Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313231 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.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#253020 Aug 17, 2012
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> I believe the matter should be left up to the person that's pregnant ,not a bunch of busy bodies trying to interfere in other people's lives. No one has ever established just who is qualified to set restrictions and who in every town and state would be qualified to enforce and carry out those restrictions. Why don't YOU come out with a detailed female body control plan including implementation and enforcement and let's see what's on your mind or let's leave well enough alone with RvW
So your pretty much for abortion till birth,is that right?
The supreme court set the restrictions,take it up with them.
Let me get this straight,if I can come up with a control plan(LOL),I won't be a busy body anymore? If I can't I should just leave my opinions out of it,and call it a day? I understand,Thomas.
Ocean56
#253021 Aug 17, 2012
sassyjm wrote:
This girl is scary. She is so anti- child. Okay so therel are people who don't want large families. Understandable but this one repeats herself over and over with such vengeance about how she loves not being pregnant and not having more than one child. It's like' Whoaaaa easy there ....we got it the first thousand times you said it'.
Funny how religionist idiots like you have to make up so many LIES about prochoicers, isn't it, sASSy. I'm not "anti-child" at all, I just feel this need to correct moronic statements you make about women in general, like "you're not a real woman until you have a baby" and other such nonsense.

There are women who don't want children at all, and contrary to what religionist kooks want everyone to believe, women who don't want kids aren't "unnatural" or "unfeminine" in the least. It's just that women who either don't want any children or only want ONE child and no more are anathema to the catholic and other anti-contraception churches.
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#253022 Aug 17, 2012
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Rumor has it that your Moncie.
What isn't a rumor???

That you're still too stupid to spell you're the correct way.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#253023 Aug 17, 2012
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> This girl is scary. She is so anti- child. Okay so therel are people who don't want large families. Understandable but this one repeats herself over and over with such vengeance about how she loves not being pregnant and not having more than one child. It's like' Whoaaaa easy there ....we got it the first thousand times you said it'.
Another thing with her(and shes not alone) is that she seems fearful as if some man is abusing/mistreating her and forcing her to do things against her will.
Odd thing is that these women are all menopausal age. They aint gettin pregnant.
So, you're saying we should only care about our own situations?

Well then, by your own logic, you're not having an abortion, so why are you here?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#253024 Aug 17, 2012
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> You admit to killing a human....a human in your womb is your conceived and developing offspring. Then you say it's justified killing in self-defense?
I feel sorry for you. You need help.
You had no respect for your newest grandaughter moments before her birth YET you exclaimed "a baby girl is on her way" as if you acknowleged her value and importance.
Blah!!!!
Using the proper terms has nothing to do with "respect", or "value". That you want to equate using a term of endearment with the two says quite a bit about your lack of logic.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#253025 Aug 17, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good evening Knit/Colorado/Pupsilicious.
Did she get banned again?
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#253026 Aug 17, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>When is the RCC going to sincerely do something to find out what is going with their priesthood. Apparently, there is a significant number of sexual predators entering the priesthood. What does it take for the Church to pay attention?
They have done something.... they blamed the 60's !!!!

They are incapable of admitting and accepting responsiblity and taking corrective action beyond finger pointing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/...

Read the full report here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55745387/Causes-and...
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#253028 Aug 17, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, no, we're talking about human life here, as far as the constitution. I dont think I've ever portrayed myself a a tree hugger, I hunt, fish, and smash the shit out of mosquitoes and deer flies. I've posted enough for anyone to understand my arguments, so what's your incomprehensive problem, Kenose?
At least you're up front about your bias. If you want to speak of protecting life and then turn around and not care about the lives of other species, all it does it show your double standard.

You're deciding what lives are of more value that others. Like I said yesterday, you walk a fine line....

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#253029 Aug 17, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, it's been answered on numerous occasions; you;re just thick.
For some PC'ers, the idea of an abortion doesn't fit their personal beliefs. What you can't comprehend, however, is that they do not think their personal beliefs should rule what OTHER people do. It's a very simple concept unless you are a control freak.
<quoted text>
Exactly.

That pretty much sums it up, Peter.
Shedding light on life
#253031 Aug 17, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, it's been answered on numerous occasions; you;re just thick.
For some PC'ers, the idea of an abortion doesn't fit their personal beliefs. What you can't comprehend, however, is that they do not think their personal beliefs should rule what OTHER people do. It's a very simple concept unless you are a control freak.
<quoted text>
Not really.

All pro-choicers, using their own subjective feelings as a standard, defend the morally indefensible point that an unborn human being has to *do* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined act or *reach* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined level of function to be considered fully "human."

It's self-serving moral sophistry, justified by those who want the power to determine who in the community of the powerless will live or die. Predictably, the hoops through which a little human has to jump to avoid having her life extinguished by abortion vary widely from one pro-choicer to another. Whether it's "rationality," "having a self-concept," "sentience," or "organized cortical activity," pro-choicers are all over the subjective map in picking and choosing what they consider to be the crucial value-making properties that would remove a little human from the abortionist's clutches.

And of course it's predictably impossible to pick out at what point the little human being acquires enough of the correct traits to save herself from abortion. When is she rational enough? When does she have a sufficient amount of organized cortical activity to save her life?

Mary Anne Warren, former professor of philosophy who died in 2010, defined a human being who's safely beyond the tentacles of abortion as one who has consciousness, can solve complex problems, has a self-concept, and can engage in "sophisticated communication." Golly gee, pro-choicers, that would mean that according to Warren, the arrival of full humanity is sometime AFTER birth.

Why isn't Warren's abortion-is-OK-after-birth diktat more subjectively right or wrong than any other pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined view?

Only artifacts (clocks, cars, TV sets) come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once. Because one can only develop certain functions by nature (a result of basic, intrinsic capacities) because of the sort of being one *is*, a human being at every stage of her development is never a potential person; she is *always* a person with potential, even if that potential is never actualized due to premature death or the result of the presence or deformity of a physical state necessary to actualize that potential.

Human beings are valuable and worth protecting at all stages of their lives because of who they are, not because of what they can or cannot do.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#253032 Aug 17, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha-ha-ha-ha-,how the hell is anyone on a message board forcing opinions on you,Thomas? Do read the posts,don't reply,problem settled.
That's not what he meant, and you know it.

He was referring to laws developed by local politicians that people vote for (therefore using their "opinion") which intrude on peoples' liberties.

For example, I am assuming you would most likely vote for a PL candidate specifically because you want to see abortion outlawed or restricted in some way. This lawmaker then turns around and crafts a bill which will force all women/girls who are considering having an abortion to first undergo an intravaginal ultrasound.

This requirement most assuredly intrudes on peoples' liberties, and is akin to sodomy, as it is a forceful penetration with an object against the individual's will.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#253034 Aug 17, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>The argument is that D v B would allow for that, under "emtional health" which in it's vauge definition of mental health includes almost any reason to abort a viable fetus.
I just want to pop in to say that women aren't USING "almost any reason to abort a viable fetus" BA. Generally speaking, Women are NOT having LTA's because they want to take a vaction, because they dont want to get fat, etc.

Mental health issues can't be legislated. These issues at some point HAVE to be left up to a doctor. And there ARE psychiatric issues that affect some women, some severely, during pregnancy.

http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/particle...

ARE there bad doctors that will do these things? Sadly, sure. Gosnell proves that (tho he had OTHER reasons to do them as well) ANd perhaps that's where legislation should be coming in, but of the small percentage of LTA's happening (and the word "small" doesn't mean insignificant), and even tinyier number are for frivilous reasons such as you're talking about.

Did you read the link I gave the other night (actually that Lynniekins inadvertedly gave LOL the dumb bitch) showing what women having LTA's ARE having them for MOST often, in their own words?

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/A...

Not seeing any frivilous reasons there. There's also a wonderful book discussing this issue.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Heartbreaking-Choic...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#253035 Aug 17, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
She shifted her argument. She questioned the validity of my statement that PL work to limit contraceptive availability.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Then, when it was proven, rather than say "oh, yeah, you're right", she simply changed her questions.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
So, at first she acted as if she had no idea that this was going on, when in fact she was just being deliberately difficult.
And Ink's post to me looking for documentation of this was b.s. because I had asked a question, not made a statement of fact.

I don't know why she enjoys making herself appear stupid and uninformed.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#253036 Aug 17, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking about two different thing. A pharmacist working for a pharmacy would have to make his employer aware of his objection and the owner of the pharmacy would make the decision on how to hanle the problem.
A pharmacy is not required to carry any product in particular and if they don't want to carry certain items, they don't have to.
You can't force people to do what you want.
A pharmacist who is against b.c. is not being forced to use b.c. And he is not being paid to decide for other people if they should have b.c.

A pharmacist who is working for a business and will not fill certain prescriptions for customers based on his own *personal* beliefs is the person who is the one forcing what he wants onto other people. Period.

Nobody is forcing a fundie control-freak pharmacist to use birth control himself. Nobody.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#253037 Aug 17, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not at the moment but you said you would never have one. Why not?
Because...I...do...not...want. ..one.

Many people who are pro-choice would not get one either. We choose for ourselves, not everyone else. We are not control-freaks trying to force everyone else to live by our personal beliefs.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#253038 Aug 17, 2012
Shedding light on life wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
All pro-choicers, using their own subjective feelings as a standard, defend the morally indefensible point that an unborn human being has to *do* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined act or *reach* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined level of function to be considered fully "human."
It's self-serving moral sophistry, justified by those who want the power to determine who in the community of the powerless will live or die. Predictably, the hoops through which a little human has to jump to avoid having her life extinguished by abortion vary widely from one pro-choicer to another. Whether it's "rationality," "having a self-concept," "sentience," or "organized cortical activity," pro-choicers are all over the subjective map in picking and choosing what they consider to be the crucial value-making properties that would remove a little human from the abortionist's clutches.
And of course it's predictably impossible to pick out at what point the little human being acquires enough of the correct traits to save herself from abortion. When is she rational enough? When does she have a sufficient amount of organized cortical activity to save her life?
Mary Anne Warren, former professor of philosophy who died in 2010, defined a human being who's safely beyond the tentacles of abortion as one who has consciousness, can solve complex problems, has a self-concept, and can engage in "sophisticated communication." Golly gee, pro-choicers, that would mean that according to Warren, the arrival of full humanity is sometime AFTER birth.
Why isn't Warren's abortion-is-OK-after-birth diktat more subjectively right or wrong than any other pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined view?
Only artifacts (clocks, cars, TV sets) come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once. Because one can only develop certain functions by nature (a result of basic, intrinsic capacities) because of the sort of being one *is*, a human being at every stage of her development is never a potential person; she is *always* a person with potential, even if that potential is never actualized due to premature death or the result of the presence or deformity of a physical state necessary to actualize that potential.
Human beings are valuable and worth protecting at all stages of their lives because of who they are, not because of what they can or cannot do.
"All pro-choicers, using their own subjective feelings as a standard, defend the morally indefensible point that an unborn human being has to *do* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined act or *reach* some pro-choicer's arbitrarily determined level of function to be considered fully "human."

Sorry, but that is just complete bullshit. And your entire point is hypocritical, as YOU are the one using only your subjective feelings in this debate, while whining about others doing so.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#253039 Aug 17, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You could have answered and I wouldn't have to.
I did answer. I am not required to answer any of your questions. Don't play control-freak with me, Ink. I barely tolerate you now.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#253040 Aug 17, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be and is up to the owner of the pharmacy to decide, whether he would provide another pharmacist to fill the script or fire the objecting pharmacist.
That didn't answer her question.

Elise asked..."Why work there and refuse to sell their products?"
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#253041 Aug 17, 2012
OTHER CANDIDATES HAD TURNED IN MORE TAX RETURNS BEFORE -- THEY WERE THOSE OTHERS IN THEIR STAND OF THEIR PERPLEXITY.

HOWEVER, NOR Romney now is like his father running for office previously and Romney does not have to operate as his father did then.

Other candidates were other candidates--you can CHOOSE TO tell your employers about what you have in the banks and your neighbors whether you have written a will.

Romney does not have to act like others nor seek others' approval in this regard when all conditions of tax return requirements have been met satisfactorily and sufficiently.
ThomasA
#253042 Aug 17, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
So your pretty much for abortion till birth,is that right?
The supreme court set the restrictions,take it up with them.
Let me get this straight,if I can come up with a control plan(LOL),I won't be a busy body anymore? If I can't I should just leave my opinions out of it,and call it a day? I understand,Thomas.
You're sidestepping the question of just who is qualified in your mind in every town and state to control a woman's body and what would be their qualifications,who would put them in that position and how would they enforce that control? If you seek control over people lives,you need a concrete plan to do so. You are free to have your thoughts about the subject but we haven't heard your workable doable game plan.

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.

Allentown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Jeff Sessions 1,483,617
News Guilty plea by Allentown man in $3M... 13 min Gettysburgers 2
News 'The Inaugural Address in History': a Saturday ... Jan 20 silly rabbit 1
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) Jan 19 truth 7,994
News Two get probation in Pa. streetlight... Jan 17 silly rabbit 1
News Pawlowski pays to clean up corner office (Mar '06) Jan 17 silly rabbit 5
News Pa. officials: Mom accused in adopted teen's ra... Jan 17 silly rabbit 1

Allentown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Allentown Mortgages