Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 320098 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321861 Feb 14, 2014
Try to get your facts straight. Her parents never discussed it with her; her husband did. The parents were also batguano insane. The husband didn't get a girlfriend until well after the battle between him and her parents began.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, go back to the Terry Schiavo case where her husband said she wanted to die and her parents said she wanted to live. Do we believe the parents who have loved her all her life or the husband who has a girlfriend and wants to remarry? Hard to be sure of anyone else's motives.
I don't expect you to have an opinion but someone else will.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321862 Feb 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Try to get your facts straight. Her parents never discussed it with her; her husband did. The parents were also batguano insane. The husband didn't get a girlfriend until well after the battle between him and her parents began.
<quoted text>
In this topix world of' women power', why do we take the guy's word for anything?
Clarino

United States

#321863 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In this topix world of' women power', why do we take the guy's word for anything?
That would include Terry's father, who was for keeping her body on support.
Clarino

United States

#321864 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In this topix world of' women power', why do we take the guy's word for anything?
Translation:'Cpeter's point kicked ass on my point'.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321865 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In this topix world of' women power', why do we take the guy's word for anything?
Don't worry - we maintain egalitarianism in that regard, by not taking your word for anything, either.

Next...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321866 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Again YOU are deciding that they had nothing to fight for. They saw it differently. The next of kin had a conflict of interests. They did in fact lose their child due to someone else's need to be rid of her.
Wrong. I'm not deciding anything. Her persistent vegetative state did that.

No, he did not have a conflict of interest. As her husband he WAS the next of kin. Not her parents. She was an adult married woman, they no longer had a say.

No, they did not lose her for that reason. They had lost her years before. Why would any loving parent wish for their daughter to persist in that condition year after year after year after year?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321867 Feb 14, 2014
Clarino wrote:
<quoted text>
That would include Terry's father, who was for keeping her body on support.
She forgot about him, in her rush to scold women for not subsuming ourselves to men's opinions....when in reality, when it comes to Mr. Munoz and his wife's father, she'd prefer the courts to have continued to ignore their opinions, because they don't fall in line with her own.

Hypocrisy is her middle name.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321868 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In this topix world of' women power', why do we take the guy's word for anything?
This has nothing to do with equality between genders, Moron.

Because he was her husband, therefore the only one with authority to make the decision.

You're perfectly FINE with the husband making the decision in the case YOU linked to. And that's because he made the decision YOU wanted him to.

I'm fine with the husbands making the decision in ALL the cases being discussed, because my personal feelings, and what I would do have nothing to do with THEIR situation.

Again, you're a self-centered POS.

“Who Cares!”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#321869 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because offspring means the same thing as child.
Really? Is the offspring of a shark a "child?" How about the offspring of an alligator? A hawk? A cat? A dog?

Are either of these offspring children?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321870 Feb 14, 2014
RickJP wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Is the offspring of a shark a "child?" How about the offspring of an alligator? A hawk? A cat? A dog?
Are either of these offspring children?
I'm going to sit back and watch, while Ink allows this as the one and only case, in which she believes animals are the equals of people...

Would you like some of my popcorn?
gidget

Scottsdale, AZ

#321871 Feb 14, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I'm not deciding anything. Her persistent vegetative state did that.
No, he did not have a conflict of interest. As her husband he WAS the next of kin. Not her parents. She was an adult married woman, they no longer had a say.
No, they did not lose her for that reason. They had lost her years before. Why would any loving parent wish for their daughter to persist in that condition year after year after year after year?
Because they (like her failed siblings) began to earn a living off her? Thankfully, eventually they lost and Mrs. Schiavo was allowed to die, as she should have been long before the circus began.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321873 Feb 14, 2014
gidget wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they (like her failed siblings) began to earn a living off her? Thankfully, eventually they lost and Mrs. Schiavo was allowed to die, as she should have been long before the circus began.
Oh yes, I forgot about the money making potential, didn't I? I guess that's because I'm NOT the kind of shitty parent who would accept money made off of my brain dead daughter's situation, huh?

Go figure, lol.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321875 Feb 14, 2014
RickJP wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Is the offspring of a shark a "child?" How about the offspring of an alligator? A hawk? A cat? A dog?
Are either of these offspring children?
Are you serious? We were discussing human offspring and yes, that would be a child. Duh
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321876 Feb 14, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I'm not deciding anything. Her persistent vegetative state did that.
No, he did not have a conflict of interest. As her husband he WAS the next of kin. Not her parents. She was an adult married woman, they no longer had a say.
No, they did not lose her for that reason. They had lost her years before. Why would any loving parent wish for their daughter to persist in that condition year after year after year after year?
So everyone who falls into a vegetative state is automatcally dehydrated? She was alive and only needed a feeding tube. She only died because she was intentionally was kept from taking in water and nourishment.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321877 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So everyone who falls into a vegetative state is automatcally dehydrated? She was alive and only needed a feeding tube. She only died because she was intentionally was kept from taking in water and nourishment.
Why is it that you can't focus?

The point is that ALL of these cases are different, but that the only person who has the authority to make a person's medical decision when they cannot, and don't have a written directive on file, is the next of kin, in consultation with that person's physicians. If it's a woman who is married, her next of kin is her husband.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321878 Feb 14, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that you can't focus?
The point is that ALL of these cases are different, but that the only person who has the authority to make a person's medical decision when they cannot, and don't have a written directive on file, is the next of kin, in consultation with that person's physicians. If it's a woman who is married, her next of kin is her husband.
Well that is trully a setback for women's lib.

If a person only needs food and water to stay alive then everybody is in danger of having someone slse, in their best interest of course, deny them sustenance.

Hope you don't fall into a coma as someone might not want you to wake up.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321879 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is trully a setback for women's lib.
If a person only needs food and water to stay alive then everybody is in danger of having someone slse, in their best interest of course, deny them sustenance.
Hope you don't fall into a coma as someone might not want you to wake up.
For the love of all things sacred, HOW is that a "setback for women's lib"? Please, do explain this absolutely senseless statement of yours.

We're not talking about a coma, you stupid, stupid woman.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321880 Feb 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? We were discussing human offspring and yes, that would be a child. Duh
Of course I'm serious.

The word 'offspring', like the word 'fetus', applies to all viviparous animals, including, but not limited to, humans.....the word 'child' not so much. It only applies to...wait for it....BORN human offspring.

Otherwise, it's not a child.

That's why the definitions do not use the word 'child' to describe a FETUS.

It isn't one.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321881 Feb 14, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>.
We're not talking about a coma, you stupid, stupid woman.
People in a persistant vegetative state start out in a coma. Don't you know that?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321882 Feb 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I'm serious.
The word 'offspring', like the word 'fetus', applies to all viviparous animals, including, but not limited to, humans.....the word 'child' not so much. It only applies to...wait for it....BORN human offspring.
Otherwise, it's not a child.
That's why the definitions do not use the word 'child' to describe a FETUS.
It isn't one.
fe·tus
noun \&#712;f&#275;-t&# 601;s\

: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born

Full Definition of FETUS

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

You asked me for a deffinition that included child or human being. Here it is again.

A young human being is a child. Surely you can connect the dots. It isn't hard.

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) 4 min Earl 1,642,305
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr EatASausageDunsky 64,124
girls how many family members have you had sex ... (Dec '15) 20 hr Degenerate 22
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Sat zazz 98,586
Hey Coward Jew Boy >> Yeah You Israel Nov 17 op Gladio 3
News Palm Beach County: Two men shot outside strip c... (Oct '07) Nov 14 KiKi 82
Moving to pompano Beach need to find very cheap... Oct 31 Rodandtracy 1

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages