Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311364 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.

worships reality

AOL

#287948 Mar 4, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
My pro-choice position is not opinion.
of course it is. the fact that a woman has a legal right to choose is not opinion. however, whether or not you agree and support or disgaree with that legal right "is" your opinion. there is no getting around that. your spinning notwithstanding.
I never said it was relevant to any woman. I said it is relevant to this debate. My personal opinion regarding the choices, is not relevant to the debate.
you said your personal opinion regarding abortion or any of the choices available would not make any difference to a woman making her own choice.

"What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?"

tell me again what you "never" said.
You're not manipulating anyone. In fact, it's YOU who is being ridiculous. And childish.
Enjoy your impotence.
as long as you're responding, i'm manipulating.
what i can't manipulate is a coward like you into answering the question posed, pusillanimous one.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287949 Mar 4, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> murder means to kill inhumanly and barbarically.
Some would argue execution by the electric chair, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad are inhumane and barbaric. But are they "murder"? No. But it is "killing".

You claimed God forbids killing. Does God forbid execution? Read your Bible and find out.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287950 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it is. the fact that a woman has a legal right to choose is not opinion. however, whether or not you agree and support or disgaree with that legal right "is" your opinion. there is no getting around that. your spinning notwithstanding.
<quoted text>
you said your personal opinion regarding abortion or any of the choices available would not make any difference to a woman making her own choice.
"What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?"
tell me again what you "never" said.
<quoted text>
as long as you're responding, i'm manipulating.
what i can't manipulate is a coward like you into answering the question posed, pusillanimous one.
Damn, you're beating the sh^t out this dead horse. What are you trying to find out? When, why, if ever, Bit agrees with any particular woman terminating a pregnancy for some specific reason?

I get the impression she doesn't care to share her opinion with you regarding every possible scenario.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287951 Mar 4, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that if you're postng, you're lying. In THAT partiular instance, you were lynig when you claimed to know the religious beliefs of those that dont agree with YOUR views on abortion.
You like to make sweeping statements that would blanket everyone - but the REALIY is - they simply dont.
Oh, and you can take your "hush up" and cram it up your ass honey.
Does your mommy know you're on a forum for adults?
"Oh, and you can take your "hush up" and cram it up your ass honey."

LOL! Well said!
worships reality

AOL

#287952 Mar 4, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Read any news article about it idiot.
i did, and you're wrong.
according to the ny daily news --

"the cause of death was 'extreme prematurity' caused by blunt force trauma to the mother, the city’s medical examiner said."

why would anyone deliberately make themselves look so dumb, idiot.
Gtown71

United States

#287953 Mar 4, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> STO is convinced that numbers 5 is justifying women killing their unwanted child. It allows him to justify supporting a abortion as choice and vetting the two thumbs up from proabort women. His hidden secret is his loyalty to his mom who aborted her child. He's chosing to cover up his moms grave sin over his God.
God forbids killing. It is a commandment. He knows this since he 'read the entire bible and studies it".
Yes we all have sins in our lives, and we can either try and justify them, or agree with God, that they are not good.

Most real christians know when something is wrong, even if they struggle with that sin on a daily bases, they still know it is wrong.

They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer.

Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion.

He is a mess.
Gods salvation is for all.
Atheist, wiccans, and even many who think they already are.
God didn't say that you will know who they are, becouse they tell you, but by their fruit.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287954 Mar 4, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you afraid to reveal your personal opinion?. The abortion argument is based on our personal opinions. If you are against the act of abortion then you would never support a woman EVER choosing it. If you have NO issue with the act of abortion then you support a womans choice to abort.
Abortion kills an innocent humans life. I am against it.
You?
This is a false premise on your part, JM.

The "abortion" argument is really about women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.

That's it. Not as dramatic as your BS, though.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287955 Mar 4, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why are you afraid to reveal your personal opinion?."

I'm not. Why are you people so childish? You really think trying to manipulate people by calling them "chicken" is an adult thing to do?

"The abortion argument is based on our personal opinions."

My arguments are not. How I feel about either choice plays no part in my arguments.

"If you are against the act of abortion then you would never support a woman EVER choosing it. If you have NO issue with the act of abortion then you support a womans choice to abort."

I don't support the choices. I support a woman's RIGHT to make her own choice. You just continue to ignore that, and argue with me about a position that I don't even hold.

"Abortion kills an innocent humans life."

Which has nothing to do with my position.

"I am against it."

Okay.

"You?"

That's irrelevant. As is how I feel about childbirth, but you don't ask me about my feelings about that, do you?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287956 Mar 4, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha!
I see they pulled the same sh^t with you...
<quoted text>
"projecting your confusion on to me and stating these are my beliefs when not."
Often, I don't think they are confused. I think they got nuthin', so they have to make up sumthin.
It seems you're right, STO.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287957 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it is. the fact that a woman has a legal right to choose is not opinion. however, whether or not you agree and support or disgaree with that legal right "is" your opinion. there is no getting around that. your spinning notwithstanding.
<quoted text>
you said your personal opinion regarding abortion or any of the choices available would not make any difference to a woman making her own choice.
"What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?"
tell me again what you "never" said.
<quoted text>
as long as you're responding, i'm manipulating.
what i can't manipulate is a coward like you into answering the question posed, pusillanimous one.
LOL, enjoy your impotence. Don't hurt yourself by stamping your widdle feet in your tantrum.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287958 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
i did, and you're wrong.
according to the ny daily news --
"the cause of death was 'extreme prematurity' caused by blunt force trauma to the mother, the city’s medical examiner said."
why would anyone deliberately make themselves look so dumb, idiot.
So how is that different than this, "THIS baby was not viable due to injuries sustained by his mother and him."
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287960 Mar 4, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we all have sins in our lives, and we can either try and justify them, or agree with God, that they are not good.
Most real christians know when something is wrong, even if they struggle with that sin on a daily bases, they still know it is wrong.
They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer.
Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion.
He is a mess.
Gods salvation is for all.
Atheist, wiccans, and even many who think they already are.
God didn't say that you will know who they are, becouse they tell you, but by their fruit.
"They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer."

See sjm! That's equivalent to "No it's not!"

lol

"Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion"

And nary a peep of proof.

Attack? You're lying.

I don't try to "make the Bible" do anything. You're lying.

Lying is a sin, ya know. You're a compulsive liar. You should ask YHVH in the name of His Son, YAHU'SHUAH, to guide you in your struggle with lying.

Maybe it's residue from the adultry thing. It's not like you told your wife you were cheating. You lied to her. Still got that problem/sin to overcome. Get to it. Start here. Stop lying about the Bible and topix posters.


“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287961 Mar 4, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What if it isn't a homicide but self inflicted. The only difference is, one is a crime the other is not, but the process was the same. Does that explain it?
No it doesn't. It's precisely the difference in the process that qualifies it as a crime.
Your reference to suicide is also not relevant as the comparison has always been a "natural" occurring death vs intentional death caused by outside influence....and the difference between those two.
I've said it a few times, women do not have a constitutional right to have an abortion,
I agree. But unfortunately the SC erroneously interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to choose to legally abort. Women do, contrary to your belief, currently have a Constitutional right to choose to abort.
women do not need a constitutional right to choose what to do about her own pregnancy. It was physicians who needed the protection from being criminally prosecuted for performing them after the illegalization in the mid 1800's.
Regardless of who was criminally prosecuted, if induced abortion were indeed the same as miscarriage as you claim, there would have been no need for RvW.
<quoted text>It is quite possible some physicians were prosecuted because according to the Journal of American Medicine women were often harassed and denied medical care until she confessed to having had an illegal abortion. What if she didn't and it was a natural abortion? Basically the Salem witch trials all over again. "Confess and name your co-conspirators or else". It was physicians who wanted it illegal and it was physicians who were the biggest supporters of legalization a century later.
What you're talking about is women being forced to falsely confess to obtaining an illegal abortion despite it being a legitimate miscarriage. Not even sure what your point is with this.
My point was no one was EVER prosecuted for a LEGITIMATE naturally occurring miscarriage.
If as you say there is "no difference" between a miscarriage and an induced abortion, then why were these women being forced to confess to something that was no different than a naturally occurring miscarriage ?
Where are you going with this inanity ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287962 Mar 4, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I only asked a question. No need to get pompous.
Ahh lighten up. That's not being pompous. What's REALLY pompous is believing your posts are so shrewd and astute that someone would feel the need to have them removed.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287963 Mar 4, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)"
I did answer....twice. Obviously you don't think I addressed this question adequately. I will concede that I may not be understanding what you're asking. It sounds convoluted. Let me try to clarify your question....
Let me clarify. You may have addressed the question but you did not answer it. And in that regard I really should apologize because in fact, there really is no answer. Their statement that they "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and the decision they ended up rendering.....are totally incompatible.
The Court did not know the answer to the question of when life begins.
You feel if they did however answer that question, they would possibly make a ruling on RvW that opposed their current ruling.
I don't know what ruling they would have made. That would be pure speculation. What I do know is they would have had to know for certain that life did NOT exist prior to viability for them to have made the decision they did.
You also think that perhaps they did really know the answer since they were able to claim when life does *not* begin.
Okay, what criteria did they use to decide when life does *not* begin? That was part of my original answer. Life begins at conception (imo),
That is not what they were referring to when they mentioned the "difficult question of when LIFE begins".

but when does that life pass from being simply functioning cells to a living being/person.
THAT is what they were referring to.

If you killed off an amoeba would you really care about the loss of that life? Yet, if you killed off the cells just hours after conception some people here would call that the murder of a human being...so it's not about what the z/e/f is at the time of an abortion, but what it is meant to become. The dividing line is that some people will say it's a zygote or an embryo...no more than that, while others say it's a human being or a "potential" human being.
The Court deals with law, but their opinions/decisions have to be based on something more concrete than just the concept of law. The Court can claim it is a human "being", a person, at the moment of conception and so abortion would then become murder at any stage of gestation, but the court still needs a concrete foundation on which to base that decision.
The zygote/embryo is human, no question there, but it comes back to the question of: is an unborn human a "person" or a "being" and I think that is the huge fork in the road.

So what criteria did the Court use to decide when life "does not begin"?
By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability. For if it did and/or if there was a possibility it did ( they acknowledged that possibility existed when they said they could not resolve the question of when life begins ) then they would have been compelled to protect it.

Just one of the reasons ( not the only one ) why RvW was a terrible decision.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#287964 Mar 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
According too Foo, Jews don't consider a fetus a person, so why the name, circumcision and burial.
The BABY was born idiot - it wasn't a fetus. You are a really stupid piece of shit.

That said, you DO understand that this baby didn't have a funeral, right? It is from a Hasidic community, and was most likely buried in a section of the Jewish cemetery that has unmarked graves for instances like this. MOST orthodox cemeteries have this kind of area, tho some differ on if the graves are marked or not. Where my mom's stillborn is buried is not marked for example, but the one where my cousin's stillborn IS marked, but with a generic marker.

Why they're named and circumsised depends on the sect of Hasidim they're from. If you actually gave a shit, you could research the reasons for it yourself.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287965 Mar 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>

By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability.
Abortion has no restriction during the first trimester. Following that, states can regulate. Therefore your above premise is false.

Anyway, as you pointed out, the question is what type of life is that life prior to viability? It is developing, unknown, and unaware.

So is it worth more than/equal to a woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy? To the point where following through with the pregnancy will cause harm to the pregnant woman and/or the fetus/baby?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287967 Mar 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. It's precisely the difference in the process that qualifies it as a crime.
Your reference to suicide is also not relevant as the comparison has always been a "natural" occurring death vs intentional death caused by outside influence....and the difference between those two.
<quoted text>
I agree. But unfortunately the SC erroneously interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to choose to legally abort. Women do, contrary to your belief, currently have a Constitutional right to choose to abort.
<quoted text>
Regardless of who was criminally prosecuted, if induced abortion were indeed the same as miscarriage as you claim, there would have been no need for RvW.
<quoted text>
What you're talking about is women being forced to falsely confess to obtaining an illegal abortion despite it being a legitimate miscarriage. Not even sure what your point is with this.
My point was no one was EVER prosecuted for a LEGITIMATE naturally occurring miscarriage.
If as you say there is "no difference" between a miscarriage and an induced abortion, then why were these women being forced to confess to something that was no different than a naturally occurring miscarriage ?
Where are you going with this inanity ?
Your reference to abortion being murder is also not relevant. No matter how it happened, natural, induced, or self inflicted it's still an abortion and neither are murder. There is no such thing as a miscarriage, they are all abortions. Why can't you bring yourself to say natural abortion?
Gtown71

United States

#287968 Mar 4, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer."
See sjm! That's equivalent to "No it's not!"
lol
"Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion"
And nary a peep of proof.
Attack? You're lying.
I don't try to "make the Bible" do anything. You're lying.
Lying is a sin, ya know. You're a compulsive liar. You should ask YHVH in the name of His Son, YAHU'SHUAH, to guide you in your struggle with lying.
Maybe it's residue from the adultry thing. It's not like you told your wife you were cheating. You lied to her. Still got that problem/sin to overcome. Get to it. Start here. Stop lying about the Bible and topix posters.
I would comment, but your post was barely worth this :)
The Prince

Allentown, PA

#287969 Mar 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said Comstock was a Catholic, Inky. If I remember correctly, he was an anti-contraception "christian" who thought he had the "right" to poke his self-righteous nose into every woman's sexual and reproductive decisions.
As to what you "seriously doubt," it is irrelevant to me. As far as I'M concerned, any woman who takes that "birth control is a sin" B.S. seriously and keeps popping out one kid after another IS being brainwashed. Thank goodness I kicked THAT toxic religious baggage to the curb over 20 years ago. It's wonderful how much freedom a woman has when she ISN'T mentally shackled to a religion that treats women like brood mares for the church.
Oh, oh. Feel bad for your hubby. Sounds like you will have the old strap-on again tonight. Do you scream, " I am the man, I am the man"?

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.

Dundalk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min USAsince1680 1,396,553
News Glad to see MAIF propose rate cut (Sep '08) 8 hr May 6
DA needs to resign 13 hr bozo 3
News Baltimore Man Charged With Attempted Murder in ... 13 hr bozo 1
Do BLM? 20 hr Off the Soap Box ... 9
Review: Around The States Moving & Storage (Apr '15) Thu RobertLHill 46
need info on samantha grace kossler, samantha g... (Jan '15) Mar '16 felicia81 2

Dundalk Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dundalk Mortgages