Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314719 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.

Forum carlsbad nm

Lovington, NM

#280548 Jan 28, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have any kids? Just curious...
Yes. I do.
Forum carlsbad nm

Lovington, NM

#280549 Jan 28, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I wish you well, my friend.
What is a saved christian and what does born again mean?
They made it up.
God is for real. I think the end times means that he has given us
enough time to reconcile with him.
Cars flipping and children getting shot in school is crazy.
Who is the antichrist?
Gtown71

United States

#280550 Jan 28, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I wish you well, my friend.
And I you :)
Gtown71

United States

#280552 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied about that as well. Athiests dont "hate" G-d. They dont believe in a g-d, thus there's nothing to hate.
Again, you're a stupid man.
You're wrong, but what's new.
There are atheist who hate everything about god and wish all who believed in god would die.

There are absolutes, so you're wrong again.

You're god is so great you don't wish to share, even when asked???
If you were talki.g about a child /boyfriend /any person you love, that you kept locked away from others, it would seem abit odd, but God?!?!? To keep Him to yourself, must mean you don't have one, and you're not interested in one.

It is a copout.

Just say you're uncomfortable talking about real issues.

You still defend the pic of the dead woman, blaming everything and everyone but her.

I'm not insecure in my faith at all, it is the only thing I have full assurance in, and just becouse you care not, doesn't mean others don't , since I have got positive feed back that would mean "in your own words ",that you, yea you are a liar.
God

Brooklyn, NY

#280553 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied about that as well. Athiests dont "hate" G-d. They dont believe in a g-d, thus there's nothing to hate.
Again, you're a stupid man.
You are disapointing me.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#280554 Jan 28, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong, but what's new.
There are atheist who hate everything about god and wish all who believed in god would die.
ROFLMAO You're full of shit.
There are absolutes, so you're wrong again.
Sorry Chuckles, no, there are NO absolutes when it comes to faith and religion.

That's what makes each relationship so private and unique.
You're god is so great you don't wish to share, even when asked???
Nope.
If you were talki.g about a child /boyfriend /any person you love, that you kept locked away from others, it would seem abit odd, but God?!?!?
I dont keep Him locked away from others in the appropriate situations during appropriate times and discussions. Appropriate suitations include those for whom I have love and respect. I have neither for you.

I dont keep my Lord, my child, my wife, or any person I love locked away from others either, as many here can attest.
To keep Him to yourself, must mean you don't have one, and you're not interested in one.
See? THere you go LYING and bearing false witness AGAIN.
It is a copout.
No, its a PRIVATE relationship. Privacy and the appropriacy of keeping some things private is something you dont seem to have a good grasp on.
Just say you're uncomfortable talking about real issues.
I'm not uncomfortable at all talking about real issues. I dont have any issues regarding my relationship with my Lord.

I'm 1000%+ comfortable with my relationship with G-d. I simply dont feel a need to discuss Him with the likes of you, OR to babble on endlessly about it. You clearly have ZERO respect for others beliefs, so why SHOULD I?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#280555 Jan 28, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You still defend the pic of the dead woman, blaming everything and everyone but her.
You're LYING yet again. Where EXACTLY did I ever "blame" ANYONE other than how the LAW let her down?

And where EXACTLY did I "DEFEND" the picture of Gerri Santoro? I posted it as a FACTUAL example of what happens and how women died when religious fools briefly took away the right of CHOICE from them. Period. There's no defense necessary.

Correcting yours and Lynne's stupidity is not defencse, its refuting garbage with FACTS.
I'm not insecure in my faith at all,
Clearly you are, or you woudldnt feel a need to babble on endlessly about it ALL the time as if it matters at the end of the day to anyone BUT you.

Clearly you ARE extremely insecure about the strength of your faith, or you wouldn't be so OBVIOUSLY threatened when people of OTHER faiths tell you frankly, that you're full of shit.

To US, you ARE 100000% full of crap. Your faith is YOURS. Your story is YOURS. Not anyone elses. After the first 10 times hearing it, its old. Topix is NOT your personal pulpit, and we are NOT your parishoners.

Want to preach? Go find a church. You've testified. Endlessly. Can you even express a thought WITHOUT going on about how you 'found g-d'? I doubt it. YOU are the poster child for an uneducated extremist, someone that's incapable of rational, independant, intellectually honest thought.
it is the only thing I have full assurance in, and just becouse you care not, doesn't mean others don't , since I have got positive feed back that would mean "in your own words ",that you, yea you are a liar.
ROFLMAO Clearly many's sarcasm goes over your head and between your knees. LOLOL! To Skanky and the one or two other idiots that egg you on, you're a useful idiot, nothing more. Hell, the ones that are giving you 'positive feed back" @@(Feedback is one word by the way moron) are as phonly in their "faiths" as you are turning out to be.

People can be both religious AND faithful, or simply just spiritual and be able to have whole discussions WITHOUT having to rant on about their religion incessently.

Now you're free to rant on endlessly, and uselessly here - that's your right and America is great that way. But WE are in return, free to call you out for the asshole you are. Deal with it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#280556 Jan 28, 2013
God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are disapointing me.
Why should I care that I'm "disappointing" some freak with a g-d complex?
God

Brooklyn, NY

#280557 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO You're full of shit.
<quoted text>
Sorry Chuckles, no, there are NO absolutes when it comes to faith and religion.
That's what makes each relationship so private and unique.
<quoted text>
Nope.
<quoted text>
I dont keep Him locked away from others in the appropriate situations during appropriate times and discussions. Appropriate suitations include those for whom I have love and respect. I have neither for you.
I dont keep my Lord, my child, my wife, or any person I love locked away from others either, as many here can attest.
<quoted text>
See? THere you go LYING and bearing false witness AGAIN.
<quoted text>
No, its a PRIVATE relationship. Privacy and the appropriacy of keeping some things private is something you dont seem to have a good grasp on.
<quoted text>
I'm not uncomfortable at all talking about real issues. I dont have any issues regarding my relationship with my Lord.
I'm 1000%+ comfortable with my relationship with G-d. I simply dont feel a need to discuss Him with the likes of you, OR to babble on endlessly about it. You clearly have ZERO respect for others beliefs, so why SHOULD I?
God says you are boring and need to get out more.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#280558 Jan 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And I eat empanadas in my ivory tower. My husband makes the best!
How cute. White girl knows a Spanish word. Whatever.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#280559 Jan 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is to forcibly abort the fetus from anyone who is poor?
How about a prohibition on more than one child around the world? That would cut down the population and give the pro aborts all the dead fetuses they could ever wish for. Maybe we could set the goal for half the number of people in one hundred years. Then only half of a smaller number would be hungry.
Dumb idea. You're weird.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#280560 Jan 28, 2013
God wrote:
<quoted text>
God says you are boring and need to get out more.
My Dog says you're a moron.

Bet my Dog is more correct than you are.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#280561 Jan 28, 2013
Forum carlsbad nm wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I do.
Yikes.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280562 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Being reasonable is beyond your grasp. Take your crowns and wear these proudly.
I don't need crowns or any other type of nonsense you need. My intelligence and knowledge is reward enough for me. Too bad you can't claim the same rewards.

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person',`human being',`child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

"As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."

"`Person',`human being',`child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.

Do you know what that's defining? It's legally defining a BORN INFANT, and to protect those infants born alive whether . Not a born alive fetus, not a fetus until cord is cut and 1st breath is taken, but born ALIVE, as they said: "means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut,..."

That's when a fetus becomes a newborn infant, "the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.", as we have said all along. NR keeps providing you with something legal that defines it. I've provided medical proof. You're the one trying to be right, when you're oh so wrong. Your whining about "crowns" just displays your immaturity, lack of ability to see reason and ineptitude in adult discussions.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280563 Jan 28, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Klueless Katiekins: "If there WERE a magical moment fetus becomes baby, it'd have to be when the newborn's circulatory system and gas exchange happen on its own WITHOUT help from the umbilical cord. Otherwise, it is equivalent to a fetus."
:Sigh:
Your ignorance is redundant. Remarkable. Here is an excerpt from the Born Alive Infant Protection Act correcting you. Again. Read it slowly...
"...complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes OR has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles, REGARDLESS OF WHEHTER THE UMBILICAL CORD HAS BEEN CUT, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ207/...
Keep right on posting that, NR, and i borrowed it from you. It proves she's a nutcase with her claims.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280564 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're claiming this "...complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes OR has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles, REGARDLESS OF WHEHTER THE UMBILICAL CORD HAS BEEN CUT, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion," is the magical moment fetus becomes baby you cannot claim it's a baby at conception or it's a baby in utero.
If you are not claiming the above is the magical moment fetus becomes baby, then you cannot claim I am wrong either. Because I qualified my answer with the word WERE as it denotes the impossibility of a "magical moment" when fetus becomes baby. Like I've said and linked, it is a process. A long process. Part of the whole process of life.
Katie: "is the magical moment fetus becomes baby you cannot claim it's a baby at conception or it's a baby in utero."

lol, you inept fool. That's when a fetus becomes a newborn INFANT. That's what we've said, "infant", as opposed to "fetus" as you have claimed. Now you're trying to make some other delusional claim? This time about what we've supposedly said? You're such a fool.

Katie: "Because I qualified my answer with the word WERE as it denotes the impossibility of a "magical moment" when fetus becomes baby."

Your qualifier in itself is ridiculous. There's no need for a qualifier since every intelligent adult knows for a fact that a fetus becomes newborn infant upon expulsion from its mother's body. As we have said and proven. You're the one using the term "magical moment", and claiming it's impossible to state when fetus becomes newborn infant. We've proven it's an absolute as to when that happens; immediately upon exiting mother's body, cord attached and whether first breath was taken yet or not. As long as there is LIFE,(beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles...), end of fetal life, beginning of newborn infant life. Proven medically and legally. Your proof; non-existant.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280565 Jan 28, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I've posted for you many occasions the moment medically & legally the preborn baby (fetal stage along human life spectrum) offically moves into the newborn baby stage.
It was right there for you in black and white.
Were you in special ed?
Doubtful, NR. They're much brighter than she is.

She's now trying to claim that you can't claim it's a "baby" in utero because you've stated once born it's a newborn "baby". Baby in utero, newborn baby. Two different phases, one doesn't negate the other. She's a mess.
Kenose

Bellmore, NY

#280566 Jan 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There are long lists of would be parents waiting for babies, even those with colic. Why weren't they put up for adoption so that they could share a life with people who want them?
and how many have you adopted?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280567 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta love how Lynnekins makes shit up as she goes along.
Sorry Lynniekins, I've heard her sister, her daugher and the man involved speak on this issue, more than once.
Just one FACT you have wrong - her family DID try to help, they gave her money to go to another state, where she was to go to Catholic Charaties FOR help. Most of the reasoning why she didn't follow up with that is dead with her, but the man she was with sheds some light on the subject in his own words. SOmething you'd know if you bohtered to do your own research and weren't so dead set on playing know it all.
I maintain, if she would have had legal and safe abortion available to her, she would be alive today, just as MILLIONS of women that have had legal safe abortions are. SHe wouldn't have waited until 6.5 months for one thing, something ELSE you'd know if you bothered to do the research you'd have NEEDED to have done to know what the fuck you're talking about. But NOOOOOOOOOOO, you'd rather talk out your behind than have KNOWN FACTS at your disposal.
ROFLMAO! You dope.
Listen, Toots. You've given nothing to prove you're stating facts. I don't believe your word. You've been proven to be a pathological liar, and you think intelligent adults are going to believe you can't find ONE thing on the internet to back what you claim? lol

Foo: "Just one FACT you have wrong - her family DID try to help, they gave her money to go to another state, where she was to go to Catholic Charaties FOR help. Most of the reasoning why she didn't follow up with that is dead with her, but the man she was with sheds some light on the subject in his own words."

So? Still doesn't justify them USING her and not protecting her dignity or her self-respect with that photo and her story. Her story isn't about legla/illegal abortion. Her story is really about abuse; an affair with a married man; (in the 1960s, big time taboo then), her pregnancy by another man while still married to her own husband; and aborting her VIABLE unborn child.

She died because of her last wrong choice after a long list of wrong choices she had made for herself.

THAT's the story her pro-choice family and PCers try to ignore for "abortion rights". You don't post anything that rebuts what I've said about how this woman has been USED by her family and PCers, and how her dignity and self-respect has not been protected. She wasn't protected in life, and she's not protected in death. That's disgusting.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280569 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? You are not disproving my opinion. Maybe my opinion is outdated. Maybe your info is bad. Maybe your info isn't the protocol used in most full term deliveries (which is what we're discussing). Maybe you're just trying to win a pissing contest. WTH knows or cares?
What I do know is your link doesn't work. No working link, no credibility.
"Error Detected - The page you requested cannot be found.
Please report this error to [email protected]
Please provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred.
Thank you for your patience.
Please consider the following resources:
FDsys Home Page
GPO Home Page
GPO Site Map
GO BACK"
Katie: "What I do know is your link doesn't work. No working link, no credibility.
"Error Detected - The page you requested cannot be found.
Please report this error to [email protected]"

I had no problem getting to the page he linked. Here's what i found on it just now:

"107th Congress Public Law 207]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ207.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 926]]





Public Law 107-207
107th Congress

An Act


To protect infants who are born alive. <<NOTE: Aug. 5, 2002 -[H.R.
2175]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2002.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 8.`Person',`human being',`child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant

``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person',`human
being',`child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``8.`Person',`human being',`child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.

Approved August 5, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2175:
----------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Mar. 12, considered and passed House.
July 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.

<all>

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 Bob53 1,549,882
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 14 hr Fitius T Bluster 20,947
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Mon Ms Sassy 63,859
Poll Do you report neighbors for blantant ordinance ... (Jun '12) Sun Elijah 5
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Jun 24 kauna 1,667
News Memorable Nights At The Shaboo -- Courant.com (Aug '07) Jun 23 Norch 164
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) Jun 20 Dave 327

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages