Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311613 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.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319703 Dec 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. Very well put.
:)
Thank you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319704 Dec 29, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
bHitler: "Science is not guesswork. We're talking about measurable, testable phenomenon."
You mean like the time you conceded that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb?
And still nothing to contribute to the actual discussion, huh No Relevance.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319705 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Right :)
It's really amusing, watching them squirm when presented with the fact that Christianity borrow so much from the Pagan religions that existed at the time, and yet can't understand why I would keep a memento from my mother just because the symbolism is from another religion.
I don't think they realize that symbols don't HAVE a religion, but that religions use symbols. And many religions SHARE symbols. Some because they were....ahem....borrowed, some because they represent universal concepts.
Wiccans also have prayer beads, that some Wiccans refer to as rosaries, for instance.
Most religions have had a ritual feast, given how important food is to our survivial.
Or take the Pentagram, which was once a Christian symbol representing the five wounds of Christ. It's a Wiccan/Pagan symbol now. But, because a Satanist may use an inverted Pentagram, extremist Christians, forgetting their own history, accuse anyone with one of being a "devil worshiper". They ALSO forget that a Satanist might use an inverted cross, but that doesn't make an upright cross a "satanic symbol".
Fundies are funny that way. They see only what they want to see.
I find fundies to be very rigid and inflexible. They often demand tolerance without offering it in return. And think foolish things.

A funny thing...my mother was the devoutest of the devout when it came to Catholicism but she had a little gold Buddha statue on the kitchen window sill. I suppose she liked it.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319706 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you know I believe there are those who don't know or believe in God, who behave much better than others who do Know God.sad but true.
But- the bible speaks of a huge gulf that seperates us from God.
If I was trying to leap across this gulf wearing shoes made from doing good. I may not make it six inches out, before falling to my death, whereas others may be able to jump with six inches of the other side, BUT their fate would be the. Same as mine. Does that make sense?
I believe as the bible teaches. One is saved by grace through faith. It is the gift of God. It is not of works lest any "man" should boast.
Have a good day today I pray lady :)
Why? Aren't good works, meant to help others, more useful than "grace through faith"? What does grace through faith do for your fellow man?

It's almost as if you are saying that God wants worship for himself more than he wants people to do good things for each other.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319707 Dec 29, 2013
Shining Brilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo Moon for once again displaying the willful hypocrisy of the Xtian hypocrites on here!
They make it so easy.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#319708 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been in this old world. I know what's out there.
I wouldn't have a problem going to any religious building. Even the Mormon temple out Utah.
My saftey zone is within me.
I have many stories from my youth.
I was a good kid Untill the death of my father. Age 10 "good"kid.
Age 11 - lost my virginity.
Age 12 - drove over half way to Chicago. With my cool 21 yo old buddy. "Eyes roll" where I found myself in a bar called the wild hammer in joliet Ill. Where I was certain I would die.due to my buddys brothers mouth after to much booze.
By age 14 - I had been on probation 3 times and state probation twice.
I've been drunk, high, and had some very passion "lust" filled sex in my life.
This is what the world says is fun. And it is!!! Yet only left me feeling empty and hurting more and more.
I watched as one by one those I loved dearly died. I was a mess.
I still am, but now I'm a saved "blood bought, cleansed, on my way to Heaven" mess.
Who truly truly loves others. All others.
Gay, straight, promise keepers, promise breakers, abortionist, liars, whoremongers, etc.....enough to tell them about a God who loves them more then I ever could.
He's also the One who took away my pain, hate filled heart, and gave me a new one.
Love ya lady.
May you find truth, in spite of my bumbled up messages.
lol, okay.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319709 Dec 29, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Every year, I receive a calendar from the Armenian Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Every month is a different Byzantine icon. It's pretty and it's free. Ooga booga! Lol
Gasp! No! You mean...you actually use it?!

:)

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319710 Dec 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I think nobody here on the PC side misunderstands PL arguments or considerations.
Wrong. You think it's about control when in reality it is about the protecting of human life.
Your biggest argument regarding the embryo/fetus' "significance" has been met with the belief it is granted by the woman carrying it.
Wrong. RvW grants the fetus significance when it allows the States to protect it post-viability in the absence of a maternal health/life risk.
And the States that do elect to restrict abortion post-viability have also placed significance on the fetus.
One poster referred to that as the host. Another responded that the significance is flexible depending upon circumstance (like being stricken with German Measles). I stated I gave it no significance if it wasn't mine. The reality is no embryo/fetus impacts society as a whole. Only the newborn/child/adult has or can have a tangible impact on society as a whole.
IOW,
What impact can a newborn have on society as a whole ?
your claim the embryo/fetus' significance is inflexible might be something you need to rethink.
He doesn't need to rethink it at all. He is absolutely right. The significance that RvW accords the fetus post-viability when it allows the states to restrict and even prohibit abortion unless and only if there is a maternal health/life risk, and the significance the states accord the fetus when they opt to affect such restrictions....ARE inflexible.
Because, even in your opinion, if it's conceived through rape, its significance is less than that of one conceived consensually. And that's what another poster pointed out to you, even as you argued it.
It's altered significance in cases of rape is consistent with what RvW allows. The circumstances of it's conception make it a health/life risk to the mother.

Amazing. You were wrong in every single point you raised in your post.

You achieved perfection in ineptness. Congratulations !

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#319711 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Aren't good works, meant to help others, more useful than "grace through faith"? What does grace through faith do for your fellow man?
It's almost as if you are saying that God wants worship for himself more than he wants people to do good things for each other.
The fundamentalist Christian god is a megalomaniac. I'm glad it doesn't exist.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319712 Dec 29, 2013
You're not using scientific principles. Science is about cause and effect, not right and wrong. It is a biological principle that a fetal or oviform stage is not considered a member of a species. It's the same with an ant or duck or human being. It's not my standard.

Your " clear straight up question" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If a homo sapiens--or a fetus, in this case--is living in someone's property without permission, they can be evicted. There is no obligation to support anyone against your will.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I am arguing scientific principles. My logical argument is
P1 It is wrong to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
C Abortion is wrong.
You have still not told me what you think about my first premise. It does't say It is wrong to kill a member of the species homo sapiens or person or human or unborn child or anything like that. All those things are subjective opinions that people personally have. There is no objective definition of person. Someone in a persistent vegetative state is called a vegetable rather than a person. Some people say homo sapiens in a persistent vegetative states are still people some don't. So is whether or not a fetus is a person. I think all homo sapiens are people but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. So I just use objective scientific criteria to base my arguments on. You say a fetus is not a "member" of the species Homo sapiens that is an example of you basing your argument on arbitrary ideas on what makes someone human. I would like you to acknowledge that you are not the authority (neither am I) on what makes someone a "member" of the species Homo Sapiens, a person, a child, a baby or any off that. You don't get to make that determination for other people. I don't get to make it for you either. So once again I will ask. Do you think it is ok to kill Homo Sapiens that have done nothing wrong? I already know your answer and so do you. Just admit it and we can move on and stop with all this subjective terminology. The more you avoid answering a clear straight up question just makes me think that you are embarrassed about your position.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319713 Dec 29, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume way to much about me. I am a consistent liberal. I don't believe in discriminating against any Homo Sapiens based or any reason. It doesn't matter if they are gay or straight, white black brown or purple, atheist buddist or catholic, disabled mentally physically or healthy, male or female, tall or short, fat or skinny, born or unborn. It is clear that something weird is going on when conservatives are citing the equal rights amendment and big government liberals are talking about limited government. I laugh when my fellow liberals say I don't believe in legislating morality. Other than the issue of abortion we are the party that believes in legislating morality/ethical treatment of people. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and elderly even ensuring equal rights for homosexuals is legislating morality. No matter how much these anti-gay rights people try and pretend like its not. These are all examples of how democrats want to legislate morality. I'd also be willing to bet that I donated more money/knocked on more doors for President Obama than 95% of the people on here that argue with me about abortion. Everyone likes to make fun of me and dismiss my opinion because I'm male (which is sexist). My opinion on any issue still matters despite what ever gender I may be. If all of you care so much about abortion rights then why am I doing more for the pro-abortion rights party than most of you are. Don't just assume that all pro-life people are conservatives around 33% of democrats are pro-life as well.
Okay fine...you're a legend in your own mind, however, there are no "pro-abortion rights". There are pro-choice rights. The freedom for each person to make their own personal choices.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319714 Dec 29, 2013
There's nothing responsible about bearing a child you don't want, can't raise properly, or support.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
If you consider a woman not having the right to an abortion losing her bodily autonomy (a fetus is not part of her body BTW) Then yes I don't think women should be able to kill homo sapiens in the name of having complete control over their bodily autonomy. I'm not afraid to answer your guys questions BTW. It would be nice if everyone gave me the same courtesy. I don't know what your definition of "inviting" pregnancy is but any woman who has sex is obviously taking a chance on becoming pregnant. People need to take responsibilities for their actions. You should not be able to have your unborn homo sapiens killed just because you got pregnant when you didn't mean to.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319715 Dec 29, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You think it's about control when in reality it is about the protecting of human life.
Which makes me right because you cannot "protect {developing} human life" without controlling the woman/girl carrying it.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. RvW grants the fetus significance when it allows the States to protect it post-viability in the absence of a maternal health/life risk.
And the States that do elect to restrict abortion post-viability have also placed significance on the fetus.
This is nothing but your belief based on your ideals and opinions, not on fact. The case in Florida I've mentioned where the pregnant woman was denied an abortion when she needed it for life-saving cancer treatments is a prime example. She and her fetus died. Her family is suing. Maybe the case has reached a settlement. Not sure. But the state of Florida had no cause to deny this woman a life-saving abortion because it deemed her fetus significant. Bet there's not a single case in the whole USA using such language. You'd be hard pressed to prove there is. But hey, why don't you give it a try, put your money where your mouth is?
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
What impact can a newborn have on society as a whole ?
The most obvious is using up resources provided by social programs paid for with our tax dollars. The next obvious is the same plus the added luxury of languishing in the foster care system, still using those tax dollars provided by us working folk. Or those preemies living in the NICU for months and months until they're able to come home. Or go into the foster care system.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't need to rethink it at all. He is absolutely right. The significance that RvW accords the fetus post-viability when it allows the states to restrict and even prohibit abortion unless and only if there is a maternal health/life risk, and the significance the states accord the fetus when they opt to affect such restrictions....ARE inflexible.
I call bull. Especially when Roe v Wade makes it clear "the state *can* if it chooses..." which also means it doesn't have to if it so chooses. There is no language in all of Roe v Wade mandating the state to make the fetus significant in any way shape or form. That is just your wishful thinking creating obstinate insistence where none exists. You're are adding to Roe v Wade what you wish to see and nothing more.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
It's altered significance in cases of rape is consistent with what RvW allows. The circumstances of it's conception make it a health/life risk to the mother.
Amazing. You were wrong in every single point you raised in your post.
You achieved perfection in ineptness. Congratulations !
I call bull and believe you to be wrong. Your ineptness has reached heights beyond even what you thought capable. Congratulations.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319716 Dec 29, 2013
Putting my money where my mouth is...

"The Fruit of Angela Carder's Agony

Published: December 08, 1990

Sign In to E-Mail
Print

Three years after it ended, the story of Angela Carder remains heartrending. She was 27 years old, 26 weeks pregnant, a cancer patient at George Washington University Medical Center and close to death. The issue arose, should she undergo a Caesarean procedure? Her doctors doubted the fetus was viable yet; Mrs. Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear, and her family believed that she would not want surgery that would probably shorten her life.

But the hospital, saying that it feared potential legal liability if it made no effort to save the fetus, sought a judicial ruling. The judge, saying he was obliged to balance Mrs. Carder's interests against the Government's "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," ordered the surgery. The baby, a girl, lived for only two hours. Mrs. Carder, who regained consciousness, cried on being told her daughter was dead. Two days later so was she.

In April the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals wisely overturned the lower court's order, saying that the only factor to be considered was what Mrs. Carder wanted, determined from all available evidence. "The right of bodily integrity," Judge John A. Perry said, "is not extinguished simply because someone is ill, or even at death's door." Meanwhile Angela Carder's parents, Nettie and Dan Stoner, sued the Medical Center for malpractice and civil rights violations."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/08/opinion/the...
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319717 Dec 29, 2013
Norm Chaney, this one's for you! "Quite simply, these kinds of court actions represent nothing more than personal zealotry and have little to do with ever serving the best interests of mother and child." See excerpt below.

"If the Circuit Court decision stands, State requests for court intervention could be made any time a doctor personally disagrees with any aspect of a pregnant woman’s behavior and medical judgment. Ironically, the ramifications actually endanger, rather than advance, maternal and fetal health. Knowing that any disagreement over care could lead to involuntary medical commitment, some pregnant women will be discouraged from seeking pregnancy care at hospitals. Furthermore, current involuntary commitment laws sufficiently address those times when a woman is legitimately a threat to herself or her child while respecting a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make medical decisions for herself. Quite simply, these kinds of court actions represent nothing more than personal zealotry and have little to do with ever serving the best interests of mother and child. Ms. Burton made an informed decision to refuse medical care, and that decision must be respected.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/pregnant-woman-or...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#319718 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok I see now. I Googled it.
The earth is billions4.54 billion years old.
Our moon however is only 4.52 billion years old, and has been with us ever since.
Must have been neat for that time with no moon.:)
Smart men out there bit.
Ugh! This is where I'm forced to accept the double-edged nature of that invaluable tool, the internet. It affords one the practically limitless availability of a treasure trove of encyclopedic knowledge, but has the unfortunate tendency to make users mistake Googling for "researching," or "studying."
I'll make this as brief as I'm able. To determine the age of any given sample of rock, you measure the amount of radioactive material it contains. As a rock ages, the radioactive atoms it contains decay into what are called "daughter atoms." Uranium decays into lead, radioactive potassium decays into argon. The more "daughter atoms" a rock contains, relative to its original radioactive atoms, the older the rock is. Studies thus far have shown that the average age of 3.6 billion years yet, many geologists are of the opinion that the earth is even older because samples taken from other sources if the solar system--the Moon for example--have been aged at approximately 4.5 billion years.
Now, the way scientists have calculated the age of the Universe they've set forth an equation.
The universe's age is represented by "t." Two representative galaxies are then used to measure distance "D," with a velocity "V." To make this easier, it's assumed that "V" is a constant. The equation that follows is D=Vt, or distance equals velocity multiplied by time. To find out how long ago the galaxies began to move away from one another you divide distance by velocity, or t=D/V.
Is it exact? Of course not. But it's a close as one can come to "objectively" measuring the available data and so far, the data presented has held up quite well.
Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who, would not have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#319719 Dec 29, 2013
Ugh indeed! "John" you know better..."proof-read " before hitting "post."
Sorry, that last sentence should have read:

"Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319720 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Aren't good works, meant to help others, more useful than "grace through faith"? What does grace through faith do for your fellow man?
It's almost as if you are saying that God wants worship for himself more than he wants people to do good things for each other.
That's exactly what that sounds like he's saying.
You are an idiot

Rockville, MD

#319721 Dec 29, 2013
I see the same old arguments by the same old posters. Nothing's changed. Morons.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319722 Dec 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes me right because you cannot "protect {developing} human life" without controlling the woman/girl carrying it.
Wrong. You cannot presume that the intent and goal of the PL is to control. The goal is in fact to protect human life. The fact that it can't be done without "controlling" ( as you call it ) is just an unfortunate consequence.
( You like that ? It's the same language you PC dinks use when you try to claim the intent of abortion is only to end the pregnancy )
This is nothing but your belief based on your ideals and opinions, not on fact.
You're stark staring nuts. Opinion ? Not fact ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that RvW allows restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester in the absence of maternal health/life risk ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that many states have exercised the authority that RvW grants them and have indeed enacted such restrictions ?

Is THAT what you are claiming ????

The case in Florida I've mentioned where the pregnant woman was denied an abortion when she needed it for life-saving cancer treatments is a prime example. She and her fetus died. Her family is suing. Maybe the case has reached a settlement. Not sure. But the state of Florida had no cause to deny this woman a life-saving abortion because it deemed her fetus significant. Bet there's not a single case in the whole USA using such language. You'd be hard pressed to prove there is. But hey, why don't you give it a try, put your money where your mouth is?
What are you talking about ? Are you hallucinating ? Don't you have any sense ? Are you completely devoid of any semblance of the ability to reason ?
Of course this woman should have been allowed an abortion. Her pregnancy was an imminent threat to her life. As such and per RvW she should have been allowed to choose to abort.
What does this psycho babble have to do with the fact that RvW allows states to restrict abortion post-viability in the ABSENCE of a maternal health/life risk ?
The most obvious is using up resources provided by social programs paid for with our tax dollars. The next obvious is the same plus the added luxury of languishing in the foster care system, still using those tax dollars provided by us working folk. Or those preemies living in the NICU for months and months until they're able to come home. Or go into the foster care system.
Using that same logic a fetus could also have an impact on society as a whole. Advances in medicine have allowed surgeons to actually operate on a fetus in utero. If this is done on a fetus being carried by a woman on some government sponsored assistance then that cost is being borne by the taxpayer.
I call bull. Especially when Roe v Wade makes it clear "the state *can* if it chooses..." which also means it doesn't have to if it so chooses. There is no language in all of Roe v Wade mandating the state to make the fetus significant in any way shape or form. That is just your wishful thinking creating obstinate insistence where none exists. You're are adding to Roe v Wade what you wish to see and nothing more.
You call bull ?!?! Here's what I wrote :

"He doesn't need to rethink it at all. He is absolutely right. The significance that RvW accords the fetus post-viability when it allows the states to restrict and even prohibit abortion unless and only if there is a maternal health/life risk, and the significance the states accord the fetus when they opt to affect such restrictions....ARE inflexible."

Where did I say that RvW mandates such restrictions ? Where ??? Show me !!!
You're a liar. Plain and simple.

You have not only achieved perfection in ineptness, you have now achieved perfection in dementia, lying and deceit. Congratulations !

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 Incognito4Ever 1,418,427
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Hipocrits 20,498
Review: Around The States Moving & Storage (Apr '15) 9 hr mableS769 67
legit Research Chemicals Vendor (Sep '13) 20 hr Badguyforever 39
News Stateville gets new lease on life as Pontiac pr... (May '08) Wed lockemup 54
News Veterans get ALS disability (Jul '08) Wed Sjpowers 30
News 2 Dead, 4 Injured After Shootings In Baltimore ... Aug 23 grounded in reality 1

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages