Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336847 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.

Katie

Seattle, WA

#275904 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Res ipsa loquitur.
Your quotes speak for themselves.
The quotes can mean anything anyone wants them to mean without proper context. I guess you are that deceptive. Jesus is so proud.

:|

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275905 Jan 11, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
You arereally into the "corn cob in the azz" thing, aren't you?
Are you now speaking on behalf of ZEF? Any reason why she can't speak for herself?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#275906 Jan 11, 2013
Janet DiPietro is a psychologist, not a neonatal physician or a neurologist. She's making some HUGE assumptions, none of which have been confirmed by peer review. As for saying that nothing neurologically-interesting happens during birth--she evidently never attended a birthing or took a class concerning birthing.

None of this is relevant to the 95% or so of abortions, which occur in the first trimester.
zef wrote:
<quoted text>Fetus that have been gestating for nine months have greater self awareness that neonates born prematurely after eight months of gestation. People mature with age not environment.
Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.
The scene never fails to give goose bumps: the baby, just seconds old and still dewy from the womb, is lifted into the arms of its exhausted but blissful parents. They gaze adoringly as their new child stretches and squirms, scrunches its mouth and opens its eyes. To anyone watching this tender vignette, the message is unmistakable. Birth is the beginning of it all, ground zero, the moment from which the clock starts ticking.
Not so, declares Janet DiPietro. Birth may be a grand occasion, says the Johns Hopkins University psychologist, but "it is a trivial event in development. Nothing neurologically interesting happens."
Armed with highly sensitive and sophisticated monitoring gear, DiPietro and other researchers today are discovering that the real action starts weeks earlier. At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275907 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural Law of Human Beings states Katie's aborted granddaughter had a right to life. She was created just as she was supposed to be, living & growing exactly where she was meant to be. Intentionally killing her (and Katie encouraging her daughter to kill her) violated the Natural Law of Human Beings.
Holy sh*t, NR. You'll stoop to any level. Posting about make-believe babies who never existed in the first place? Jesus smiles.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275908 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD: You're totally out in left field with your f*cked up argument.
I was so out in left field that you didn't provide even ONE rebuttle.
Not one.
Derp.
Next..........
It's rebuttal, not rebuttle.

Besides, you are so far out on left field that not even a number of cell towers in between would carry the signal well enough for you to hear any rebuttal.

How's that for a rebuttal?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275909 Jan 11, 2013
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1...

Link to "Laci and Connor's law" about a pregnant woman and her "unborn child" being killed.

Even legally the human life in utero is called a "human being" in this law, so Bitner's and any other PCers claims that those in utero are NOT "human beings" are full of lying shit.

"‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275910 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You realize it doesn't matter what other people call strangers' ZEFs, right? You realize you've made a mountain out of a molehill?
Kold Katie: "You realize it doesn't matter what other people call strangers' ZEFs, right?"

Next time you see a pregnant woman you do not know in a grocery store line, ask her when her "useless wad of cells" is do.

See if she considers your comment belittling or not.
__________

"No, I don't think calling fetuses in general "a useless wad of cells" is belittling to anyone." - Kold Katie http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275911 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy sh*t, NR. You'll stoop to any level. Posting about make-believe babies who never existed in the first place? Jesus smiles.
Ask your daughters.

You taught them "bodily autonomy"......to death.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275912 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD thinks pregnancy is discrimination. I guess he plans on suing our Creator?
{{{ shakes head }}}
You got his most recent address? I have the summons ready, but I need a more specific address than "a menger in Bethelem" for the process server.

TIA..
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#275913 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the link I supplied yesterday discussed gender selection in countries like China and India. And now you've provided more material confirming it. Thanks.
The studies were in and about the USA because it is legal here.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275914 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I'm not big, it's stupid to call me Jumbo. Is that another psychological projection?
Kathwynn didn't cite any court transcripts, he only claimed something about what was in them. As to his comment about what newspapers called the Peterson "baby", I provided a document that was about a law made which states "unborn baby" and "human being" as the terms for when a child IN UTERO is killed as Connor was, and is what I had replied to his ignorant post with.
"Lazy reporting" was ireelevant to what I had provided in my posts about the Peterson baby that was killed in utero.
If anyone has the court transcript that shows Connor died {after} he "popped out" as Kathwyn said, then provide it.
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004", aka "Laci and Connor's law" is about a pregnant woman and her UNBORN child being killed.
I provided that law to show Kathwyn that not only did Connor die BEFORE "popping out" and not AFTER, as Kathwyn claimed, but that the law itself uses the terms "unborn child", "a child who is in utero" and "human being" to describe the human life IN UTERO. It also refers to the woman who's pregnant as "the child's mother".
Obviously, legally, those terms apply to the human lives in utero, and I didn't see it stated that those terms apply only at full term or at viability.
Now, you tell me how your question applies to anything that was being posted by me, or Kathwynn in response to my posts, or how what you posted rebuts the facts I posted. Facts Kathwyn tried to rebut and only displayed he's another pro-choicer who doesn't know anything on the topic he posts about, like you, Foo et al.
The legal terms are not based on medical scientific terms. Everyone should know that.

There is no etymology of "unborn baby" because the phrase refers back to pregnancy being described as "with child".

Anyone can call the ZEF anything they want and it has no impact on anything or anyone. In a debate, though, both sides need to agree on terms and definitions or the debate will not progress.

That pretty much sums up the issues in this forum with this group of people. Most of the PCers use medical terms while most of the PLers use emotional terms.

That creates a stalemate (and silly post exchanges like we're having about KW's post).
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#275915 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, then wouldn't ADOPTION be the better choice? Abortion isn't the only choice a woman has. If you're so pro-"choice" then why do you sound like you're saying a mom only has the choice to have a baby or abortion? Those aren't the only two choices out there. But organizations like Planned Parenthood never say the word adoption. When people ask a woman why they had an abortion alot of them say "I had no choice." I love the old argument, "Mind your own buisness about women's health." Okay, so I should ignore the fact that a woman is carrying "something" with a beating heart. That's like telling an enviornmentalist to mind thier own buisness about not wanting trees in the rainforrest to be cut down. Like telling an abolitionist in the 1850's to mind their own buisness about a slaveowner owning his "property"(slavery, like abortion, was also considered a constitutional right) Just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right.
How many have you adopted?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275916 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have been more specific. That's why I thought you meant the whole statement was a lie. Try to think before you type next time.
Try to exercise that lonely neuron of yours a little more. The gift of Discernment is something your Jeebus will give you for free and all you have to do is ask for it.

"The baby that doesn't cry doesn't suck." So get to sucking. I mean to crying.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275917 Jan 11, 2013
This is interesting from that same law.

"‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

‘(d) 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.’."

Even after it states the law specifically does not permit prosecution for abortion; section (d) states that the terms we pro-lifers have used is what lawmakers use too. ALL referring to a human life in utrero and they make it clear, "at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

Who are the pro-choice idiots who claimeds that an unborn child is not a member of the homo sapiens species? Petey? STO? Carbon?

Just goes to prove how mind bogglingly ignorant and full of lying shit they all really are.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#275918 Jan 11, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says we HAVE to have an opinion on it. Its simply none of ANYONE'S business, like ANY medical decision of this nature.
You have an opinion on everything else even stuff you know nothing about. You are just too chicken to have one on this subject, gender selection abortion.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275919 Jan 11, 2013
Oh, forgot to add this tidbit. Mrs. Jumbo is Dumbo's mother.

Asking if I'm projecting as if you didn't see the Disney movie, "Dumbo" is hilarious. You're the one who called KW "Dumbo" to begin with.

Just another fine example of you not knowing or understanding what others say, right?
<chuckle>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#275920 Jan 11, 2013
Not if she doesn't want to be pregnant. PP does refer women to adoption services if they ask, but PP is a medical facility, not a social-worker office.

And yes--mind your own business. What the woman has or does not have within her body is absolutely NONE of your business.
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, then wouldn't ADOPTION be the better choice? Abortion isn't the only choice a woman has. If you're so pro-"choice" then why do you sound like you're saying a mom only has the choice to have a baby or abortion? Those aren't the only two choices out there. But organizations like Planned Parenthood never say the word adoption. When people ask a woman why they had an abortion alot of them say "I had no choice." I love the old argument, "Mind your own buisness about women's health." Okay, so I should ignore the fact that a woman is carrying "something" with a beating heart. That's like telling an enviornmentalist to mind thier own buisness about not wanting trees in the rainforrest to be cut down. Like telling an abolitionist in the 1850's to mind their own buisness about a slaveowner owning his "property"(slavery, like abortion, was also considered a constitutional right) Just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275921 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you needed to clarify it and you have.
I do not think someone referring, in general, to a stranger's unknown ZEF, as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling to anyone.
The stranger is an unknown, as is the ZEF. And whatever that stranger determines her ZEF to be is what matters. Somebody else's opinion means squat. Even if that somebody else reveres the ZEF and refers to it as a baby or doesn't give it a second thought and refers to it as a "useless wad of cells."
Katie is a "useless" excuse for a human being.

That's not belittling to you, according to what you're saying. I don't know you, you're a stranger to me.

" 'Useless' wad of cells" IS belittling, you ignoirant twit.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275922 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward. There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook. CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
"Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance."

Surely you can prove your claim.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275923 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask your daughters.
You taught them "bodily autonomy"......to death.
You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?

(quit crawling with the snakes and leave my grown daughters out of your posts, out of your thoughts altogether)

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min Trump Lied Steele... 71,887
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Coffee Party 1,745,708
News Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 17 min swampmudd 514
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 19 min Cat 1,455
News Mitt Romney Fails to Bypass Utah Primary for U.... 29 min whiney beech 12
News Kremlin: Trump invited Putin to White House, bu... 29 min CodeTalker 370
News Pompeo facing rare opposition from Senate panel 33 min CodeTalker 14
News Liberals say immigration enforcement is racist,... 36 min southern at heart 353