Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,263
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. Full Story
Big Sky

Newark, OH

#326389 Aug 30, 2014
Pearl Jam wrote:
<quoted text>Sure restrictive laws decrease the abortion rate, but at what cost? Who is the most effected by restrictions? Those that are already effected by poverty. Those who can't afford to travel across state lines to get a legal abortion. Those who can't afford the prenatal care. Pregnancy related deaths will increase. It's elementary.
Do you have any disagreement on what I said about other normal biological process, which can also be irresponsibly treated?

I recognize your view on churches and taxation, do you see other non-taxable charitable organizations in the same way?

My thoughts on the view of non-taxable charities is basically that they were intended in that manner...to ward off gov't possible intrusion and control by taxation. Is it not possible for there to be a church that would represent your views and for you to benefit from the same as other citizens?

I expect, that its most likely, your opinion that is, due to negative attitude toward churches in particular? Am I correct? Has a church done you or your loved ones harm?
Big Sky

Newark, OH

#326390 Aug 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's reality, a federal judge just declared polygamy legal in Utah in spite of state and federal law prohibiting it. The slippery slope is underfoot, we're in freefall now.
I saw the news of that as well. Lots of moral tenets of the past are in question today and changing radically.I personally wish it was not so, because I feel they were there for protection of society in a variety of ways.

Do you have any opinions or feelings about this?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326391 Aug 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Not age
So, what would you consider the most important defining aspects of a 'person'?
Brian_G wrote:
, if you're against late term and partial birth abortions, why not give that same protection to a younger human?
They're not people, and incapable of suffering.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326392 Aug 30, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid question. For the same reason any other human life ( born or unborn )in the varying stages of its development deserves protection.
Which is what reason?
DAVID27 wrote:
And it no loner simply entails the location in which it exists because you already implied that there is a distinction between the "early" stage and late stage fetus.
There's a massive distinction.
DAVID27 wrote:
And the govt already allows for protection of the late stage fetus. You do agree with the government allowing the proscription of abortion after viability in the absence of any fetal or maternal health/life risk, do you not ?
Correct.
DAVID27 wrote:
So it's YOU that seeks to place yourself in the place of a supreme being by determining at what stage of its developing life it deserves protection, in utero or out. You disgust me.
It has nothing to do with the place of a supreme being at all. Humans decide important issues all the time.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#326393 Aug 30, 2014
Big Sky wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any disagreement on what I said about other normal biological process, which can also be irresponsibly treated?
I recognize your view on churches and taxation, do you see other non-taxable charitable organizations in the same way?
My thoughts on the view of non-taxable charities is basically that they were intended in that manner...to ward off gov't possible intrusion and control by taxation. Is it not possible for there to be a church that would represent your views and for you to benefit from the same as other citizens?
I expect, that its most likely, your opinion that is, due to negative attitude toward churches in particular? Am I correct? Has a church done you or your loved ones harm?
I have no negative attitude toward churches. I am Agnostic tho but that just means I believe that the existence of a God cannot be proven or dis proven. Maybe you have me confused with someone else idk.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326394 Aug 31, 2014
Pearl Jam wrote:
<quoted text>
Right to life is not a constitutional right for anybody. It is a "natural right".
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
Roe v Wade was argued on the right to privacy
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
and that right would be being violated.
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#326395 Aug 31, 2014
Big Sky wrote:
I saw the news of that as well. Lots of moral tenets of the past are in question today and changing radically.I personally wish it was not so, because I feel they were there for protection of society in a variety of ways. Do you have any opinions or feelings about this?
When government licenses sex segregated marriage, anything goes.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326396 Aug 31, 2014
And you embody stupidity, you steaming pit of nothingness. Women have the ESTABLISHED right of making their own medical decisions without government interference. They are not obligated to sustain a fetus against their will.

If you remove a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, damned right there will be a lot more abandoned newborns.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous. Pregnant women would no longer have the right to life ? The right to a speedy trial ? The right to vote ? The right to freely practice religion ? The right to freedom of speech ? the right to assemble ? You lying old drama queen.
<quoted text>
Which would be fine with you as would demonstrate that women are merely exercising their right not be a parent. They'd just be doing it only a few seconds later than what you would consider to be perfectly acceptable. You transcend vileness.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326397 Aug 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is what reason?
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"

But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
<quoted text>
There's a massive distinction.
We're starting to repeat ourselves. Well, you are anyway.
<quoted text>
Correct.
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with the place of a supreme being at all. Humans decide important issues all the time.
Sure they do. Humans exercise their free will and make decisions that violate the human, constitutional, civil, etc rights of other humans all the time. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it moral, nor does it mean we should make it legal. In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326398 Aug 31, 2014
BORN humans have rights, idiot. A fetus does not, and cannot be granted any that subvert the woman's rights to her own body. There is no legal basis for the government to restrict--temporarily or otherwise--a woman's rights just because she happens to get pregnant.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326399 Aug 31, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"
But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
Protection from bodily harm is something all people deserve. Such protection reduces suffering and respects autonomy.
DAVID27 wrote:
In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.
I don't agree. I do not view zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses as people. The principle is hardly more applicable to them than a sperm, or a tree.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#326400 Aug 31, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.
True he didn't specify. Constitutional, human or natural, they are all rights and all would be being violated. Now how do we make them stay pregnant without violating any of those? You can't marginalize women temporarily just because they are pregnant....genius. Rant on.
SevenTee

Lexington, KY

#326402 Aug 31, 2014
Pearl Jam wrote:
<quoted text>What are you 12? So far I'm drunkard, a pill head and depressed lol. More of a reflection of you is my guess. There is help out there tho.
Yes dogs kill their puppies when it's necessary. I've seen one of mine eat a couple of hers and I've seen them refuse to feed or keep them warm. I've bottled fed many. You're not a pet owner I take it.
At any rate it has nothing to do with abortion.
Your posts make you appear drunk and very delusional.

You are right, killing your child in the womb is even more heartless and inhuman.

You Pro-Abortion, Anti=Life people are self centered inhuman animals.
YTubeNews

Marietta, GA

#326405 Sep 1, 2014
.

--7 YEAR TRIBULATION READY (*News).....TIC TOC

http://youtu.be/0PvRE7eFlZY

.

“Changing your thoughts”

Since: Sep 09

will change your world

#326406 Sep 1, 2014
Here a troll, there a troll, everywhere a troll troll.
Best to ignore.

Abortion is still legal. No one yet has suggested a valid reason why that should not be the case.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326407 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Close down every abortion mill. Outlaw abortion except in the case of a Medical reason in a Hospital under the care of a Physician
Why make an exception?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326408 Sep 1, 2014
Big Sky wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the 'slippery slope,' some people getting to decide 'who' or 'when' any human is a person in a meaningful way.
That's what you do. And you take it a step further, wanting to legislate that a pregnant woman shall remain pregnant because you want her to. No other reason. Just cuz that's what you want. No choice for her. No decision making. You've got it covered.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326409 Sep 1, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's reality, a federal judge just declared polygamy legal in Utah in spite of state and federal law prohibiting it. The slippery slope is underfoot, we're in freefall now.
Would you mind explaining exactly what your issue is with polygamy and same sex marriage?

Neither affects you, so it's odd that's it is some kind of hand-wringing concern for you.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326410 Sep 1, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, is that what you think I was saying?
No the court should protect unborn children against abortion / death.
The court does protect children from unfit parents who are a danger to their child.
Not that complicated, now go pot some pills
Wait a second. You said the court should remove an "unborn" from its unhealthy environment, just like they do with children and unfit parents. Same protection, you said. Remember?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326411 Sep 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said it was a constitutional right. The other poster made no such distinction and did not specify types of rights. The poster simply said pregnant women would have no "rights", period.
The other poster is wrong. The other poster is a drama queen whose litany of ignorant rants on here are only counterproductive to the cause he/she supports. And yet here you are attempting to defend it.
<quoted text>
Thanks genius. But your attempts at educating are misdirected. Your lecture should be directed at those on your side of the issue who spew ignorance here on an almost daily basis.
<quoted text>
"That" right and only that right would be violated. A far cry from the drama queen's claim that a pregnant woman would have no rights at all. And violated in this instance does not mean removed.
Only temporarily restricted. She would still possess the right to privacy in every other circumstance that does not involve killing an innocent human life. BTW, the right to privacy is already subject to lawful restriction. It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk.
"It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk"

Pregnancy is a threat/risk to the woman. If she carries to term and delivers a healthy infant, her body is damaged. The pregnancy can kill her. That's a possibility.

Your arguments aren't new. I've heard them all from various posters. What I don't get is how you all can square restricting the woman's privacy, yet not applying the same logic to the zef. If it is a person, like you guys claim, then it would only make sense that if the zef has protections, then the woman should have the same, and if the woman has restrictions then the zef would have the same.

In the end, whose rights really should be honored ? The woman's, of course. She is the only sentient party in the equation.

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
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 10 min SKYWALKER 11,054
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 1 hr Analog man 9,413
Any small store owners looking for discounted h... 8 hr savyseller8 1
Constant parades on 37th Ave. ae a constant pai... Oct 18 truthteller 1
Would you participate in a class action law sui... (Apr '13) Sep '14 Rodamez88 57
NY Paw Pals High quality low cost pet service. Aug '14 NY Paw Pals 1
Debate: Gay Marriage - Jackson-Heights, NY (Jan '12) Aug '14 Cheyanne Mince 5

Jackson-Heights News Video

Jackson-Heights Dating
Find my Match

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]