Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336673 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.

Katie

Seattle, WA

#278699 Jan 21, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You had nothing to prove your claim that "technically" it was still a fetus. All of it came from your deluded thinking.
The answer was based on a medical technicality, but you can call delusional if you want. It's what you're familiar with after all.

Besides I didn't have to prove anything to anyone. It was an answer to a hypothetical question asked over a year ago or so. And it's been dissected long enough.

If you still don't understand it after all this time, it's doubtful you ever will.

Chick Brilliance Returns

Chicopee, MA

#278700 Jan 21, 2013
It is a beautiful, wondrous day in the United States of America! Freedom for All!
Katie

Seattle, WA

#278701 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> Sweetie,nobody cares if she wants one or a hundred children. If she only wants her one,and will kill another if she gets pregnant,then I will CELEBRATE her 20 plus years of being pregnancy free.
Point is,she had NEGATIVE experiences with pregnancy and she only wants one child. She doesn't speak for ALL women. Her spamming is all about PREVENTING PREGNANCY(married,single,teena ger)and reasons WHY women don't want to have children today. She even linked an article about not having kids and the million reasons why it is a good idea. She also EXXAGERATES motherhood.
She has also bashed stay at home mothers. Didn't you just read what I wrote today regarding her degrading posts about those who choose to be a housewife/mother?
Open your eyes.
I don't see it as bashing. I see her countering the premise that motherhood is all sunshine, rainbows, and roses. Maybe you shouldn't take it personally.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#278702 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> Murder is a legal term for killing. If not legal,then it is just plain old killing.
No, murder is the legal term for the unlawful killing.
sassyliciouus wrote:
What do you mean that "neither are criminal acts"?
Abortion is not a criminal act. It can't be murder. Simple concept Sassy. And no you're not always a criminal if you kill someone.
sassyliciouus wrote:
Question: Caylee Anthony was killed years ago. NOBODY was charged with murder. Therefore,as of now,and perhaps forever,nobody has been CHARGED with her murder. She was killed,buried and life goes on. If nobody ever gets charged with her murder,was a criminal act still committed? Or does one NEED the title "murderer" to validate her killing?
Dead is dead I guess?
Get your legal terms correct before stating your case. Murder is not the legal definition of killing and yes someone was charged with murder in the Caylee Anthony case. Big legal difference in being charged with a crime and it being proven you did it.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#278703 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
When my daughter was born she was still part of my wifes body, and the doctor asked if I wanted to cut the cord.
What if before the cord is cut she changed her mind about motherhood?
Plus the doctor never asked her if she wanted the cord cut.
There may come a day when women can choose the fate of their baby up till the cord is cut, while the baby is still part of the womans body.
You just made the pro-choice argument.
"When my daughter was born she was still part of my wifes body"
She was NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY!
You have no idea about what this is all about.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#278704 Jan 21, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see all the posts from them claiming they cried for the children murdered in Newtown? According to them, "dead is dead", so why should they mourn their deaths? They didn't know these children any more than they know someone's fetus. To them, there's only a difference when they say there is.
I didn't cry. I bet you balled your eyes out for days didn't you?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#278706 Jan 21, 2013
God wrote:
<quoted text>You are completely wrong and since I am omniscient I knew you would answer this way. Yet I did not control your answer. I created nature and all of you with a free will but I control neither. Do not confuse awareness with control.
Then you're either not omnipotent, because you can't control nature and free will, or are not wholly good because you won't.

Which is it, g-d? LMAO!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#278707 Jan 21, 2013
chickyisnotbrilliant wrote:
<quoted text> Hey chickythefascist, go find a life , ya pig.
Knutter, go find a priest to blow ya pig!
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#278709 Jan 21, 2013
At least the "god" that posts here has a sense of humor.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#278710 Jan 21, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Kenose equates God to an abortionist, An abortionist kills the unborn therefore, according to Kenose, God must be killing the unborn as well.
Think about it Sue, he is. With every miscarraige - which are also known as abortions - he's killing the unborn.

Some believe He has a reason for that. By the same vein, some believe that He has a reason for allowing women TO abort as well.

If you (not you, the "royal" you LOL) think that a ZEF is ensouled at conception, and that G-d is all knowing, then He KNOWS which ZEFS will be aborted already - just as He knows which women will miscarry, and has a reason for that as well.

I'm sorry BTW to see you think our President is a joke. I'm watching the inauguration, and feeling a great deal of pride in our country. We may have a ways to go, but we're STILL the best nation in the world.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#278712 Jan 21, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been on here to read those posts. So what are you doing to protect the right to bear arms?
Not to be flip, but what NEEDS to be done? Nobody's trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms. LIMITING or REGISTERING the right is no different than many of our other rights.

We are required to register our cars and take a test to prove we are capable of operating it safely. We give more restrictive licenses to those who need glasses, have diseases, or to young and inexperienced drivers.

We must take a written exam to ascertain our knowledge of the laws governing the operation of that potentially lethal weapon.

In addition, we generally are required allow the state to take our photograph to ensure our identities and pass an eye exam to further assure our competence. We must carry this license with us at all times when driving and must present our registration and license when requested to do so by police.

Hell, we have safety regulations on TOY guns, but not REAL ones?


Why are these same regulations be too restrictive for the ownership of an assault weapon?

I'm a gun owner, I have been since I was in the army. Nobody is trying to take my guns away, but by NY's new laws, I have to turn in many of my magazines. Y'know, I dont have a real big problem with that. I realise that there are Olympic shooters for example, or other tournaments that people do NEED bigger magazines, and that COULD EASILY be regulated for those that actually have a NEED for them.

So many dont want to regulate ANYTHING when it comes to guns, and then we bitch and whine and blame everything BUT the laws when these tragedies happen. And dont even get me started on the state of our mental health care "system" @@.

Personally I think that like with abortion, its not a black and white issue, and a middle ground COULD be found.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#278716 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> I had to go back to this post of yours.
You better run for the hills when honeyFOOfoo sees this post of yours insinuating that Priest who molest little boys are homosexuals.
She denies this.
LOL
Pssst...I agree with you though FTR.
You agree with what? I don't think priests who molest little boys are homosexuals. I think priest who molest little boys are child molesters. FTR, some priests, cardinals do believe they are homosexuals, some believe they are pedophiles. You agree they are homosexuals and not pedo? Interesting.

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#278720 Jan 21, 2013

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#278721 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> Not my favorite pastimes.
I just wonder why those who own guns,belong to the NRA or consume alcohol don't speak up against those who claim GUNS KILL PEOPLE or ALCOHOL KILLS PEOPLE(during drunk driving accidents).
There are those who are trying to take our rights away.
I guess ONLY if it is abortion,then people are interested to debate or fight. Even call people CONTROL FREAKS who want to take their rights away.
"There are those who are trying to take our rights away."

Bwahahahahahaha! Oh funny coming from and anti-choicer!

I told you already that I'm not fighting to ban anything. Guns, cigarettes, abortion, etc. YOU are the control freak. You want to pick and choose what rights people can have based on what your own criteria.

So what will YOU do to help curb all these shooting deaths?

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#278722 Jan 21, 2013
more hiding of pedophiles by the rcc,i wonder where the most are? the rcc or the rnc?
http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berlin/201...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#278724 Jan 21, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
A total ban on guns is unlikely. A total ban on alcohol didn't work. A total ban on abortion wouldn't work either for the same reason.
There are laws and restrictions on all of the above. The number of drunk driving fatalities has steadily decreased. The gestational week a woman can legally abort without citing a reason is also restricted.
What the world needs now is pride in personal responsibility.
Agreed.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#278726 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> Not the point. My point is that the ones who call themselves PRO-CHOICE are not really pro-choice. They are ANTI-CHOICE/prolife after a certain point. They agree with restrictions. They want to FORCE a woman to gestate(as they say to us prolifers). It's is the truth,they do. Which is a Total contradiction.
Of course the prolifers/anti-choice to kill people will take what they can to save a life. If it is protection AFTER viability,then for now,that's a good thing.
Well how can you call yourself pro-life and support the decision to abort for life and health of the mother and be on the fence when it comes to rape and incest? We are all going to have different views Sassy what is so terrible about being different?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#278728 Jan 21, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> """The number of drunk driving fatalities has steadily decreased""" "
False.
Interesting that you compare abortion to guns and alcohol restrictions.
Chicky said "there is nothing wrong with abortion" so why are people interested in/agree with restrictions?
That makes them anti-choice to RESTRICT her rights. To FORCE her to gestate against her will. To penalize her for finding out that she was pregnant after the restrictions.
Welcome to our prolife world where we DO want her to give life and to prevent her from chosing death for her child.
"Welcome to our prolife world where we DO want...to prevent her from chosing..."

More accurate.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#278729 Jan 21, 2013
God wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you it wasn't me. I don't influence nature or free will. You like to ignore and wallow in your own ignorance don't you? That's no way to use the brain I gave you.
I wonder why the fundies aren't screaming "blashemy" over this...?
Gtown71

United States

#278731 Jan 21, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>You just made the pro-choice argument.
"When my daughter was born she was still part of my wifes body"
She was NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY!
You have no idea about what this is all about.
No grumps, I'm afraid you have no idea.

My daughter WAS part of my wifes body.
She's five years old now and she is still part of my wife 'her mothers " body.

She will forevermore be part of my wifes body.

You're the one that doesn't understand.

This is a precious life.

You are a precious life!

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
News Murder suspect claims Morgan Freeman had sex wi... 29 min sick of blacks 1
jets talk back (Dec '07) 53 min jimi-yank 15,969
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 58 min jimi-yank 343,987
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 59 min jimi-yank 47,164
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 1 hr NEMO 7,208
Run,Run, Run, The Republicans are Coming! (Jan '11) 1 hr ILAL 2,545
Reasons to cheer For President Obama One, Two..... (Apr '12) 1 hr ILAL 1,438

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages