Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314353 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: Nov 09

Location hidden

#260211 Sep 26, 2012
I guess someone didn't see the humor in my post to Foo. :/
Ocean56

AOL

#260212 Sep 26, 2012
realkatie wrote:
Animals end pregnancy prior to term more often than you're willing to admit. They do it to survive. Apparently you are not concerned with women surviving because you willingly reduce their worth to less than their unwanted/unhealthy ZEFs. And then you pass on the brainwashing and try to convince them they're monsters, a menace and threat to society.
Agreed. The catholic church believes that if any woman chooses to have NO CHILDREN at any point in her life, she must be punished with lifetime celibacy.

Obviously, sASSy has the same backward beliefs. And she wonders why prochoicers here don't take anything she says seriously. Go figure.
Ocean56

AOL

#260213 Sep 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So it's better for kids to get pregnant and die in car accidents than to have alternatives? You;re frigging insane. A pill that would cause sobriety would be an AWESOME product.
But, of course, you want girls to be punished for having sex. If you had your way, more of them would die in childbirth as a lesson for others.
Of course she does. The idiot sASSy is really big on punishment, especially for girls/women who have sex WITHOUT the intention or desire to procreate.
Ocean56

AOL

#260214 Sep 26, 2012
In his essay "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:

"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."

**********

I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.

THAT is the blatant injustice against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to change...and what many right-wing conservative extremists would like to see women RETURNED to.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260215 Sep 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The nation was founded on constitutional rights, encoded and written down. You can claim anything is a "human" right, but how do you back it up?
<quoted text>
There are no constitutional rights, nitwit. Human rights are inherent. The constitution protects our inherent human rights.
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/...
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260216 Sep 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Our origin was unique for the time; colonies did not leave their mother countries, period. Our doing so would have caused great concern in europe (home of imperialism on a grand scale) unless we explained precisely why we were doing so. That was why the DOI was written. It was never meant to be a guiding or ruling document and carries no weight in court of law today.
<quoted text>
The Declaration of Independence is the guiding document of our nation, and contains the principles that are the foundation of our government. The Declaration of Independence established the core principles of our Nation, the United States of America. Our Constitution with the Amendments provide a rule of law for an actual government to accomplish those principles.
"Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence.
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. The nation to which the Declaration gave birth has had an immense impact on human history, and continues to do so."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/dec...
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260217 Sep 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
A mother i a woman who has given birth. Abortion is not giving birth. You PLM love to rape the english language to make the most idiotic of points.
<quoted text>
Of course, not all sounds are the same. Perhaps the most significant one a baby hears in utero is his mother's voice. Around the seventh and eighth month, a fetus's heart rate slows down slightly whenever his mother is speaking, indicating that mom's voice has a calming effect.
http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-...
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260218 Sep 26, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
More anti-choice NONSENSE, but that's all you ever post, so I'm not surprised at this idiocy either.
A woman has the same right NOT to have children as she does to be a mother. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy has happened.
A pregnant woman is a mother. Abortion just means that a mother has killed her child. She is still a mother, just the mother of a dead baby instead of a living baby.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#260219 Sep 26, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>Your hatemongering and bigotry against young people, and your obsession with "viability", does not negate the fact that young people are just as human as anyone else at any other age. The importance of sentience is merely your own personal prejudice, and of no importance to anyone other than yoursef and your fellow bigots.
Your response fails to address points I made, attempts to put words in my mouth I never said and name calls. Not good.

:\

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#260220 Sep 26, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>A pregnant woman is a mother. Abortion just means that a mother has killed her child. She is still a mother, just the mother of a dead baby instead of a living baby.
Is she a mother if God kills via miscarriage?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260221 Sep 26, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Is she a mother if God kills via miscarriage?
Of course, everybody has parents. A mother and a father. Its a requirement for our existence.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#260222 Sep 26, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response fails to address points I made, attempts to put words in my mouth I never said and name calls. Not good.
:\
A lack of sentience is a normal characteristic of all young people. Discriminating against people because of their physical characteristics is bigotry. If you don't like being referred to as a bigot, try not being one.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#260223 Sep 26, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Greetings OL! The focus from the anti-choice side seems to be horror stories from near or at viability abortions. Dr. Tiller's patients came forward and expressed their sorrow at his needless murder - some of them would have died without his help. I suppose that doesn't matter to many though - because he was "Tiller the Killer".
The majority of abortions are performed in the first tri. But that's not good enough - let's vaginally probe these women, give them waiting periods, force them to watch ultrasounds, etc. After all, they are women, they know not what they really want. The jumps and hoops are increasing, and with that, delays in safe early abortions. The horror stories are going to escalate.
Meanwhile comprehensive sex education is still hotly contested. I don't get it.
OL, no offense meant or intended, but I don't think the PC side is looking to gain any ground, they just want the status quo to remain in place so that each woman (one at a time) can make a safe and legal choice for herself.
Honestly Age,I have no idea what kind of a man Dr. Tiller was nor know a thing about his patients. For him to die from some pro-nuts hand and thinking most pro-life folks didn't care one bit ,is sad.
Why would anyone celebrate a mans death? That's just sick. I seen it when folks were dancing in the streets when Bin Laden was killed,I get it,I just think its unsuitable to do it.
I can't honestly tell you I think it's alright to have an abortion during the 1st tri,or if its good enough or not. I can just tell you how I feel. I can tell you at 20 weeks viable or not is when I think the line should be drawn. Let's face it before that it's not going to fly,the pro-life side will lose. If a fetus could be taken and developed where a women would not have to carry it,tell me what do you think would happen? I can tell you what I think,it would make any difference,it would still be considered,property. We can argue till the cows come home,and it won't change the fact what I think,nor would I expect you to think any different.
Now on birth control I get it,although I disagree with not teaching it. I understand how some parents think,and feel.
I'm not offended at your post Age,nor at Katie's. I understand the ulta sounds,and why you'd be angry. I understand your dismay on the waiting period. Tax payers paying for abortions,or building more abortion clinics,I'm not thrilled with,and to be honest would try and fight it,by voting. As bad as it would sound to you,I wouldn't want an abortion clinic in my town.
There are extreme people on both sides,I would hope I'm not one of them. This will never end well,if it ever does,for either side.
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#260224 Sep 26, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it is working. Now they are giving out Plan B or the morning after pill to 14 year olds in the schools in NYC.
They have 7,000 pregnancies a year in high school.
Compare that to the state of Mississippi where they don't have mandatory sex ed in schools.

Who cares if you think if it's working or not. Your opinion should not and will not be the standard for all, Ms. Hippo.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/10/u-s-...

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#260225 Sep 26, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
In his essay "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:
"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."
**********
I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.
THAT is the blatant injustice against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to change...and what many right-wing conservative extremists would like to see women RETURNED to.
This reminds me of a documentary I never finished on Netflix about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. In my past life I think I was a suffragette.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#260226 Sep 26, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, not all sounds are the same. Perhaps the most significant one a baby hears in utero is his mother's voice. Around the seventh and eighth month, a fetus's heart rate slows down slightly whenever his mother is speaking, indicating that mom's voice has a calming effect.
http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-...
I bet they can scream too. Maybe even beat box.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#260227 Sep 26, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, everybody has parents. A mother and a father. Its a requirement for our existence.
Ok, you're consistent. Why do you suppose that people say "mother to be"?

Glad to see that you agree that God does play a role in natural miscarriages, why do you suppose that He/She gets a free pass?

“Nasty Nana”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#260228 Sep 26, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> I asked you a question. Please answer it. This mumbo jumbo ^^^^ is only proving that you don't know. So..either answer or shaaatup next time.
Now, here it is again.
Nasy nana : it wasn't the basis of her post
Sassy: oh? What was the basis?
I know this may come as some surprise to you, as you are quite thick indeed, I didnít answer the question because it wasnít posed to me. If youíd like me to address you, than you shall address me directly.
Secondly, the answer has been provided many times, it matters not how many times we dance in circles you will not see the point, for you are looking for an argument.
Lastly, I see you didnít take my advice and buy some class, pity really, as these conversation would be far more interesting if only you knew how to converse without spitting hell fire and damn nation, you have mastered the ability to talk out of your ass while your head is so firmly planted in it. http://www.etiquette-ny.com/page/page/1507694... Honestly, you should look into it dear.
We'll put this down to yet another failed attempt at sounding intelligent and condescending shall we, better luck next time.

“Nasty Nana”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#260229 Sep 26, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
First off idiot, that's NOT Nana. She hasn't been here in a LONG time.
Second, why should ANYONE spoon feed you the answer, when its clear you are not only NOT intelligent enough to understand it, you're too intellectually DISHONEST to understand it as well.
Precisely! She is blinded by her arrogant ignorance.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#260230 Sep 26, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. The catholic church believes that if any woman chooses to have NO CHILDREN at any point in her life, she must be punished with lifetime celibacy.
Obviously, sASSy has the same backward beliefs. And she wonders why prochoicers here don't take anything she says seriously. Go figure.
Indeed, Ocean. Have you seen the movie Dangerous Beauty? It's based on a real woman from 16th Century Venice whose only vocation -- due to lack of a dowry -- would be a courtesan. But she was allowed an education and was published. And then she was accused of being a witch by the Catholic Church. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118892/

I am beginning research of spinsters and the correlation of being considered unworthy of marriage. If, as you've recently posted, women were compelled to be wives and mothers, what happened to those who weren't worthy? That's what I want to learn.

JM wouldn't bother herself with this type of history, though. She's much too comfy in her belief that women aren't really women if they hold interests incompatible with marriage and parenting.

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.

Coral Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min OBAMANATION 1,535,681
News Gay Couple and Their 3 Kids Denied 'Family Boar... 17 hr Gremlin 9
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) May 23 TRD 71,288
News Pit bull ban: Ban pit bulls - they don't belong... (Jun '09) May 23 Love my pitties 1,039
CardioFlex Therapy joins Medicaid! May 23 CardioFlex 1
News Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09) May 19 Spotted Girl 95
News Feds raid Florida Career College campuses (Oct '07) May 18 Tam 365

Coral Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Coral Springs Mortgages