Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314357 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.

Ink

Bensalem, PA

#274875 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
The few granted through sovereign government documents.
<quoted text>
Let ask another way. Do you think you have no rights unless granted by some form of government?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#274876 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Right, because they all interpret the bible in the exact same way....
<quoted text>
There must be a reason for that.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#274877 Jan 7, 2013
I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.

Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted tex.>
Again, it is funny how you say the bible "all of it, as you say ",is nothing but meaningless mumble jumble, yet you turn around and say that Daivd and Jonathon was lovers.
You are not the first gay person to tell me that.
I geuss when you are gay, then you believe everyone is, and most "choose " to be straight.
Either way, Jonathon and David were not lovers, only best friends.
I think I can prove that, without a shadow of doubt.
King David didn't have the sword to never leave his home, becouse he lusted after a man, it was becouse he lusted after a woman. Plus all of the other women he had.
The story between david and Jonathon was also another of many example of how God is with us.
We lie -God does not.
We may break a contract, yet God does not.
Most kings, after taking over a kingdom, would normaly kill all that was of the house of the former king.
After david became king "a nurse took a baby (Jonathons baby), and ran with it to try and hid the child, becouse she feared david would have the chold killed. She feel as she ran, crushing the baby boys legs. He grew up in a bad place, thankful of a family who took care of him, being the time it was, there was mo welfare, and him being crippled, he could not do much work.
Years later King David began to wonder if there were any left from the house of saul.
A servant came and told david about this boy (who was now a man), and how he was Jonathons son.
David and jonathon had made a covenant, that which ever one of them outlived the other, that they would take care of the others family...
Jonathons son did not know this -all he knew was to fear david, or hate david.
All he knew was he had a bad life, and that life was nor fair.
He was didderent then others.
King david sent after this man "miphibashaft " was his name (bad spelling true story).
I cannot imagine how miphib felt, as these kings chariots came rolling up, in his small town of nothing. He feared what was about to happen.
When he is put before king david, he fell on his face, and begged david to have mercy. David told him to stand up. He told him, I don't know you, but your father and I made a deal! He then told poor ole miphib, that he now owned all the land of his fathers, and all the servants of his father, he also told him that he would eat at the kings table everynight as one of the kings son!
God is the same way. He made a covenant with His son Jesus -all wjho accept Jesus as lord and savior, they will be as the children of God.
God doesn't break His covenants.
It is not anything we deserve, it is what God says that matters.
His will, will be done!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274879 Jan 7, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
For me there is no difference between the two regarding the end result, which is what you refer to above.
For me there is no difference regarding the end result also.
For you there is a difference that I do not agree with.
For me there is a difference....one is induced and one is spontaneous. And you must agree since you are the one that pointed it out.
So I split the same hair you did by stating the only difference is one is determined by the body, the other determined by the mind.
Pointing out the significant difference between natural death and death intentionally caused by another.....is hardly splitting hairs.
Don't tell me to make up my mind when I am conceding your hair-splitting point. Whatever point you may have won you just lost far as I'm concerned.
<quoted text>
Yes, the major difference is you're discussing death of born individuals.
I'm discussing the death of human life.....period.
Did you know a corpse has very limited civil rights even though they were born at one point? You probably didn't.
No I didn't. Fascinating. Did you know that not all aspirin are alike ?
You misinterpret what people say all the time. It's a new year, Doc. Make better use of it.
I do sometimes misinterpret what people say. Never you though. You are quick to explain. And if I still don't understand, you provide helpful links to show how wrong you are. You are always helpful that way.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274880 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's not MY definition, nor is there a contradiction. The non-viable fetus will die regardlss of ow much air you pump into the little fu**er; the viable one will. The second case allows for the possibility of life without support; the former does not.
<quoted text>
Why did you originally contend that a fetus requiring medical support upon birth is not considered "viable"?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#274881 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
To prove god-given rights, you have to prove there is a god and that the rights you claim can be found in the scriptures.
<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.
Gtown71

United States

#274882 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.
Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is also the reason Jonathon had a child, with a woman, becouse he to was gay. Lol

Plus, the biggest downfall for David was after he lusted after Bathsheba not Bob.:)

Plus he tried to cover it up, by bringing her husband home, and throwing him a party, before sending him to his wife. Yet Uriah had more chivalry then most, and did not go home to his wife. So David got him drunk, in the hopes that he would then go home, which again he did not. I geuss you also think uriah was gay and just wanted to stay with david. Lol

I geuss, that is why david had uriah go back to the front line to be killed, so as to cover up the affair he has with uriah?

Just becouse you are gay, don't mean everyone is. There have always been gay people, but very few compared to all others.

Whether or not you believe the bible was inspired by God, it still is plain to see, that David was anything but gay.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274883 Jan 7, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, and you have an iota of intelligence, then you'll see your way clear to admitting that with regard to FHLs, the cause is protection of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term, and the effect if such right is denied, is the availability for prosecution of the perp for a separate offense.
A perp could still be charged and convicted with fetal homicide after the assault on a woman in the waiting room as she awaited the abortion of her unwanted fetus.
In any case, if a woman is assaulted and as a result her fetus, wanted or unwanted, is killed, then it is obvious that the FHL did not protect her right to carry to term now....did it ? So in lieu of the protection that it did not provide....and which you maintain is the ONLY reason for its existence, it still exists to allow us to charge the perp with a second crime of homicide and punish him accordingly. So, in sum, to say that the sole reason for the existence of FHL's is the protection of is NOT accurate. It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection
"So are the laws really a deterrent ?"
Don't be that obtuse Doc. Are traffic laws not designed to keep people from violating them by the assessment of fines? Are DUI laws not designed to keep people from driving drunk?
Since we still, and will always have traffic violators and morons who drive drunk, their status as a deterrent could be debated.
What is not debatable is that the laws also exist to be able to punish....and not less significantly...to provide a steady stream of revenue for State and City coffers.
To say that traffic laws exist for one reason and one reason only.....to deter violations....would not be accurate
"Vladdy : Viability is defined as the ability to survive outside the womb WITHOUT medical assistance.
Vladdy : Artificial life support means nothing unless the fetus is viable."
What's wrong with either statement?
They are blatant contradictions. The latter is correct....the former is just WRONG.
Until you can find a law that applies to the entire medical profession, and that expressly conditions viability on medical assistance, both statements will remain true.
Hogwash my good man. He is defining viability as the ability to survive....EXCLUSIVELY....WITH OUT medical assistance. In other words it must be able to survive WITHOUT medical assistance to be considered viable, and if it DOES need any medical assistance at all....then it is NOT viable. If you were not aware of this point then you missed a lot of the discussion with Moncie, Chicky, Bitter, Vladdy et al. That is precisely their point.

And that is a direct and blatant contradiction of the statement that "artificial life support means nothing unless a fetus is viable" because by definition (THEIR definition)if it needs artificial support it is NOT viable.

You gettin this ?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274884 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.
So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274886 Jan 7, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But abortion, which is what the discussion is about, isn't murder. Never has been, never will be.
I didn't say it was nor do I think it should or ever could be.

To say that because the end result is the same there is no difference between induced and spontaneous abortion is absurd....whether you consider abortion murder or not.
There would be no need for RvW if that were the case. Even the SC acknowledged the difference when they rendered their decision. If there were no difference between spontaneous abortion and induced abortion then there would be no need for RvW and affirming a woman's right to abort. After all, there are no laws against spontaneous abortion nor will there ever need to be. So if induced is athe same as spontaneous....why the need for RvW /
Really? You're comparing women's right to make their own medical decisions regarding abortion to 9/11?
There is no difference in the country or the world today because women had abortions on Friday. And there wont be any difference in the country or the word tomorrow when women have abortions.
I don't know. Did YOU compare your mother and father's natural deaths and your friends murder to a woman making her own medical definition ?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#274888 Jan 7, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.
We all know what they are except petey. He thinks all his rights come from whatever government owns him.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274889 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between NO function and REDUCED function, you're too stupid to discuss the issue.
<quoted text>
We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274891 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.
Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.

And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274892 Jan 7, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, and you have an iota of intelligence, then you'll see your way clear to admitting that with regard to FHLs, the cause is protection of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term, and the effect if such right is denied, is the availability for prosecution of the perp for a separate offense.
"So are the laws really a deterrent ?"
Don't be that obtuse Doc. Are traffic laws not designed to keep people from violating them by the assessment of fines? Are DUI laws not designed to keep people from driving drunk?
"Vladdy : Viability is defined as the ability to survive outside the womb WITHOUT medical assistance.
Vladdy : Artificial life support means nothing unless the fetus is viable."
What's wrong with either statement?
Until you can find a law that applies to the entire medical profession, and that expressly conditions viability on medical assistance, both statements will remain true.
By the way here's another gem.....this one from Bitter. This one actually makes tinky's look intelligent :

"It's not separate until it is. At birth. If it's viable, or at least developed enough for medical intervention to keep it alive until it IS viable, then it continues to live. Before a certain point, it ISN'T viable, and no medical intervention will help. That point is sometime after 21 weeks, though it is rarely that early. 98.7% of all abortions occur BEFORE that point anyway."

If you don't see the problem with this one then the hurdles we need to clear here go beyond reading comprehension problems.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274893 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.
Ahh the old circular logic.. If it written and said by some one a looonnggg timmee ago.. Then it must be true Because it was said and written down a looonnnggg tiimmeee ago..

Ahh Inky. That was just too easy..

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274894 Jan 7, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.
And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.
Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274895 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.
Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
<quoted text>
Yep, and right up till the latter part of the 19th century young men would sometimes form a loving bond. it was expected they would out grow the need for a physical relationship with another man, but as Richard the "lion heart" demonstrated that was not always the case..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274896 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?
**shakes his head** Yep, same stupidity even after all these years..

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274897 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you telling me this? I have no problem knowing where my rights come from.

Give the lecture to Petey. He said:

Ihave a constitutional right to point out that there are no god-given rights.
And he does. It's spelled in the 1st Amendment.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274898 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that one of your favorite photos?
Since when do I owe you an explanation?

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) 3 min sonicfilter 1,536,547
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 23 hr Disturbed 20,923
News Dundalk Barricade Ends After Police Discover Su... Sat marco 1
News Ex-Bowling Brook counselors arrested (May '07) May 25 J Brown house II 33
Baltimore County Arrest Mugshots and Criminal ... (Sep '16) May 25 Pop 3
News As Confederate Monuments Come Down in 65% Black... (Jan '16) May 23 Sarah 2nd Grade 5
Get To Work May 22 Father Obrien 3

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages