Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317435 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.

Mike

Belleville, IL

#319732 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
I am using scientific principles about the subject in question. Yes, the rightness or wrongness of any decision is not based on science at least not to most people including myself. Some people think ethics should be based on the laws of nature. Either way I don't want to get off track. You keep using the word "member." I am not. I have taken quite a few biology classes and I never recall learning about anything that qualifies something as a "member" or a non-member of a species. Even if "member" is a biological term (which I am sure its not) I am not using that term in my argument. My argument isn't based on whether or not a fetus is a member. Yes my question is a philosophical one, I agree. It also uses objective verifiable scientific terminology. So please answer my question. It is a simple yes or no question. If you want to elaborate afterwards feel free. Do you think it is ok to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong? Stop ducking the question. The way you keep trying to wiggle out of it makes it look like you are uncomfortable answering. The longer you go on without answering the more I think that you think that I have a point.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319733 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Your argument about eviction implies that you think its ok to kill someone who is living on your property without permission. Also anyone who pays taxes that they don't want to supports other people against their will.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319734 Dec 29, 2013
Your Mommy called. She said to get off the computer and go to sleep. She also wants to know why there's hand cream all over the right side of the keyboard.
Khan the Great wrote:
<quoted text>
As though any one takes a pole muncher like you seriously. Why not just go back to your but pirate boy toy you old queen.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319735 Dec 29, 2013
And you would be wrong. Nothing that happens within the "envelope" of another person's body is any of your business AT ALL.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider it my business when any Homo Sapiens dies.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319736 Dec 29, 2013
Don't fu**ing tell me how I may answer your question. And you need to take more, or better, science courses. A fetus isn't a homo sapiens (since the word "member" terrifies you.) It has the potential to become one if no internal or external circumstances arise. If that fetus is in a woman who chooses not to stay pregnant, it's okay with me if she aborts. I take no risks, endure no medical issues, or suffer possible life complications...SHE does. That's why SHE gets to choose if the risks are worth the potential reward. Not you, not me, not some tight-ass right-winger with half a brain who manages to get elected.

Do you think women should be constrained by the whims of biological happenstance?
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I am using scientific principles about the subject in question. Yes, the rightness or wrongness of any decision is not based on science at least not to most people including myself. Some people think ethics should be based on the laws of nature. Either way I don't want to get off track. You keep using the word "member." I am not. I have taken quite a few biology classes and I never recall learning about anything that qualifies something as a "member" or a non-member of a species. Even if "member" is a biological term (which I am sure its not) I am not using that term in my argument. My argument isn't based on whether or not a fetus is a member. Yes my question is a philosophical one, I agree. It also uses objective verifiable scientific terminology. So please answer my question. It is a simple yes or no question. If you want to elaborate afterwards feel free. Do you think it is ok to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong? Stop ducking the question. The way you keep trying to wiggle out of it makes it look like you are uncomfortable answering. The longer you go on without answering the more I think that you think that I have a point.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319737 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Let me break this down for you since you don't understand what I mean by pro-abortion rights.
Pro means being in favor of. Abortion rights means right to have an abortion. If you say you are not pro-abortion rights that means you are not in favor of the right for people to have abortions. I would welcome the news but I'm sure you understand now that there is nothing inaccurate or unfair about the term. Also there are no sane 100% pro-choice people. If you are fully pro-choice that means you are an anarchist. That you believe in no laws whatsoever. That people should be abler to "choose" to do whatever they want to do. The whole pro-choice label is a way of the pro-abortion rights community trying to avoid using the word abortion. You see it all the time with pro-abortion rights politicians. They always use some euphemism which usually is scientifically inaccurate. They say reproductive rights or some other nonsense. When we are talking about abortion rights or restrictions we should be honest and not try and hide from what is really at issue. Most liberals including myself believe in gun control. The people who oppose gun control don't go around saying they are pro-choice (choice to own whatever weapons they want to.)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319738 Dec 29, 2013
It's okay to evict someone even if that eviction could be fatal...say, during a deep winter cold spell. You have the right to enjoyment and protection of one's property without being responsible for what happens to squatters.

Congress and statesz have the right to collect taxes.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument about eviction implies that you think its ok to kill someone who is living on your property without permission. Also anyone who pays taxes that they don't want to supports other people against their will.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319739 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
There's nothing responsible about bearing a child you don't want, can't raise properly, or support.
<quoted text>
It is much less responsible to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong. You can also give your kids up for adoption. Even if you don't the government will help low income single moms quite a bit, not enough in my opinion. But ask yourself when was the last time you meet a homeless woman. I've only seen one in my life. I have also never seen a homeless child.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319740 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Don't fu**ing tell me how I may answer your question. And you need to take more, or better, science courses. A fetus isn't a homo sapiens (since the word "member" terrifies you.) It has the potential to become one if no internal or external circumstances arise. If that fetus is in a woman who chooses not to stay pregnant, it's okay with me if she aborts. I take no risks, endure no medical issues, or suffer possible life complications...SHE does. That's why SHE gets to choose if the risks are worth the potential reward. Not you, not me, not some tight-ass right-winger with half a brain who manages to get elected.
Do you think women should be constrained by the whims of biological happenstance?
<quoted text>
The word member doesn't terrify me. It just doesn't sound like a objective scientific term to me. Looks like I will have to go down to a more basic level of science in order to get you to answer my question. In terms of biology is a fetus a living organism? As a reminder a single celled amoeba is a living organism.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319741 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's okay to evict someone even if that eviction could be fatal...say, during a deep winter cold spell. You have the right to enjoyment and protection of one's property without being responsible for what happens to squatters.
Congress and statesz have the right to collect taxes.
<quoted text>
When you evict someone into the cold you are not killing them. So still your argument makes no sense and your grasping for straws. Yes congress has the right to collect taxes from people who are unwilling to pay taxes in order to support others. So you agree it should be legal to force other people to be responsible for others.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#319742 Dec 29, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider it my business when any Homo Sapiens dies.
As I said, you are allowed your opinion.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319743 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
And you would be wrong. Nothing that happens within the "envelope" of another person's body is any of your business AT ALL.
<quoted text>
What exactly makes you the authority on what is or is not my business.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#319746 Dec 29, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
It is much less responsible to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong. You can also give your kids up for adoption. Even if you don't the government will help low income single moms quite a bit, not enough in my opinion. But ask yourself when was the last time you meet a homeless woman. I've only seen one in my life. I have also never seen a homeless child.
You lead a very sheltered life, apparently. I see homeless women and children regularly at the health clinic where I volunteer.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319747 Dec 30, 2013
Sorry, not playing your game. A woman has a right to abort a pregnancy. If the fetus dies in the process, I DON'T CARE. No organism, homo sapien, or future farmer of america has a right to be gestated without her permission.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
The word member doesn't terrify me. It just doesn't sound like a objective scientific term to me. Looks like I will have to go down to a more basic level of science in order to get you to answer my question. In terms of biology is a fetus a living organism? As a reminder a single celled amoeba is a living organism.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319748 Dec 30, 2013
Never heard of hypothermia?

The congress is tasked, among other things, with providing for the general welfare. It has nothing to do with individual rights.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
When you evict someone into the cold you are not killing them. So still your argument makes no sense and your grasping for straws. Yes congress has the right to collect taxes from people who are unwilling to pay taxes in order to support others. So you agree it should be legal to force other people to be responsible for others.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319749 Dec 30, 2013
Both RvW and HIPAA define privacy in terms of abortion specifically and medical info in general. You have no right to know if a woman is pregnant or not, much less what she does about it.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly makes you the authority on what is or is not my business.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319750 Dec 30, 2013
katie wrote:
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...
And the pro-"life" fundies will sigh contently thinking this is such a beautiful story. Mother and baby die together and fly off to rainbow heaven to romp forever on glitter clouds just as their god intended. And they all lived happily ever after...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319751 Dec 30, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But John, the bible says God just up and did it one week, so this is all crap!

Remember the passage...And God saw that it was good so he created a dead satellite to orbit his creation, and seeing that was good He created hundreds of billions of dead, cold, empty planets...

:)

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319752 Dec 30, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what that sounds like he's saying.
Good, so it's not just me...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#319753 Dec 30, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
He kinda does. He is God.:)
Yet being a good person doesn't mean it helps others.
Most have a hidden agenda when helping others.
I'm thankful we don't have a God that gives us no choice in life.
I would think any pc person would be as well.
So really...what actual purpose does worship serve? Worship can really only feed the ego of a deity who is so far advanced anyway that he really doesn't need an ego-boost.

A truly good person is altruistic and through feelings of compassion (and not faith through grace) does indeed help others when the need arises. Sometimes that help comes from a kind word or a display of understanding. Sometimes it's just keeping quiet and listening. Sometimes it's doing much bigger things...

I don't even understand what "faith through grace" means, to tell you the truth. It sounds like some sort of platitude. I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs, but I just don't get how spending one's time worshiping and singing praises can be better use of that time than just being a good person who does good things for other people...to make our own corner of the world a better place.

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 old_moose 1,600,039
News Mansion's reverend has skeletons in his closet (Jul '08) Mon DiLeos D 220
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Mon Anybody Anywhere 21,174
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) Sep 14 Westminster 79
News Baltimore archbishop calls for mercy for 'Dream... Sep 14 Michu pichu 1
News Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) Sep 13 ColdCase 20
News Locations of Baltimore's former movie houses (Jan '08) Sep 1 Wesley Halbrook 12

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages