Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336815 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284943 Feb 19, 2013
You're comparing a monthly-stipend system ith a claim-payment and/or grant system. So no, you know nothing about accounting. PP's books are regularly audited to ensure tax funding does not go to abortions.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The government can't keep track of SS disability claims and sends millions of dollars to dead people.
The government couldn't keep track of where 1 million dollars of ACORN's money went. Turns out it was stolen.
The government really can't keep track of anything. Much less every penny sent to PP.
But speaking of accounting, sure would be nice if our government could do that with a budget.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284944 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no, it's YOUR side that wants the gov't to make that decision for pregnant women.
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.

Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.

The government had nothing to do with it.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284945 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no, it's YOUR side that wants the gov't to make that decision for pregnant women.
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.

The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284946 Feb 19, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Your name calling is duly noted, you silly lttle hypocrite.
No name calling here. But you did prove my point.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284947 Feb 19, 2013
I have no problem with weapons; they are tools. Our incursion into iraq had nothing to do with anything BUT oil. All the pilots of 9/11 were from saudi arabia--the country whose royal family had a business relationship with the bush family. Al qaeda had nothing to do with iraq or saddam. Saddam may have hated us, but he wasn't a threat.

BTW--halliburton, the recipient of a no-bid contract from former CEO cheney, went from near-bankruptcy to record profits, thanks to iraqi oil.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
If GW Bush had accelerated the drone program and innocents were being blown up creating a new kind of animosity against the U.S., would you still have posted this?
Be honest.
You don't think terrorism is a real threat? It's all a ploy to get more oil?
If the UK had not refined Iran's oil, it would have been useless.
Most of our oil comes from other parts of the world - mostly Canada, Latin America and Africa.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284948 Feb 19, 2013
I wasn't referring to school; I was referring to welfare and WIC.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Paying for public education prevents uneducated children from becoming uneducated adults. An educated society serves us all.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284949 Feb 19, 2013
Husker wrote:
<quoted text>The majority does and many are being shut down.
One, that was not the point.

Two, I believe you are wrong, on both counts. From what I've seen, only slightly half perform abortions.

What is your source for saying "many are being shut down"? Your imagination?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284950 Feb 19, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what. I went to Planned Parenthood quite often when I was 18+ and had just moved to a big city. I knew that if I chose to have sex at some point, I DIDN'T want to get pregnant, so I needed reliable contraception to PREVENT that unwanted outcome. They charged very LITTLE money for that contraception, and I was very grateful to get it. I would have had to pay MORE anywhere else.
The Planned Parenthood facility I went to was terrific. The medical staff were very knowledgable and helpful, they answered all my questions on preventing unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and finally set me up with the contraception that I felt would work best for me. Thanks to Planned Parenthood and its wonderful staff, I never got pregnant before the time when I WANTED to become a mother, which wasn't until my 30's. I never got a sexually transmitted disease either. I went OFF birth control when I decided I was ready for the responsibility.
I strongly suggest that teens be sexFREE (free FROM sex) while in middle or high school. Even with the use of birth control and condoms, unwanted pregnancy is still possible. Must protection always be used if for any reason a teen girl or guy decides to have sex? ABSOLUTELY, and EVERY time too. Is that protection a GUARANTEE a girl will never get pregnant? Absolutely NOT. All birth control methods can and do fail occasionally. When BC fails and a pregnancy results, it is still the girl's/woman's decision whether to continue it or not.
If there were more women using PP to prevent pregnancy instead of aborting the consequences after the fact, I would be all for taxpayer funding of PP.

There are no no guarantees in life. We have to live with every choice we make. Sometimes it means owing up to those choices and doing the right thing.

Young women have the option of adoption. That would be the right thing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284951 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.
Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.
The government had nothing to do with it.
Laws have nothing to do with the gov't? Really?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284952 Feb 19, 2013
Then who is making all these horrible laws trying to make abortions difficult to get?
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.
Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.
The government had nothing to do with it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284953 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.
The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.
That's utter nonsense. What is your source for that last statement?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284954 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
...You won't acknowledge your own statements. Ignore them and they will go away. Go on, now. No one expects honesty from you.
STO: "You wrote:
~"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."
In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:
"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
^^^These two statements are contradictory.^^^"~

The first was misspoken and I clarified, the word (without) was inadvertantly left out. The second statement states what I was saying. BOTH were about potential of a newborn infant to survive off ALS. Different from viability of a fetus being able to survive off natural life support/ the womb.

You can keep going but I know what I said and meant, because the viability of a fetus is one thing, the viability of an infant is another different thing.

Viable fetus: ability to survive off its natural life support,(the womb), with or without ALS once born.

Viable newborn infant: ability to survive off ALS.

Both is about POTENTIAL.

STO: "Now you're ignoring what you wrote, below:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE"

You're the one who doesn't get that viability of a fetus is determined BEFORE birth, and viability of that same human life once born and an infant is determined BEFORE removing it from ALS, if it needed ALS.

Viability of a fetus is about POTENTIAL to survive (without the WOMB = natural life support), determined while it's still being kept alive BY the womb, and potential to survive with or without ALS. If a fetus is born, put on ALS and dies, it hadn't been a viable fetus.

Viability of a newborn infant is the POTENTIAL to survive (without ALS), determmined while it's still being kept alive BY the artifical support. If the newborn is taken off ALS and it dies, it wasn't a viable infant.

Difference IS [when] viability is determined for each.

I haven't contradicted myself and haven't changed what I've been saying either. I've been saying the same thing 50 different ways, none of which you understood.

If [viability of a fetus] was about [after] being born, it wouldn't be determined while the fetus was in utero, or have anything to do with abortion. <<< That's what you PC keep ignoring. I haven't ignored anything.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284955 Feb 19, 2013
And what the hell is wrong with that? Prevention is good, but doesn't always work. Regardless, the woman doesn't have to remain pregnant.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.
The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284956 Feb 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit.

The viability of a fetus is BEFORE being born, while in utero, and something it's already "reached" BEFORE being born.

You numbskulls will never get it. You're still wrong, and always will be so long as you think viability of a [fetus] has to be "reached" [after] birth. A fetus isn't born, and infant. Viability of a fetus and abortion doesn't have anything to do with a newborn infant.

SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284957 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the earliest gospel was written between 65 and 75 A.D., no, spreading it does not go "back as far as 33 A.D.".
Spreading the beliefs of the religion made sense when the religion was new, and the only form of real communication was word of mouth taken from place to place. Do you REALLY think anyone here, utilizing the internet, hasn't heard of Christianity, and doesn't know what it's about?
What point telling people something they already know, or have access to the knowledge if they want to learn it?
Christianity began when the followers of Christ believed he was who he said he was while he was here on earth. He was the first to spread the gospel.

But I do agree with you that unless someone is in the process of seeking God, no amount of witnessing will convince them to do so.

It's a very personal experience. But it also can't be kept a secret. Otherwise, Christians in many parts of the world wouldn't risk their lives proclaiming to be one after someone shared the gospel. That's how real it is.

Have you read about the man who is imprisoned in Iran, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and became a preacher?

Again, that's how real it is.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284958 Feb 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
As far as medical reality goes, yes. The infant has the "potential to survive" or will "eventually be able to survive" is what we mean when we use the term "reach viability". Because given ALS, if the infant does not survive, then the "potential" did not bear out. Thus, the infant was not viable -- even tho, legally it must have been "deemed" viable to qualify for ALS, as Doc said.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284959 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
And what the hell is wrong with that? Prevention is good, but doesn't always work. Regardless, the woman doesn't have to remain pregnant.
<quoted text>
It's why I also support the morning after pill long before a heart starts beating.

The problem is studies have shown the majority of women who use this pill are white educated women.

It was Margaret Sanger who first introduced eugenics and abortion as an option in the U.S. primarily because of her observations of unwanted children in the black community and to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."

Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which evolved into the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952.

Just a fact.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284960 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your source for that last statement?
Common sense.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284961 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "You wrote:
~"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."
In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:
"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
^^^These two statements are contradictory.^^^"

The first was misspoken and I clarified, the word (without) was inadvertantly left out.
Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.

Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest.

Now, how about these statements you made:

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."

Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,

If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.

There is NO DIFFERENCE

Can you agree that there is no difference?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284962 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I have no problem with weapons; they are tools. Our incursion into iraq had nothing to do with anything BUT oil. All the pilots of 9/11 were from saudi arabia--the country whose royal family had a business relationship with the bush family. Al qaeda had nothing to do with iraq or saddam. Saddam may have hated us, but he wasn't a threat.
BTW--halliburton, the recipient of a no-bid contract from former CEO cheney, went from near-bankruptcy to record profits, thanks to iraqi oil.
<quoted text>
I can only suggest you do a little more reading on the Saudis. They disowned bin Laden and were targeted with several terrorists attacks. They are a staunch ally against terrorism.

Some Americans also joined the enemy. They were from America.

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 T_M_C_O_A 1,745,601
News Baltimore County schools make the grade in regi... (Oct '17) 7 hr Eryn 2
22 hr Queens78 3
person Apr 18 ljean 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Apr 18 Radio Flyer 3016 21,530
Baltimore is dead to me Apr 17 Truth 1
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) Apr 14 Mohammed 90

Baltimore Jobs

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages