Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311036 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: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284449 Feb 17, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Love the new digs and the new state is fine except I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY done with the snow thing now. Ready for spring!!
I was taking a class to become certified in antique apprasal, and I PASSED last week! I'm doing work at the moment for an estate auction house, and am loving it - especially when I get first dibs! <<grin>>
I'm still in the book thing too, but not with the store at the moment. I'll open another at some point, but at this time, I'm really loving this!
Excellent! Good for you!
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284450 Feb 17, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll.
I'm not interested in having a "girlfriend."

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284451 Feb 17, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
"EDDIE!"
"EDDIE!"
Thank you! You just made me think of dear mom!
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284452 Feb 17, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you "Phyllis Schlafly!"
:)
You must think diminishing the huge strides made by women because we don't leave in a utopia, aka la-la land, is what brings us together. De-emphasizing our strengths and reminding us of our weaknesses in search of a utopia that doesn't and will never exist is this president's forte.

However, historical tyrants in the past believed it did.

Wise up.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284453 Feb 17, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text> Well, you said, "Roe v Wade also protects women against forced abortions", so who did R v W protect women from? You made the claim, I'm just asking you to elaborate on it.
<quoted text> As I recall, the court case was about the care taker opting for an abortion because the pregnancy could endanger the woman's life she was charged to care for. On appeal, a court found that the woman was competent to make that decision for herself, even if it meant losing her own life. You've insisted this meant that the government was forcing an abortion on a woman, obviously, there were extraordinary circumstances.
Roe v Wade did not specifically address protecting a woman against forced abortions because it was not, and never has been, an issue in our country. You made the claim that "Roe v Wade also protects women against forced abortions", that was protected long before Roe v Wade, when abortion was illegal. I was asking you to provide something that challenged this. Your Florida case is irrelevant in regards to Roe v Wade, it was about protecting the womans right to life, a constitutional right established before R v W.
Nope, you have misunderstood what I've said.

I do not believe others -- unless a designated durable POA -- need to be making medical decisions for any of us Americans. By others I specifically mean the gov't, the clergy, and nosy parkers. Are you a nosy parker after all, BA? No longer believe that the first 12wks of pregnancy remain off limits to everyone aside from the pregnant woman? Did you forget the same civil rights that apply to pregnant women also apply to all Americans and cover other issues aside from pregnancy?
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284454 Feb 17, 2013
Eddie M wrote:
<quoted text>
She isn't even an entertaining troll. She doesn't comprehend what she reads very well either.
"Eddie" thinks he is Einstein.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284455 Feb 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Preaching is fine, however many Christians cross the line by trying to enact their beliefs into law.
I'm fine with some christian preaching that abortion is wrong. I'm completely against it when they try to outlaw abortion or verbally assualt women at abortion clinics
I'm fine with some christian preaching that same sex marriage is wrong. I'm completely against it when they try and deny the same rights heterosexual couples have to homosexual couples.
I'm fine with christian kids praying privately in a public school, however, I'm completely against a teacher/administrator led prayers of any religion at a public assembly.
its really quite simple
DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE.
DON'T BELIEVE IN SAME SEX MARRIAGE, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX
Only progressive secularist liberals think it's okay to push their agendas and beliefs on everyone else and it must be accepted.

Abortion, unions and gay marriage are just a few examples.

All of us have to pay for Planned Parenthood and union dues whether we believe in doing so or not.

That's not pushing their beliefs on others?

