#276989 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Dummy, "uteri" is plural. Maybe you should stop trying to learn Latin and start learning English.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uteri

"
u·ter·us
[yoo-ter-uh&#8201;s] Show IPA

noun, plural u·ter·i [yoo-tuh-rahy] "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%...

"Definition of IN UTERO

: in the uterus : before birth <a disease acquired in utero> <an in utero diagnosis>

Origin of IN UTERO

Latin
First Known Use: 1713"

You're ignorant and uneducated buffoon. You PC all claim to be educasted and yet your posts belie your claims. You accuse PLers of not being educated and we're the ones proving you for the dummies you are. Funny stuff.
Yeah yeah yeah.

I was mistaken. Savor it all you can Lynne. It's all you'll ever have on me.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276990 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're SO full of shit Skankdawg. The FACT is that many women that lose a pregnancy, whether its naturally or by abortion, simply move on with their lives, and do NOT regret it.
My mom and I had a discussion once about her miscarriage. She told me that knowing what they know now about HER illness,(that the medical community didn't know back then), she was actually THANKFUL that she miscarried - because between the MS and diabetes, and knowing what they also knew about my father's genetic heart conditions in the men in the family - she would NEVER have wished those kinds of health issues onto her child.
Conversely, I know women - some of whom have posted here - who have ALSO said they're not only not sorry they had an abortion, they are THANKFUL they did.
For whatever reason, you have this really sick NEED to inflict YOUR f'd up vision & desire for regret, spiritual misery, shame, depression and more on others.
FORTUNATELY, MOST women dont and wont suffer any such things from having an abortion.
Only a complete idiot like you will hear women tell you THEY DO NOT REGRET their decisions, and ignore that, only to be so insistant on trying to put YOUR words in THEIR mouths.
I don't care who has lost a pregnancy/child by miscarriage. I am not talking about them. I am talking specifically about women who payed a Dr to kill their unborn offspring/child. Don't even compare the two.

""""" FORTUNATELY, MOST women dont and wont suffer any such things from having an abortion""" ""

You obviously are very ignorant. You don't care about the women who suffer from the reality of killing their child.

God has written his law in our hearts. The truth is the truth. Killing is killing and a woman knows that she has gravely sinned by doing that act. These so called women that you refer to on here,clearly LIVE on this forum attempting to justify their abortion. Why? We don't know them. We are not their God. SOMETHING is leading them to talk about and attempt to justify what they did.

Guilt.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276992 Jan 15, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Considering the number of sex acts performed daily, it's perectly within the known stats that bc will fail that often--which is still a tiny number of ll sex acts using bc. On te other hand, since women don't have to provide reason to abort, and you don't list what bc methods--including NFP--are used, it's kind of meaningless.
<quoted text>
Point was that you are claiming that NFP/non-artificial ways to prevent pregnancy,fails. Yet,over half of the millions of abortions are done on women who used artificial birth control.

Now what?

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#276991 Jan 15, 2013
"lil Lily"aka "lynne"
Mind boggling ignorance you display.

what? looking in the mirror?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276993 Jan 15, 2013
The law is the UNBORN Victis of violence act of 2004. That tells anyone with adult intelligence and sense that it's about an UNBRN child being recognized as a separate and indvidula HUMAN BEING from it';s mother, therefore if anyone intentionally kills a wanted child in utero, they will be charged for tht crime, separate but ALONG WITH the crime against the mother who was carrying the child.

Only an ignorant buffoon would think that I wouldn't know the law included the mother gestating, since a wanted child in utero camn't be intentionally killed witout harming or killing the mother. However, thatlaw isabout the UNBORN CHILD and punishment for killing THE UNBORN CHILD.

Foo argues to argue like a bratty little child, and she doesn't care what the facts are, as long as she can try to seem like she knows what she's talking about. It's been an epic fail for her.

She only proves she doesn't know what she's read each time she's tried to accuse me of something I didn't say or didn't mean. Those of us who choose to post only on the topics we know about, don't always consider that we're posting to ignorant buffoons who can't read or comprehension and that they need us to state the obvious of every damned little thing, while we know those with intelligence and sense don't need tat. They already know the facts.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276994 Jan 15, 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, my mom miscarried and felt the sadness way into her later years. I would say you cannot speak for women because you refused to be a wife and mother by your choice. Yeah, God gave you free will, you chose wrong, you chose evil. You will be accounted for your choice when you meet Christ face to face. AND YOU WILL. Many women do suffer from an abortion, many have regretted it and spent years in therapy, Martin Luther King Jrs neice and others have gone through years of pain. You can see it in tv stars when they are desperate to have children but admit they have had to
en or more abortions and because of that they can't. You cannot speak for God when your views are so demonic.
Proaborts care only about the women having abortions when THEY think she should be able to. They don't care about women who suffer FROM having them.

MANY women going in for abortions are crying. Why?
MANY women going in for abortions need deathscorts. Why?
MANY women feel coerced into abortions or feel they have no other alternative. Why?
MANY women live destructive lives(physically,emotionally,m entally)after an abortion. Why?

Nobody seems to care about them. These people are pro-death. THAT is it.

The former abortionist and staff who speak the truth about what goes on in the clinics are attacked by proaborts. Why? They DON'T want to hear the truth. The day before these abortionist and/or staff have a change of heart,the proaborts think that they are good people who CARE about women. When they speak about how abortion kills and women cry during abortions,etc..etc...they don't want to hear it. Why?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276995 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nobody has control over another's pregnancy. Plain and simple. Even if it's a pregnancy that's the result of an affair.

The pregnant woman has civil rights these days. That's what women's rights is all about. Not just abortion -- that's a RR sidetrack to keep everybody embroiled in controversy and away from reality (or clergy hiding pedophile priests, pregnant nuns, nuns who've aborted, etc.).

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) 1 hr Sicklecell Supporter 1,396,592
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 60,205
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 10 hr Ize Fund 70,736
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) Thu Jos 59
CAR Accident on Friday April 22, 2016 Apr '16 MarcusT20073 1
In The War on Police Traffic Stops Have Become ... (Aug '15) Dec '15 Anthony Wall 11
Wethersfield high school honor roll is about 50... (Jan '13) Jul '15 Anthony Wall 6

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages