Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309974 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.

SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284655 Feb 18, 2013
Have any pro-choicers on here ever seen an actual abortion or a sonogram of a fetus in the process of being aborted?

Just curious.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284656 Feb 18, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Normal people go through their lives believing in freedoms for people WITH LIMITATIONS."
If this is true:
Why do pro"choicers" object to laws that limit who can provide abortions, safety measures on the places that provide abortions, and lowering the timeframe of when abortions are allowed as medical science advances?
I personally dont object to hose laws. I dont know any PC'er's that do.

I DO understand tho that some people DONT think there should BE limitations. I disagree with that.
"FOr MOST, the concept of viability as a limit is a perfectly reasonable one. There is nothing contradictory about it."
If this is true:
Why is it condradictory for a prolifer to defend allowing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
Its not contradictory. At least not to me. Has anyone said it is? I honestly dont remember anyone saying or suggesting that, but I COULD be wrong.

You and other PL'ers like you Sue, are not like the extremists like some we see here, who dont think those exceptions should be allowed.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#284657 Feb 18, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Normal people go through their lives believing in freedoms for people WITH LIMITATIONS."
If this is true:
Why do pro"choicers" object to laws that limit who can provide abortions, safety measures on the places that provide abortions, and lowering the timeframe of when abortions are allowed as medical science advances?
"FOr MOST, the concept of viability as a limit is a perfectly reasonable one. There is nothing contradictory about it."
If this is true:
Why is it condradictory for a prolifer to defend allowing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
It's only contradictory if you assume pro-choicers are not pro-life.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284658 Feb 18, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Want to try that one again - this time in somehting resembling comprehenisble English? Or maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school, and you would be able to speak in simple sentences coherently.
<quoted text>
ROFOMAO!! And THERE'S something to be proud of!
LMFAO!!!
Tough, tough broad.

She doesn't have a nice bone in her body.

She feels inferior - that is why she puts on this big act of superiority. Transparent.

Ain't that something?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284659 Feb 18, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy.
<quoted text>
What in the holy fk are you babbling about now Lynnekins? Nobody even REMOTELY suggested that an artifical womb would abort.
Isn't it YOU that's usually complaining that others jump into a discussion without knowing what's being said prior?@@
Doc said that an artifical womb could eliminate the need for abortion. I pointed out - respectfully and CORRECTLY - as he himself attested the point to - that while it would be another option for those women who - say - didn't want to getstate but didn't want to abort either, it would NOT eliminate the need for abortion.
Many women would STILL want to abort, since they dont WANT bring a child into the world only to give a child up for adoption, which would be the most likely scenerio for an artifical womb usage.
For the purposes of the discussion of abortion, women that might avail themselves of the option of an artifical womb, would be those that would be willing to allow a baby to be adopted out, but didn't want to gestate simply for that purpose.
Kind of like the sperm donor that doesn't want a kid - doesn't want to know about a kid, but wants to help others have one. If an artifical womb is to be developed (and science is VERY close to that for humans) it would create another OPTION for women. That's all. It wouldn't eliminate other options, nor the NEED for other options.
"Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy."

Now wait, Foo. Seems to me you aren't considering women with high-risk pregnancies. If I were to get pregnant again, it may kill me. Therefore, I'd opt out of it. Unless there was an artificial womb available to gestate for me.

When I first read your links on artificial wombs, this is where my thinking was because of my own experiences. How cool it would be for women to actually have their natural children without the fatal risks some pregnancies bring (ie, high blood pressure, cardiac, stroke, etc).
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284660 Feb 18, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe in freedom of speech, or you idiots wouldn't be reporting PLers trying to get them banned.
Agreeing with the viability restriction is a contradiction of the arguments you PCers here have made.
Explain how the PC arguments of "medical privacy", "personal autonomy", and "fetus doesn't have rights" isn't contradicted at the point of viability?
Why don't you explain how you see it as contradictory? I asked before and all you said was that it's contradictory. You didn't offer any explanation as to why or how you see it as such.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284661 Feb 18, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
You posted to Doc about artificial womb and abortion:
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to respectfully disagree. Abortion would certainly be an issue, because there are women that wouldn't want to have their ZEF transplanted. It would open another option, but it wouldn't eliminate many of the issues themselves.
I posted:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
If a woman is going to go the route of using an artificial womb, not only would she not have to have her developing child implanted into their own womb, but she wouldn't want to abort her child.
You reply:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about "artificial womb" and your claim that abortion would be an issue if she refused to have the "ZEF" transplanted.
I said "implanted" talking about going from artificial womb to being implanted in her own womb. You said "transplanted", so beginning in artificial womb to where would it be "transplanted"?
I'm not reading the rest of your stupidity, because you couldn't even begin your post understanding what was said. Even if I provided definitions you wouldn't get it.
I understood just fine what was being said between Doc and I, and he acknowledged it.

YOU trying to twist it once again to "suit your motive" is typical, but nonsensical.

Once again, you're trying to create an argument where none exists.

Doc said that ALS womb would make abortions a non-issue, inferring that women would or could transplant their ZEF TO the artifical womb for the purpose of gestation.

I respectfully disagreed, saying that many women would NOT want to do that. Period. THat's ALL there was to it. He acknowledged the point.

And NO, I was NOT talking about it starting in the artifical womb to begin with you moron. Do NOT try to put words in my mouth. You dont speak well for yourself, you CERTAINLY dont speak for me and what I said.

You saying "implanted" while I said "transplanted" is immaterial.
It would have to be transplanted FIRST which was the point, and NOBODY was talking about it going FROM the artifical womb TO another woman for implant.

Perhaps you should try reading ALL the words before you say stupid shit.

Gotta love how you acknowledge you dont read the posts in their entirety, before you start your bullshit. No WONDER your comprehension is so fuckedup, you dont bother to read what you're responding to - AND YOU ADMIT IT.

Just one more bit of proof you're NOT HERE to actually have a discussion.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284662 Feb 18, 2013
hmm, little goo-goo resembles someone else. they both make the same mistake over and over again. interesting.

they ain't fooling anyone.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284663 Feb 18, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't read for comprehension, Eddie? I didn't share Guppy's opinion.
Yet you said the exact same thing. Shocker.

....balance of your justifications delted for redundant stupidity.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284664 Feb 18, 2013
By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions. However, opponents argue that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.

This is the problem.

Also, phone cameras have recorded numerous incidences where employees of Planned Parenthood simply ignore the law.

A bigger problem.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284665 Feb 18, 2013
Eddie M wrote:
<quoted text>
You're much more ignorant than you think you are. Do I care to rebut your posts kissing Doc's ass? No. I like Doc by the way so this is nothing against him. As for your other posts? You mean the long string of verbose missives that go on about the "mind boggling" ignorance and stupidity of anyone who dares to disagree with your most superior and learned opinions? The endless manifestos about the people you deem too stupid and too lacking in "comprehension skills" to be even worthy to walk in your most eminent shadow? The pages and pages of posts where you pat yourself on the back and exert your grandiose perceptions of self-importance? You want rebuttals to those posts? The very posts where you obsess endlessly over the lowly status of those ignorant members of the PC camp who in your mind clearly are not even worthy of wiping your royal ass? And then there's the petulant posts where you stomp your feet like a middle schooler and rage because people have the nerve to be friends with Foo. That is the content of your posts in a nutshell. The posts you think make you seem to superior in intelligence to everyone else, but only in your own little detestable mind, when they merely are screams for attention.
Enjoy your massive delusions of grandeur, Lynne. And yes, by now most everyone here "with any intelligence" seems to know you're the pathetic creature know as Lynn. Your pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other.
It's absolutely "mind boggling" that you still cling to this deception that you're not Lynne.
Lynne is a useful idiot for a few people here, which is the only time those on her "side" bother to respond to her - which is to use her for THEIR purpose. She's not intelligent enough to understand that.

Lynn's been a joke here for many years now. Its sad really.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#284666 Feb 18, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
Have any pro-choicers on here ever seen an actual abortion or a sonogram of a fetus in the process of being aborted?
Just curious.
Have any anti-choicers ever seen an abortion or sonogram of a fetus destined to be grossly deformed at birth?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284667 Feb 18, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Foo jumps in disagreeing that abortion would be a non-issue, and give a reason that has nothing to do with the artificial womb discussion.
Actually it had EVERYTHING to do with the artifical womb discussion.

Doc opined that an artifical womb would create an atmosphere where abortion would be a non-issue.

I pointed out FACTUALLY, that unless women CHOSE to make use of that technology, abortion would still very much still be on the table.

ALL an ALS womb would be in that scenerio, is a new option for women who were considering abortion. It wouldn't make abortion a 'non-issue'.

Doc acknowledged the point.

This really wasn't a hard discussion to follow, yet you managed to screw it up. As usual.

AGAIN, you try to twist the discussion to suit your agenda.

You falied AGAIN as well Lynne. You always do.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#284668 Feb 18, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions. However, opponents argue that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.
This is the problem.
Also, phone cameras have recorded numerous incidences where employees of Planned Parenthood simply ignore the law.
A bigger problem.
Obamacare allows fderal funding for abortion.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284669 Feb 18, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy."
Now wait, Foo. Seems to me you aren't considering women with high-risk pregnancies. If I were to get pregnant again, it may kill me. Therefore, I'd opt out of it. Unless there was an artificial womb available to gestate for me.
When I first read your links on artificial wombs, this is where my thinking was because of my own experiences. How cool it would be for women to actually have their natural children without the fatal risks some pregnancies bring (ie, high blood pressure, cardiac, stroke, etc).
Artificial wombs? I feel like we're talking about a sci-fi movie and everyone instinctively knows it won't have a good ending.

The farther away we go from nature and the natural order of things, the closer we get to screwing things up.

How do you feel about "custom-ordered" babies? Eye color, gender, hair color, etc.

Or sperm banks where someone could end up marrying a half-sister or half-brother from the same sperm donor?

Are we really becoming this shallow and self-serving?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284670 Feb 18, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
Have any pro-choicers on here ever seen an actual abortion or a sonogram of a fetus in the process of being aborted?
Just curious.
I have seen spontaneous abortion in a drawn-out process and I've seen an ectopic pregnancy burst even as the medical professional were insisting a blood clot was the embryo. Do you count those? I do.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284671 Feb 18, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Have any anti-choicers ever seen an abortion or sonogram of a fetus destined to be grossly deformed at birth?
That's a choice each individual has to make.

However, the overwhelming majority of abortions are healthy developing fetuses who happen to be an inconvenience when the inconvenience should have been taking the necessary precautions to avoid creating that life in the first place.

Am I wrong?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284672 Feb 18, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Artificial wombs? I feel like we're talking about a sci-fi movie and everyone instinctively knows it won't have a good ending.
The farther away we go from nature and the natural order of things, the closer we get to screwing things up.
How do you feel about "custom-ordered" babies? Eye color, gender, hair color, etc.
Or sperm banks where someone could end up marrying a half-sister or half-brother from the same sperm donor?
Are we really becoming this shallow and self-serving?
You seem to think so.

I don't think we should be making designer babies like dolls.

I was talking about real high-risk pregnancy. The kind that actually kills women when they're wanting to be pregnant. Artificial wombs and artificial surfactant ARE currently being tweaked in science labs. Foo recently posted a couple links regarding it.

There are also real fetal brain scans online for viewing -- to show the brain development in progress.

Who needs fiction when reality is available?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284673 Feb 18, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, yeah. And Lily could start a cottage industry crocheting artificial womb colors.
Nah, that would imply she gives a shit about anyone BUT herself. Of course, I could see her screaming to those women that didn't like the colors she KNOWS they want!
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284674 Feb 18, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Obamacare allows fderal funding for abortion.
Yes, it does. And it's against the law.

However, Obama, as we are all learning, is above the law. Power-craving politicians who support him don't seem to care either.

It's why I say we'd all better wise up before it's too late.

Governments who give also take away.

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) 2 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,235,987
Review: Law Offices Of George Castrataro 1 hr Caitlyn 52
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 hr red and right 53,577
Review: Red Balloon Party Rental (Sep '09) 10 hr Ruben and Monique... 42
News Supreme Court disciplines 10 attorneys, Three f... (Jan '11) 15 hr Frank M Jerry 28
Is my neighbor racist? 16 hr MyPerspective 3
News Fort Lauderdale: Police giving funding to Oniku... (Mar '08) 17 hr MyPerspective 9
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]