Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311215 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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284180 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is again minus the links...
Doc.."No you didn't. I asked for the post # with Post 283584, you responded with your "still silence" with Post 283614. There is nothing in between."
Really??? Doc Degall wrote: <quoted text> "I may have. I'm only human. But after this post I went back and looked again and still couldn't find it. Can I have a post # please ?"
Long Night Moon..."#2834 99"
That was post #283586 Yet again you prove to me that you're either really clueless or playing games. We went through this before and you were wrong then too. And HERE is my actual answer to your question...
LNM..."Point 1. It is not illegal to protest against laws or work to change laws. At that time obtaining or performing an abortion was illegal, but speaking against the abortion law was not illegal. Women at that time would know abortion was illegal, and so wouldn't be surprised when they couldn't obtain one. They would be within their rights to work at changing the law, but not actually getting an abortion, according to the law. Tell me this...if a woman got some sort of abortion prior to 1973 was she prosecuted for murder? Or just for breaking a law? Point 2. What IS the criteria for being considered alive? Does a z/e/f that is depending on another functioning body to be sustained alive according to the criteria? "There is not an unequivocal definition of life so to be considered alive an organism must meet all or at least most of the following criteria." "1. Maintenance of homeostasis or regulation of the internal environment of the cell. 2. Organization, being composed of one or more of the basic unit of life the cell. 3. Posses a metabolism, the ability to convert both chemicals and energy into cell components. Anabolism (cell growth) vs catabolsim ( organic matter decay). 4. Growth maintenance of a higher rate of Anabolism than catabolism. Increasing the size of many of its parts. 5. Adaptation the ability to change over time in response to stimuli in the organisms environment. 6.Response to stimuli 7. Reproduction, the ability of that organism to produce new organisms of the same type." (link deleted)
The question is not "if" a z/e/f is alive, but WHEN the z/e/f fits the criteria for being considered alive. But again the criteria is "is not an unequivocal definition of life". To render a decision on RvW the SC would have to answer the question of when life begins so they answered it, but that doesn't mean they are right. The SC is not infallible." And the link to my post... And it indicates #283499...as I stated in my other post. Now I suppose you'll convenient miss THIS post too. How many more times do I have to make you look like a fool, Doc? I've answered your questions. YOUR "MO" is to pretend to not see my posts and then lie about it.
Hey....why wasn't this post removed Mr. Moderator ? We had a deal !

I can't possibly answer this !!!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284181 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
LNM..."Point 1. It is not illegal to protest against laws or work to change laws. At that time obtaining or performing an abortion was illegal, but speaking against the abortion law was not illegal. Women at that time would know abortion was illegal, and so wouldn't be surprised when they couldn't obtain one. They would be within their rights to work at changing the law, but not actually getting an abortion, according to the law.
You totally miss the point. The issue was never the legality of working within the law to change a law. The issue was you saying that all you are doing is defending a woman's right to choose within the law. I found that to be a convenient statement since you agree with the current law. So I asked you if you would say the same thing pre -1973. You still haven't answered. This babbling about the legality of working to change laws is not an answer to my specific question.
Tell me this...if a woman got some sort of abortion prior to 1973 was she prosecuted for murder? Or just for breaking a law?
I don't know. I was just a little shaver back then. You tell me.
And keep in mind that I've never said abortion should or would ever be considered murder.
Point 2. What IS the criteria for being considered alive? Does a z/e/f that is depending on another functioning body to be sustained alive according to the criteria? "There is not an unequivocal definition of life so to be considered alive an organism must meet all or at least most of the following criteria." "1. Maintenance of homeostasis or regulation of the internal environment of the cell. 2. Organization, being composed of one or more of the basic unit of life the cell. 3. Posses a metabolism, the ability to convert both chemicals and energy into cell components. Anabolism (cell growth) vs catabolsim ( organic matter decay). 4. Growth maintenance of a higher rate of Anabolism than catabolism. Increasing the size of many of its parts. 5. Adaptation the ability to change over time in response to stimuli in the organisms environment. 6.Response to stimuli 7. Reproduction, the ability of that organism to produce new organisms of the same type."
What does any of this babble have to do with my specific question about RvW ? What does any of this have to do with the fact that a fetus is alive and is a developing human life....regardless of whether it is being sustained by another ? This is indisputable scientific fact.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284182 Feb 15, 2013
(continued)
The question is not "if" a z/e/f is alive, but WHEN the z/e/f fits the criteria for being considered alive. But again the criteria is "is not an unequivocal definition of life". To render a decision on RvW the SC would have to answer the question of when life begins so they answered it,
No they did NOT answer it. That is the point. They specifically stated in their decision that they "need not determine the difficult question of when life begins." And no where in their decision do they say anything to indicate that they've determined when life actually begins.
But yet they rendered a decision that determined when life did NOT exist...and that was pre-viability. Because they affirmed the right to abort without restriction prior to that point. They would not have been able to do that without implicitly agreeing that life did not exist at that point. They contradicted themselves.
but that doesn't mean they are right. The SC is not infallible."
I'm not asking the SC to be infallible....just not to be hypocritical. Don't say there is no need and you are not going to determine when life begins, and then render a decision that does just that.
And the link to my post... And it indicates #283499...as I stated in my other post. Now I suppose you'll convenient miss THIS post too. How many more times do I have to make you look like a fool, Doc? I've answered your questions. YOUR "MO" is to pretend to not see my posts and then lie about it.
Get over yourself. I never pretend not to see posts.....especially the psycho babble you call posts. If I say I haven't seen them that means I haven't seen them.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284183 Feb 15, 2013
Peter is avoiding me because he knows he lied.

Hope he has a fabulous time with his friends this weekend.

Be safe!
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284185 Feb 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw his answer. Why didn't you?
Do you sound like Dori?
"just keep swimming, just keep swimming..."
If you saw his answer, what did it say?

Why didn't I see it. I've been drinking quite a bit. Words are kind of fuzzy.

Yes, I sound like Dori. Well, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Why are you answering for Peter? Is he afraid of me?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#284186 Feb 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is an issue decided individually by states. The federal umbrella covering abortion is during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. No questions asked, no reasons needed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy. As it should be.
You just contradicted yourself Katie, you said that abortion is an issue decided individually by states, but only as long as they adhere to the guidelines set by the federal government/SCOTUS decisions. So it's not decided by states as the poster suggested it should be, right?
Katie wrote:
Since 98% of all annual abortions are performed during this time, the PLM needs to stop sucking the goop off that spoon and start living in reality.
So, again, you are saying that 98% of all abortions are protected by the federal government/SCOTUS decisions? I believe the poster said that abortions should be regulated by states and you argued that they are.
Katie wrote:
Roe v Wade also protects women from forced abortion.
Katie, I've seen you say this before, but before Roe v Wade abortion was illegal, in most cases, so the government wasnt looking to abort fetuses. I may be wrong on this and am honestly asking to learn something about it here. Can you provide some examples of where the government forced a women to have an abortion prior to R v W, and where Roe v Wade specifically addressed this issue?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#284187 Feb 15, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
You can split hairs all you want, but bottom line, you're not an ObGyn, or a Pediatrician, despite that you play a "Doc" on Topix.
.
LOL, this from a guy who plays a "lawyer" on Topix??!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284188 Feb 15, 2013
I haven't lied about anything; your posts just aren't interesting.
Guppy wrote:
Peter is avoiding me because he knows he lied.
Hope he has a fabulous time with his friends this weekend.
Be safe!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284189 Feb 15, 2013
Always fantasizing about my ass. Closet case.
zach wrote:
<quoted text>Hey homo....did ya get that big fat boner outta your ass yet.....I heard you were struggling big time and you didn't want hubby seeing you with another man you dickstain.....LMFAO
Ocean56

AOL

#284190 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
You're probably too young, but I remember a time in the late 60s and early 70s when girls who got pregnant - several who were in my class - had to drop out of school and hope the guy would marry her - which, surprisingly, many did back then - or get enough money to fly to New York for an abortion which was inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade was very narrow and restrictive when it came to abortion. But once Pandora's box is opened, it usually flies wide open. That's where we are now.
Ironically, the woman represented as Roe is now a pro-life activist.
Abortion should be an issue for each state to decide and should still be inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
Unfortunately, it has become a war cry for the empowerment of women. It's time they - and we - humbled ourselves instead.
Awwwwwww, it's sooooo tough when anti-choice guys CAN'T dictate a woman's sexual and reproductive choices anymore, isn't it. TOO BAD.

The fact remains that abortion IS an option for women now, rather than being FORCED to stay pregnant and give birth. Obviously you long for those dark days of "shame" for women to return. Tough luck on THAT score too.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284191 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Victory!
Of course now the [email protected] has to actually see the post.

When I brought up one of Doc's past eff-ups he told me to forget the past. Funny coming from him, doncha think?
Anonymous

United States

#284192 Feb 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Awwwwwww, it's sooooo tough when anti-choice guys CAN'T dictate a woman's sexual and reproductive choices anymore, isn't it. TOO BAD.
The fact remains that abortion IS an option for women now, rather than being FORCED to stay pregnant and give birth. Obviously you long for those dark days of "shame" for women to return. Tough luck on THAT score too.
I thought it has always been an option.

You do know ocean, if a guy wanted to force a woman to do anything, he could.
Vica versa as well.
But it would be rape and kidnapping, which is what you seem to think went on before rvw.

Which, I've never understood why someone would ever want someone,who didn't want them?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284193 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you saw his answer, what did it say?
Why didn't I see it. I've been drinking quite a bit. Words are kind of fuzzy.
Yes, I sound like Dori. Well, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.
Why are you answering for Peter? Is he afraid of me?
He answered it not long after you asked. Find your post, you'll eventually find his.

I answered because I get tired of reading the same old crap from the same old people.

All y'all need a new topic.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284194 Feb 16, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course now the [email protected] has to actually see the post.
When I brought up one of Doc's past eff-ups he told me to forget the past. Funny coming from him, doncha think?
Fn hilarious, LNM.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284195 Feb 16, 2013
Forum wrote:
We all have had to suffer for what they did to Jesus.
Afraid I have to echo John-K.

Not sure what you mean by "they". Our sins and rebellion against God put a man of love and peace on a cross to die a horrible death that should have been our own. His purpose for coming was to drink that bitter cup. Our sin debt has been paid. All we have to do is freely accept it. You believe this too, right?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284196 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see abortion as a "war cry" and don't know anyone who does. I see that as a false premise from your side.
Why don't you focus on the fact that with 7B people roaming the planet, 315M of 'em here, there are over 4M annual live births to 800K annual abortions? Regardless of these numbers, there is a net gain of one person every 15 seconds in the good ol' USofA.
It most definitely is a war cry. A big part of Obama's platform and the reason he won a reelection was based on this war cry.

Sadly enough.

Are you, too, getting tired of this president continually talking about women as if any of us ever thought we were second-class citizens before he came on the scene? What's up with that? Even feminists are starting to say knock it off, Mr. President.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284197 Feb 16, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Those are the guys in the little blue helmets, right? Run around the world attempting to keep peace!
Astute observation. The UN can't seem to do anything for anyone. Or even avoid their own scandals.

But someone like Katie thinks their laws are written in stone somewhere.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284198 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
He answered it not long after you asked. Find your post, you'll eventually find his.
I answered because I get tired of reading the same old crap from the same old people.
All y'all need a new topic.
You have an amazing memory.

You can't tell me what he said because he never answered my question.

New topic? People should reveal who they really are and what they are doing on Topix. That would be a lot more interesting than was that baby viable or visible. Was it 4" long or was it 8 pounds? Etc. etc.

So you go first, Katie. That is your real name, isn't it? Let's see how honest you are.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284200 Feb 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I haven't lied about anything; your posts just aren't interesting.
<quoted text>
That Hurts!

Just because you love men, doesn't mean you have to Hate women.

Did you see the advertisement on Topix for ballet flats? You should get a pair or two, they would feature you. Hope they make your size. Leopard would be flattering, you could wear them with your skinny jeans.

Live a little and walk on the wild side.

I think you have a (not so) secret admirer. Her? name is Katie and she likes to defend you. She takes pity on you when she feels you have lied. Can't imagine why. It is kind of sweet. Do you have room in that closed off heart of yours for her? It could be that she is a he! That would make more sense. Ah, Love is in the air!

I think you have finally found someone to love you. Thank the lord.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284201 Feb 16, 2013
It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.

It would stop all this crazy talk.

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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Yeah 1,383,857
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Cheftell 70,609
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Barack calls me B... 59,540
Trick Opmin Ucweb Celcom Maxis Malaysia (Apr '12) 23 hr zenzpro 4
News South Florida braces for affects of possible Ha... (Jan '10) Fri Missy 14
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) May 26 Tzu 98,045
News South Florida ports see mixed results in first ... May 24 Jayne 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages