Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310175 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.

grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283550 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
Eating pork during lent to "stick" it to you puts grave doubts upon Jewishness of your friends.
I find much of our liberalism comes from our belief that our entrance into heaven depends on what we leave behind. Our law says that when we die, our soul is in pergatory and our entry into heaven is based on the effect we had on our survivors.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283551 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
Yes, all the time. It's not my problem it flies right over your head.
Your idiocy flies over my head a lot.
Btw, seventeen is more than four.
"In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box)."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060...
(the box is at the bottom of the page and CA is one of those states, just like i mentioned)
Read brainiac.....READ ! Elective abortion ! Without restriction.
Only 4 states had legal unrestricted abortion before 1973......FOUR. Not 17 !
And no.....4 is NOT more than 17.
The point's been made more often than I count, that within those laws, pregnant women were free to leave their home states, go to those states with legal abortion, and obtain the same. So your question to LNM is moot.
The point is not moot genius. If it were then you'd be OK with going back to pre RvW days and have the States individually set their own abortion laws. I'm sure there would be at least a few that would keep it legal so any woman who lived in a State where it was illegal would be free to jet right over there and kill that little nuisance legally.
In any case you've had your say on this....as stupid and idiotic as it is. Why don't we let the person to whom the question was asked.....answer. Whaddya say huh ? Ya nosy parker ya.
Why don't you start showing some respect and using people's actual SNs? You want me to begin referring to you as bawkbawkdoc?
Oh button it you old crank. All you PC do here is make clever little take-off names on PL posters.....knutter, Dic, skank, etc. Now all of sudden you demand respect ? Get lost you hypocritical phony.
'Cause you seem chicken to actually use your brain for anything aside from ad homs.
Yeah right....that's all my posts are....just a litany of ad homs.
You're a complete joke.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283552 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
I've asked this question and the only answer I got was that Jesus only cared about our soul.(?)
Here's the question: If Jesus was alive today, "Would he be against taxing the rich to help the needy?"

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283554 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>My response will probably not enamour me to you, however, In my world, life begins at conception, not a popular viewpoint here, but mine, so, the taking of that life, anywhere in the process, other than to save the life of the mother, due to complications, etc. is an issue for me! Now, and I again don't agree with the law of the land, but it is what it is, in your senario, it maybe, again under current law, accepable, however, the partial birth abortions permitted, and you would know the percentages better than I, I truely have big problems with. Thanks for the explanation!
Late term abortion is performed at only four venues in the U.S. Those abortions are performed only under very specific criteria. They are never performed upon simple demand, by any legal medical facility. You will hear all kinds of propaganda from dishonest "pro-life" extremists. Be careful and do some independent research from unbiased sources.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283555 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, like NR was a med student?
What is NR?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283556 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>This is not a Christian country. We Americans are not all Christians. We never were. If you want to live in a theocracy, you will have to leave the U.S.
73% of Americans are Christian, Elsie. Would that be the majority?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283557 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the talk of the 50% gas exchange? That's already a protocol in determining viability. If physicians think the fetus has not reached the 50% mark, it will be determined nonviable.
....and it will NOT have ALS applied. Good, you're getting it.
If the physician DOES determine it possesses the basic lung function to survive with ALS then he will deem it viable and ALS will be applied. He will not apply ALS to a non viable fetus so it can REACH viability....as numbskulls like Bitter and Chicky have claimed.
With that said, you do know scientists are tweaking artificial surfactant, yes? So in that sense, all that you say above *could* open the door for the courts to determine when viability is rather than the physicians.
No stupid. The courts will never determine when viability is.
The court merely established a definition of WHAT viability is. Physicians still and always will be the ones to determine WHEN viability is.
Fifty percent won't matter because they can use this new-fangled ALS and inject artificial surfactant....


I don't know if any of this artificial surfactant talk is true but if it is and the technology was readily available, then a physician would have to consider it in determining viability. Don't like it ? Then petition the court to get the definition changed.
to bring the newborn to viability.
NO ! You STILL don't get it. If artificial surfactant was available and a physician felt it could enable a fetus to survive, then he would deem the fetus viable and he would inject it. It would not be injected to "bring the fetus to viability". It would already BE viable. If it were not viable then it would not survive no matter what medical assistance is provided.....and that includes any hypothetical artificial surfactant.
I brought this up to you before, but you and glossed (misunderstood, ignored, poked fun of, or myriad other options) right over it.
Great you brought it up before. Want a medal ?
What does it change ?
Do you see this Doc? Or are you going to start flinging ad homs like monkeys fling sh*t?
I saw it... so what ? You still have no idea what you're talking about. Then OR now.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283558 Feb 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nice steal from wiki. Not that you understood it, of course. But you claimed to have learned a lot about AIDS from the media--and you cnnot know anything about it without knowing what t-cells are.
Elise would be a fantastic caregiver; she knows what she's doing and cares about her patients in a professional manner.
<quoted text>
You seem to be wrong. I did not get the information from wiki.
Whatever you say.
Elise would be a horrible caregiver, she has no idea what she's doing and does not care about her patients in a unprofessional manner. Cold hearted woman. Remind me not to have surgery at her hospital. Would that be a community hospital?
When people meet you, can they tell you are gay? Is Elise gay?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283559 Feb 11, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I've asked this question and the only answer I got was that Jesus only cared about our soul.(?)
Here's the question: If Jesus was alive today, "Would he be against taxing the rich to help the needy?"
No he probably wouldn't. But the rich are already taxed to help the needy. Disproportionately so.
What Jesus likely WOULD be against however, is those who were not really needy but who just preferred to take advantage of others rather than attempt to be become sufficient. As I see it he would despise that the most. And he'd be against one group being singled out disproportionately over others to help the "legitimately" needy.

Do you have a point ?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283560 Feb 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nice steal from wiki. Not that you understood it, of course. But you claimed to have learned a lot about AIDS from the media--and you cnnot know anything about it without knowing what t-cells are.
Elise would be a fantastic caregiver; she knows what she's doing and cares about her patients in a professional manner.
<quoted text>
Didn't see your answer to my question. Who took care of you when you were a baby, if your mother worked? Did you fend for yourself?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283561 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
73% of Americans are Christian, Elsie. Would that be the majority?
So, you're okay with the Muslim theocracies making laws based upon the religion, Islam, for all citizens, including Christians? Those countries have at least a 75% Muslim majority. That fits your argument. Sound okay to you?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283562 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be wrong. I did not get the information from wiki.
Whatever you say.
Elise would be a horrible caregiver, she has no idea what she's doing and does not care about her patients in a unprofessional manner. Cold hearted woman. Remind me not to have surgery at her hospital. Would that be a community hospital?
When people meet you, can they tell you are gay? Is Elise gay?
You are a liar and you sure aren't being a good Christian, right now. You have no way of knowing what you just posted. I forgive you. I hope things get better for you. Yes, I am happy. Thanks for asking :-)
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283563 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> You are a liar and you sure aren't being a good Christian, right now. You have no way of knowing what you just posted. I forgive you. I hope things get better for you. Yes, I am happy. Thanks for asking :-)
How am i lying?

No, I am not being a good christian. How is one a good christian? I have no interest in being christian.

You forgive me? Thank you, but what did I do wrong?

Yes, things are getting better for me.???

You are happy? That's wonderful and good to know. I am sure the lord is smiling and doing everything possible for you. You are blessed.

BTW - Calling me a liar is not what I would call christian like. You might want to repent.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283564 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're okay with the Muslim theocracies making laws based upon the religion, Islam, for all citizens, including Christians? Those countries have at least a 75% Muslim majority. That fits your argument. Sound okay to you?
To tell you the truth - I can't do anything about it. Can you?
Anonymous

United States

#283565 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're okay with the Muslim theocracies making laws based upon the religion, Islam, for all citizens, including Christians? Those countries have at least a 75% Muslim majority. That fits your argument. Sound okay to you?
Why not? According to many on here muslims are peace lovin peoples.:)

Oh, and your other post, no guppy isn't being a good christian, since she is not a christian at all. I geuss you associate anyone that has negative comments as christian, right?

If I wanted to be popular, then All I would need do, is be prochoice, gay, and an atheist who is cool with any religion, unless that religion represents the one true God, but being atheist, I would just be getting upset with people for really no reason. If I truly believed what I say I believe.:)

I think a good test to see if one was a true atheist, would be for that person to stand alone, and be as serious as they could be, and just start cursing at God, telling Him how they don't believe in Him, and that if He was any kind of God at all, that He would strike them dead abd cast their souk into Hell. I heard a preacher pray that prayer for an atheist once, and it atleast got the atheist "thinking ".
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283566 Feb 11, 2013
Did Peter see the article in the NYT's about the gay President of Ghana?

Interesting article and right up your alley.
Anonymous

United States

#283567 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the talk of the 50% gas exchange? That's already a protocol in determining viability. If physicians think the fetus has not reached the 50% mark, it will be determined nonviable.
With that said, you do know scientists are tweaking artificial surfactant, yes? So in that sense, all that you say above *could* open the door for the courts to determine when viability is rather than the physicians. Fifty percent won't matter because they can use this new-fangled ALS and inject artificial surfactant to bring the newborn to viability.
I brought this up to you before, but you and glossed (misunderstood, ignored, poked fun of, or myriad other options) right over it.
Do you see this Doc? Or are you going to start flinging ad homs like monkeys fling sh*t?
Would you consider aborting a viable fetus as murder?
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283568 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No he probably wouldn't. But the rich are already taxed to help the needy. Disproportionately so.
What Jesus likely WOULD be against however, is those who were not really needy but who just preferred to take advantage of others rather than attempt to be become sufficient. As I see it he would despise that the most. And he'd be against one group being singled out disproportionately over others to help the "legitimately" needy.
Do you have a point ?
Yes! My reply was to a poster who wanted to know why Jews are liberals and Christians are conservatives. You showed why more succintly than I ever could.
"What Jesus would despise the most...."
Anonymous

United States

#283569 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc and I are discussing elective abortion.
Of all annual abortions, 98% are performed between 7-8wks gestation. This is on an embryo the size of a Tic Tac.
When people claim they want elective abortion criminalized because the "teeny tiny baby with a heart beat is being maliciously killed," imo, they're putting precedence of the embryo over the girl/woman gestating it.
Even when the fetus /babe /baby /medical waste /it /bundle of joy /whatever one calls the life inside of the womb, is the size of a tic tac, it still has a beating heart, that pumps blood throughout the tiny body that is growing. In order for a pregnant woman to become unpregnant, she must be willing to have that heart stopped, regaurdless of size. Most abortions are done, just becouse they can be, and no other reason.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283570 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
To tell you the truth - I can't do anything about it. Can you?
You are the one who thinks America should be a Christian country because most Americans identify as Christian. I was just asking if you think those Muslim countries are a good model. Did you forget your own posts?

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 John Galt 1,251,028
News Former Sen. Jim Webb Announces Run For Democrat... 3 hr SirPrize 4
News Three shot, one fatally, Thursday in Baltimore 4 hr reality is a crutch 1
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 4 hr Ms Angry Bird 625
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 14 hr Chuck 20,049
White men today 19 hr groidsmashet 13
News Baltimore homicide rate soars as ex-mayor annou... 19 hr groidsmashet 13
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages