Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310344 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323765 Apr 18, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Unborn Women get aborted / murdered all the time.
Women are born - but you're right: we do get murdered rather frequently.

Rather than worshiping the fetuses of strangers, and having the gall to call fetuses 'unborn women', how about dedicating yourself to helping BORN people?

Advocate for freely available contraception. Advocate for victims of domestic and sexual violence. Advocate for anti-poverty measures, such as food security, and job training. You know - things you might actually have some input toward, and through which you can make a real difference in the number and frequency of abortion.

However, in case you didn't already know this, no woman has to take your opinion into consideration, when making a decision of whether or not to have sex, much less whether or not to gestate. Personally, I think THAT's what really bothers you - not the 'murder of babies'.

I notice you're not wailing and gnashing your teeth about IVF - and it's DELIBERATE killing of human embryos, for the purpose of implanting the ones left alive, in a womb somewhere. But those embryos are just as dead as the ones willfully aborted. How come you're not yowling about them?

Next...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323768 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Just thought I'd mention this; it's interesting to see how in the very state where a federal judge just struck down a law that forbids an abortion once a heart beat is detected, North Dakota, the very law that provides for punishment under "fetal homicide" statutes, expressly defines person as to "not include the pregnant woman[,]" but does not, expressly, state the fetus IS a person.
Which even a 1L would know to argue that if the pregnant woman is NOT a person under the statute, then it's axiomatic the fetus isn't a person either, given the medical fact that fetus, especially non-viable fetus, cannot survive without "mommy.
Given the medical fact that certain people cannot survive without some kind of mechanical life support, the fact that the mechanical life support is not a person doesn't make the one who relies on it to sustain life and who can't survive without it, any less of a person.
It would be judicially impossible to support that.
No it wouldn't.
In fact, it would almost make as much sense as, hypothetically of course, suing the driver of the FedEx truck for your injuries, which you sustained when the FedEx truck rear-ended your car, and not suing the "deep pocket," to wit: FedEx.
Are you honest enough to agree the hypothetical scenario above is senseless?
I'm honest enough to admit that all I did was correct an inaccurate statement, to wit: you couldn't be charged with double murder if you murdered a pregnant woman.
What suing the Fed Ex driver instead of Fed Ex has to do with that.....is anyone's guess.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323770 Apr 18, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, every fetal homicide law specifically excludes legal abortion from its applicability.
So ? And just how is that relevant to the fact that I correctly pointed out that a person could be charged with double murder if they murder a pregnant woman ?
As we all know, but some of us prefer to ignore, the law protects WOMEN from being murdered,


There already are laws that prohibit women from being murdered. The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not.
and ALSO from abortion against her will.
Not always. Since abortion, as you and others are quick to point out, is merely the termination of pregnancy, it is possible that a pregnant woman could be abducted and have a viable pre-term fetus surgically removed, thereby aborting her pregnancy against her will.
Fetal homicide laws would have no application in that case since no homicide occurred.
You forgot to mention that part.
I didn't forget anything. I only corrected an inaccurate statement.
Next.....
I'm sorry, is there someone else waiting in the wings with another statement irrelevant to what I responded to ?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323771 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since abortion, as you and others are quick to point out, is merely the termination of pregnancy, it is possible that a pregnant woman could be abducted and have a viable pre-term fetus surgically removed, thereby aborting her pregnancy against her will.
Fetal homicide laws would have no application in that case since no homicide occurred.
And thank you for agreeing that absent the death of the pregnant woman herself, no homicide has occurred in the death of the fetus.

It's rather axiomatic that therefore, abortion is not homicide, murder, or even aggravated assault.

Thanks for playing.

Next...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323775 Apr 18, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And thank you for agreeing that absent the death of the pregnant woman herself, no homicide has occurred in the death of the fetus.
Zip it you drunkard. I agreed to no such thing. Fetal homicide charges could absolutely be brought against someone who assaults (not kill) a pregnant woman thereby causing the death of her fetus.

http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archiv...

What I DID say is that fetal homicide laws do not necessarily prohibit abortion against a pregnant woman's will. They prohibit KILLING the fetus against a pregnant woman's will.
It's rather axiomatic that therefore,
.....you need to put down that bottle of Dewars.
abortion is not homicide, murder, or even aggravated assault.[/.QUOTE]

Never said it was. I only said that someone who murders a pregnant woman can IN FACT be charged with double murder.

[QUOTE]Thanks for playing.
What....the "belittle the old coot" game ?
Next...
Someone else waiting in the wings to say something irrelevant to the fact that someone who murders a pregnant woman could be charged with double murder ???

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#323776 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really this stupid, or are you just trying?
Only a true idiot would dare compare a fetus, who does not breathe air, to a born person on a mechanical form of life support, and then try to argue both are persons.
Look dumbshit, no one compared a fetus to a born person. This was an issue of YOU attempting to argue that an entity could not be stipulated a "person" simply because the entity to which their survival depended, was also not a "person".
Ridiculous.
Look dumbass, your beef is not with me. Your beef is with SCOTUS. Take it up with them. It was SCOTUS who determined the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to a fetus, because IT ISN'T A PERSON. It applies to mommy, because she IS A PERSON.
Look dumbnuts, my argument wasn't and isn't with SCOTUS at all. It's with the dunce who claimed that someone murdering a pregnant woman could not be charged with double murder. Are you clear on this yet ?
You may be honest, but you're still stupid, since you can't make the connection. And stupid is not something that can be fixed.
There is no connection between your dumbass Fed Ex scenario and someone saying you cannot charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman.

YOU CAN !!!

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/08/27/charge...

http://www.kvia.com/news/man-charged-with-mur...

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323777 Apr 18, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Unborn Women get aborted / murdered all the time.
You obviously are the one who hates women
Hey moron, ever seen an ultrasound of a baby in the womb. If you have you will know that you are killing a human being.
Hey stupid, I am a mother and a grandmother. I was with my sister in the delivery room when she delivered my nephew. I have been pregnant and given birth. I have seen many ultrasounds. None of them were of unborn women. There is no such thing as an unborn woman.

I love women. My mother is a woman, my daughter is a woman, my best friends are women, my sisters are both women and I am a woman!! They have all been pregnant and given birth. Some have had abortions. I trust them all to make the best decisions for their lives.

Your posts are getting more asinine by the day. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. What other women do is none of your business.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323778 Apr 18, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You are typical Pro-abortion-murder supporter who is so full of hate and anger at all of humanity you wish abortion on others including me.
You are free to change words to make them sound better but you are killing human beings.
There is no difference between someone living and an unborn living being except
Size of the person
Level of development of the person
Environment where the person lives
Degree of dependency of the person
You are truly a hard core coward hater of life and humanity, I feel sorry for you.
Omg. ROFLMFAO. Funniest post I have seen in a long time.

So, you let me know the next time a fetus can drive a car, or do algebra, or dress itself, or I dunno, breath some fncking air, eat food, walk, or sustain its own bodily functions like, say, a living BORN person.

You are so truly hard core stupid and a hater of science and reality, I feel sorry for you.

Oh and wishing dopes like you aborted has nothing to do with hate. Its more about weeding the stupid out of the human race. You're dragging the rest of us down.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323781 Apr 18, 2014
A woman doesn't fit into a uterus. Women are adult human females. Words actually have meanings.

A fetus is not a human being. It has the potential to become one, but there's no guarantee they will gestate fully.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Unborn Women get aborted / murdered all the time.
You obviously are the one who hates women
Hey moron, ever seen an ultrasound of a baby in the womb. If you have you will know that you are killing a human being.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323782 Apr 18, 2014
Anti-semitism? The spectrum of your ignorant hatred is quite broad, isn't it?
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
A typical jerkoff like you hides behind the Law to justify all sorts of immoral activities. I bet you would rip off your own family if you could do it legally.
Most likely you are probably a slimeball ambulance chasing personal injury Lawyer who advises people how to just skirt under around and by and give everyone the shaft then think you are very clever because you skrewed some insurance company "legally". I know Jews just like you who do that sort of garbage and carry a smug, superior stiff neck attitude the whole time. You ain't fooling me for one second Pal.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323783 Apr 18, 2014
People on life-support are born and thus are persons under the constitution. Fetuses are not born and have no inherent rights; the woman is born and vested just like any other citizen.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the medical fact that certain people cannot survive without some kind of mechanical life support, the fact that the mechanical life support is not a person doesn't make the one who relies on it to sustain life and who can't survive without it, any less of a person.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't.
<quoted text>
I'm honest enough to admit that all I did was correct an inaccurate statement, to wit: you couldn't be charged with double murder if you murdered a pregnant woman.
What suing the Fed Ex driver instead of Fed Ex has to do with that.....is anyone's guess.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#323785 Apr 18, 2014
They've had a few centuries to fix that.

The real story:
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were smart enough to know the first thing about "hillbillies" and why they are in their impoverished condition you would probably be hesitant to be so judgmental. Most of "hillbillies" trace their roots to the early settlement of the United States. They were starving uneducated London street urchins and orphans abandoned by their family and sentenced by the English Court system as indentured servants and shipped to the new land. Once they got to America, if they survived the trip, they ran away from abuse, beatings, rape and cruelty by their master and "headed to the hills" and carved out a crude existence in the Appalachian Mountains and ended up working in the coal mines to survive. These are the people you make fun of today. You would probably be surprised at some of their good qualities and their love of family.
Many studies have shown that women are coerced and forced by their "boyfriends" to kill their child. Many girls get in trouble in college or teenage years and have families that could help them. Others choose the easy way out to escape public humiliation and embarassment. Others simply do not care. Regardless of the circumstances it is killing a life and it is wrong.
Scummy lawyers often get confused about this because what is legal has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how good you can argue a case to a jury.
Good day and have a good Passover Celebration

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323786 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the medical fact that certain people cannot survive without some kind of mechanical life support, the fact that the mechanical life support is not a person doesn't make the one who relies on it to sustain life and who can't survive without it, any less of a person.
Right. A born person is a person even if it is dependent on artificial life support. Funny thing about that. If a born persons brain function is such that it can no longer sustains its own bodily functions or consciousness, that born person is considered brain dead and can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support.

A fetus, which is NOT a person, or born, has a brain function that is equal to that of a brain dead person as it can not sustain its own bodily function or consciousness. A fetus which is NOT a person, therefore can be legally and morally disconnected from its life support since that life support BY its life support who is and actual PERSON.

So, your point was??
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm honest enough to admit that all I did was correct an inaccurate statement, to wit: you couldn't be charged with double murder if you murdered a pregnant woman.
What suing the Fed Ex driver instead of Fed Ex has to do with that.....is anyone's guess.
NO ONE said you "couldn't" be charged with double homicide. Why can't you anti-choicers ever follow the actual argument? Or are you just lacking honesty?? The actual statement was not incorrect. It depends on where you are, when you kill a pregnant woman, and sometimes on the length of gestation, whether or not you will be charged with double murder. Some states DO NOT HAVE fetal homicide laws. SO the incorrect statement was that if you kill a pregnant woman you WILL be charge with double homicide.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323787 Apr 18, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>

Look dumbnuts, my argument wasn't and isn't with SCOTUS at all. It's with the dunce who claimed that someone murdering a pregnant woman could not be charged with double murder.
Hey jackass, Noah never made such a claim. Here is how it went:

This is the claim Seventee made:
"You do know you will be charged with DOUBLE murder if you kill a pregnant woman."

It said ****WILL be charged****

I replied:
"No actually you won't be charged with double murder if you murder a pregnant woman. You really should stop getting your information from anti choice websites."

Then Seventee made another assinine claim about the "Unborn Victims Act" and I answered:
"Unborn Victims is a federal law you loon. It does not apply in my state. SO NO you will not always be charged with double murder if you kill a woman and a her fetus. Funny that you do not know that. Btw, abortion is ALWAYS exempt. Why do you suppose that is?"

