Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309850 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.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#325009 May 15, 2014
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Apparently,MOST who claim to be pro-choice are against elective abortions after a certain gestation age. They DON'T approve of killing those human lives/baby. They think that those little ones DESERVE protection. They are AGAINST the womans choice to kill that child at that point.
Just sayin..........
Question for you; Do you think that they are hypocrites? Are they pro-choice? be honest now Elise,one can't say they are for choice when they really aren't,now can they?
I don't know, their opinions aren't my business. I speak for myself, no one else. Shouldn't you be happy that those people disapprove of LTAs? Why are you griping?
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#325010 May 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Zzzzzzzzzz.........
Never mind this meandering, ponderous hooey.
Did you really say that sex for procreation is not pleasurable at all ?
Yeah, IF what the op said was true. Therefore what the op said was NOT true. Women are NOT expected to remain pregnant against their own best interests; including their very own lives.

But keep bringing it up and pointing out what the op said was not true. Thanks!

“Crybaby men are such a bore”

Since: Mar 14

The wild wild north

#325011 May 15, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends. Your daughter's name is Susan Smith; isn't it? Have you deviated from your pledge that you'd rather see your daughter dead before she has an abortion?
Or are you going to deny you said that??
I have heard she stated that.

Unbelievable! This woman has some serious issues with females. I think she has a deep rooted saviour/hero complex coupled with religious fanaticism.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325012 May 15, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Your deliberate obtuseness aside, even when abortion WAS illegal, there were many women who sought it -
Exactly. So you're saying that just because in the past some women made the misguided decision to put their lives in the hands of incompetent butchers, that women are therefore condemned to repeat the same mistake in perpetuity ? I happen to have a higher opinion of a woman's ability to make reasoned, logical decisions. Why do YOU think so little of women ?
for the same reasons we seek it when it IS legal.
The reasons that some people turn to drugs will always exist regardless of whether or not it is legal or not. Does that mean we should make all drugs legal and provide safe, healthy, sterile venues and licensed physicians to administer such drugs upon request ? After all, it will result in far fewer deaths from overdoses and the use of unsafe equipment ?

You probably dance in the streets every time a drug addict overdoses or dies as a result of an infection caused by using non sterile equipment. Shameful.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325013 May 15, 2014
Morgana9Rules wrote:
<quoted text>
I could afford to leave the country or send my daughter. Happy? Others not so fortunate will visit the back alley butchers in hopes of obtaining the same outcome as I.
Women will no choice but to put their lives in the hands of incompetent butchers ? They will be dragged their against their will ? Shocking.
I dare and will continue to.....and I DO KNOW.
<quoted text>

No you don't. You don't know me.

[QUOTE]You want the government to control women because YOU want women controlled (my god you are a fricking little coward).
Ridiculous. Are you a proponent of government control of people because they've made laws that restrict your ability to electively kill innocent human life ?

I bet you object to government interference in your pathetic life....right David?
No. At least not where it involves the government doing what they're supposed to be doing, protecting life and liberty. In fact in those cases I welcome their interference.

Of course you do....but David is special...women not so much...right pumpkin?
Wrong. See above.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325014 May 15, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Your motivation is for the law to conform to your opinion.
That's not a motivation. That is an outcome.

Your opinion is that fetuses need protection FROM THE WOMEN IN WHOM THEY RESIDE,
Wrong. I believe fetuses should be protected, PERIOD. Unless they pose a verified life threat.
Just as you believe human lives YOU believe are worthy of protection should be protected.

so there is no escaping the FACT that you want pregnant women controlled. You simply don't want to be the one physically locking them into a room for nine months to accomplish this - you know how difficult it would be to get her in there, without serious injury to yourself.
So you want the cops to do it.
Coward.
Ridiculous. Pregnant women would be as free as anyone else. And cops would ONLY get involved to address someone caught performing an illegal medical procedure.
....a circumstance of which you are eminently in favor - as long as it's some faceless judge, or police officer, who actually does the controlling.
Misogynist coward.
As are you since you support RvW and have cited it as an acceptable compromise.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325015 May 15, 2014
godless by choice wrote:
"Seven Tee" whined
And when innocent life is killed it is everyone's business starting first and foremost with the unborn child.
bullshit, its NOT your business nor is it mine.....
Nor should it be. But it SHOULD be the government's. That is their function, to protect life and liberty.
Are you also an idiot by choice ?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#325016 May 15, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I believe fetuses should be protected, PERIOD
Great. And you propose to protect the fetus from abortion in what way?

Short of locking the WOMAN in a room, immediately upon the discovery of her pregnancy, and making sure she has access to nothing potentially harmful to the fetus until she delivers, you can't.

Face it, coward. You want women controlled - you just don't want to get your hands dirty.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325017 May 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is relevant. It is a child and killing it is morally wrong. Do you have the same attitude about the child after it is born? It is the same human being. Do you care if a mother drowns her newborn in a toilet? What's it to you? It has nothing to do with you right? It's just a woman who wants to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy that went legally to far.
Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the physiological differences between embryo/fetus and newborn?

Why do you continue to insist these entities are identical when in reality this belief (of yours and all other who choose to be brainwashed by the PLM) couldn't be further from reality?

What is "morally wrong" imo is insisting, as you continue to do, that all women everywhere believe the same as you regardless of their circumstances (of which you know nothing).

You are only a nosy parker cloaking yourself in false morality. You, Ink, don't care about women or their circumstances or even their very lives.

All you care about is paying lip service to "your" morality. And that is nothing but subjective BS to another woman making an appt. at the clinic or facing an emergency surgery in the hospital which will end her unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy legally, safely, and in a sterile environment.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325018 May 15, 2014
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Uh no,that is not a "different viewpoint". It is doubletalk. You can't say that you are pro the womans choice what to do with her pregnancy and then turn around and say that you agree with restricting her choices when YOU feel the baby should have protection. It has nothing to do with being in lockstep with anyone else. Who do you think you are kidding here?
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
Simple!
JM, you've never been very good at wrapping your mind around the distinctions involved in the legalities of abortion and what Roe v Wade allows.

You think it's hypocritical following the law regarding viability, but you always seem to forget abortion is still legally allowed following viability if woman's life is endanger. Nothing hypocritical about that at all.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325019 May 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion for convenience is the premeditated murder of a very young, innocent human being.
Would it be fair to say you believe abortion in the case of rape or incest, or in the even the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, would not be an abortion for convenience, hence not "premeditated murder[?]" Would that be a fair statement?

If so, then please answer these questions:

1- Aren't all of the aforementioned examples of situations where a physician kills the fetus, with the consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian?

2- Aren't all of the aforementioned examples of legal medical procedures, performed with the consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian?

3- Is elective abortion, up to the point of viability, legal in the United States, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)?

4- Isn't it true that murder is defined as the "unlawful [emphasis added] and intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought[?]"

If my contention that you believe abortion in the case of rape, or incest, or in the even the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, isn't an abortion for convenience, hence not "premeditated murder[,]" is not a fair statement, please explain with specificity how do you define convenience and how does that definition apply when the end result of either is an abortion performed by a licensed physician, who is operating with the expressed consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Since when does a human being have to consent to live?
Adoption is life, abortion is death; think for yourself.
Anyone who is successful in committing suicide, has not consented to life. Anyone who executes a living will that does not provide for life support when no hope of recovery from an adverse medical condition exists, or has executed a DNR, has not consented to life. Any human being who commits a capital crime, punishable by death, and pleads guilty to said crime, has not consented to life.

Need I go on?

Brian, I know you're operating on morality. But, whether you are utterly incapable, unwilling, or overburdened with pain, to admit, morality is not legislated. Civil rights are, and the unborn does not have any. Whether you believe civil rights are morality based or the unborn has, or should have them, is irrelevant. Civil rights are based on the overall good of society.

Many people hold homosexual sex to be immoral. Yet, SCOTUS has held that when sex in any form and between consenting adults, including, but not limited to homosexual sex, is performed within the context of a reasonable expectation of privacy, such is legal, whether many may see any form of sex, other than vaginal intercourse (in the missionary position) as immoral. See, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

It's far more immoral for you, or anyone, to validate morality by suggesting that anyone who thinks as you do, is more moral than anyone who disagrees with you. The undisputed facts are:

1- United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the protections it guarantees, are also an example of morality.

2- Abortion is legal, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3- Roe v. Wade has been affirmed. See, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

4- Abortion, oral sex, anal sex, sodomy, homosexual sex, a woman taking oral contraceptives, are all protected under our constitutionally protected right to privacy, when a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. See, Roe; see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese and any person with a reasonable mind, can shoot more holes in it.

I hope you have the dignity and integrity to respond to all points on my post, without cherry picking, backpedaling, or word twisting.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325020 May 15, 2014
Morgana9Rules wrote:
<quoted text>
I have heard she stated that.
Unbelievable! This woman has some serious issues with females. I think she has a deep rooted saviour/hero complex coupled with religious fanaticism.
Agreed. In fact, her religious fanaticism is so palpable, she even claims to know more about the religions of others, despite the fact she only practices Catholicism.

Go figure that one out!
figures

Lumberton, NC

#325021 May 15, 2014
they can tell someone what to do with themselves but they wont stop someone from getting a gun and killing people.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325022 May 15, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
As are you since you support RvW and have cited it as an acceptable compromise.
Roe v. Wade isn't an acceptable compromise. It's the law. There's no compromising in the law; it is what it is.

Unlawful speed is unlawful speed whether it's 1, or 50 mph over the speed limit. The acceptable compromise comes into play when the law allows an LEO the discretion of whether to cite, give a warning, or to reduce the fine by citing the driver for driving at a slower speed than he/she was actually driving. In either case, the law is being enforced.

Roe v. Wade is no different. Whether a woman has an abortion a 20 weeks or 9, is irrelevant. If the fetus isn't viable, the law is, she can have it killed by a licensed physician, with her consent.

You don't have to like it, or even accept it. But you do have to acknowledge it as a factual truth. Otherwise, you're no different than a battered woman who stays in an abusive relationship, because "he doesn't mean it; he was just drunk; it's my fault; he promised me he won't do it again," until he kills her.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325023 May 15, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor should it be. But it SHOULD be the government's. That is their function, to protect life and liberty.
Are you also an idiot by choice ?
Baloney. Protection of life, liberty, and property, is contingent upon due process. The unborn cannot avail itself of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because it's not a person born or naturalized in the United States. Thus, according to the 14th Amendment, it does not enjoy constitutional protection and government can't do squat to protect it from elective abortion up to the point of viability.

Government is bound, by case law and constitutional mandate, to protect the woman. Not the unborn. That laws exist to punish an offender that kills an unborn, and who's not a licensed physician operating with the consent of the mother to remove the fetus, is irrelevant. Those laws protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, by exposing a criminal defendant to the potential of additional, or double punishment.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325024 May 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
JM, you've never been very good at wrapping your mind around the distinctions involved in the legalities of abortion and what Roe v Wade allows.
You think it's hypocritical following the law regarding viability, but you always seem to forget abortion is still legally allowed following viability if woman's life is endanger. Nothing hypocritical about that at all.
Agreed Katie. In fact, in some states is also legal for abortion, past the point of viability, to be performed if the fetus is so horribly deformed that the mother believes it will not have a fruitful and enjoyable life.

Nice to see you again ;-)
Spinning

Beverly, MA

#325025 May 15, 2014
The bottom line, if you do not like the idea of abortion, then don't get one.

The nice thing about choice is that you do not have to have an abortion for any reason.

Since this seems to be a rather divided controversy, liberal/conservative, here is something to think about:

If only liberals are evil enough to have an abortion, why are conservatives so freaked out about it?

If it all pans out as conservatives think, then only liberals will be reducing their numbers and conservatives can keep on breeding. Next thing you know and overwhelming majority of folks will be conservatives and everyone can be happy, right?

There, conservatives, just saved you a lot of time protesting at the abortion clinics.

You Are Welcome!
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325026 May 15, 2014
Spinning wrote:
The bottom line, if you do not like the idea of abortion, then don't get one.
The nice thing about choice is that you do not have to have an abortion for any reason.
Since this seems to be a rather divided controversy, liberal/conservative, here is something to think about:
If only liberals are evil enough to have an abortion, why are conservatives so freaked out about it?
If it all pans out as conservatives think, then only liberals will be reducing their numbers and conservatives can keep on breeding. Next thing you know and overwhelming majority of folks will be conservatives and everyone can be happy, right?
There, conservatives, just saved you a lot of time protesting at the abortion clinics.
You Are Welcome!
Born to Breed: An Interview With Quiverfull Walkaway Vyckie Garrison
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/06/27/...
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325027 May 15, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed Katie. In fact, in some states is also legal for abortion, past the point of viability, to be performed if the fetus is so horribly deformed that the mother believes it will not have a fruitful and enjoyable life.
Nice to see you again ;-)
Yes, you're right, there's that, too. Sometimes tests are very late in pregnancy and horribly malformed fetus may not be realized until past viability.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325028 May 15, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text> If I scare you, it's probably because ALL women, who don't ask your opinion before making reproductive decisions, scare you.
This should get your hackles ALL the way up......
"Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe campaigned promising to be a “brick wall” against the erosion of women’s reproductive rights – rights that were openly attacked by his opponent, attorney general and Christian crusader, Ken Cuccinelli. Monday, Governor McAuliffe announced he has taken the first step toward fulfilling that campaign promise, and restoring women’s rights in Virginia."
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/virginia...
Who said YOU scare me ?
Who are you ???

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) 8 min shinningelectr0n 1,231,997
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 min IBdaMann 53,453
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 hr TRD 70,012
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 12 hr Anne 97,251
Review: MB Automotive 21 hr Christina 1
A safe, psychedelic, plant and fungi guided bo... 23 hr jjay75 2
Review: South Florida Introductions Thu Scammed Customer 4
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]