Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 316201 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.

STO

Vallejo, CA

#284935 Feb 19, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The verses were about a jealous husband, and the results of a wife who was cheating and lying, and the results of a wife who was not cheating nor lying.
You say the "NEGATIVE " side effects of the abortion happened to the woman who was lying and cheating.
Yet the innocent woman was cleared to become pregnant after her good name was cleared, so what you are trying to say the verses say makes absolutely no sense.
Even if those verses said, OR EVEN HINTED, that an abortion took place, then women today would have to be jewish, and go through all that was gone through in those verses to obtain an abortion. Even after their baby was aborted, their thigh would also rot, and they are to be shunned by all people, plus they must only be aborting a baby from an affair they had outside of their marriage.
And the entire point in bringing it up was to show the LAW, a LAW given by YHVH. The LAW of Jealousies. Because it was a LAW implemented by GOD, Himself, means HE gave one set of circumstances in which abortion was justified.



“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284936 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The government can't keep track of SS disability claims and sends millions of dollars to dead people.
The government couldn't keep track of where 1 million dollars of ACORN's money went. Turns out it was stolen.
The government really can't keep track of anything. Much less every penny sent to PP.
But speaking of accounting, sure would be nice if our government could do that with a budget.
Explain all the PP clinics that don't perform abortions.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284937 Feb 19, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly, you're SO stuck on attack mode, you didn't notice the discussion had continuted, and here's a concept - it became CIVIL. You even copied the discussion here, and ignored the context.
I was responding to Doc's comments "But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.~
That had nothing to do with STO's hypothetical, except it came FROM that part of the discussion.
Doc and STO BOTH were speaking thoughtfully about what MIGHT happen, what COULD happen - and I contributed my view to his comment quoted above. What a concept huh? CIVIL dialogue.
THAT is what debate is about Lynne, not this bullshit you do.
Hey, Foo -- did you catch where lilLynne proclaimed she was not interested in having this discussion? That it was a hypothetical I brought up with Doc, blah, blah, blah.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284938 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, we have a mindset in this country nowadays where the majority actually believe the government should make those decisions for us.
Even more unfortunate is this administration is more than happy to do so.
Oh, no, it's YOUR side that wants the gov't to make that decision for pregnant women.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284939 Feb 19, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just becouse it happens in nature doesn't make it natural.
Is that like when you said, "You don't tell people here you're a Christian." ?

lol
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284940 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
These are your statements, lilLynne:
You wrote:
"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."
In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:
"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
^^^These two statements are contradictory.^^^
You can run from it and ignore the fact I exposed your confusion or stupidity from now on, but it won't change the fact that you contracidted yourself.
Now you're ignoring what you wrote, below:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
**********
You won't acknowledge your own statements. Ignore them and they will go away. Go on, now. No one expects honesty from you.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."

STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."

(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284941 Feb 19, 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abor...

How many teens would not have been strong enough to go this route? Many would have been so scared, their parents would have succeeded in coercing them to abort, because abortion is legal. It may be illegal toforce someone to abort, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. oit happens more often than PCers are willing to admit.

"A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.

Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.

The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.

As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.

The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.

"We are extremely happy with the judge's decision today and we are very proud of our teenage client for being strong enough to stand against her parents to save her unborn child's life," Greg Terra, president of the Texas Center for Defense of Life, said in a blog post on the group's website.

Attorneys filed a lawsuit on the teen's behalf earlier this month arguing that her parents "are violating her federal constitutional rights to carry her child to term by coercing her to have an abortion with both verbal and physical threats and harassment."

The teen, identified in the lawsuit only as R.E.K. since she is a minor, was "beside herself" when she called the center for help, her lawyer Stephen Casey told ABCNews.com last week. The group claims it has previously represented teens in similar situations and won their cases.

"These girls are in a bind, particularly in a situation where their parents are forcing them to do something they don't want to do," Casey said. "Regardless of the [situation], that's her parents and she should expect support from them in this situation, not resentment and anger."

When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."

The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."' "

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284943 Feb 19, 2013
You're comparing a monthly-stipend system ith a claim-payment and/or grant system. So no, you know nothing about accounting. PP's books are regularly audited to ensure tax funding does not go to abortions.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The government can't keep track of SS disability claims and sends millions of dollars to dead people.
The government couldn't keep track of where 1 million dollars of ACORN's money went. Turns out it was stolen.
The government really can't keep track of anything. Much less every penny sent to PP.
But speaking of accounting, sure would be nice if our government could do that with a budget.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284944 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no, it's YOUR side that wants the gov't to make that decision for pregnant women.
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.

Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.

The government had nothing to do with it.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284945 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no, it's YOUR side that wants the gov't to make that decision for pregnant women.
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.

The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284946 Feb 19, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Your name calling is duly noted, you silly lttle hypocrite.
No name calling here. But you did prove my point.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284947 Feb 19, 2013
I have no problem with weapons; they are tools. Our incursion into iraq had nothing to do with anything BUT oil. All the pilots of 9/11 were from saudi arabia--the country whose royal family had a business relationship with the bush family. Al qaeda had nothing to do with iraq or saddam. Saddam may have hated us, but he wasn't a threat.

BTW--halliburton, the recipient of a no-bid contract from former CEO cheney, went from near-bankruptcy to record profits, thanks to iraqi oil.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
If GW Bush had accelerated the drone program and innocents were being blown up creating a new kind of animosity against the U.S., would you still have posted this?
Be honest.
You don't think terrorism is a real threat? It's all a ploy to get more oil?
If the UK had not refined Iran's oil, it would have been useless.
Most of our oil comes from other parts of the world - mostly Canada, Latin America and Africa.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284948 Feb 19, 2013
I wasn't referring to school; I was referring to welfare and WIC.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Paying for public education prevents uneducated children from becoming uneducated adults. An educated society serves us all.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284949 Feb 19, 2013
Husker wrote:
<quoted text>The majority does and many are being shut down.
One, that was not the point.

Two, I believe you are wrong, on both counts. From what I've seen, only slightly half perform abortions.

What is your source for saying "many are being shut down"? Your imagination?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284950 Feb 19, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what. I went to Planned Parenthood quite often when I was 18+ and had just moved to a big city. I knew that if I chose to have sex at some point, I DIDN'T want to get pregnant, so I needed reliable contraception to PREVENT that unwanted outcome. They charged very LITTLE money for that contraception, and I was very grateful to get it. I would have had to pay MORE anywhere else.
The Planned Parenthood facility I went to was terrific. The medical staff were very knowledgable and helpful, they answered all my questions on preventing unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and finally set me up with the contraception that I felt would work best for me. Thanks to Planned Parenthood and its wonderful staff, I never got pregnant before the time when I WANTED to become a mother, which wasn't until my 30's. I never got a sexually transmitted disease either. I went OFF birth control when I decided I was ready for the responsibility.
I strongly suggest that teens be sexFREE (free FROM sex) while in middle or high school. Even with the use of birth control and condoms, unwanted pregnancy is still possible. Must protection always be used if for any reason a teen girl or guy decides to have sex? ABSOLUTELY, and EVERY time too. Is that protection a GUARANTEE a girl will never get pregnant? Absolutely NOT. All birth control methods can and do fail occasionally. When BC fails and a pregnancy results, it is still the girl's/woman's decision whether to continue it or not.
If there were more women using PP to prevent pregnancy instead of aborting the consequences after the fact, I would be all for taxpayer funding of PP.

There are no no guarantees in life. We have to live with every choice we make. Sometimes it means owing up to those choices and doing the right thing.

Young women have the option of adoption. That would be the right thing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284951 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.
Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.
The government had nothing to do with it.
Laws have nothing to do with the gov't? Really?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284952 Feb 19, 2013
Then who is making all these horrible laws trying to make abortions difficult to get?
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those on my side and your side who speak for the unborn who have no voice.
Pregnant women had a choice not to get pregnant.
The government had nothing to do with it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284953 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.
The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.
That's utter nonsense. What is your source for that last statement?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284954 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
...You won't acknowledge your own statements. Ignore them and they will go away. Go on, now. No one expects honesty from you.
STO: "You wrote:
~"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."
In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:
"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
^^^These two statements are contradictory.^^^"~

The first was misspoken and I clarified, the word (without) was inadvertantly left out. The second statement states what I was saying. BOTH were about potential of a newborn infant to survive off ALS. Different from viability of a fetus being able to survive off natural life support/ the womb.

You can keep going but I know what I said and meant, because the viability of a fetus is one thing, the viability of an infant is another different thing.

Viable fetus: ability to survive off its natural life support,(the womb), with or without ALS once born.

Viable newborn infant: ability to survive off ALS.

Both is about POTENTIAL.

STO: "Now you're ignoring what you wrote, below:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE"

You're the one who doesn't get that viability of a fetus is determined BEFORE birth, and viability of that same human life once born and an infant is determined BEFORE removing it from ALS, if it needed ALS.

Viability of a fetus is about POTENTIAL to survive (without the WOMB = natural life support), determined while it's still being kept alive BY the womb, and potential to survive with or without ALS. If a fetus is born, put on ALS and dies, it hadn't been a viable fetus.

Viability of a newborn infant is the POTENTIAL to survive (without ALS), determmined while it's still being kept alive BY the artifical support. If the newborn is taken off ALS and it dies, it wasn't a viable infant.

Difference IS [when] viability is determined for each.

I haven't contradicted myself and haven't changed what I've been saying either. I've been saying the same thing 50 different ways, none of which you understood.

If [viability of a fetus] was about [after] being born, it wouldn't be determined while the fetus was in utero, or have anything to do with abortion. <<< That's what you PC keep ignoring. I haven't ignored anything.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284955 Feb 19, 2013
And what the hell is wrong with that? Prevention is good, but doesn't always work. Regardless, the woman doesn't have to remain pregnant.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.
The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.

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.

Elkridge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Realtime 1,578,716
Baltimore MD City Council to Destroy Confederat... 28 min Diversity Dude 6
Word for TODAY is "JOB" to all you lazy N(EYE)G... 1 hr Jeremy 1
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) 15 hr Doctor Jeremy 74
Capital sex offender free in Baltimore. (May '15) Mon Theodore 42
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Mon America 21,045
News Gangs trying to make inroads in Howard County M... (Apr '06) May '17 soto 172

Elkridge Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Elkridge Mortgages