Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 345517 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.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277222 Jan 16, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't read it, most people use pp only for bortion, its been on the news for quite a while. You are sad, and shouldn't be saying you are Jewish, you can't be practicing your faith when you blaspheme God so much.
LMAO

Knutter I am Wiccan. Abortion is a non-issue in my religion. I think your post was directed at some one else..

And yes the 3% number is accurate. Not every woman that enters a planned parenthood clinic is there to get an abortion. Especially, as most Planned Parenthood clinics do not even preform that medical procedure.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#277223 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "Name calling loudmouth Doc says: Your psychotic. MY take ???"
Do you need reminding that you were the one banned for the types of "loud mouthed" obscene "name calling" you had done in your posts, Toots?
For example, does "f'kn retards" ring a bell, hypocrite?
You mean like this from yesterday?
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

Retarded people are so much smarter than you. They would get it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Still stings, huh?

From last April?
Really?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277224 Jan 16, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly wasn't obvious to you or the Inkstain, since the two of you posted for days as if the law was written FOR the Peterson murders.
<quoted text>
Again, CLEARLY you and Inky needed it stated, since NEITHER of you had any clue it was written first in 1999 YEARS BEFORE THE MURDERS.
<quoted text>
Except that's NOT what you claimed ....
Balance of your bullshit deleted. Lynne, you're losing the Twist contest again.
<quoted text>
AGAIN for the stupid thing. The law is NOT saying its a "seperate human being from its mother. The law is saying its a victim, but NOT a human being.
If it was seen legally as a human being - THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR A NEW LAW you DUMBASS. They would have used EXISTING LAWS.
The NEW law ALSO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE FETUS AS A HUMAN BEING per se, which is why they are referring to OTHER LAWS THAT DO regarding punishments, yet taking the death penalty off the table.
<quoted text>
Lynne, the ONLY one making herself look like a bumbling "buuffoon" here is YOU.
You CLEARLY have ZERO idea what that law is all about OR how it works.
ROFLMAOOOOO!
<quoted text>
Except I'm 100% correct, and you're trying desperatly to twist and turn and make it look like you know what you're talking about, when its increasingly clear that you're confusing yourself with all your bullshit.
Foo: "It certainly wasn't obvious to you or the Inkstain, since the two of you posted for days as if the law was written FOR the Peterson murders." "Again, CLEARLY you and Inky needed it stated, since NEITHER of you had any clue it was written first in 1999 YEARS BEFORE THE MURDERS."

Liar. You haven't yet proven either of those bullshit claims. Those are onlky your assumptions based only on your own stupid way of thinking.

Foo" "If it was seen legally as a human being - THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR A NEW LAW you DUMBASS."
"The NEW law ALSO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE FETUS AS A HUMAN BEING per se, which is why they are referring to OTHER LAWS THAT DO..."

lol, what an ignorant buffoon.

I never said it was "leaglly seen as" a human being. That's Ayakaneo's and your interpretation of what you misread in my posts.

The ONLY law that matters is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004". That's the law I presented and the law I have been posting about. IN that law, it IS recognizing the "unborn child" as a "human being". That term IS being used in conjunction with the term "unborn child", in the wording of THAT law.

You quote me as saying, "I claimed the law was about a separate crime; " and you reply, "Except that's NOT what you claimed ...."

Yes, it was, liar. I stated separate crime FOR a separate human being.

You're the one who's mixed up and twisting things, because you haven't understood what was posted by me or by Ink, and haven't understood the wording of that law.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277225 Jan 16, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text>Rev2-9 2:9 "I KNOW YOUR WORKS, AND TRIBULATION AND POVERTY,(BUT YOU ARE RICH) AND I KNOW THE BLASPHEMY OF THEM WHICH SAY THEY ARE Ysrayl (Israel) AND ARE NOT, BUT ARE THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN
You do understand, knutter. That quoting a new testament to a jew is about as useful as quoting any part of your collection of books at me.. Different religions.. What you posted only applies to you and those that believe as you do.

It does not apply to any one else in spite of what you might believe.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277226 Jan 16, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
His own beliefs dont mean anything since there is no proof, and even HE realises that you dunce.
The POINT is that NOBODY KNOWS if Conner was born or not. Period.
Foo: "His own beliefs dont mean anything since there is no proof, and even HE realises that you dunce."

You're stupidity and desperation is making me laugh.

His beliefs were based on his [educated findings], along with his own common sense. As I said, the ONLY reason he agreed that he couldn't "rule out" that Connor was born when he died, was exactly for the reason you stated. No concrete proof.(THat's yet another obvious you're stating that intelligent people already know). You are not telling anyone with intelligence anything we don't already know about this.

BUT here's the clincher you keep ignoring; the jury knew that the educated findings he had presented was enough to determine that Connor was more than likely killed in utero, and was enough for them to convict Scott of that killing as well.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277227 Jan 16, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
Guess we're in for another day of...deflections and denials, as well as her twists and turns as she tries desperately to take the facts and twist them to suit what she wants them to say.
Poor thing.
^^^Psychological projection, and yeah, looks like you'll be doing it again.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277228 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I was't wrong.Just like I'm not wrong in stating that RvW defined "viable".
Maybe you people need to understand the meanings of words before you start arguing about the words we use.
The word "define":
/di&#712;f&#299;n/
Verb
1.State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2.Give the meaning of (a word or phrase), esp. in a dictionary.
Based on the definition of the word "define", the law did "state or describe exactly the meaning of the term fetus or "unborn child", in the words, "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall ... be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
That is stating exactly what they mean by murder or attemtping to murder an unborn child; "intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being". That's not about the mother.
From the link of the law I had posted:
" Full title:
To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes."
{to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes}
What moron doesn't know what ^^THAT statement means?
Apparently YOU dont know, but its not a shock since EVERYONE know's what a moron YOU are.

The law DEFINES very clearly what they're talking about right here: In fact, its a DEFINING statement.

"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.’’."

Sorry Lynne, nothing about "human beings" there.

Further, the law even explains so stupid people like you COULD undersand if you wanted to, HOW they are defining the law:

"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 yes, it IS about the mother as well, as they emphasise there - its a direct acknowledgement.

They then explain that they are using statutes 1111, 1112, and 1113 (among others) to determine PUNISHMENT for the perpetuator of the crime.

They are NOT using that statement as a definition OR DEFINING STATEMENT of what a fetus or "unborn child" certainly NOT as a "human being". They've done that already, VERY clearly, which I will repeat again for your stupid ass:

"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.’’."

AGAIN, they do NOT define it as a human being and the REASON is clear:

BECAUSE IF THEY DEFINED THE FETUS OR 'UNBORN CHILD' AS A HUMAN BEING - THEY WOULD NOT NEED THIS NEW LAW - THEY WOULD USE ALREADY EXISTING STATUTE TO PROSECUTE.

You are a VERY stupid woman Lynne. You will twist and turn, defect and backpedal all you can ONLY to not have to deal with the FACT that not only are you wrong, but that ANYONE ELSE is right.

But you just go on deluding yourself, but KNOW that you're NOT deluding ANYONE ELSE.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277229 Jan 16, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil ? You cowardly schmuck !
Doc, once more you show your ignorance..

When you are in a foreign country. You are under that country laws. That is a simple fact of life. DERRR!!!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277234 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "His own beliefs dont mean anything since there is no proof, and even HE realises that you dunce."
You're stupidity and desperation is making me laugh.
His beliefs were based on his [educated findings], along with his own common sense. As I said, the ONLY reason he agreed that he couldn't "rule out" that Connor was born when he died, was exactly for the reason you stated. No concrete proof.(THat's yet another obvious you're stating that intelligent people already know).
Well apparently YOU didn't know it, since you claimed MORE THAN ONCE pretty definitively he died in UTERO and THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT you idiot.
You are not telling anyone with intelligence anything we don't already know about this.
You're right. I'm not. But I'm telling YOU - who's of LIMITED intelligence - and who's stated more than once that the boy died in utero - they he may NOT have died in utero.
BUT here's the clincher you keep ignoring; the jury knew that the educated findings he had presented was enough to determine that Connor was more than likely killed in utero, and was enough for them to convict Scott of that killing as well.
***SIGHS*** You are a VERY stupid thing Lynne. ROFLMAO! What "clincher" you idiot?

There was no debate that he killed Conner as well you moron. And whether or not he was in utero was immaterial to THAT. He was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277235 Jan 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like this from yesterday?
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Still stings, huh?
From last April?
Really?
No not lke yesterday. You were calling people "f'kn retards" in a derogatory manner, implying retarded people are less than you.

I, OTOH recognize retarded people as being mental superiors to you PC idiots.

They would have understood that as well, where you weren't even close.

What "stings"? I remembered you were banned because you called people names, and were loud mouthed about it with your exclamation points because you couldn't control yourself, and use what I remember to point out you're a hypocrite in calling other people loud mouthed name callers, and you think that means it stung when you did it?

LOL, you wished it did, but the effect you were going for didn't work. You think because someone calls you names and it "stings" you, that it has the same effect on us. You're wrong, Toots. I don't care what dummies call me.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277236 Jan 16, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear -you can call me and others anything you wish, but murder of the unborn is Godless, and a horrible thing to do. You can defend it, alone with all other unGodly stuff you wish, but you will be reminded one day, of all of your "rights "
AWWW is tghe little fanatic control freak all out of sorts.. What a shame.

"but you will be reminded one day, of all of your "rights " ".

Is this some sort of threat? As I am not of your religion. I have no judgment day bullshyt to worry on about. So, I have to ask are you threatening me here?

And since when do you call another man "dear". Or are you a woman.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277237 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^Psychological projection, and yeah, looks like you'll be doing it again.
Lynne, you dont polly parrot very well, tho you do it quite often.

Guess you're simply not intelligent enough to come up with your own material.

LOL

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277239 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "It certainly wasn't obvious to you or the Inkstain, since the two of you posted for days as if the law was written FOR the Peterson murders." "Again, CLEARLY you and Inky needed it stated, since NEITHER of you had any clue it was written first in 1999 YEARS BEFORE THE MURDERS."
Liar. You haven't yet proven either of those bullshit claims. Those are onlky your assumptions based only on your own stupid way of thinking.
No, it was based on your posts. Period. Need them posted AGAIN for you Lynne?
Foo" "If it was seen legally as a human being - THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR A NEW LAW you DUMBASS."
"The NEW law ALSO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE FETUS AS A HUMAN BEING per se, which is why they are referring to OTHER LAWS THAT DO..."
lol, what an ignorant buffoon.
I never said it was "leaglly seen as" a human being.
I never said YOU said it was "legaly seen as" as you put in quotes. You DID however claim it was "DEFINED" as a human being, which is the same thing you fucking moron.

The ONLY law that matters is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004". That's the law I presented and the law I have been posting about. IN that law, it IS recognizing the "unborn child" as a "human being".
NO it is not. It is recognizing the "unborn child" as a victim, and punishing the perpetuator based on statutes that punish crimes FOR "human beings" based on SPECIFIC OTHER LAWS that the Act refers to.

And you're ALSO wrong about the UVVA being the "only law that matters" since the UVVA DEFERS TO OTHER LAWS WITHIN THE STATUTE.

Holy CRAP you're stupid.

You can double talk this until you drop dead Lynne, but it wont make you correct, when you're simply NOT.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277241 Jan 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what dummies call me.
Obviously you do, since you can't shut up about it, and feel a need to call others similar names, but justify that YOUR name calling is perfectly fine.

You're a frikkin joke Lynne.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277242 Jan 16, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently YOU dont know, but its not a shock since EVERYONE know's what a moron YOU are.
The law DEFINES very clearly what they're talking about right here: In fact, its a DEFINING statement.
"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.’’."
Sorry Lynne, nothing about "human beings" there.
Further, the law even explains so stupid people like you COULD undersand if you wanted to, HOW they are defining the law:
"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 yes, it IS about the mother as well, as they emphasise there - its a direct acknowledgement.
They then explain that they are using statutes 1111, 1112, and 1113 (among others) to determine PUNISHMENT for the perpetuator of the crime.
They are NOT using that statement as a definition OR DEFINING STATEMENT of what a fetus or "unborn child" certainly NOT as a "human being". They've done that already, VERY clearly, which I will repeat again for your stupid ass:
"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.’’."
AGAIN, they do NOT define it as a human being and the REASON is clear:
BECAUSE IF THEY DEFINED THE FETUS OR 'UNBORN CHILD' AS A HUMAN BEING - THEY WOULD NOT NEED THIS NEW LAW - THEY WOULD USE ALREADY EXISTING STATUTE TO PROSECUTE.
You are a VERY stupid woman Lynne. You will twist and turn, defect and backpedal all you can ONLY to not have to deal with the FACT that not only are you wrong, but that ANYONE ELSE is right.
But you just go on deluding yourself, but KNOW that you're NOT deluding ANYONE ELSE.
Here she goes again...

Foo: "The law DEFINES very clearly what they're talking about right here: In fact, its a DEFINING statement.
'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.’’.' "

Yes, Foo, that's another defining statement in that law, and yet another OBVIOUS you're stating to those of us who already knew that. We are talking about the term human being and thge secrtion in which that term is used. Pay attention and try to focus.

Foo quote the law: "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."
Then says, Foo: "So yes, it IS about the mother as well, as they emphasise there - its a direct acknowledgement."

I already stated the mother was mentioned in that law. PAY ATTENTION. lol you're stating yet another obvious to me. WTH is with you?

In my post 277203 I gave an example of the OBVIOUS things you were posting that didn't need to be posted by you because we already knew that and it added nothing to YOUR argument.
"~ The law does speak of the mother (wow, great deduction Sherlock, and you thought people how aren't senseless like you wouldn't know that already. OBVIOUSLY mother is included in the law because an unborn child couldn't die without its mother also being harmed, you ninny) The law, however, is for the purposes of recognizing the UNBORN CHILD as [the other] HUMAN BEING, and who was MURDERED; the UNBORN CHILD, to be exact, so that anyone who murders a wanted unborn child will be punished, by law. It's what was written and passed, in THAT law."

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277243 Jan 16, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
All you can do is attack people. You briung nothing of substance to the table for discusiion. You are an anti-Christian bigot like the rest of your proabortion pagan buddies.
TROLLING, trolling, TROLLING

TTTRRROOOLLLL OOONNN!!1

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277245 Jan 16, 2013
cont

Foo: "They then explain that they are using statutes 1111, 1112, and 1113 (among others) to determine PUNISHMENT for the perpetuator of the crime...."

No shit, Really? Thankfully there's you to state that obvious for us.

Foo: "They are NOT using that statement as a definition OR DEFINING STATEMENT of what a fetus or "unborn child" certainly NOT as a "human being"."

Hate to mention this to you but, after they explain what statutes they're using to determine the punishment for the crime, what do you think they're stating is the crime the punishment is about?

That's where they then state the words "for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

The term "human being" is being used in conjunction with the term unborn child as [meaning] the SAME THING.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277247 Jan 16, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well apparently YOU didn't know it, since you claimed MORE THAN ONCE pretty definitively he died in UTERO and THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT you idiot.
<quoted text>
You're right. I'm not. But I'm telling YOU - who's of LIMITED intelligence - and who's stated more than once that the boy died in utero - they he may NOT have died in utero.
<quoted text>
***SIGHS*** You are a VERY stupid thing Lynne. ROFLMAO! What "clincher" you idiot?
There was no debate that he killed Conner as well you moron. And whether or not he was in utero was immaterial to THAT. He was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried.
Foo: "Well apparently YOU didn't know it, since you claimed MORE THAN ONCE pretty definitively he died in UTERO and THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT you idiot."

There's enough circumstantial proof to come to that reasonable conclusion, fool. The jury thought so too.

Foo: "He was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried."

Yet another obvious stated by you. You have yet to state anything in your posts since you jumped into this, that proved my claims wrong, you ignorant buffoon, and you won't because i haven't made any wrong claims.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277248 Jan 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
And this is what the antichoice (so called prolife) have been aiming for all along.

Making women into criminals all for being pregnant and a woman.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#277249 Jan 16, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor baby...getting snarky because you once again made a jackass of yourself.
Implying that a woman having octuplets because she used NFP as BC is an example of your lack of understanding of reproduction.

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) 18 min Rebirth 70 1,779,028
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Fitius T Bluster 21,964
In need of xänax/ädderall/Öxy/H/Tär?etc 3 hr Odicaty 1
News Schools Prepare for Temperatures in the 90s Monday 11 hr Sam 3
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 hr BigBillCFart 64,829
News Poor People's Campaign Calls For $15 Minimum Wage Jun 12 Bruddah Z 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Jun 12 Ben Avraham 72,097

Wethersfield Jobs

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages