Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313199 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.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282720 Feb 7, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't stand behind your opinions with any explanation; or present the facts on which you've based your opinions to display how your opinions would be based on some sort of knowledge and sense; or rebut anything we've posted with facts, knowledge or sense.
Your posts are meaningless here in this abortion forum. You're like a moron coming in here posting your opinion that the human life in utero is not someone's unborn child; having that human life killed is no big deal. You don't present anything to back your opinion and then make posts about PLers as though they're idiots, because they dare challenge you to back what you say, or prove that what you said is senseless. Your little snide remarks are impotent.
Because you can't back what you say, you just hide behind your, "I just stated an opinion". Why are you here? If all you're going to do is "state your opinion" and not present facts and knowledge as to why your opinion is what it is, you're just here to waste space and troll.
Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Please try to stop it. I'm asking nicely.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#282721 Feb 7, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh PLEASE. Reproduction is the process of human biology, nothing more than that.
What gets anti-choice religionists like you so ticked off is that women can reject your archaic beliefs just as easily as they can reject motherhood, with NO penalties whatsoever. Well, too bad for you, sparky. The fact remains that motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required. I suggest you deal with it.
Your right, it is human biology. Now the Anti-Choice religion thing does have some history behind it. The fact that Roe v Wade made motherhood optional from a legal standpoint doen't diminish the arguement the choice made prevents another human from entering the universe! One may call it archaic beliefs, but for many those beliefs have survived over 2000 years of history, not many can make that claim! You don't believe, fine, you have that right, but those who believe, also have that right. The real issue is, is allowing abortions contributing to the moral fiber of our society or tearing it at it seams? Are we a better and stronger society today because we condone the prevention of human life, or are we merely being selfish and minimizeing the value of such life?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282722 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Wow.... I'm sorry you're so upset. A little over the top, don't you think? Whew! Anyway, you are incorrect, dear. I take the abortion issue very seriously. You're just up in arms that I believe that the woman's rights supersede any that the fetus may have. Not everyone agrees with you. Relax. It happens. Often. Get used to it.
You're not displaying anything but ignorance and ineptitude in your responses. Not just in discussing the abortion topic, but also in thinking your inane remarks are clever, witty or even effective insults. You don't have the intelligence to be effective.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282723 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Please try to stop it. I'm asking nicely.
Replying to posts on a public discussion forum isn't "obsession", mental case. If you weren't posting here and I'd mention you or your name in just about every post; then maybe you would make sense with seeing it as obsession.

In the meantime, since that's not the case, saying that just makes you look like an ignorant buffoon, as you regularly display.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282724 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> ... Anyway, you are incorrect, dear. I take the abortion issue very seriously....
That's a lie proven by your own tag line here in an abortion forum, Toots.

~elise in burque
“Why So Serious, Folks?”~

If you took the abortion issue seriously, why in an abortion forum would you ask on your tag line, "Why So Serious, Folks?"

One reason only, you DON"T take it seriously. You admitted long ago that you're not here to be serious, so you lie in claiming you do.

Now, come back with another of your inane remarks, because you don't have the ability to reply intelligently.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#282725 Feb 7, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase "pro deathers" is Catholic propaganda. It's made its way into the PLM and is their mantra.
It means squat.
Prochoicers are freedom lovers. Free people making free decisions about their own personal privacy and bodily autonomy. Without interference from the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parker busy bodies like you.
60 plus year of Catholism and never once have I heard that term "pro-deather" I always question the term Pro-Choice as well, however, because I am not sure all the parties were given the choice. The law is clear, and while you have a legal right to prevent or as I have seen on this thread, the option of motherhood, is that option/choice, to prevent another human life to enter our universe, the best choice, or merely a selfish one? I guess only you and those who like the "freedom" can answer that question!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282726 Feb 7, 2013
so you lie in claiming you (are).

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282727 Feb 7, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Your right, it is human biology. Now the Anti-Choice religion thing does have some history behind it. The fact that Roe v Wade made motherhood optional from a legal standpoint doen't diminish the arguement the choice made prevents another human from entering the universe! One may call it archaic beliefs, but for many those beliefs have survived over 2000 years of history, not many can make that claim! You don't believe, fine, you have that right, but those who believe, also have that right. The real issue is, is allowing abortions contributing to the moral fiber of our society or tearing it at it seams? Are we a better and stronger society today because we condone the prevention of human life, or are we merely being selfish and minimizeing the value of such life?
It's not about "allowing" abortion. Women have always had abortions. It's about women having the right to make that choice without endangering their lives. It's another pregnancy option that we have a right to make, privately, without interference. I don't see that RvW has weakened our society. I do think it would be a problem if we allow our medical autonomy to be denied us.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282728 Feb 7, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Replying to posts on a public discussion forum isn't "obsession", mental case. If you weren't posting here and I'd mention you or your name in just about every post; then maybe you would make sense with seeing it as obsession.
In the meantime, since that's not the case, saying that just makes you look like an ignorant buffoon, as you regularly display.
... really?... Okay...

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282729 Feb 7, 2013
Just saw this news:

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/articl...

"From wire and online reports | February 7, 2013 | Updated: February 7, 2013 1:57pm
MEXICO CITY — Mexican authorities say a 9-year-old girl has given birth in western Mexico and they are looking for the purported father, a 17-year-old.

Jalisco state police spokesman Lino Gonzalez says the baby girl was born last week at a hospital in the city of Guadalajara. He says the girl and her baby are doing well.

The girl identified as Dafne by the Telegraph, was reportedly only 8 years old when she became pregnant.

The Telegraph reports the baby was born on Jan. 27 in Zoquipan Hospital weighing 5.7 pounds and both girls were released over the weekend.

Gonzalez said Wednesday that the girl's family alerted authorities after she gave birth and the alleged father has not been seen since in the neighborhood the both live in."

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282730 Feb 7, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lie proven by your own tag line here in an abortion forum, Toots.
~elise in burque
“Why So Serious, Folks?”~
If you took the abortion issue seriously, why in an abortion forum would you ask on your tag line, "Why So Serious, Folks?"
One reason only, you DON"T take it seriously. You admitted long ago that you're not here to be serious, so you lie in claiming you do.
Now, come back with another of your inane remarks, because you don't have the ability to reply intelligently.
Ummm, LPL? Hello... Did you know that there are hundreds of forums and thousands of threads on Topix? Unlike you, I have many interests. I read and post on a myriad of topics. No one but you has ever taken umbrage with my tag line. I actually discuss many other subjects besides abortion, honey. Your myopia is severely strangling your perspective. Now, you may continue to harp on me, if you really must, but forgive me if I disregard your bile. I really hate being nagged.

Have a nice day.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282731 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> It's not about "allowing" abortion. Women have always had abortions. It's about women having the right to make that choice without endangering their lives. It's another pregnancy option that we have a right to make, privately, without interference. I don't see that RvW has weakened our society. I do think it would be a problem if we allow our medical autonomy to be denied us.
Elsie: "It's about women having the right to make that choice without endangering their lives. "

Really, that's what it's about? You seem to be making a statement of fact, so how about proving that's what it's about.

At viability, women don't have that "right" in many states, and there are still some having late term abortions, "endangering their lives" to illegally abort a viable fetus. Explain that basing it on your claim.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#282732 Feb 7, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Just saw this news:
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/articl...
"From wire and online reports | February 7, 2013 | Updated: February 7, 2013 1:57pm
MEXICO CITY — Mexican authorities say a 9-year-old girl has given birth in western Mexico and they are looking for the purported father, a 17-year-old.
Jalisco state police spokesman Lino Gonzalez says the baby girl was born last week at a hospital in the city of Guadalajara. He says the girl and her baby are doing well.
The girl identified as Dafne by the Telegraph, was reportedly only 8 years old when she became pregnant.
The Telegraph reports the baby was born on Jan. 27 in Zoquipan Hospital weighing 5.7 pounds and both girls were released over the weekend.
Gonzalez said Wednesday that the girl's family alerted authorities after she gave birth and the alleged father has not been seen since in the neighborhood the both live in."
Why are men so stupid?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#282734 Feb 7, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are men so stupid?
Not just men. Women are going after young boys too, the boys just can't get pregnant from it. Female teachers and their students were in the news a lot for awhile.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#282735 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>A woman has a right to choose not to stay pregnant. She has a right to make her own medical decisions in private, with no interference.
And really, at the end of the day, that's simply the irrefutable facts at their simplest.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#282736 Feb 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> It's not about "allowing" abortion. Women have always had abortions. It's about women having the right to make that choice without endangering their lives. It's another pregnancy option that we have a right to make, privately, without interference. I don't see that RvW has weakened our society. I do think it would be a problem if we allow our medical autonomy to be denied us.
No it is allowing, Roe v Wade was a decision, hand down by the SCOTUS declaring a woman's right to privacy. This was decided back in 1973, meaning, prior to that decision, the law of the land did not permit "Legal" abortions. So from 1776 to 1973 or 197 years, this was not allowed! The endangerment of the life of the woman was always a consideration, even prior to Roe v Wade, so you actually alway had that right prior to Roe v Wade. As I stated earlier, and opinons will vary, but losing 1/4 of a generation, is a lot of potential, gone unrealized.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#282737 Feb 7, 2013
Miller's doctorate is in rhetoric and public address. Harrub's is in anatomy and neurobiology--not a medical degree, and neither qualify him to make the statements in the paper.

They also lie out their blow-holes.

Those supposed statistics about gays and early death come from paul cameron's work in the 80's, and have been debunked by the AMA and CDC. In point of fact, lesbians tend to be halthier on average than hetero women. Cameron went through the obits in three large-city newspapers and made up numbers based on who happened to have died and whoever HE THOUGHT was gay and died of AIDS. Death notices usually didn't give cause of death or orientation; they sure as hell said nothing about lesbians.

Try not to post utter BS in the future.
Obskeptic wrote:
Is a Homosexual Lifestyle Safe?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Q.
Is a homosexual lifestyle safe?
A.
Living a homosexual lifestyle is far from “safe.” In fact, homosexuals experience a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals—a fact that is not often reported in the national press. In an effort to estimate the life expectancy of homosexuals, Paul Cameron and his colleagues reviewed 6,714 obituaries from sixteen United States homosexual journals (1993). They then compared those results to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. Cameron and his colleagues reported the following results:
Median Age of Death
Heterosexuals Homosexuals*
married men 75, 80% died old 39 if AIDS was the cause (1% died old)
unmarried men 57, 32% died old 42 in non-AIDS cases (< 9% died old)
married women 79, 85% died old
unmarried women 71, 60% died old
* In the 6,714 homosexual obituaries
Yet, according to the Center for Disease Control, the average life expectancy rate in the United States is 77.2 (according to 2001 data). Thus, the average homosexual (without AIDS) dies 35.2 years earlier.
Cameron, et al., also demonstrated that if the person had not died of AIDS, homosexuals faced a great deal more violence than their heterosexual counterparts. They discovered that homosexuals died:
10 times more often in accidents
17 times more frequently in traffic
26 times more often from suicide
87 times more from murder
23 times more often from heart attacks (compared to white men aged 25-44)
Cameron and his colleagues presented their findings at the Eastern Psychological Association, concluding that homosexuals do not live to old age, when compared to non-homosexual counterparts. Their study clearly established that homosexuals experience shorter life spans compared to heterosexuals.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282738 Feb 7, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Elsie: "It's about women having the right to make that choice without endangering their lives. "
Really, that's what it's about? You seem to be making a statement of fact, so how about proving that's what it's about.
At viability, women don't have that "right" in many states, and there are still some having late term abortions, "endangering their lives" to illegally abort a viable fetus. Explain that basing it on your claim.
You and I have discussed those questions, at length. You know that. You have nothing fresh to add to the discussion and you are a most unpleasant and dour person. Therefore, as I wrote previously, I'll not subject myself to you further. Peace.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#282739 Feb 7, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are men so stupid?
Good question.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#282740 Feb 7, 2013
"Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg studied 574 white male homosexuals, 100 percent of whom had already had at least three sexual partners, 97 percent at least ten, 75 percent at least one hundred, and 28 percent at least one thousand.– House Dems Try to Hide Homosexual Agenda on “Bullying” Bill, American Family Association of Michigan

Truth – Bell and Weinberg’s study was compiled in the 1970s. They used the study to write the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. In Homosexualities is this statement:

“... given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2009/07...

College students have more than 8 sex partners a year...what's your point? More importantly, do you think sex is unhealthy? I've had numerous sex partners and never had an STD...because I practice safe sex. You straight folks should try it; you wouldn't need nearly as many abortions.
Obskeptic wrote:
Male Homosexuals
Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm...

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) 1 min Aquarius-wy 1,481,562
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 17 hr truth 7,994
News Baltimore shootings up 30 percent compared to t... 19 hr former democrat 1
Mosby Wed Johnathan T 4
News DUI Defendant Drinks 12-Pack at Court - (Oct '07) Tue Dudley 47
News Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Jan 15 IAMGKNEE 113,993
News Baltimore man fires shots because someone took ... Jan 15 Dudley 2

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages