Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,216
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. Read more
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#277034 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I let this drop since you're refusing to give your personal opinion on whether or not you would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion.
In my opinion, I would say that 99.99% of you PC women, if your intent is to stay married to that man, would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion since you would not want him to spend any time associating with his (bastard) child in the future.
I wouldn't dream of telling a pregnant what to do with her pregnancy. Even if my husband had provided the sperm the old fashioned way. It doesn't mean he'd still be my husband, mind you.

And I think that's pretty close to what I answered the first time around (paraphrased), "Nobody has a right to interfere with anyone's pregnancy. That's what women's rights is all about." So don't be dishonest and claim you're letting this drop due to a "non-answer".

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

North Olmsted, OH

#277035 Jan 15, 2013
Let them live wrote:
It is unbelievable that in the modern world we live in that babies are still allowed to be killed.
No it would be unbelievable before 1973. Since then, women have become convinced that abortion doesn't kill anything except a 'tic-tac' size of their own flesh. They hold that it is their own flesh even though women can't beome pregnant by themselves.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#277036 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
So it wouldn't upset you if this was to happen -- you're prefectly okay with it?
That was not what you asked, was it?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277038 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You can try to justify your stupidity NOW Lynniekins, but the FACT remains you DID make that claim.

And you were WRONG about why they were named in the law as well it was NOT ABOUT Conner being killed "in utero", since it was not KNOWN if he was killed that way or not, it was simply that the family was willing to loan their name and use the publicity to further the bill into law.

Not to mention, you've ALSO WRONGLY claimed the law isn't about the woman, and tried to claim that Conner's name being IN the law was proof of that too, yet Laci's name is ALSO in the law, and the law itself MENTIONS the woman being harmed, as well as incorporates other statutes that specifically DO include the woman.

This law is NOT an entity unto itself you dumbass, its part of and DIRECTLY LINKED TO other laws.

Lynne, you talk in circles so much, you truly serve ONLY to make yourself look like an even bigger jackass than usual.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#277037 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
So a wife should not try to contact the woman her husband got pregnant and ask if she has considered getting an abortion and/or why she has decided to have his child?
You have some really odd notions. You continue to prove how out of touch with reality you are.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277039 Jan 15, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah dumbo,but we are discussing TEENS.
Pay attention.
Says who? I see adults being discussed as well. Rest assured Skanky, I AM paying attention.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#277040 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
So answer me this...why did abortion doctors want their state law to exempt them from prosecution if the scientific perspective is that a ZEF is not human?
According to state law, abortion doctors don't have to worry about ever facing murder charges because what they destroy inside the womb isn't human.
What is inside the womb only (magically) becomes human the moment when its head comes out of the uterus.
Wow, you sound just like JM again. How would I know an answer to your first question. If I was inclined, I'd Google it. I'm not inclined. So why don't you do your own work?

There is no "magic" moment fetus becomes baby. There are physiological changes at birth so a newborn can survive independent of the pregnant woman.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277041 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, NO IT DOES NOT as I've proven.

There is NO discussion at all of a "seperate crime". You're not only wrong, you're just full of shit Lynne.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#277042 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?
No. What you're getting is that we realize it's not our decision, or business.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277043 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Anyone have any idea what this dumbass is babbling about?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#277044 Jan 15, 2013
Let them live wrote:
It is unbelievable that in the modern world we live in that babies are still allowed to be killed.
If you see a baby being killed, dial 911. Be a hero and intervene, even. Do something. Don't just stand there and watch while it happens.

But call 911 about an abortion taking place and see how far it goes.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#277045 Jan 15, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I let this drop since you're refusing to give your personal opinion on whether or not you would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion.
In my opinion, I would say that 99.99% of you PC women, if your intent is to stay married to that man, would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion since you would not want him to spend any time associating with his (bastard) child in the future.
Your speculations are baseless. You're making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277046 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Morning America, which YOU gave, is NOT a substantive link OR proof.
However the CORONERS REPORT and the TRIAL TESTIMONY that I gave ARE.
You've given NO links to your claims of a baby being born "in a PVS", but then you just outright lied about that claim to begin with.
YOUR word, given you're a KNOWN liar, is not a competent claim let alone "competent evidence". ROFLMAO!
<quoted text>
GMA while a great morning show, is not competent evidence you dumbass.
The ONLY thing you've proven is how fast your mind shuts down when presented with ACTUAL evidence (court transcripts and coroner reports) that doesn't fit your agenda.
Foo: "Good Morning America, which YOU gave, is NOT a substantive link OR proof."

That's not the substantive proof I was talking about you idiot. I was talking about the proof provided by the same coronoer you linked to.

Foo: "However the CORONERS REPORT and the TRIAL TESTIMONY that I gave ARE."

So was the testimony from that same pathologist YOU referenced from court docs., you bumbling buffoon. In my post number 27694.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Not once did I claim the GMA show was the competent evidence I was referring to. Leave it to you to think that though. You're such a mess.

I was talking about the competent evidence of the statements made by the same coroner you linked to , the law as it is stated etc. Not a tv program you dummy.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277047 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try to justify your stupidity NOW Lynniekins, but the FACT remains you DID make that claim.
And you were WRONG about why they were named in the law as well it was NOT ABOUT Conner being killed "in utero", since it was not KNOWN if he was killed that way or not, it was simply that the family was willing to loan their name and use the publicity to further the bill into law.
Not to mention, you've ALSO WRONGLY claimed the law isn't about the woman, and tried to claim that Conner's name being IN the law was proof of that too, yet Laci's name is ALSO in the law, and the law itself MENTIONS the woman being harmed, as well as incorporates other statutes that specifically DO include the woman.
This law is NOT an entity unto itself you dumbass, its part of and DIRECTLY LINKED TO other laws.
Lynne, you talk in circles so much, you truly serve ONLY to make yourself look like an even bigger jackass than usual.
Foo: "but the FACT remains you DID make that claim."

So you say and didn't prove.

You've just been rambling a bunch of shit today after I proved what a dummy you are, to try to save yourself from looking worse than your original posted stupidity last night and today made you look, but it's all an epic fail.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#277048 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?
Stupid question. First you say she had an affair with my husband and then ask if her choice to keep the baby is wrong? She can make that choice without my input, but I would say having an affair with my husband would be what's wrong. Why does it become my business what choice she makes regarding the baby?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277049 Jan 15, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>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.
LOLOLOL!!! F-k you Skanky, I will compare anything I want to when I'm making a point about something **I SAID TO BEGIN WITH**. YOU do not get to define what I or anyone else says OR uses for comparison in a discussion.

Not to mention this is a pretty funny demand from an idiot that regularly tries to compare apples to Ford Trucks.

The discussion is about regret and remorse, and I FACTUALLY pointed out that there are times both in miscarriage AND in abortion, where women are simply NOT regretful, NOT remorseful and are actually THANKFUL.
""""" 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.
And the TRUTH is that MOST women dont and wont suffer any such bullshit as you like to PRAY they will.
Killing is killing and a woman knows that she has gravely sinned by doing that act.
]

Oh BULLSHIT. The average woman who believes in your kind's version of faith may know they're sinning, and they dont care - the desire to NOT be pregnant is more important than any sin.

Further, the average religious woman ALSO knows she can repent and be forgiven, and then will move on with their life. THere is no reason for ANYONE to "suffer torment for years" if they actually believe in your version of faith.

Finally, MANY women simply dont view it as a sin and dont care if it is. It will be between them and their Lord if they have one.

YOU are just a meaningless twit in the scheme of things.
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.
ROFLMAO You mean like YOU post here nonstop - LIVING on this forum trying to push your sick fantasies on others?

Most of us post here so idiots like you dont EVER gain a foothold with your lies, so women that might actually stumble in here have the opportunity to know the actual FACTS.

You clearly have a deep desire for others to feel guilt and a deeper anger that they dont.

And that's just one more of your pathetic life's long list of TOUGH SHIT moments Skankdawg.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277050 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, NO IT DOES NOT as I've proven.
There is NO discussion at all of a "seperate crime". You're not only wrong, you're just full of shit...
If you want to keep looking like an incompetent buffoon...

Yes, Toots, it does say that, and very clearly for those who can read for comprehension.

""Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section."

IS GUILTY OF A [SEPARATE] offense.

You're the one full of shit in everything you post.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277052 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone have any idea what this dumbass is babbling about?
LOL, you're the one who's been babbling here, you uneducated moron.

You should stick to posting on topics you're educated about. You can't, because then you wouldn't be posting at all and you can't live without posting here, no matter how stupid you make yourself look.
Tondaleyo lives

Muscotah, KS

#277053 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter, it sounds like you are regular with your 'bow' movements.
Being all stretched out makes for easier access for your head.
Good one!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277054 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
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.
Except it does NOT define the unborn child as a "human being". It ALSO says NOTHING about a 'seperate crime', it is in fact, a crime unto itself.
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.
Nobody but you said otherwise except for you in one or more of your stupidly thought out posts.
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.
Actually, I LOVE to help you and spotlight your making a complete idiot of yourself, which you do on a regular basis.

You say stupid shit on this forum constantly, then spend ENDLESS hours trying to backpedal and twist what you DID say to make it appear as if you knew what you were talking about to begin with, when its clear you did not.

YES Lynne, YOU IN PARTICUALR DO need to state the obvious with 'every dammed little thing', since its all the 'dammed little things' you screw up on.

Clearly you DONT know the facts, otherwise, you wouldn't make such an ass of yourself so often LOL!

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 USAsince1680 1,206,077
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min Earthling-1 52,256
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr scirocco 69,294
News Groups Want Faith Exemption On Same-Sex Marriag... (Apr '09) 10 hr Real Talk 7,570
News Brooklyn Teen Charged With Attempted Murder (May '08) Thu Anton Ciguhr 10
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Thu scirocco 71,697
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu factcheck 19,717
Wethersfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]