Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 20 comments on the Jan 22, 2008, Newsday story 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.

corgilicious

Muscotah, KS

#263743 Oct 12, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Catholic website I posted and quoted, you're wrong. Go argue with them y'dingy twit.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.as...
May a eulogy be given at a Catholic funeral?
Catholic funeral rites do not allow space for a eulogy.9 The focus of a Christian funeral is the paschal mystery: the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.10 The funeral rites are not so much a celebration of the life of the deceased, but a prayer that the life and death of the deceased may be joined to Christ in heaven. Because the focus of a Catholic funeral is first on God, eulogies do not have a place within the funeral liturgy.
This does not mean we cannot reflect on and celebrate the life of the deceased. It does mean that such a celebration of the life of the deceased would be more appropriate to a non-liturgical gathering (for example, a post-funeral luncheon).
The Church’s rites do allow a member or a friend of the family to speak in remembrance of the deceased prior to the final commendation.11 This is not a full eulogy, but a brief reflection proportionate to the other parts of the funeral rites.
Evenifitsattheendofthe mass, a eulogy is a eulogy is a eulagy. Roflamao.
corgilicious

Muscotah, KS

#263744 Oct 12, 2012
Hereis another
&fe ature=related
corgilicious

Muscotah, KS

#263745 Oct 12, 2012
Yikes! ROFLAMAO! Even Pope John the twenty third gave a eulogy!!!!!!!!!! As honey booboo says... you are in a hot mess!
corgilicious

Muscotah, KS

#263746 Oct 12, 2012

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#263747 Oct 12, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No Skanky. I told of a missing girl, and reported on what the police said. Go read it.
And stop lying.
<quoted text>
WHY DO YOU LIE?
I never said there was any newstory about any 'kidnapped robbed raped and dumped in a park' SINCE I NEVER SAID THAT HAPPENED.
Seriously, what do you think you gain by continuing to lie about this?
<quoted text>
Except it WASNT. Go read where I said "the picture wont show up, so I'm putting on my facebook page, but here's the link to the Atlanta Police department which has her picture displayed".
There WERE links to the police website, news websites AND the missing persons website Project Jason, which ALL had her picture on it.
Really Skankdawg, if you're going to lie, you should at LEAST refresh your memory about what ACTUALLY happned.
Oh, and are you telling us that a picture in my avitar is why you believed it, NOT because of the police website, the news stories or the Project Jason website?
You're THAT stupid?
I guess everyone forgot that a 14 year old ran away with Ariel. I read over all the post from Sept 13-28. Not to find a discrepancy but just for my own curiosity of how the information became so misconstrued. Your initial post says a 14 year old niece that is true, but later on you do say the other girl is a minor which implies that the one is not a minor. I guess they missed that post maybe and that's how it all got confused. There is no post where you say she was raped, beaten, kidnapped and robbed, but there are posts saying she was robbed, hurt and held against her will. Far cry from rape and kidnapped. That's the thing about posting on forums, words/meanings are different to some people and because they are they will swear that's what you meant. I'm gonna be like Jerry Springer and give my final thought.

1. 1st post was a typo because you acknowledged very soon after that there were two girls, one of which was a minor the other not.

2. Because there was a minor involved, of course you would want other authorities involved other than the Atl Police Dept looking for your 19 year old niece.

3. There is no post from you that implies you were claiming she was raped, or kidnapped. Your post clearly says one of the guys that was caught said it.

4. My view is, you were getting 2nd hand information and just keeping your friends up to date as in came to you.

5. Words are being changed and added to make you look like a liar.

6. The avatar picture I'm not sure about, it appears you had a picture of someone on your Topix avatar, but from what I read, you meant you were putting Ariel's pic on avatar in FB, not Topix.

7. Sassy is still avoiding my question. I'm wondering why she won't answer to the fact that she knew Persevere was Lynne D, she knows Lil is Lynne D and she has yet to find the integrity to tell the truth all the while calling you a liar.......and the same goes for her little dog Toto too.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#263748 Oct 12, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
Yikes! ROFLAMAO! Even Pope John the twenty third gave a eulogy!!!!!!!!!! As honey booboo says... you are in a hot mess!
Honey booboo? You watching porn or something?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#263749 Oct 12, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> FooL DAILY denies that a fetus is a womans baby. To juicy up her latest "drama story" she announces that because of a RELIGIOUS CATHOLIC womans refusal of a LTA (which btw was NEVER PROVEN to be the case) this WOMAN AND HER BABY have died.
Notice her bullsh*tting? This fetus is NOW a baby for her own agenda.
OF COURSE this story cant be proven...THAT IS MY POINT. FooL told us about a kidnapping rape beating and being dumped in the park on the link (go read it) then she DENIED EVER posting that. She ALSO up until recently said she HAS THE NEWSTORY to PROVE the claim that she was kidnapped robbed raped and dumped in a park
She SWEARS that she has posted it on her as proof. If this actually didnt happened then HOW would she have this "saved" newstory to prove it? LMAO
She lied. Then she lied to cover up her lie.
She denies Ariels picture being on her avatar. It WAS and that is why i even posted my concern because i saw a real person so i believed it. At first the pic didnt show up but then it did. She had there for DAYS as a 24 yr old girl.
Also she claims thengirl ran away. LMAO really? A GROWN 20 yr old woman "ran away"?????????
There was a 14 year old child that ran away. Ariel was with her, so yeah if they are looking for Ariel, they would be looking for a 14 year old minor child and that would involve other authorities that deal with missing minor children like the Amber Alert and Center for Missing and Exploited Children..
Foo was talking about her FB avatar, not Topix. You have a bad habit of adding to or changing what Foo actually says.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#263750 Oct 12, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
You agree with the governments right to transport innocent people to death camnps. You just don't agree with what is happening and therefore are absolved of all responsibilty. Yes, it is very simple logic for a proabort pagan.
Undertsand that SadLax, Sparky!
Wow, you talk about me supporting the government in escorting developing human fetuses to "Death Camps" (how dramatic and insane is that?) yet you have no problem with the government taking over a person's right to their own body so that it may serve YOUR religious beliefs?
Tell me, infidel, do you really consider those voices in your head to be that of god?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#263751 Oct 12, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The addition of "...albeit with artificial aid" did not and does not alter the medical definition of viability..
Again, we're talking about the legal definition, which is all that is relevant in abortion law.
realkatie wrote:
It does leave the door open for technological advancements, but it doesn't demand or force the legal gestational age a preemie must be treated because the courts cannot determine that, only physicians can.
I never said it forced the legal gestation age that a preemie must be treated, Roe v Wade never covered that specifically. It did however, determine when a State COULD proscribe abortion of a viable fetus, and set a definition of what a "viable" fetus is.
realkatie wrote:
However, now add your insistence that "states' compelling interests" must mean some kind of opening for legal protection of the fetus over the woman. It actually means the state has to have a compelling interest -- more intense than a legitimate interest -- cause reproductive rights are termed fundamental rights.
Katie, a woman's "reproductive rights" are protected under her implied individual right to privacy. No individual right is absolute, all rights are wieghed against the common good of all the nation. Roe V Wade determined that a woman's right to privacy was compelling until the point of viability, but after that point it determined that her individual right did not supersede the common interest to protect life, and States could proscribe abortion, with extreme exceptions.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#263752 Oct 12, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly,I know the reality of poverty,Kevin. I also understand God doesn't fix everything, that's our job,to do,if we possibly can. I've tried to ask folks on here,for solutions on poverty,thinking that the main reason for abortion. The more I dig,the more I think I'm wrong. I think solutions,should come from us all,but how can that happen,especially after reading this forum? I'm not against all forms of birth control,and you'll probably will ask me,which ones are you for? All forms of barrier methods,which seems not to work as well as others. Improvement to them would be great. Many women would be horrified if they thought,taking chemical birth control would cause an abortion,no matter what they believe. I confess,I would be. I've looked at so many sites,both pro-life and pro-choice that gives different answers,which includes doctors,scientists,etc. I'm not sure who to believe. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough,and the truth be known,I'd really like to believe the pro-choice side on this one. Forcing removal of a fertilized egg, before or after implantation, is something that I wouldn't want for me. I would just like a straight truthful answer,on this one,if there is one. Not an iffy one. Have a good Sunday,Kevin..:)
"Forcing removal of a fertilized egg, before or after implantation, is something that I wouldn't want for me"

I agree, this is something I would never want for a fetus/child I was responsible for creating. But me and my wife are in different circumstances than some women or couples may be, so how can I pretend to make the right decision for them? Poverty is a big and determinate factor, and in my perfect world poverty, nor abortion would exist, but I have to look at the reality of other's worlds, and not suggest what is best for them. Personally, I dont see a moral arguement for aborting a developing human life, except for the reality of the danger many who grow up in dysfunctional homes often present to descent people. I see it as a legal arguement, and I have to agree with Roe V Wade and it's considerations of our constitutional rights. I'm with you in hoping that someday this will be a more perfect world where we all prosper, and care for each other, and most of all, appreciate life.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#263753 Oct 12, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
You and those who agree with you SEEM to want the courts determining women's health issues without any regard to negative consequences for all people and all for the sake of a non-sentient fetus. You SEEM to want there to be an opening to provide legal protections for the unborn above and beyond the "fundamental rights" of pregnant women. That means you are willing to discriminate against pregnant women and remove or "set aside" their civil rights while pregnant.
Katie, what you seem to ignore is that courts are recognizing a woman's implied right to abort, right up until the fetus is viable, and has a very reasonable chance of surviving outside the woman's body. I'm sorry, but your arguments are that a woman's right to privacy should supersede any interest to protect such a viable, potentail life, based solely on her interests and desires. There is no individual right that is protected when it causes the death of an other. Roe V Wade set the point of where a woman's individual rights end when it comes to killing a viable fetus, and States can proscribe abortion at that point. According to you Katie, any interest to protect a viable fetus deprives the woman of consideration of her rights to privacy, that is not the case. Her right to privacy simply does not supersede the common interest to protect a viable fetus, and your beliefs that her rights are absolute until the cord is cut are not in line with court decisions or the majority of Americans logical thinking and beliefs.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263755 Oct 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No actually, it wasn't. You simply ASSumed and made a fool of yourself as usual when you were wrong. And now you're going on day THREE of trying to justify your foolishness.
<quoted text>
Really? Show me where I said she and "her husband" NOW live in Texas.
<quoted text> Yes.
<quoted text>
Nope, you got one pretty major thing wrong so far. But keep going, this is fun!
<quoted text>
Yet nobody mentioned cremating or embalming. Again, just another ASSumption for no reason.
<quoted text>
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!
You JUST said you knew she was from another country. I said more than once her body was being sent home TO her home country. So in what delusional world would you think they live in the same area as us?
And yes, I did say that J's family lives up here. I didn't say where her family was from, because other than "not from this country", its none of your business. Tho I'm betting those WITH a brain already figured it out by the context of the discussion about the hospital.
<quoted text>
What views did I post ABOUT the memorial service?
Other than than pointing out that I didn't say SHIT about a funeral when YOU ASSumed that and said something stupid again.
But for the record, I DID say we were having a memorial service up here, and who was coming and that was BEFORE your stupidity about "funerals".
AGAIN for the stupid thing: there is not a funeral here. A funeral is NOT the same thing as a memorial. A funeral mass is NOT the same thing as a memorial mass.
I dont give a shit WHAT YOU think on the matter, the FACT is you're wrong.
As usual.
This is how stupid your reasoning is.

I said, "Bodies can be cremated and shipped. Bodies can be embalmed and shipped."

You replied, "Yet nobody mentioned cremating or embalming. Again, just another ASSumption for no reason."

It's an assumption "for no reason", you say? LOL. What do you think is usually done with dead bodies in this country, Toots?
Do you think they're just left to rot?

No, they're either cremated or embalmed.

It's for stupid reasoning like that, which you display in every post you make, that is the reason intelligent, sensible people don't take YOU seriously.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263756 Oct 13, 2012
Foo: "You JUST said you knew she was from another country. I said more than once her body was being sent home TO her home country."

Not before or during the time you mentioned memorial services the first time. Also, let's remember you just said prior to that in reply to my mentioning ermbalming or cremating, Foo:"Yet nobody mentioned cremating or embalming. Again, just another ASSumption for no reason."

They HAVE to embalm or cremate to ship a body, no matter where it's being shipped.

You have a clear lack of reasoning skills, and sense.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263757 Oct 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Skaaaaaanky! Knutbar! Inkstain? Gee, where ARE these "good catholics" to tell Lyin Lynne how WRONG she is?
Gee, the hypocritial silence is deafening....
I'm not wrong, and is why they're not telling me I am. Easy, right?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263758 Oct 13, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> We have wakes where we view the body. Family and friends gather. The funeral is a Catholic mass.
Lily is.correct. During the funeral ...we will talk about the person. It's not mandatory but we do it. In fact it is a memorial service during the funeral mass.
Had I just gone one post down before making my prior post, I could have saved myself the time it took to make the post. lol

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263759 Oct 13, 2012
Also, I have been to Catholic funerals, so I'm well aware of what's done.

That's where Foo (and most PCers) and I differ. I actually know what I'm talking about when I post on a topic, where she has to ask people or google for info on everything she posts about.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263760 Oct 13, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, you did tell us of a missing girl and what the police said about her kidnapping beating rape and being dumped in a park. YOU have been denying for years that you EVER posted that. Helloooooooo
Your posts prove that you did.
We've been asking you for PROOF of that. YOU said you had links to prove it. I asked you for years to show us. YOU claimed that you did when you didnt.
Truth is...she NEVER was kidnapped, raped and dumped in a park like you used to gain attention. Even I was stupid enough to believe you especially when uou showed her pic on your avatar( which you ALSO deny
doing).
You also lied about her age.
You also said that shen"ran away".
A 20 yr old ran away?
LMAO Drama queen who was busted for exxaggerating and lying.
FooL, for real, just stop already.
She keeps desperately looking for loopholes to use but she's only showing how pathetic she is to try to deny the facts. It just keeps display she can't read for comprehension.

You didn't say she (claimed) it, you said she SAID it and she did, here in the forums in her own posts. That's what SHE TOLD everyone here, in her own posts, and that's what her own posts showed. The guy who told the police, and the police who told the family, and the family who told Foo, are not the ones who came HERE and told everyone here. FOO is, her posts containing those words raped, beaten and left in the park are all that was needed to prove it, and they did.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263761 Oct 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it IS. Well, its not a "chatroom" but it IS a social networking website forum Lynne, and PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT OR DISCUSS WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO IN ***ANY*** THREAD HERE.
That's what a social networking forum IS.
<quoted text>
No, I did it because I felt like it. Unlike you, I dont need attention. People I knew were posting here in real time, and that's who I wanted to talk to.
Unlike you, not everyone has a NEGATIVE agenda every time they come here to post.
YOU seem to be determined to make everyone as miserable as you are, and you get all pissy when people treat you like the joke you are.
<quoted text>
I could have. I didn't. Dont like it? That's YOUR tough shit moment. Many of us have off topic discussions with our friends here Lynne. I know, you dont have any friends, but really, the MAJORITY of us do! And this is sometimes where we come for some "real time" discussion. Again, dont like it? Tough shit.
<quoted text>
I personally dont believe you have many friends Lynne, espeically if you lecture to them as you lectured to me and others that you've emailed with here over the years. But IF you do, by all means, use any avenues you want to contact them.
But YOU dont get to determine how I or anyone else contacts each other OR where we get to talk about off topic subjects.
<quoted text>
Good for you. Then dont. But the REALITY is that most of the folks here aren't 'strangers' after years of posting to and with each other.
And another reality is that you've shared MUCH more of your life experiences here - or lied about them - so you have NO room to talk.
See the difference between us is, you've created enemies here and people that can't be bothered enough with you to treat you as if you have any credibility because of your inabliity to communicate, your superior attitude, and frankly, your PROVEN lies.
<quoted text>
No Lynne, people that crave attention and want to feel important in the eyes of others are those like YOU who insist on trolling a social networking site where you have NO respect, NO credibility and nobody can stand your santimonious ass.
If you actually wanted TOPIC discussion, you'd find a thread where nobody knows you and you DONT have 7+ years of negative history, and then actually stick to the topic.
What do you think you're doing here RIGHT NOW with this garbage Lynne? You're metaphorically and literally SCREAMING for attention.
"Well, its not a "chatroom" but it IS a social networking website forum ..."

See, you say something stupid and senseless in your first or second sentence, and that's just a precursor to the rest of your posts which always contain the same things.

NO, this is a public online DISCUSSION/DEBATE forum. Specifically, an ABORTION discussion/debate forum. Topix contains many discussion/debate forums specifically geared toward certain TOPICS OF DISCUSSION/DEBATE, this one being ABORTION.

"Social networking website forum" is a place like Twitter, Facebook, Myspace...

Holy cow, the stupidity being posted by you is at an all time high lately. Who WOULDN'T insult that? It begs for it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263762 Oct 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't talking about sociology Lynne.
<quoted text>
Again: Psychology IS the study of human behavior you dumbass.
Elise was talking about it being a sociology.
Sorry Lynne. We know intelligence isn't your forte.
I already answered this stupidity coming from you the first time, and explained how the word "behavior" came into plauy and why. I don't expect you to understand it, you had to look up what psychology is.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#263763 Oct 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO You actually have been sitting here trying to justify your bullshit about getting laid in the middle of the day, and you think I'm the fool??
LOLOLOLOL!! Trust us Lynniekins, you've outdone yourself making a complete idiot of yourself the last few days.
You're not only a fool, but a hypocrite.
LOL, no I haven't. I was posting about knowing what you 2 were talking about, and mocking your stupidity asking for proof of my claim, MC.

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.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Miss Jenny Abortion Procedure (Apr '14) 8 hr zaaz 24
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) Mon prophecydotorg 7,408
News Are the majority of Americans against religious... Mon Wondering 46
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) Apr 25 zef 5,652
News New abortion controversy hits Congress Apr 25 RP McMurphy 14
Apr 24 Ren 2
News Pediatricians Warn of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Apr 23 dpriver 2
9 reasons abortion MUST remain legal. (Sep '07) Apr 19 CJC93 1,418
More from around the web