Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 316354 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.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#277011 Jan 15, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly Lynne, it's my opinion that a fetus isn't a human being. There is no legal definition of human being. You actually think the US government says a fetus is a human being in that law? Why does it say "unborn victims" act and not unborn human beings act? Why then is abortion still legal? Why does the law clearly differentiate between a fetus when it's aborted and a fetus when it's harmed or killed? Why isn't the government locking up women for killing their own unborn? Why aren't the fetuses killed by their own mother protected under that act? Because the law doesn't define it as a human being. Because there is no legal definition of a human being.
Bingo!
1 post removed

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#277013 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has control over another's pregnancy. Plain and simple. Even if it's a pregnancy that's the result of an affair.
The pregnant woman has civil rights these days. That's what women's rights is all about. Not just abortion -- that's a RR sidetrack to keep everybody embroiled in controversy and away from reality (or clergy hiding pedophile priests, pregnant nuns, nuns who've aborted, etc.).
Well, I let this drop since you're refusing to give your personal opinion on whether or not you would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion.

In my opinion, I would say that 99.99% of you PC women, if your intent is to stay married to that man, would want the pregnant woman to get an abortion since you would not want him to spend any time associating with his (bastard) child in the future.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#277014 Jan 15, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>""" ""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.
Thankfully, you don't define me, or the law. So I'll wipe my ass with your thoughts.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277015 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text> ACtually, we and others can read it just fine. Its YOU that has some comprehension issues Lynniekins.
Likly because you dropped out of HS so young and all that drinking and drugging affecting your young mind in a really negative way.
<quoted text>
ALL this is doing is comparing the murder of a fetus to that of a human being for the PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. Its not DEFINING the fetus as a "human being" you dolt.
INTERESTINGLY, Scott Peterson is not on death row for the death of the unborn Conner, but ONLY for Laci's death. This law SPECIFICALLY states there shall be NO death penalty for the death of a fetus.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section."
Guess they're also saying that the death of a fetus isn't worth the death of the perpetuator, only the death of the woman is worth that punishment.
It's not "comparing" at all. It's stating unequivocally that the fetus whom a person can be punished for killing intetionally IS a human being.

You keep posting it and still don't understand the words.

"b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section..."

"‘(2)(A) 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."

"‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child."


"‘(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."

It's saying that rather than being punished for killing only the mother, the person who killed the unborn child along with the mother will be punished for killing [another] human being in a [separate] charge, whether or not the person knew the woman was pregnant.

By the way, you shouldn't be talking about what anyone else did as a teen, when you admittedly did some serious "drugging" as an adult. You should have known better by then, but you obviously didn't.
YouTube

AOL

#277016 Jan 15, 2013
.

------- WHY did God create?



.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#277017 Jan 15, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Which is KILLING A WANTED PREGNANCY.

Duhhhhhh........

A child in utero which has been killed is effectively killing a WANTED PREGNANCY you dunce.

WRONG AGAIN! LOL
She sure stepped on feces on that one!

I wonder if she found her two fetuses there ;-)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#277018 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
FooManSpew: "All that drinking and drugging affecting your young mind in a really negative way."
(Did the thread's admitted cocain addict & check-fraud aficionado just say that? You can't make this stuff up...)
I picked up on that too.
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277020 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004" is about the unborn human being, AS IT STATES IN the law. No amount of your lies to the contrary proves otherwise.
No, it is not. You are WRONG.

It is about the unborn child, the fetus in utero. It ONLY mentions "human being" as its discussing PUNISHMENT you moron.

THIS is the part that **DEFINES** what they're talking about:

"‘‘(d) 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.’’."

THIS is the part that describes the PUNISHMENT for the CRIME:

"‘‘(3) 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 paragraph (1), be punished as provided
under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118,
and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human
being."

Now, do you know what "punish under paragraph (1) means? Do you know what articles 880, 918 and 919(a) are?

No, clearly you dont:

"‘‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the
provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the
death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty
of a separate offense under this section."

The "seperate offense" is a seperate punishment. Section 1365 (Title 18) refers to a SEPERATE LAW, as do the sections 1111, 1112, & 1113 discussed also.

The "human being" they're talking about, is PUNISHMENT RELATED as it REFERS to OTHER STATUTES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS FOR PUNISHMENT.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/184...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111...

It is NOT defining the unborn as a "human being".

Sorry Lynniekins, you're just WRONG as usual.

But keep talking out your ass, its HYSTERICAL!

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#277021 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
I forgot I was writing to 5 year olds. My sister is the only one left. You act like the man is asking his wife for a threesome. It is their child we are talking about. Sex is a small part of a long term marriage. And not all live for lust. The main purpoe of marriage, is to start a family. Yet the world we live in wants coffee shops by day, and sex bars by night. When folks get old, they never look back, when they are all alone, and are thankfull they had no kids.<quoted text>
Wow you really are an idiot..

you really think your personal opinion is the only one..

Here is another opinion.

A marriage is that two people have dedicated to each other to share. Possibly with starting a family just as often as not wanting to starting a family.

The main purpose of marriage is what those two people decide it will be for them.

You really are an impotent control freak.

You and your collection of books do not get to decide what is best for everyone.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#277022 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Let's not ignore this part of that law as well; "‘(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.’."
For the PC fools who tried to claim that a fetus is not a "member of the species" homo sapiens until birth, or who have tried to claim we PLers are wrong to use terms "unborn child" and "child in utero". Obviously intelligent people disagree with the ignorant PC here, and the wording in the law displays that.
The wording of the law displays the fact, except for that section, "child in utero" is not counted as part of the species of homo sapiens.

It's all in the perception.

And clearly, your perception is that any ZEF, regardless of its developmental stage, is already a child, is already a member of the species. Science doesn't hold this same perspective. So you basically have an opinion and trying a little too hard to prove your opinion is correct.

Well settle yourself down. It's your opinion. You're an American and are allowed it.

Even when others disagree with it and you in general.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#277023 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"No one gets convicted of MURDER for killing a 'wanted pregnancy' you ignorant buffoon. It's because they killed a child in utero."

Splitting hairs again to backpedal your way out of a jam, Lynne?

In states where FHLs attach at viability, meaning an elective abortion is far more restricted, a "child in utero" is also a "wanted pregnancy."

Maybe you're now making an argument that a "child in utero" only exists if the pregnancy is wanted, therefore if the pregnancy is unwanted no "child in utero" exists.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277024 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You say Jesus was not even real in another post, yet it is 2013 AD - after the death of Jesus.
@@ AD dosen't stand for After Death you idiot.

Scholars today refer to it as "C.E.", which means "the Common Era.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277025 Jan 15, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text>We know you do not follow God, you are too evil, you can't wait to get to Gahenna.
Where is "gahenna"? South of France perhaps?

@@

Unlike you Knutbar, I'm not afraid of death. Most Jews aren't. We're not taught to fear it as your kind are.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277026 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>
No shit right LOL!!

She ALSO has to know what the other statutes are that are discussed in the law.

SHe's simply not that intelligent.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277027 Jan 15, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
I forgot I was writing to 5 year olds. My sister is the only one left. You act like the man is asking his wife for a threesome. It is their child we are talking about. Sex is a small part of a long term marriage. And not all live for lust. The main purpoe of marriage, is to start a family. Yet the world we live in wants coffee shops by day, and sex bars by night. When folks get old, they never look back, when they are all alone, and are thankfull they had no kids.<quoted text>
Wow. You say some REALLY stupid shit with absolutely NO basis in reality. How pathetic.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277028 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Except in NO WAY is it defined as a "human being". It IS defined as an "unborn child".

AGAIN for the STUPID THING - "human being" is ONLY mentioned ONCE, and ONLY in the context of how a perpetuator will be punished.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277029 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<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.
**sighs**

NO Lynne, you're WRONG. AGAIN.

Its saying they're going to be punished AS IF THE UNBORN CHILD WAS A HUMAN BEING.

"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."

Its not saying ANYTHING about a "seperate crime" you jackass. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277030 Jan 15, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>

Being all stretched out makes for easier access for your head.
ANd No Relevance would know this from personal experience.
1 post removed

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#277032 Jan 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The wording of the law displays the fact, except for that section, "child in utero" is not counted as part of the species of homo sapiens.
It's all in the perception.
And clearly, your perception is that any ZEF, regardless of its developmental stage, is already a child, is already a member of the species. Science doesn't hold this same perspective. So you basically have an opinion and trying a little too hard to prove your opinion is correct.
Well settle yourself down. It's your opinion. You're an American and are allowed it.
Even when others disagree with it and you in general.
So answer me this...why did abortion doctors want their state law to exempt them from prosecution if the scientific perspective is that a ZEF is not human?

According to state law, abortion doctors don't have to worry about ever facing murder charges because what they destroy inside the womb isn't human.

What is inside the womb only (magically) becomes human the moment when its head comes out of the uterus.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#277033 Jan 15, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Good Morning America, which YOU gave, is NOT a substantive link OR proof.

However the CORONERS REPORT and the TRIAL TESTIMONY that I gave ARE.

You've given NO links to your claims of a baby being born "in a PVS", but then you just outright lied about that claim to begin with.

YOUR word, given you're a KNOWN liar, is not a competent claim let alone "competent evidence". ROFLMAO!
Problem is, it takes a competent person to understand the competent evidence. You won't.
GMA while a great morning show, is not competent evidence you dumbass.

The ONLY thing you've proven is how fast your mind shuts down when presented with ACTUAL evidence (court transcripts and coroner reports) that doesn't fit your agenda.

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) 1 min mdbuilder 1,582,527
News President Trump touts new plan for victory in A... 2 min bottlecap 4
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 min Tellthetruth 26,802
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min russianrepukes 287,779
News House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calls for re... 13 min WorseCaseofIt 23
News One dead after car plows into group of proteste... 17 min Mark 251
News McConnell: Therea s a Zero Chancea That Congres... 23 min WhoNext42 2
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 2 hr WasteWater 1,492
More from around the web