SO, you blithering TWIT, you are arguing your own straw man like the typical ignorant anti-choicer who thinks he is smart but is always far from it. No one EVER SAID a person "could not" be charged with double murder.

SO lets review.

1. You are arguing with the wrong person because you are a moron.

2. No one ever made the claim you think you are "correcting", so you are either dishonest or have reading comprehension issues.

SO are you really this stupid or are you just trying?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323788 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're suggesting that a charge of double homicide, or murder, will result in two convictions of homicide/murder. And that's not always the case.
<quoted text>
There is. You're just too stupid and narrow minded to see it. And I'm not going to educate you. Go to law school and then we can discuss it ad nauseum.
<quoted text>
Woopty f*cking do.
Go and find out if in either case there were two convictions of murder.
(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)

Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.

Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323789 Apr 18, 2014
Just came back, and checked out the last page. I had quite the giggle at Lawyer Man. What a joke! I hope you don't write like that with any legal documentations. You'd be a laughing stock, and an example of how NOT to handle things.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323790 Apr 18, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"The purpose of this law was to establish the fetus as a homicide victim which heretofore it was not."
Wrong. The purpose of FHLs is two fold. 1- to offer greater deterrence against violence towards women, specifically a pregnant woman, by subjecting the offender to the possibility of being charged for two (2) felonies; and 2- to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, just as her right to terminate a pregnancy is protected. There is also an element of protecting a state's interest in the preservation of potential life, although pursuant to the holding in Roe, only kicks in at viability. I would argue that states who enforce FHLs at any stage prior to viability, are seeking unconstitutional punishment.
You have to consider that the exception of FHLs must be proportional to the very purpose of the FHLs. Thus, because FHLs exclude prosecution of a doctor who performs a legal abortion as requested by the woman, which directly correlates with the constitutional protection a woman enjoys, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, then the exact opposite can only be the prosecution of someone who maliciously and against her will, terminates a pregnancy she does not intend to terminate.
Further, in many jurisdictions, if the woman does not die, but the fetus does, the defendant can only be charged with ONE felony, whether it's assault, aggravated assault, or the like. Not two.
Did you thank Google, Wikipedia, and copy and paste when they handed you your ((snicker)) Law Degree?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#323791 Apr 18, 2014
I'm a Doctor, ask me anything medical, and I can answer that for you. You're welcome!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323793 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>(staying away from Chicky because I meant what I said)
Dude, you're an idiot. I know lots of Lawyers quite well, Judges too. You aren't anything like them. You're way too emotional, and you don't have the ability to stand back, and look at something without bias or prejudice. You've shown that so many times, it's pathetic. I can clearly see that you're probably not very good at your job, and feel it necessary to belittle others to boost yourself up. I also don't know any Lawyers that feel it necessary to brag about themselves "ad nauseum", unless they just don't have what it takes. You need to stop prancing around acting like such a B*tch.
Please go back to Law School, you're an embarrassment to the Legal Profession.
Rachel, that's a crock. In no profession are all those part of it cookie cutter versions of all others. They're all people, and all people have biases, and emotions. Some would express them more, some less.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone shouldn't brag if they feel they have something to brag about. You do. All the time. Incessantly. Yes?:)

Didn't we already talk about the fact that YOUR experiences don't equal ALL experiences?:)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323794 Apr 18, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
Just came back, and checked out the last page. I had quite the giggle at Lawyer Man. What a joke! I hope you don't write like that with any legal documentations. You'd be a laughing stock, and an example of how NOT to handle things.
You must be bored. You're trolling again, 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) 10 min ritedownthemiddle 1,263,874
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr ritedownthemiddle 54,358
News Dining Detour: Restaurants near Nassau Coliseum (Jan '09) 9 hr Joan 12
Review: Nirenstein Horowitz And Associates (Sep '12) Fri psuzanne790 47
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Thu TRD 70,142
MK hot handbag cheap MK wallets Watch on iluxsh... Thu Dicy 1
News FBI at Carabetta Office Building on Center and ... (Jun '11) Wed zippy 16
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages