Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311873 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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290007 Mar 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok then -for the record ocean refuses to answer, what should be an easy question, but if she tells the truth, she must go against her prochoice friends, so like all choices in life she will continue her lie to herself. Eyes roll.
No, she refuses to get in between something she see's as being between you and I. THAT is very simple, and you SHOULD respect that, tho you wont.

Own your own words dear. YOU called your mother a whore. You dont get to bitch about it after YOU brought it up and made the claim.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290008 Mar 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, with what YOU just wrote in.mind, what about all the MANY MANY MANY people who are sexualy attracted to kids?????
Who they CHOOSE, usually has to which kids the have access to.
God make them that way, or if you say you don't believe in God -are they born that way?
See YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.
I HAVE AN ANSWER.
We ARE ALL BORN WITH A SIN NATURE. THAT NATURE KNOWS NO BOUNDS.
It makes women want to lay with women -men lay with men -adults lay with children.
IT IS THE SAME DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ALL.EVEN.THOUGH SOME ARE WAY WORSE, OR ILLEGAL.
YET WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE? SRY -I REALIZE REBELS WANT NO LINE.
You think you have an answer. I disagree. You have a belief, which is based upon no actual facts at all.
Gtown71

United States

#290009 Mar 21, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she refuses to get in between something she see's as being between you and I. THAT is very simple, and you SHOULD respect that, tho you wont.
Own your own words dear. YOU called your mother a whore. You dont get to bitch about it after YOU brought it up and made the claim.
I didn't ask them, by what standard I called either one, what I called, but I asked women who "claim to be in full support of other womens sexual and reproductive rights ",what they thought?

Nice to see you cutting off their answers, before they can respond, it just shows how you are just as judgemental as any.
It shows how you and ocean "moon pending ",seem to have a line in which YOU CHOOSE who is what.

You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it!

You folks are your own god, and decide what is what on abortion or anything else in life.

There is a standard, and it is Gods standard.

I pray you guys look at the TRUTH of this matter, instead of lying to yourself.
Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and not only has He fulfilled all that God requires, but He can fulfill what is missing inside of your spirit, if you put your pride where it belongs, and ask with a humble heart.
Gtown71

United States

#290010 Mar 21, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
By YOUR standard, that woman is a 'ho, as you claimed your mother was.
Would you call a black man the n word, if you seen his black friend do the same?
Gtown71

United States

#290011 Mar 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you have an answer. I disagree. You have a belief, which is based upon no actual facts at all.
You're wrong.
I KNOW FOR A FACT, that some adults lust toward children, and always will!

So it is up to those of you, who wish to claim God made people gay, to also say God must have made some adults only lust toward kids.
Stop lying to yourself.
Stop worshiping creation, and turn to the one who created all things.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290012 Mar 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to see you cutting off their answers, before they can respond,
Stop LYING fool. I've not cut off anyone's answers, in FACT, Ocean has answered you TWICE.

You just dont LIKE the answer you've been given.
it just shows how you are just as judgemental as any.
How EXACTLY is simply repeating what YOU said about your mother being a whore, is "judgemental"?

Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and not only has He fulfilled all that God requires, but He can fulfill what is missing inside of your spirit, if you put your pride where it belongs, and ask with a humble heart.
Oh piss off you hypocrite. Your JC means less to me than the manure on the shoe of someone in a stable. It might be YOUR version of a messiah, but he isn't mine or ANYONE of the Jewish faith's.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, and stop tying to force your view on others as something resembling fact, when its ONLY your meaningless opinion.

Grow the hell up boy. Your version of faith dont mean shit to anyone BUT you.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290013 Mar 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you call a black man the n word, if you seen his black friend do the same?
No. I dont use that word no matter what. Never have, never will.

You trying to compare you calling your mother a 'ho to a black man calling himself the "n" word?

You're a moron as WELL as a whiney little bitch that can't own his own words.

BTW boy, your 'christian' is slipping more and more.
Gtown71

United States

#290015 Mar 21, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I dont use that word no matter what. Never have, never will.
You trying to compare you calling your mother a 'ho to a black man calling himself the "n" word?
You're a moron as WELL as a whiney little bitch that can't own his own words.
BTW boy, your 'christian' is slipping more and more.
I see you're upset, and that's a good thing, it shows that you haven't completely seared your heart.
When I was a kid and was caught doing wrong, I to got upset.

You say any married woman with kids, who goes to a bar is a slut and whore, but you say you stand for womens rights?!?!? Talk about hypocrisy -you and yours are full of it.
You sway your moral line back and forward, to 'fit ' you.
Cpeter has on his profile that he believes in indiscriminate sex, but does he?
You, ocean, others claim you are all for womens sexual, reproductive rights, but are you?

You took pity on the woman who died when her 'married ' boyfriend tried aborting their child, but never viewed her as a slut or whore untill presented with facts from calling my mistress one.

You will stand before God one day, and will be presented with facts again, but if you wait till then, it will be to late.

You don't bother me, with what you call me or anyone I know or knew, it is just the fact that I wanted to point out for the umptenth time you and yours have a DOUBLE STANDARD.
thank you, good day :)
Gtown71

United States

#290016 Mar 21, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I dont use that word no matter what. Never have, never will.
You trying to compare you calling your mother a 'ho to a black man calling himself the "n" word?
You're a moron as WELL as a whiney little bitch that can't own his own words.
BTW boy, your 'christian' is slipping more and more.
Wow -you've NEVER used the n word, and never will, you might make it to heaven on works alone! What a saint.

Yes, that's me being a jerk.:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290017 Mar 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're upset,
No son, you're blind. I'm not upset, I'm disgusted by you and your hypocricy.

When I was a kid and was caught doing wrong, I to got upset.
Seems to me you're nothing now but a big kid that's upset because you know you're STILL doing wrong with these lies.
You say any married woman with kids, who goes to a bar is a slut and whore,
STOP LYING idiot.

I never said any such thing.

YOU said your mother was the whore, not me. I've simply repeated what YOU said.

You don't bother me,)
Obviously I do, since you can't seem to stop lying.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290018 Mar 21, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
In context with the initial discussion -- that RvW created a legal definition of VIABLE that didn't quite match the medical definition -- I hold my ground.
Not much ground to hold right there. RvW didn't "create" a legal definition. They established the legal definition based on an existing medical definition.
The legal definition established by RvW matched the medical definition pretty closely I'd say.....

"viable infant
Neonatology An infant who is likely to survive to the point of sustaining life independently, given the benefit of available medical therapy"

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
Prior to RvW, VIABILITY medically meant lungs able to exchange gases. And there was no ALS to supply that. Since RvW (as you acknowledge physicians are now "erring on the side of caution"), VIABILITY has come to mean "ability to survive" and physicians are now left with statistics showing more micropreemies die than survive before 25/26 weeks of gestation. Yet RvW has it down at 24 weeks, but the medical stats don't support this.
You can dig your heels in and believe you are correct, but I do not agree you are.
Correct about what ? Who even knows what you're talking about ? So more micropreemies die than survive prior to 25/26 weeks of gestation. So what ? But the ones who DID survive were viable at the time ALS was applied. They had to be. Because they survived. If they weren't viable, they would not have survived. Pretty simple. But you STILL don't get it.

Some preemies are born who would not have survived a decade ago, but are now surviving due to their ability to reach viability with ALS.
Wrong. It is by definition, IMPOSSIBLE to "reach" viability with ALS. Because if you have the ability to survive with ALS, by definition you are ALREADY viable.
WTF scenario you want? Two women, two babies born at the same time at the same gestational age (say 23wks 5/7days) where one survives and one doesn't even though both were attached to the same ALS? One was viable, one was not? One could exchange gases, the other could not?
Watch it sewer mouth. No need for the profanity.....even as an acronym.
So in which of the two scenarios you describe above has an infant "reached" viability with medical assistance ? I'll tell you.....NEITHER. In the first scenario where the infant dies...it was NEVER viable. In the second scenario where the infant survives it was viable at the time it was born and ALS was applied. It had to be viable because it survived.

So I'll ask you again.....provide me with a scenario under which an infant "reaches" viability with medical assistance as you said it could. And please, try to answer without resorting to your ugly, vicious profanity.
Does that do it for you? You are arguing just to argue without any reason and insisting I argue with you when it's the last thing I want to do. You've moved from stubborn to belligerent,imo. You have no desire to learn something, you just want to be right at whatever and whose ever expense.
Who really has no desire to learn something ? Think about it.
Even STO agreed that the concept of reaching viability was impossible....unless one was still in the womb.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290019 Mar 21, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Right now they do. But we're talking about the logic being used to justify why unborn human life shouldn't also be afforded legal protection. It doesn't hold up. And you're not doing anything to refute that."
The bottom line is...if you're not born then you don't have rights. To give the "unborn" rights would mean to elevate their legal status above that of a born person. That is the key to the whole issue. The unborn are not here yet, they are not born. Born = rights. Not born...no rights yet. It's very simple.
Would that it were only so simple. If it's the concept of fetal rights that bothers you, a fetus can be afforded legal protection without being assigned rights per se. In fact fetuses are already afforded a level of legal protection post-viability. Sure its under the guise of the "states right to protect potential life", but it is legal protection nevertheless.
There is no comparable situation where a man would have to face such an issue as having his rights subjugated by a non-born entity, but if the situation was reversed you damn well know that men would be screaming that some z/e/f isn't going to have more rights than them.
"We're talking about those who willingly and with mutual consent engage in acts that they know full well could result in pregnancy.
FYI I support the right to abort in cases of rape and incest. Not sure where you were going with this one."
I get what you're saying but men can act irresponsibly and then walk away, the woman must deal with the consequences. That's a big difference. And then we have men like you fighting against women essentially having that same freedom...to not deal with an unwanted pregnancy and consequently raising a child they didn't want. It's easy for the men...just leave, and then here you are expecting the woman to deal with something so many men walk away from.
How did we get so far away from the point of RvW being terrible Constitutional law ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290020 Mar 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She wasn't "convicted" of anything. Her license was revoked because they claimed she didn't put enough information into a computer program which was making the diagnosis. Not of falsifying anything, and Tiller didn't have anything to do with it, he was cleared of all charges.
So was OJ.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#290021 Mar 21, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much ground to hold right there. RvW didn't "create" a legal definition. They established the legal definition based on an existing medical definition.
The legal definition established by RvW matched the medical definition pretty closely I'd say.....
"viable infant
Neonatology An infant who is likely to survive to the point of sustaining life independently, given the benefit of available medical therapy"
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
<quoted text>
Correct about what ? Who even knows what you're talking about ? So more micropreemies die than survive prior to 25/26 weeks of gestation. So what ? But the ones who DID survive were viable at the time ALS was applied. They had to be. Because they survived. If they weren't viable, they would not have survived. Pretty simple. But you STILL don't get it.
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is by definition, IMPOSSIBLE to "reach" viability with ALS. Because if you have the ability to survive with ALS, by definition you are ALREADY viable.
<quoted text>
Watch it sewer mouth. No need for the profanity.....even as an acronym.
So in which of the two scenarios you describe above has an infant "reached" viability with medical assistance ? I'll tell you.....NEITHER. In the first scenario where the infant dies...it was NEVER viable. In the second scenario where the infant survives it was viable at the time it was born and ALS was applied. It had to be viable because it survived.
So I'll ask you again.....provide me with a scenario under which an infant "reaches" viability with medical assistance as you said it could. And please, try to answer without resorting to your ugly, vicious profanity.
<quoted text>
Who really has no desire to learn something ? Think about it.
Even STO agreed that the concept of reaching viability was impossible....unless one was still in the womb.
Aside from all this, aside from the original point made months/years ago now, I'm done being sidetracked on one phrase. I know you don't like it when I post "reaching viability". I know you think it's incorrect, inaccurate, what have you. I know you will insist you're right and I'm wrong forever and ever and ever because it's what you do. You enjoy it. You get off on it. You'd probably spend every waking moment just trying to prove me and other PCers wrong.

You know what I find hilarious? How you keep referring back to one specific incident where I let loose and dropped all pretenses of civility with you and others because you'd dropped it with me first by insisting I approved of infanticide. Since that time and before, I've mostly ignored all the name calling BS coming from you and your side in the spirit of civility. Sure I get a jab in here and there, everyone does. Even you. But you're the one who carries on and on and on about it.

I bet you don't even remember why I first used the phrase "reaching viability" or the context of the discussion. You've been so stuck trying to "correct" me, you blew right past my point and made it nonexistent.

That's why I'm done with this conversation. It can't move forward because you won't let it. You're like a guy who hears only a portion of a sentence, gets stuck on it, misses the entire point, and wonders why people aren't listening.
The Prince

Allentown, PA

#290022 Mar 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, at six, you were not only thinking of about sex (sounds like you should have been removed from your parents), you then made a conscious choice to only be sexually attracted to men? Really?
Youiu arer one insane proabort pagan. You have to much sex on the brain and not enough for real.
The Prince

Allentown, PA

#290023 Mar 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I said nothing of the kind. Bisexuals can have permanent relationships with one person. It doesn't mean they can't be attracted to other people; they just choose not to act on it--you know, like everyone else can.
The second statement is true. Many are bisexual with a pronounce preference, but also have occasional attractions to the less-favored gender.
<quoted text>
In your bizarro world, beastiality and pedophillia are condsidered normal. The only reason you would claim they should not be allowed is law and victimization. The condition however, by your weird science, is quite normal. Much like Bi-sexualism, lesbianism and homosexualism.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#290024 Mar 21, 2013
Pedophiulia is learned, not inborn. Moreover, there is a victim involved in molestation. There are many pedophiles who never touch children and thus commit no crime.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, with what YOU just wrote in.mind, what about all the MANY MANY MANY people who are sexualy attracted to kids?????
Who they CHOOSE, usually has to which kids the have access to.
God make them that way, or if you say you don't believe in God -are they born that way?
See YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.
I HAVE AN ANSWER.
We ARE ALL BORN WITH A SIN NATURE. THAT NATURE KNOWS NO BOUNDS.
It makes women want to lay with women -men lay with men -adults lay with children.
IT IS THE SAME DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ALL.EVEN.THOUGH SOME ARE WAY WORSE, OR ILLEGAL.
YET WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE? SRY -I REALIZE REBELS WANT NO LINE.
The Prince

Allentown, PA

#290025 Mar 21, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie, you'd win your bet and then some, because I know quite a few childfree people, both individuals and couples, who are enjoying life very much without children. For some idiotic reason, the idea of women and men having happy and productive lives WITHOUT children makes some anti-choicers almost barking mad (as in crazy, not angry). I often wonder why that is, when the choice NOT to have kids doesn't personally affect THEM at all.
In my experience, I've noticed that people who are secure and happy with their choices in life don't go full speed loco (nuts) because others may choose NOT to marry, have children, or be part of some religion or church. It's the ones who secretly AREN'T that happy with their life choices (but can't or won't admit it) who go on hatefilled rants at anyone who doesn't fit into their tiny little idea of "normal."
They may be happy in a paganistic way. The union of a man and a woman is for the propogation of the species. Marraige is meaningless without children. It is like goinmg steady with papaerwork.

You pagans are really screwed up in your view of life and moraility. You are the reason the country is going to Hell in a handbasket. Your pagan secularism will be the epitah written on our once proud nations tombstone.

You are the shame of a nation.
Gtown71

United States

#290026 Mar 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Pedophiulia is learned, not inborn. Moreover, there is a victim involved in molestation. There are many pedophiles who never touch children and thus commit no crime.
<quoted text>
You can take out the word ped, and put in and word other then straight /normal people. The only difference is the victim part.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#290027 Mar 21, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
In your bizarro world, beastiality and pedophillia are condsidered normal. The only reason you would claim they should not be allowed is law and victimization. The condition however, by your weird science, is quite normal. Much like Bi-sexualism, lesbianism and homosexualism.
Your insanity knows no bounds.

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 hr RoxLo 1,432,266
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 4 hr Ann kukelski 20,610
News At Least 20 Shot Over the Weekend In Baltimore,... 12 hr former democrat 1
legit Research Chemicals Vendor (Sep '13) Sun amy 42
News 8 people, including toddler, shot in east Balti... Sun former democrat 3
News Multiple people shot in East Baltimore: police Sun former democrat 2
News Multiple People Injured In Baltimore Shooting,a Sun Sammy 1

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages