Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,315
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

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#276964 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?
Why do you have such a low opinion of PC'ers in general and women in particular?

If my husband had an affair he wouldn't have to worry about packing his bags. My neighbors, if watching, would think it was snowing clothing. What would happen to him after that would be none of my business. Much like the uterine contents of another.
1 post removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276966 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't legally define a fetus as a human being. It clearly defines a fetus as an unborn child with the same rights of protection against harm as any other born person. There is no legal definition of human being.
I didn't say it was a "legal definition", you bonehead. I said for the purposes of THAT law, a fetus was defined IN THAT LAW as an unborn child and also as a human being.

You don't even know what the word "define" means, do you? If you did, you'd know you sound mind bogglingly ignorant about this. Bad enough your claims of what I've said make you sound that way already.

You sound as uneducated about what you post on as the PC boneheads who tried to claim RvW didn't define viability, when it did, and clearly. You were one of those boneheads too, weren't you?
1 post removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276968 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not defining the ZEF as an unborn child or a human being. They're saying, for sentencing purposes (for punishment of the crime of violence against a pregnant woman), the ZEF will be treated as a human being, just like it's mother is.
You have to read and understand that "subparagraph A" states what the punishment HAD BEEN when a ZEF was killed by a 3rd party. And that NOW sentencing is "...provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
You've been C&Ping it for days now.
<quoted text>
Mind boggling ignorance you display.

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.
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276970 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Ramble on, Toots. I asked for proof I said the law was about the Petersons..
Sure. No problem.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Connor obviously died while in utero or he wouldn't have been named in that particular law, would they?
Clearly you didn't have a CLUE that why he (AND HIS MOTHER BTW) were named because the family wanted to lend their name to help push the law through congress, and thats about it.

The FACT is that at the TIME OF THE LAWS PASSAGE, the coroner's report had not been released, and in FACT it is STILL NOT KNOWN if he died in utero OR after he was born. There is no SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE either way.

You and inkstain BOTH believed that their deaths were directely related to this law, but in FACT, the bill had been before congress for YEARS before the murders.

Its very clear that you didn't have a clue about the history of the bill, because IF you did, you wouldn't have spent two days babbling such bullshit LOLOLOL!!
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#276971 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?
There are some wives who've raised their husbands' "indiscretions". There are some who wouldn't dream of it. There are some who'd welcome the "indiscretion" into the family, and some who wouldn't.

And V. C. Andrews writes stories about control freak women who tie pregnant women to beds throughout pregnancy and delivery.

I picture you as one of V. C. Andrews' control freak character.
3 posts removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276975 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
And as CPtr said, conveyed, and some of us also said, conveyed, extreme circumstances may call for extreme measures. Nobody was saying that every single case of pre-ecclampsia would have that kind of end-result. But it does happen to be necessary treatment for maybe 1 out of 250,000. But you want to deny a therapeutic abortion for that one.
This has been posted to you often enough, I'm surprised someone of your self-proclaimed intellectual level hadn't gotten it.
"Nobody was saying that every single case of pre-ecclampsia would have that kind of end-result. But it does happen to be necessary treatment for maybe 1 out of 250,000. But you want to deny a therapeutic abortion for that one."

Prove that Petey wasn't talking about all pregnant women in late pregnsancy with eclampsia. We had been talking about VIABLE fetuses in late pregnancy.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276976 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I've proven you wrong quite often, both in the past (when you claimed that you knew someone "born in a PVS" which has never happened in history for just ONE example, and in the present, when you claimed:
<quoted text>
And -
<quoted text>
The LAW didn't prove shit about whether or not he was alive or dead when born.
The LAW didn't "substantiate" anything of the kind.
In fact, that law had very little to do with the Peterson murders at all, since ALL it was, was the family jumping into the political arena by lending their name to it because of the publicity at the time.
Just one MORE example of you being wrong.
You haven't proven me wrong either time, because I know the facts of both items you mentioned.

Do you know what the word "substantiate" means? It means verify with proof OR competent evidence.

The competent evidence has already been provided to you by me, with the links. Problem is, it takes a competent person to understand the competent evidence. You won't.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#276977 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Junket: "Why do you have such a low opinion of PC'ers in general"
_____
You answered your own question in your final sentence:
"What happens to uterine contents of another is none of my business."
You refer to the most vulnerable human beings as "uterine contents".....you do not value human life in the least.....you do all you can to dehumanize innocents.....you selfish pig.
Well, now, I thought I'd never say this to another woman, much less someone who claims to be a guy (virginal or not). But have you seen a doctor about your hysterical over-reactions? They have better treatments these days. I urge you to go.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

North Olmsted, OH

#276978 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some wives who've raised their husbands' "indiscretions". There are some who wouldn't dream of it. There are some who'd welcome the "indiscretion" into the family, and some who wouldn't.
And V. C. Andrews writes stories about control freak women who tie pregnant women to beds throughout pregnancy and delivery.
I picture you as one of V. C. Andrews' control freak character.
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?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276979 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make any wrong claims.
SUre you did. Here's just a few more.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No moron, I did not claim "it legally defines" a fetus as a human being. That's how you MISREAD what was said. You people seriously don't have ANY adult reading comprehension skills. It's mind boggling. Then you make posts from your own ignorance of what was said as though we're the idiots when you each prove you are.
I said that in THAT law, they "defined" the fetus as an "unborn child", and also a "human being". A law is something LEGAL. Can you put 2 and 2 together and come yup with 4, you fool?
You're wrong. AGAIN.

They did NOT "define" the fetus as a "human being" in ANY way. In fact the words "human being" ONLY are in that law once - and its in reference to the PUNISHMENT.

"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."

You've also made the claim that the law is not about the mother but ONLY about the "unborn victim" when in FACT, its ALL about the mother as well - which is why Laci - the name of the MOTHER - is in the title too - and the law recognizes that for ANYTHING that creates an "unborn victim", MUST ALSO HAVE HAPPENED TO THE WOMAN DOING THE GESTATING.

"Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or
death occurred to the unborn child’s mother."

So AGAIN - you're wrong.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276980 Jan 15, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
And just who told you I "feel" criticized? Cake boss? I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy, or carry her pregnancy to term. And I support both choices EQUALLY.
<quoted text>
Woopty f*cking doo.
<quoted text>
I'm not only pro-choice, I'm also pro-law. And the law says that there are limits to elective abortion. I support that as well.
<quoted text>
Is there any better suggestion for adoption than actually adopting?
<quoted text>
Not that it offends me, because nothing you or any other idolater hypocrite could say can offend me, but fact is, you pout, kick and scream every time you're called an anti-choicer and a hypocrite. So if it's good for the goose..........
""""" And just who told you I "feel" criticized""" """

You said that prolifers "criticize" prochoicers by referring to them as proaborts. So,it is you that told me that you felt criticized.

""""I'm not only pro-choice, I'm also pro-law""" "

You are not prochoice if you side with the law that restricts a womans choice as to when,why and how she can kill/abort her child in the womb.

""""" "you pout, kick and scream every time you're called an anti-choicer""" ""

No,I actually AM anti-choice to kill/abort. I've made that crystal clear. See,I say what I mean,mean what I say. YOUR side doesn't.

Sorry Charlie.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276981 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. No problem.
<quoted text>
Clearly you didn't have a CLUE that why he (AND HIS MOTHER BTW) were named because the family wanted to lend their name to help push the law through congress, and thats about it.
The FACT is that at the TIME OF THE LAWS PASSAGE, the coroner's report had not been released, and in FACT it is STILL NOT KNOWN if he died in utero OR after he was born. There is no SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE either way.
You and inkstain BOTH believed that their deaths were directely related to this law, but in FACT, the bill had been before congress for YEARS before the murders.
Its very clear that you didn't have a clue about the history of the bill, because IF you did, you wouldn't have spent two days babbling such bullshit LOLOLOL!!
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.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276982 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "boundaries" are ONLY defined by two consenting adults. YOU and your kind do not define those boundaries.
Yeah dumbo,but we are discussing TEENS.

Pay attention.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276983 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
AyakaNeo and Bhitler need to split the cost & share a Thesaurus.
They both play this odd verbal gymnastics game of saying "a human" (noun) is not a synonym for "a human being".
They are either really, really stupid, or are so defensive & emotionally weak that they have to play psychological mind games with themselves.
Not one of those people knows how to understand the definitions even if they looked words up. I provide definitions and still they miss it and try to redefine what's already been defined. Most of them don't know the meaning of the word "define", so seriously, they're totally screwed in trying to understand what they read and what they've argued with us about. They don't even have what we've been saying right. How the hell can they argue intelligently? They can't, and they don't.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276984 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't legally define a fetus as a human being. It clearly defines a fetus as an unborn child with the same rights of protection against harm as any other born person. There is no legal definition of human being.
Exactly.

The ONLY time it mentions the words "human being" at all, is when discussing punishment.

Lynnie likes to bitch about OTHERS reading comprehension abilities, when CLEARLY her own are in question!

Its pretty funny really!
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#276985 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know? You claim never to've experienced abortion. How would you know what every woman feels or goes through? Are you every woman?
First you say "won't regret it" then you say "finally admitted their guilt" then you say "live evil lives".
Which one is it? Does every woman regret it or not?
Here's proof positive it's you who is "a mess".
Regret isn't always admitted to at first. I do believe that women who abort will always feel the truth in their heart. Our consciences don't deceive us at first. MANY will cover the guilt up. Some for a short period of time,and others it will take a life time. The FACT that they are covering it up shows me that they know that something isn't right with what they did.

Sin doesn't escape anyone Katie. I don't care what fascade one puts on.

Let's take a look at these women on here who have aborted OR ones that have driven/supported women for their abortions. Guilt is obvious. See,abortion is legal. WHY in the world would you people be spending your every waking hour on an abortion forum?

Guilt.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276986 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
SUre you did. Here's just a few more.
<quoted text>
You're wrong. AGAIN.
They did NOT "define" the fetus as a "human being" in ANY way. In fact the words "human being" ONLY are in that law once - and its in reference to the PUNISHMENT.
"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."
You've also made the claim that the law is not about the mother but ONLY about the "unborn victim" when in FACT, its ALL about the mother as well - which is why Laci - the name of the MOTHER - is in the title too - and the law recognizes that for ANYTHING that creates an "unborn victim", MUST ALSO HAVE HAPPENED TO THE WOMAN DOING THE GESTATING.
"Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or
death occurred to the unborn child’s mother."
So AGAIN - you're wrong.
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.
Gtown71

United States

#276987 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I've proven you wrong quite often, both in the past (when you claimed that you knew someone "born in a PVS" which has never happened in history for just ONE example, and in the present, when you claimed:
<quoted text>
And -
<quoted text>
The LAW didn't prove shit about whether or not he was alive or dead when born.
The LAW didn't "substantiate" anything of the kind.
In fact, that law had very little to do with the Peterson murders at all, since ALL it was, was the family jumping into the political arena by lending their name to it because of the publicity at the time.
Just one MORE example of you being wrong.
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.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#276988 Jan 15, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>That makes you a hypocrite and not really pro-choice as you are limiting the right of a woman to do as she wants with her body.
LMFAO!!!

1- The title of hypocrite belongs to you Xtian idolaters.

2- I'm not powerful enough to limit my own wife's choices, let alone any woman.

Nice try dumbdumb.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#276989 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Dummy, "uteri" is plural. Maybe you should stop trying to learn Latin and start learning English.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uteri

"
u·ter·us
[yoo-ter-uh&#8201;s] Show IPA

noun, plural u·ter·i [yoo-tuh-rahy] "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%...

"Definition of IN UTERO

: in the uterus : before birth <a disease acquired in utero> <an in utero diagnosis>

Origin of IN UTERO

Latin
First Known Use: 1713"

You're ignorant and uneducated buffoon. You PC all claim to be educasted and yet your posts belie your claims. You accuse PLers of not being educated and we're the ones proving you for the dummies you are. Funny stuff.
Yeah yeah yeah.

I was mistaken. Savor it all you can Lynne. It's all you'll ever have on me.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min sonicfilter 1,207,984
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min DanFromSmithville 155,315
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... 3 min ACTUALLY 310
News The Hoosier Nuremberg Laws 3 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 74
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 3 min positronium 517
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... 4 min Pro Ukraine 564
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 min Joe Fortuna 201,825
News Official resigns after insulting Obama, Holder,... 11 min red and right 174
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min red and right 176,106
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 20 min positronium 320,310
More from around the web