Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 322264 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.

Ocean56

AOL

#275853 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
To Ocean 56
Wow you must be an embarrassment to the pro choice argument. Saying that there is something wrong with having a child? 70 percent of parents say that they wish they never had children? Here's a reality check for you- OF COURSE ITS HARD TO RAISE A KID. Who said it was supposed to be easy? But that's what makes the bond between mother and child so special. They go through so many hard, and sometimes traumatic, events together which is why the bond is so important. It was hard for your parents to raise you and my parents to raise me. You and this Piper Hoffman need to look at reality. Every CHILD should have their choices, including life- from conception to natural death. If the moms making the "choice" in the first place wasn't born, they wouldn't even have the choice to do anything. Don't you see? Abortion stops the cycle of life.
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.

In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#275854 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I missed that part of Roe v. Wade that said babies in the womb can be killed because they supposedly don't "suffer".....and that a human life is defined based on whether one suffers or not.
Here's a thought: If the babies aren't suffering at the moment, give them a little time and they will. They are expected to continue to develop and grow & the prognosis for them meeting your criteria is great.
By the way, Junket is evidently getting bored killing babies and may randomly classify fat people as "not worth living".
Put down your butter & bacon sandwich, dear........
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.

It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.

LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
bman

Commack, NY

#275855 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.
In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to
have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it
involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.
Okay, then wouldn't ADOPTION be the better choice? Abortion isn't the only choice a woman has. If you're so pro-"choice" then why do you sound like you're saying a mom only has the choice to have a baby or abortion? Those aren't the only two choices out there. But organizations like Planned Parenthood never say the word adoption. When people ask a woman why they had an abortion alot of them say "I had no choice." I love the old argument, "Mind your own buisness about women's health." Okay, so I should ignore the fact that a woman is carrying "something" with a beating heart. That's like telling an enviornmentalist to mind thier own buisness about not wanting trees in the rainforrest to be cut down. Like telling an abolitionist in the 1850's to mind their own buisness about a slaveowner owning his "property"(slavery, like abortion, was also considered a constitutional right) Just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275857 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
"A perp could still be charged and convicted with fetal homicide after the assault on a woman in the waiting room as she awaited the abortion of her unwanted fetus."
You make it sound like being charged with a crime is tantamount to a conviction.
Not really. But if FHL's didn't exist there would not even be a mechanism to charge. You can't be convicted unless you're charged first.
"It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection"
True.
Then we agree ! And your statement that FHL's exist for one reason and one reason ONLY, is not accurate.

But the crux of FHLs is protection of a woman's right to carry to term.
Saying it's the crux of FHL's is a lot different than saying it's the ONLY reason for their existence.

Otherwise, what would you say would be another more compelling reason to seek a conviction for the UNWANTED killing of a non-citizen, who has no right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, when the law already provides for penalties for killing, or gravely hurting the person who does; additional deterrence? C'mon!
Strictly punitive. If my wife is hurt or killed and her fetus killed during an assault on her person, I want the perp to pay, for the crime against her, and for the crime of homicide against the human life she carried. For me that would be a compelling reason and at that point I couldn't care less if it was a future deterrent.
"In any case, if a woman is assaulted and as a result her fetus, wanted or unwanted, is killed, then it is obvious that the FHL did not protect her right to carry to term now....did it ? "
If it was that simple, why not lobby to abolish orders of protection against domestic violence? A piece of paper won't stop a bullet; so what other reason could there be for a protective order to exist, but to show that the victim's right to carry on with a life free from fear and abuse is being protected?
Laws exist to provide penalties. That's true. But, herein as well you're being obtuse and unbelievable shallow. If people would not break laws; why would we need penalties? Laws exist because people will break them, and the penalty for doing so IS the deterrence. Go ask any lawyer in your firm.
You miss the point. Do you do that a lot in court ?
I didn't say laws were never a deterrent....only that there effectiveness as a deterrent is debatable.
And my point was that the FHL was obviously NOT a deterrent in that specific case. And that in the absence of it acting as a deterrent in that specific case it also served as a mechanism to charge and hopefully convict and punish.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275858 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>

Doc, stop trying to make your viability argument on misrepresentations of what others have said, especially when you're trying to argue MY view on the subject.
First of all I'm not arguing YOUR view. I'm arguing your ridiculous defense of THEIR view.
I've not misrepresented anything anyone else has said. Ever. In fact those I've cited have actually clarified their position and confirmed my representation of what they've said. Need I remind you of that moron chicky....claiming that a preemie that needed artificial support was not viable ? You rightly disagreed with her.
That was just before she grabbed her viability ball and left in a huff.
You're still hanging your viability argument on the word "albeit."
Albeit = although. The very core for the use of "although," is keeping the end result intact.
Examples:
"Although I've been to the beach countless times, I still get exponentially excited about going."
"I still need to set my GPS to go to my favorite restaurant, although I was there three times in the last 6 months."
Does it matter how often I've been to the beach, when the point of emphasis is that I am excited about going every single time, or how many times I've been to my favorite restaurant when the point of emphasis is that I need to set my GPS every time? Of course not.
Same applies to viability.
Love your beach story. What does it mean ?
My viability argument does NOT hang on the word albeit. My viability argument disputes their definition of viability which defines it as the ability to survive EXCLUSIVELY without medical assistance.

The core of viability is self survival out of the womb.
That it is. With OR without medical assistance.
My position has always been, and will always be the same. A fetus is viable if it possesses a 50% chance, or greater, of survival outside the womb. This means that it can, at minimum, make the O2/CO2 exchange at least at 50% ratio. That it may be placed on life support as a means to ensure the remaining 50% ability is achieved, is irrelevant to the core concept of viability.
Excellent. Your definition is a lot different than theirs. Ya see their contention....and the one you're still missing is that if an MD places it on life support as a means to ensure that remaining 50% ability....then it is NOT viable.

If a fetus is only able to make the O2/CO2 exchange at a 40% ratio, no amount of medical assistance will prevent its demise. So doctors are, more likely than not, to not even try.
Right. Which means they would make a determination of non-viability and not apply any medical assistance.
Now, if you still want to debate my point with me, please stick to debating my point and not everyone else's. Ok
"You gettin this ?"
Again. The point was never YOUR position. It was your defense of THEIR position.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275860 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc, why are you trying to validate your opinion with the correct opinion of other people?
Correct ?!? Are you kidding ?
There's nothing wrong with Bitner's statement.
There is EVERYTHING wrong with Bitter's statement. And if you don't think there is then you explain this :

Just how does a preemie REACH viability with medical assistance ?
If a preemie needs to REACH viability that means it has not yet attained viability. If it has not attained viability then it is not yet viable and by definition no means or level of medical assistance with prevent its demise ( as you've stated ).

So explain to me....and take me through it slowly and step by step if you don't mind....just how a non viable fetus reaches viability through medical assistance.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275861 Jan 11, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. 100%.
However, the inital question was about the end result being the same, and that's what I was responding to.
There was never any dispute about the end result being the same. The dispute was based on the assertion that BECAUSE the end result was the same, there was no difference between the two.
Nope. But I dont compare either one to 9/11 either, that was you in your post, hence my comment.
You miss the point. I was defending my position by comparing an accidental 9/11 to a terrorist induced 9/11...both of which have the same end result. Your response was to question whether or not I was comparing 9/11 to a woman making her own medical decision.
So when you attempt to defend YOUR position by citing your friends and parents' deaths, it is perfectly valid for me to similarly question whether YOU are comparing their deaths to a woman making her own medical decision.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#275863 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.
In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.
When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her unborn baby. Alcohol in the mother's blood passes through the placenta to the baby through the umbilical cord. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and a range of lifelong disorders, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). There is no known safe time to drink alcohol during pregnancy. Drinking alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy can cause the baby to have abnormal facial features. Growth and central nervous system problems (e.g., low birthweight, behavioral problems) can occur from drinking alcohol anytime during pregnancy. The baby’s brain is developing throughout pregnancy and can be damaged at any time.

If a woman is drinking alcohol during pregnancy, it is never too late to stop. The sooner a woman stops drinking, the better it will be for both her baby and herself.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY:(888) 232-6348
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/index.html

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275864 Jan 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Since you clearly have no idea what the constitution is, howzabout you shut up until you learn?
Are you saying the government can't tell anyone what they can or cannot do? I guess laws don't mean anything.
<quoted text>
You make the statement that the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and you have the balls to question anyone else's knowledge of the Constitution ? Coward.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#275865 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fetus that have been gestating for nine months have greater self awareness that neonates born prematurely after eight months of gestation. People mature with age not environment."
Not true. It's birth that begins the process of awareness. A preemie will have as much brain activity as a full term born on the same day. Medical tests, fetal brain scans, show this to be true. Medical texts are out there explaining it. Pay attention. And stop inserting your own wacky ideas as if these are fact.
Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a neonate and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The scene never fails to give goose bumps: the baby, just seconds old and still dewy from the womb, is lifted into the arms of its exhausted but blissful parents. They gaze adoringly as their new child stretches and squirms, scrunches its mouth and opens its eyes. To anyone watching this tender vignette, the message is unmistakable. Birth is the beginning of it all, ground zero, the moment from which the clock starts ticking. Not so, declares Janet DiPietro. Birth may be a grand occasion, says the Johns Hopkins University psychologist, but "it is a trivial event in development. Nothing neurologically interesting happens." Armed with highly sensitive and sophisticated monitoring gear, DiPietro and other researchers today are discovering that the real action starts weeks earlier. At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a neonate. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks. Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. The fetus is not a little adult, and we should not expect it to look or act like one. Rather, it is a singular being with a life of the senses that is different, but no less real, than our own.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#275866 Jan 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.
It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.
LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her unborn baby. Alcohol in the mother's blood passes through the placenta to the baby through the umbilical cord. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and a range of lifelong disorders, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). There is no known safe time to drink alcohol during pregnancy. Drinking alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy can cause the baby to have abnormal facial features. The baby’s brain is developing throughout pregnancy and can be damaged at any time.
If a woman is drinking alcohol during pregnancy, it is never too late to stop. The sooner a woman stops drinking, the better it will be for both her baby and herself.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY:(888) 232-6348
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/index.html
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275868 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Tell me, do I believe, in general, that referring to a fetus as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling or not? yes or no?
No. You do not think referring to a fetus as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling to anyone. You said so yourself. Are you going to play some Katie game & deny you said it?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275869 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You make the statement that the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and you have the balls to question anyone else's knowledge of the Constitution ? Coward.
Doc: "cPeter, you make the statement that the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and you have the balls to question anyone else's knowledge of the Constitution ?"

Hey, Doc, remember the time cPeter said newborns who require medical assistance are not considered viable?

He's a gift of stupidity that keeps on giving..........
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275870 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fetus that have been gestating for nine months have greater self awareness that neonates born prematurely after eight months of gestation. People mature with age not environment."
Not true. It's birth that begins the process of awareness. A preemie will have as much brain activity as a full term born on the same day. Medical tests, fetal brain scans, show this to be true. Medical texts are out there explaining it. Pay attention. And stop inserting your own wacky ideas as if these are fact.
Katie: "Pay attention. And stop inserting your own wacky ideas as if these are fact."
__________

"There is no 'exact moment' as fetus changing to baby is a process begun during labor and continuing after delivery well into the first 24-48hrs after childbirth. The brain continues to adjust for life outside the womb, see." - Katie

"I believe before the cord is cut...it is still technically a fetus." - Katie

"LIFE STARTS when the circulatory system starts on its own and can support life WITHOUT AN UMBILICAL CORD...Until then that 'child's life' is nonexistent." - Katie
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275871 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, moron, and I said that a woman has every right to REJECT pregnancy and children if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities that motherhood involves.
It seems to me that the one throwing hissy fits about a woman's choosing to REJECT motherhood is you. Too bad, pal. NO woman has to get or stay pregnant just to make anti-choice imbeciles like you happy.
It is through pregnancy that mankind procreates? Yes or no?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#275872 Jan 11, 2013
Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
Tom Tom

Allentown, PA

#275873 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
The people who have chosen to be childFREE would strongly disagree with you, NoRelevance. Here's a link to an article on why many people choose NOT to have children, and NO, I didn't write it.
http://piperhoffman.com/2012/03/07/ten-really...
TEN REALLY GOOD REASONS NOT TO HAVE KIDS
by Piper Hoffman
"Nearly one in four parents (22%) say that if they could do it over they would not have children, according to a Dear Abby poll. Dr. Phil found that 40% of parents “would not have children if they knew the problems in creating a family.” And way back when, a 1970&#8242;s Ann Landers column reported that 70% of parents wished they had not had children.
Don’t become one of those people.
I chose not to breed after a lot of self-examination and pausing frequently each day to ask myself “if I had a kid, what would I be doing now? Would it be better than what I actually am doing now?” To help you make a thoughtful decision instead of just getting preggers because that is what folks do, consider the following.
1.Pregnancy and childbirth: I don’t need to detail how the pros and cons balance out here, even for men – who will, after all, usually have to live with and tend to the ballooning mom-to-be.
2.Babies: They are often loud, smelly, and damp with fluid or goo of unknown origins.(Spit-up? Snot? Drool? Or something really gross?) Your baby care and maintenance routine will include frequent diaper changing, interrupted sleep, and suctioning snot. Stores actually sell special devices to stick up Junior’s nose and slurp everything out, traumatizing both yourself and your little angel. My husband swears he remembers undergoing this torture even though he was an infant at the time.
3.Toddlers & Up: Loud, whiny, clutchy, demanding, and destructive, with a penchant for self-injury. Your pastimes with these tots are repeating yourself, being interrogated (“Why? Why? Why? But why?”), suffering tantrums without throwing any yourself, and being the bad cop.
4.Teenagers: Loud (when in groups or listening to music), sullen, secretive, and disobedient. Your new hobby: finding a balance between respecting their privacy and needing to know whether they are smoking, drinking, having sex, sexting, doing drugs, doing their homework, depressed, or being bullied. Fun bonus automotive obsession: dreading the day they can drive, teaching them to drive, arguing over which car they will drive, and worrying about them when they do drive."
**********
Click on the link above if you want to read the whole article.
OH NO!! spare us, not again. Is your child still medicated? Or have you let them liv ewith a nor,al family?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275875 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.
In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.
Ocean: "NR appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy."

Actually, I've never said that and do not believe the "ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy."

What I did say was that pregnancy is how mankind procreates. It doesn't procreate via a stork or cabbage patch.

You are so obsessed with hating children that you can't even read right or comprehend correctly. Your overzealous opposition to babies makes your translations of English moronic.

Try harder.

Tom Tom

Allentown, PA

#275874 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have been more specific. That's why I thought you meant the whole statement was a lie. Try to think before you type next time.
HaHa!! YOu made my day. Prepare fot the wrath of the faux-jew, faux attorney. The pagan propaborts don't like to be called on their nonsense.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#275876 Jan 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.
It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.
LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
Bhitler: "There are no babies in a uterus"

You must not have gotten the memo: Katie is okay with prolifers calling those little human beings in the womb "babies."
__________

Bhitler: "RvW doesn't talk about babies at all. It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice."

But, here's the thing, Bhitler: You were blathering on and on about how a preborn baby can't suffer...so, it's okay to use a sharp curette to slice her up. I pointed out to you that "inability to suffer" was not a factor discussed in support of Roe v. Wade.

You respond to my point by saying Roe v. Wade doesn't mention babies?

Wow.

That was a weak comeback, even for you.

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who will take Omarosa's place? 14 min All R incompetent 6
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 14 min Paul Yanks 342,564
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min hojo 64,311
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 18 min Nemo 5,946
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 34 min jimi-yank 45,911
The best phone repair store in NY 56 min zhongxin 1
Peter Strzot America's Agent 007 Guilty Of Treason 1 hr plottmasteram 2

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages