Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309843 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.

#274538 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:

<<<deleted for character restriction>>>>.
"Are you trying to say that she didn't have that right or that right wasn't protected prior to the enactment of FHL's ? And if so, are the states that don't have FHL's being negligent in not protecting a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy ?"

No, no, and no.

A woman always has had that right. When it was recognized she had it,'is a different story.

A woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term was not protected prior to FHLs anymore than a black woman's right to vote was protected before the 15th amendment.

I am not in the position to question the legislature of states who do not have FHLs.

My statement was not inaccurate. Your statement fails because it suggests that FHLs only exist for the purpose of augmenting criminal penalties and fails to recognize the underlying reason for why criminal penalties exist.

Pro-choicers are not adamantly and uniformly opposed to FHLs. Only to those that impose criminal penalties at a point when quite plausibly the woman herself may not know she's pregnant.

If a man intends to kill his girlfriend or his wife, and neither know she's pregnant, and they live in a state where FHLs apply from the moment of conception, he could be charged, unconstitutionally, with two counts of murder 1, when legally he would only be charged with one. That's what we oppose it is an injustice.

"And if they existed solely for the reason you state then someone assaulting a woman ( resulting in the death of her unwanted fetus ) who was walking into a clinic to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, could not and would not be charged with fetal homicide."

That would depend on whether she was going in to actually have the procedure, or start the process of having the procedure, and on who is the attacker. Any 3L could successfully argue that in the case of the former, the woman, having received all the information the pro lifers want her to have in the hopes she changes her mind, and having had the time in which to change her mind, no longer intended to remain pregnant. It's a thin argument, but it could persuade a jury.

Puyallup, WA

#274539 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You acknowledge there is a difference in your own immediately preceding sentence. One is spontaneous and the other is induced.
You didn't mean there was no difference. Because there most definitely IS. What you meant is that while there is a difference, it doesn't matter to you.
I'm here to help.
The only difference between spontaneous and induced abortion is one is controlled by the body, the other by the mind. I do understand the ZEF is dead either way. In case you missed it, the original claim was PC couldn't possibly understand this simple fact.

You're not so helpful putting unnecessary words in my mouth, Doc. You're probably better at helping your son take care of his basement. Hope they are well, Doc.

Haverstraw, NY

#274540 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I've always agreed with the right abort when there is a threat to maternal life.
I knew you always said that but now it is apparent that you're not "pro-life" as far as the majority of the pro-lifers here is concerned.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#274541 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Why put something to bed once and for all, when it that has already been done? We had this discussion about a year and a half ago.
Judges are charged with interpreting the intent of the legislature and youíre neither a Judge, nor a lawyer. So, you can speculate 'till your heart's content as to what the intent of the legislature was in the creation of FHLs, but in the final analysis, your speculation will not amount to much other than cheap argument.
But, if you care to re-hash this matter, let's start by stipulating that Fetal Homicide exists ONLY when an unborn fetus dies in a manner other than by a legal, or natural abortion (miscarriage), and that all FHLs carry an exception for legal abortions.
I think you're smart enough to not dispute this.
You state:
"The FHL's exist for one establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death."
There is an undeniable amount of truth in your claim above. However, while it's easy to see how a person without legal expertise would view that as the sole purpose, fact is that your claim is missing the underlying element, or the mechanism that allows FHLs to exist; the mother MUST be the first victim. Making the fetus a separate, or distinct victim, means squat if mommy isn't hurt first, and any temporary personhood status granted by the statutes of the given individual jurisdiction, is conditioned on the illegal death of a fetus SOLELY when mommy is the first victim.
Further, the sole purpose of laws that punish criminal behavior, is deterrence of criminal activity. What better way to deter criminal activity towards a pregnant woman and protect a womanís right to have a child, than for the State to circumvent the 8th Amendment by conveniently subjecting a potential aggressor to additional punishment? Itís a hell of a way for the politicians to show the state takes an aggressive stance in the preservation of potential life.
You also state:
"that could have been accomplished simply by increasing or enhancing the punishment for already existing laws involving assaults on women which result in pregnancy loss."
Doing this would be unconstitutional, given the protection of the 8th Amendment. When a criminal defendant is deemed competent to stand trial, the law is (or in the alternative should be) blind to the gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and stage of pregnancy of the victim. A defendant charged with say, manslaughter, cannot be sentenced to any more time if he caused the death of a pregnant woman, than if he caused the death of a sterile man under the same circumstances.
So, given the 8th Amendment, and the fact that FHLs do not attach but for mommy being hurt first, and the fact that all FHLs carry an exception for a doctor performing a legal abortion with the consent of the mother, itís axiomatic that the crux of what's being protected is a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose whether the pregnancy will be carried to term, or aborted within the legal period of time.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#274542 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
"pooping and backpedaling." Wow dweeb; you're a true original!! LMAO!
Bobby doesn't play, and neither do I, nor Foo. We say it like it is as well. I have no issues with what Bobby says, and I'm sure neither does Foo, because the three of us know our religion. In fact, Bobby and I probably know your religion more than you do.
Moreover, the three of us, know that Judaism, in complete opposite to Catholicism, does not deprive a woman of her ability to exercise her free will, and holds her life more valuable than that of her unborn.
Foo's post with the position of the official American Jewish Conference, is as clear as a cloudless day in standard atmosphere (29.92 inches of mercury and 59 degrees Fahrenheit). If you can't muster up the ovaries to admit Judaism doesn't trample on a woman's decisions like Catholicism does, then it's me who has to say
So, shut your pie hole and go have more cake boss, tragaleche. You're nothing but a hypocritical idiot who is more guilty of blasphemy against your own faith than what you could ever accuse me of being, because I'm a Jewish convert.
"even if our religion does not approve of it as a means of casually terminating potential life. Judaism may not endorse elective abortion, per se,..."

Or in honest real words, it soes not promote abortion on demand, which means it limits a womans choice, soemthing you and fofud have been denying for weeks.

The pedals going backwards are going faster and faster.

Either you enodrse a woman's right to her choice when she wants to freely exercise her choice of an abortion for any reason, or you don't. If you do, then don't use the Blessed Faith of Judaism to support your hedonistic proabortion pagan stance.

You and fud got busted.

Ingenita levitas et erudita vanitas
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#274543 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Love how you cherry pick Doc, especially how you chose to only stipulate to 1/3 of what I proposed.
My intent was not to change what you said. I can't change what you said. I can, however, challenge what you said. I have, and you haven't said anything to rebut, or debunk what I've stated. Ralistically speaking, you can't.
That's ok. I knew you couldn't.
This matter has been put to bed long ago. Let sleeping dogs lie Doc, including your babble about viability.
Seems like regurgitating already digested matters is your m.o.
Neither you or anyone else has been able to defend or definitively expalin "vbiability". For you proabort pagans the isssue was put to bed like a ten dollar whore but not for the rest of we rational folk.

You pagans use it as a crutch but it is a crutch made of pseudo-science.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#274544 Jan 4, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you always said that but now it is apparent that you're not "pro-life" as far as the majority of the pro-lifers here is concerned.
As always my anti-Chritian bigot friend, you are wrong. That old brain of yours is slipping more everyday.

I, as many other prolife folks have said that in the case of a legitimate concern for the life of the mother, abortion becomes a choice of one of two people dying.

If the woman will die without an abortion, myself and others have said we can see the need to abort. Was it killing an unobrn chold, yes. However, it was also saving a life.

What you proabortion zealots like to gloss over is that less than 1% of abortions in America are beccause the mothers life is in danger. The health of the mother has been played to mean, it may make my fingernails brittle.

Sorry, once again your extermism, much like your Zionism, is misplaced and founded on anger noi science or facts.

Please don't bring up Catholisim to me, I'm Christian but not Catholic, and will let the Cahtolic Christians speak for themselves.

Back to the hate mines for you.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#274545 Jan 4, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
He's also impressed that tape is only sticky on one side.
<quoted text>
Dude what a bout the but plug. You are dragging your feet.
bird man

United States

#274546 Jan 4, 2013
You do know that catholic teaching is not christian teaching don't you?
I feel sorry for all the people sucked into believe that anything from the pope on down has anything very godly about it.
They are the largest scam on earth, set up by satan himself! They have built many very nice church buildings with their god cookie. Mass is the worse thing ever and it spits in the face of christ each time the priest does his hocus pocus over a cookie and places it in someones mouth. They use it to threaten others by witholding mass. After all if no god in you, then no god in you.

I believe that some catholics are christians but very few.

In the book of revalations in call the catholic church a whore and begs people to come out from among her. Many have.
yet there were real christians before the catholic church came about. Real christians put faith in christ not cookies or child molesters.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So sayeth the catholic hypocrite who follows all of her Jeebus' commandments to the "T."


#274547 Jan 5, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Yes I understand they had it bad "many women today have it bad ".the same spirit in those men that used their wives like mules, is the same spirit, that causes men to walk away from His wife and kids today, except now, thanks "in part 'to womens lib,no one shuns the man, when he shacks up with another woman "who will help raise, the fisrts wifes kids " plus the single moms are EXPECTED to WORK, while she drops her kids off to ANOTHER WOMAN to help raise, so that she can get gov. Assistance.
I watched a show once, about a woman who had her law degree, only to "help " her husband, which was also a lawyer. It upset me!
I'm just saying, even though women do have more ops today, things are not better for most women, or men, which means the family unit is in much trouble, but I don't have to say that, becouse we all know it as truth.
If you want to believe "things are not better for most women" or something equally ridiculous, fine. I'm not buying it.

I think things are MUCH better for women now than they were in the 19th century, and I'm very glad we women are free to make our OWN decisions without interference from church or state officials. We can now decide when or IF we want to get married and/or have children. If some women decide they prefer to be career women instead of wives and mothers, they're free to make that choice as well. Marriage and motherhood are CHOICES for women these days, and if some women choose to reject both, that's their decision.

If you have issues with women having such freedom, that's YOUR problem. I really ENJOY having this kind of freedom, no matter whether you like it or not.


#274549 Jan 5, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Not sure what you're asking? A baby is part of the mother. A mother must give up some of herself, for her baby.
Only if she WANTS to to "give up some of herself for her baby." If she doesn't want to stay pregnant, give birth, or be a mother, that's HER choice, not yours to make for her.

Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens, and a woman can REJECT motherhood if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Contrary to what you and other regressive religionists believe, there's NOTHING wrong with women or men who don't want children. Women who don't like or want children are making the wise and responsible decision not to have them. Women have the same right NOT to have children as they do to be mothers.


#274550 Jan 5, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
This girl has got issues. Methinks she either wants to be a male or she is a woman who is enslaved by her husband. Sounds like she was treated subhuman hy some male in her life. She resents being a fertile woman. Most women embrace their feminity. She hates stay at home moms too.she called women who be slaves to the home.
Riiiiiiiiiiight, and I'm going to care what a religionist nutjob like you "thinks." Not bleeping likely, sASSy.

Furthermore, WHEN did I say I "hate stay at home moms?" I'll tell you; NEVER. So your last statement was one more LIE. I just thought I would make that clear.


#274551 Jan 5, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
You make a good argument for why "most " women have abortions, they are selfish, and don't want to share the life, or give up any of "their " life for anyone./
And you're just pissed that you can't force ANY woman to get/stay pregnant, give birth, and be a mother. Too bleeping bad, pal. You don't get to make sexual and reproductive choices for anyone but yourself.

Personally, I believe a lot of girls/women never think for a second about the very real HARDSHIPS of motherhood, and some are actively DIScouraged from doing so. I've actually read lines like "if you think TOO much, you'll never have kids" or words to that effect, from posters on other boards. The appropriate response to such a statement is, "and a person deciding NOT to have kids would be a bad thing...WHY, exactly?"

When a woman has one or more children because she truly loves and wants kids, despite all the hardships and challenges motherhood brings, that's a good reason. When a woman has children because she is PRESSURED into doing so by family members and/or religious community, even if she may have been undecided or unwilling to have them but caved to the pressure, that's NOT a good reason.

Yes, there's a 50% chance she MAY "fall in love with the child" later on, but there's also the 50% chance she may NOT, and the results in the latter case could be tragic. My feeling has always been that if a girl/woman has ANY doubts about motherhood, then DON'T do it. It's too important a decision to "roll the dice" about, and as I said, the choice NOT to be a mother is just as valid and responsible as the choice to be one.


#274552 Jan 5, 2013
If girls and women think school or work is hard now, they should know that becoming a mother will be ten times harder. Many mothers and grandmothers donít tell young girls and women in their family exactly how hard motherhood truly is, for reasons known only to them. I strongly disagree with the practice of keeping girls in ignorance of this. I believe they NEED to know what being a mother will require of them, so they can make an INFORMED decision about being a mother, even if it means some girls will decide not to be mothers at any point in their lives. That is just fine if some don't want to be mothers. Not all girls or women are suited to be moms, and choosing NOT to be a mother is just as valid as the choice to be one.

Some of the hardships mothers of all ages will face once a baby arrives include -- but are not limited to -- the following:

1. Loss of freedom
2. Loss of sleep
3. Loss of money
4. Loss of Education and Job/Career Opportunities
5. Loss of Mobility
6. Loss of Private Time
7. Dealing with colic

There is no escaping the fact that becoming a mother makes a girlís/woman's life much HARDER and she loses most, if not all, of the benefits and comforts she had before she got pregnant. Too many girls/women are PRESSURED into having children by family members and/or religious community, and purposely aren't told just how very hard motherhood is until AFTER they have had a baby. I think it is high time that changed. If some girls/women decide they don't want the hardships of motherhood, that is fine. The choice for a woman to be childfree is just as valid and respectable as the choice to be a mother.


#274554 Jan 5, 2013
HARDSHIP #1 - LOSS OF FREEDOM - Having a baby really does change everything, including the freedom that girls and women used to have in abundance. Once the baby arrives, that freedom will be gone, for at least the next five or six years and possibly longer. Teen girls and young women who become moms can forget about going out with friends, whether to the movies, to hang out at their favorite restaurant or coffee shop, or anywhere else for that matter. If they do go out, theyíll have to take the baby with them if their parents refuse to babysit. If the baby is sick or very cranky for any number of reasons, girls will end up staying home instead of going out. Girls who are still in middle or high school will find it much harder to do their homework assignments or study for exams when they have to care for a baby as well. It will be a very long time before girls get any of their former freedom back.

HARDSHIP #2: LOSS OF SLEEP - The first thing girls and women have to know about motherhood is that newborn babies do NOT sleep eight hours a night. All mothers, myself included, can honestly say that babies can Ė and do Ė wake up during the night as many as two or three times. Each time the baby wakes up, mom has to get up with the baby, feed the baby, change the babyís diaper (which could be a messy one), and then get the baby back to sleep. When my son was a newborn baby, there were nights where I got NO sleep whatsoever. Luckily for me, I had completed high school and post-high school education long before that, so I didnít have to get up at 5:00am to go to school after having almost no sleep. Those who are teen moms will not be so lucky.

HARDSHIP #3: LOSS OF MONEY - Whatever money a girl/woman used to spend on herself will have to be spent on the baby, and that cost is far more than most girls could begin to anticipate. These costs include diapers, food, clothing, baby equipment (car seat, crib, stroller, baby carriers, baby and child toys, etc.) and so much more. Anyone who wants to do the math can begin their research by going to their local grocery store and checking out the baby food and diaper sections. Just make sure you have a notebook and calculator, because you will need to multiply those costs for each item several times per week. Thatís just for food and diapers, you havenít even started on the costs for clothing, baby equipment and toys. That will add a staggering amount to your calculations, and the sum will be far higher than you could imagine. If you plan to put the baby in day care for any amount of time during the week, you will have to add up those costs too. Get the picture now? Having a baby costs a HUGE amount of money, which many girls and young women simply do not have, unless they have wealthy parents.


#274555 Jan 5, 2013
HARDSHIP #4: LOSS OF EDUCATION AND JOB/CAREER OPPORTUNITIES - As hard as it is to acknowledge, a working mother of any age cannot have the same kind of freedom, flexibility or mobility as a woman without children has. If a girl cannot complete high school due to the demands of motherhood, she will not be able to go to college or vocational school, as both typically require a high school diploma first. That automatically limits her ability to find good employment, and she may well have to settle for a minimum wage job, which pays far less than what is needed to raise a child comfortably. Girls and women who complete high school may find that many jobs require a college degree or vocational school certificate, and without those, she may still not be able to get a job that pays a decent salary. A high school diploma alone is no guarantee of good employment, but all girls need one if they hope to advance to higher levels of education that their chosen job or career requires.

HARDSHIP #5: LOSS OF MOBILITY Ė Those who donít have children have a rather naÔve idea that parents can just as easily take a baby with them whenever they go out. They are half right. Yes, parents can take a baby out with them, but it is far from easy. Even going to the grocery store with a baby can be a huge hassle. First they have to get the baby dressed, which can be difficult when the little one is happy being home and doesnít want to be dressed to go out. After getting baby dressed, which can take much longer than mom expected, mom then has to put baby into the car seat, get baby out of the car seat when she arrives at the store, then carry baby around until she can find a cart with an infant carrier. Most grocery stores have very few of those, as I personally discovered long ago. Some may not have any. Going to a restaurant with a baby can also be very stressful, especially if baby suddenly begins crying or screaming for unknown reasons. Mothers who walk into restaurants with screaming or crying babies will find themselves the object of hostile stares, which usually last until they finally have to leave.


#274557 Jan 5, 2013
HARDSHIP #6: LOSS OF PRIVATE TIME Ė When a baby arrives, a mom will quickly find that she doesnít have privacy any more. If she used to read books for hours with few or no interruptions, that will no longer be an option for her. If she is a teen mom who needs quiet time to complete her homework assignments or study for important final exams, that wonít be possible either. A baby will demand her attention many times during the day, so she wonít have private time for doing the things she enjoys or needs to complete.

HARDSHIP #7: DEALING WITH COLIC Ė For girls/women who are unaware, colic is a long period of crying, screaming and shrieking that can last for many hours a day, and even all night. It can begin when the baby is as young as three weeks old, and it can go on until the baby is five months old. My son had colic for almost two months as an infant. For me, it seemed more like two years. During that time, the crying usually began in the early evening and would last until past midnight. I would walk around the small apartment, carrying him in my arms, for hours trying to comfort him, but nothing I did really worked. He wouldnít eat, and he most certainly didnít sleep, and I was a wreck as a result. Being deprived of sleep, with a colicky baby on top of that, can really feel like torture for a mom after a while. I was no exception.

IMO girls and women really DO need to think about these and other hardships of motherhood, so they can make an INFORMED decision about it rather than making this choice in ignorance of the facts.

United States

#274560 Jan 5, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if she WANTS to to "give up some of herself for her baby." If she doesn't want to stay pregnant, give birth, or be a mother, that's HER choice, not yours to make for her.
Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens, and a woman can REJECT motherhood if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Contrary to what you and other regressive religionists believe, there's NOTHING wrong with women or men who don't want children. Women who don't like or want children are making the wise and responsible decision not to have them. Women have the same right NOT to have children as they do to be mothers.
Believe it or not, I agree 100% with both your post!

I do think it is better for "women " today then ever.

I do agree, if women don't want, or cannot afford kids they are making a good, and responsible decision.
What most pro life people are so upset with, is the fact that they wish the women would make this desicion, before she gets to be with child, but regaurdless you are still 100% correct, on how we live in a country that allows a woman to choose "whether or not, if she wants to be a mother". I geuss, what I meant to ask, was is it better for the families of america?

A woman is just as important to a marriage, as a man, and when it comes to families, the woman is prob more important, then anyone in the unit.
I geuss I'm trying to point out to you, that if a man is doing his job within the marriage, then the woman "if she is a good wife ",will be overly happy to stay with him, and her kids, if she's not a very good wife or mother, then in this day and age, she may leave them all, and just go do her thing.

When it comes to running a family, the someone must be the "head "-I know it bothers you to hear how God made man, the head of the house.
I pray something like this doesn't keep you away from God.

If the woman has ideas on certain tbings, if they are the best idea, then a smart man will go with that.
Yet, if tbere is no head, it will not live long.
Kinda like a snake.
I can tell you use your voice for women, and I think it is great.
I'm equaly glad to here voice for families.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

North Olmsted, OH

#274562 Jan 5, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
IMO girls and women really DO need to think about these and other hardships of motherhood, so they can make an INFORMED decision about it rather than making this choice in ignorance of the facts.
So, you don't want any girl/women to suffer any kind of hardship in life, huh?

Men often tell other men, when life gets tough or when they face some kind of hardship in life, to 'man up'. If he's a real man, he won't run from a challenge and most often he becomes a better man.

I wish all women had this built-in male trait, then they would be willing to face whatever hardships of life throws at them.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274563 Jan 5, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sarcasm is unwarranted and misplaced. Why would they even care since right now they have the right to kill even without such a threat ?
The guy asked me a hypothetical question. I answered. Butt out.
Oh Doc, don't get your balls in an uproar.

"Butt out"



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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Incognito4Ever 1,231,702
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Congregation Times 19,913
Neggir president 1 hr Bam 2
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 1 hr Bam 582
News Baltimore march shows protesters have more on t... 3 hr Bam 3
News Let Freedom Ring 4 hr reality is a crutch 1
Cops railroaded to appease N***ers. 8 hr Trolling Hippo 84
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]