Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336545 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

#287225 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I bought one for the girls around 10 years or so ago. It was very similar, but had cool stuff (like funky shaped "wheels"). I think now they've gotten a little more high tech. Should probably get one for the granddaughter. She'd love it!
How did the game of Life change? Ticket for not wearing a seat belt instead of speeding? Ticket for no insurance because you didn't land on the square to purchase it? LOL
They took out the funny spaces you could land on, like, "your aunt leaves you a skunk farm. Pay X amount of dollars to get rid of it". Less Paydays, too. lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287226 Feb 27, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it matter why I'm here my brother?
We know for certain why you are. You are letting the world think that over 3000 babies being killed and removed to be cast into the draft is a good thing, in Jesus Name.
You're full of sh^t. You lie.

Thanks for proving you're here to troll.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287227 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he killed his unborn child, Connor.


What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287228 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should read his address before commenting on it.
Fair enough. I DID admit, I didn't know if he was quoted correctly.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287229 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
They took out the funny spaces you could land on, like, "your aunt leaves you a skunk farm. Pay X amount of dollars to get rid of it". Less Paydays, too. lol
Dammit!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287230 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"In fact, "I" could have said that I lived by such a creed prior to 1973....and you would have had a major argument with it."
Well it's not prior to 1973 so I guess your question is moot.
Typical. Have absolutely no logical response ? Then indicate that the point is moot.
That "moot" response is a favorite of Katie's as well.
We're discussing this 40 years after 1973. We're discussing this in the context of the present, not the past. What I would've said when I was little kid in 1973 is irrelevant.
Irrelevant ? Possibly. In reality what is it that is said on this forum that in the grand scheme of things is NOT irrelevant ?
The point was a hypothetical. What you would said in 1973 may be irrelevant.....but nevertheless oh so revealing in terms of the convenient hypocrisy inherent in your position.
"It is the PC that have established the subjectively chosen point at which that life is worth anything or is worthy of protection.
Really? And when did I say that "chosen point" is? Refresh my memory.
Yeah REALLY. Viability. That is the point that RvW has said that prior to which a fetus is fair game and no justification is necessary in order to kill. And you agree with it.
What I have said is that I would not make the personal choice to have an abortion, and that I let others make that determination for themselves.
And you agree with the fact that they have this right, without restriction, prior to viability.
"The civil rights of the born are already restricted in cases where innocent human life is at stake."
If you want to speak about the broad category of civil rights then white American males have enjoyed the least amount of restrictions to their civil rights, and I'm guessing you're in that elite group. I wonder if Ole Doc would've been fighting for women's right to vote,
Yep.
or to end slavery.
yep.
And I wonder if Ole Doc is helping gay citizens obtain the right to marry their same sex partners
Helping ? Not sure what that entails. But I have no objection to it. I think the whole issue is silly. Let em get married. Who cares.
..or is Doc just interested in forcing the womenfolks to stay pregnant against their will. I guess in Doc's utopia women are really on the bottom of the totem pole. Even an embryo is supposed to have rights that supersedes a woman's rights.
I asked Ocean this before but she cowardly ducked it.....more than once. So I'll ask you......Just how would "ole Doc", whose only goal regarding abortion is to afford legal protection of human life in utero, do so and not be labelled as someone whose only interested in "putting womaen at the bottom of the totem pole ?"

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287231 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?

Because, like your side is so fond of saying, words have meaning. If it is an unborn child and can be murdered, then a woman who has an abortion and those that perform them are also committing murder.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287232 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, like your side is so fond of saying, words have meaning. If it is an unborn child and can be murdered, then a woman who has an abortion and those that perform them are also committing murder.
Heya, Sue. Did you miss my response to you?


Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope he doesn't easily make bail."
Agreed.
"As far as the terminology? Got me. Unborn or preborn child, the fact is that man assaulted a woman who was carrying a wanted fetus."
Then he shouldn't be charged with assulting an unborn child.
" Assuming that fact, albeit, it usually takes two people to wrangle, and I wonder if Ms. Fuller is an innocent victim."
If it is proven that she was equally responsible, shouldn't she also be charged with assulting an unborn child?

My reply:

STO:

Good point.

I made a post not long ago trying to explain to the PL side that I understand your POV. Didn't get many responses from PL.

You're right. It doesn't make sense. The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus. Therefore, she wouldn't be charged with assaulting the fetus -- because it has no rights and society assumes she's mentally ill. However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges.

Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries), if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss. The perpetrator gets charged with perhaps fairly minor assault (bumps and bruises) and that's it.

Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?

It's a fine line. I don't think anyone has a perfect answer.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287233 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should read his address before commenting on it.
Okay. I read it.

It was pretty boring. Lots of "Thank You's" to Cardinals and Bishops, etc. He spoke a lot about the Church. Not much about Jesus Christ. Wasn't a whole lot of substance there.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287234 Feb 27, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
In Roman 9: 1-3
Paul is saying, that he had a heaviness, and continual sorrow at heart, and if it were possible, that he could be accursed from Christ for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, that he would.
Why would he have such a heaviness at heart or sorrow for his brethren, if he didn't know what happened to those who die outside of Gods grace?
I understand how he felt, after becomming a born again christian, and realizing some truths of Gods Word -I to had a heaviness at heart for All people.
Not just those good ole folks and aunts and uncles, but ALL people.
Straight people, gay people, vile people, or sweet people. Which I know know the worst kind of person can be a very religious person, but it is Not faith in faith that saves a persons soul.
You may try and rid "your " world of the word Hell, but Jesus spoke about Hell 13 times for every 1 times, He spoke about Heaven.
If you were blind, He could make you see, but "you " say that you can clearly see, so your sin remains.
Not sure if true, but I was told that they could catch and kill monkeys, by making a small hole in a gourd,and filling the gourd with food "monkey food ",and the monkey reaches in and gets a handful, but cannot pull out his hand, and WILL NOT let go of the food.
If I seen the hunters comming, it would make me want to scream LET GO STUPID MONKEY AND LIVE!
This to me, is a great example of the lost struggling with the things of God.
Paul is not talking about Hell, in those passages. Read the whole chapter.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287235 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Heya, Sue. Did you miss my response to you?
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope he doesn't easily make bail."
Agreed.
"As far as the terminology? Got me. Unborn or preborn child, the fact is that man assaulted a woman who was carrying a wanted fetus."
Then he shouldn't be charged with assulting an unborn child.
" Assuming that fact, albeit, it usually takes two people to wrangle, and I wonder if Ms. Fuller is an innocent victim."
If it is proven that she was equally responsible, shouldn't she also be charged with assulting an unborn child?
My reply:
STO:
Good point.
I made a post not long ago trying to explain to the PL side that I understand your POV. Didn't get many responses from PL.
You're right. It doesn't make sense. The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus. Therefore, she wouldn't be charged with assaulting the fetus -- because it has no rights and society assumes she's mentally ill. However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges.
Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries), if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss. The perpetrator gets charged with perhaps fairly minor assault (bumps and bruises) and that's it.
Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?
It's a fine line. I don't think anyone has a perfect answer.
"The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus."

Abortion harms the woman?

"However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges."

As there should be, but only if the fetus is a child, if the fetus is "property" as PC'ers like to say then it should be a lesser charge than the assult on the woman, and it certinly should't considered murder.

"Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries),"

How would this happen without assulting the woman?

"if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss."

Why in't the fetus protected from it's mother? As for the loss, is she loosing property or a child?

"Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?"

Aren't people charged even when they didn't mean to kill someone?(unless of course they are a hunter, then they can just claim that they thought that it was a deer. LOL)
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287236 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?
It wouldn't change anything. It just shows that whatever you call it, you can and will be punished for killing it unles, of course you are the mother.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287237 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. I read it.
It was pretty boring. Lots of "Thank You's" to Cardinals and Bishops, etc. He spoke a lot about the Church. Not much about Jesus Christ. Wasn't a whole lot of substance there.
It was only a goodbye address not a sermon.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#287238 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Food for thought. I was just wondering what your thoughts were as to why this is happening.
Women need to respect themselves. God made a woman
to reproduce. To carry a child. To be a wife and a mother
and care for her family. We are a blessing.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287239 Feb 27, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Women need to respect themselves. God made a woman
to reproduce. To carry a child. To be a wife and a mother
and care for her family. We are a blessing.
This is from the LA TIMES

Johnson and her coauthors said they hoped that other Western nations would corroborate their findings using their own data. If a trend is established, research should investigate the reason for the increase, they added.

They hypothesized that the trend was due to a variety of lifestyle changes that have occurred during the study period. Diet, exercise, obesity, earlier onset of menstruation, use of birth control, delayed pregnancy and other factors all might play a role.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#287240 Feb 27, 2013
Did the orchestra start playing after 3 minutes?
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. I read it.
It was pretty boring. Lots of "Thank You's" to Cardinals and Bishops, etc. He spoke a lot about the Church. Not much about Jesus Christ. Wasn't a whole lot of substance there.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287241 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus."
Abortion harms the woman?
Weren't we discussing assault?

I think you missed my point -- which was an effort to acknowledge the PL point of view.
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>"However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges."
As there should be, but only if the fetus is a child, if the fetus is "property" as PC'ers like to say then it should be a lesser charge than the assult on the woman, and it certinly should't considered murder.
Again, you're missing my attempt to see your POV.

The point is, when the fetus is viable, if the woman damages it, there is no charge -- because the fetus has no rights. She may be sent off to a mental health facility for a time for doing harm to herself but that's it. But if someone else damages the fetus, it's a whole different ball game.

Put it this way, what would a PC person think if they saw a pregnant woman punching herself in the belly? Would he/she try to stop the woman?

There's no question if someone else was punching her. Of course, someone would try to stop the assault.
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>"Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries),"
How would this happen without assulting the woman?
It couldn't.
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>"if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss."
Why in't the fetus protected from it's mother? As for the loss, is she loosing property or a child?
That's the dilemma with these laws. If the fetus is given a legal designation, one way or the other, then one would think the law would apply to anyone (including the woman) who broke it. There's an assault charge regarding the fetus or there is none.

That's why I said you had a good point.
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>"Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?"
Aren't people charged even when they didn't mean to kill someone?(unless of course they are a hunter, then they can just claim that they thought that it was a deer. LOL)
Not always. Accidents happen, like you imply.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287242 Feb 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Did the orchestra start playing after 3 minutes?
<quoted text>
Lol!

I thought the same thing. It kinda did sound like an awards speech!

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287243 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't we discussing assault?
I think you missed my point -- which was an effort to acknowledge the PL point of view.
<quoted text>
Again, you're missing my attempt to see your POV.
The point is, when the fetus is viable, if the woman damages it, there is no charge -- because the fetus has no rights. She may be sent off to a mental health facility for a time for doing harm to herself but that's it. But if someone else damages the fetus, it's a whole different ball game.
Put it this way, what would a PC person think if they saw a pregnant woman punching herself in the belly? Would he/she try to stop the woman?
There's no question if someone else was punching her. Of course, someone would try to stop the assault.
<quoted text>
It couldn't.
<quoted text>
That's the dilemma with these laws. If the fetus is given a legal designation, one way or the other, then one would think the law would apply to anyone (including the woman) who broke it. There's an assault charge regarding the fetus or there is none.
That's why I said you had a good point.
<quoted text>
Not always. Accidents happen, like you imply.
"The point is, when the fetus is viable, if the woman damages it, there is no charge -- because the fetus has no rights. She may be sent off to a mental health facility for a time for doing harm to herself but that's it. But if someone else damages the fetus, it's a whole different ball game."

Either the fetus should have rights or it shouldn't, it either is a child or it isn't. Why is there a double standard? More importantly, why are pro"choicers" ok with calling the fetus a child?
Gtown71

United States

#287244 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul is not talking about Hell, in those passages. Read the whole chapter.
You can read into Romans 9, just about anything you wish.

I know of a group of guys that meet once a week for 3 hours, and have been doing so for over a year, and they are still in chapter 9.

Most seem to think we are born, we die, and we either go to Heaven or Hell, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I don't believe this, yet many do.

I do believe a person has very little to do with their salvation, and cannot get saved whenever "they " choose.

You read the whole chapter and see what you think.

God can do whatever He wills, but His will is for all to be saved.
The Jews hang up in the last two verses.

It truly does come down to the same question Jesus asked peter. Whom do "YOU "say I am?

I believe how a person answers that question "in their heart of hearts ",is the difference in where their soul will spend eternity.

Just to tie this in -if people really knew the "TRUTH ",they would not even be wondering if killing an unborn child was ok or not.

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
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 3 min jimi-yank 343,967
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 5 min jimi-yank 47,157
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 10 min Guinness Drinker 7,194
Never see Blacks pictured With Meghan Markle ex... 17 min REALITY 7
Did David Hogg register for the draft yet? 24 min REALITY 2
COHEN - RETURN those 30,00 Emails on TRUMP's SE... 49 min Typical Republican 2
joey d`s pizzeria (Aug '09) Jan '18 Kapowcat1 4

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages