Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roe v. Wade"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion | also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion | ||
| + | |||
| + | Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:19, April 13, 2007
I've deleted the comment about Roe being a lesbian. It seems the kind of thing a reference is needed for. One for her real name would be nice too. lil_cain 03.43, 10 March 2007 (GMT)
LOL! Great edit, Lil Cain. If she really was a lesbian, it's funny that she got pregnant. I would think a cite would be needed for that...--AmesG 22:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I've also edited out the section about no one caring about the judgement for a time. Even if it was not widely known(something I don't have the first notion about), I'm sure a substaintal minority of those affected did care at the time(I am of course open to being rebutted on this, but with references preferably) also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion lil_cain 03.46, 10 March 2007 (GMT)
also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion
Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-AmesGyo! 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)