Gay marriage is voted down primarily by democrats - blacks and Hispanics.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284456 Feb 17, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
You must think diminishing the huge strides made by women because we don't leave in a utopia, aka la-la land, is what brings us together. De-emphasizing our strengths and reminding us of our weaknesses in search of a utopia that doesn't and will never exist is this president's forte.
However, historical tyrants in the past believed it did.
Wise up.
No, I think that you, like Schlafly, see what you wish to see; a "rose-tinted" version that doesn't gel with reality. You're trying to "twist" the argument to fit your "revisionist" idea of society; where everyone resembled Ward and June Cleaver, or when it was "Morning in America."
Nobody is doing what you claim...all they're doing is pointing out the very real inequalities that still persist even in this day and age.
I don't believe in utopia so you can save that nonsensical argument for someone who does; if you're going to go on and on about the "evils" of liberalism(you clearly dislike anyone to the "left" of you!) or start spouting the "Objectivist Ethics" of Ayn Rand, you're most definitely not going to persuade me that your point of view is the correct one.
And please, spare me the "Marxist, Communist, Socialist" labels that are so freely tossed about by those on the proverbial "Right."
They've become more than a little tiresome...
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284457 Feb 17, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text> Well, you said, "Roe v Wade also protects women against forced abortions", so who did R v W protect women from? You made the claim, I'm just asking you to elaborate on it.
<quoted text> As I recall, the court case was about the care taker opting for an abortion because the pregnancy could endanger the woman's life she was charged to care for. On appeal, a court found that the woman was competent to make that decision for herself, even if it meant losing her own life. You've insisted this meant that the government was forcing an abortion on a woman, obviously, there were extraordinary circumstances.
Roe v Wade did not specifically address protecting a woman against forced abortions because it was not, and never has been, an issue in our country. You made the claim that "Roe v Wade also protects women against forced abortions", that was protected long before Roe v Wade, when abortion was illegal. I was asking you to provide something that challenged this. Your Florida case is irrelevant in regards to Roe v Wade, it was about protecting the womans right to life, a constitutional right established before R v W.
Here is a case similar to the other one I referred to earlier. This one in MA.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/19/10...

In the article is a link to the court's decision which states in part, "Mary Moe appeals from an order by a judge of the Probate and Family Court appointing her parents as guardians for the purpose of consenting to the extraordinary procedures of abortion and sterilization. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse in part, vacate in part and remand the matter for further proceedings.
1. Background. The facts are undisputed. Moe, thirty-two years old, is mentally ill, suffering from schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder and bipolar mood disorder. Moe is pregnant, although the record is unclear how long she has been pregnant.[FN2] She has been pregnant twice before. On the first occasion she had an abortion, and on the second she gave birth to a boy who is in the custody of her parents. At some point in the time period between her abortion and the birth of her son, Moe suffered a psychotic break, and has been hospitalized numerous times for mental illness."
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NE...

There are different laws in different states regarding mental illness. Some patients or those suffering have more control over their lives in some states than others have in other states. Please keep that in mind when you try to dispute my POV.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284458 Feb 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Neither has microsoft...
<quoted text>
Heh!! You so funny, Cptr!! Both posts even :)
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284459 Feb 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Katie and I are the same person? That's news to me.
<quoted text>
Yeah! It was to me, too. Of course my post responding didn't take, so it sits out there all alone.

But just think, now you're younger and prettier ... like me!

<wink> <wink>
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284460 Feb 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to "guess". I already know you're an immature Troll.
I said nothing about my "God". Who are you talking to?
You're an idiot.
And you are a religious freak. You have no credibility, Bitner. Is that your name? Where is your location? Afraid I'll show up at your house? That is just plain sick. If you are that fearful, you should hire armed guards.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284461 Feb 17, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you googled "Hindu's worship cows" and ignored the first dozen pages where effectively EVERY site acknowledges that they do NOT worship cows - then yes, you're dumb. Worse - you're being DELIBERATELY dumb.
If you recall, this is what many have tried to tell you - you ignore what you're being told and being shown, in your strange quest to alienate posters.
THe very first link that comes up, says:
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/things/...
"Hindus do not worship the cow"
The second site listed - a Hindu site - says:
http://www.nhsf.org.uk/index.php...
"Hindus don't worship cows. We respect, honour and adore the cow. By honouring this gentle animal, who gives more than she takes, we honour all creatures.
Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred - mammals, fishes, birds and more. We acknowledge this reverence for life in our special affection for the cow. At festivals we decorate and honour her, but we do not worship her in the sense that we worship the Deity."
This is not unlike your attempts to demean and dimminish other's views of their faiths. Perhaps you should become familiar with the Nostra Aetate in which the Vatican affirms the validity of other faiths.
In your own stubbornness, you not only alienate posters, you alienate your own faith.
Last night I looked up four different informative sites describing Hinduism. I learned Hindu literally means India. And I learned some other fascinating stuff. But what I never saw was the word COW. Go figure.

:|
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284462 Feb 17, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You are woefully ignorant. Women are not treated equally in almost every occupation. Women still make less than their male counterparts in most jobs. The glass ceiling still exists. Men continue to expect their women to do most of the domestic work, despite working full time and sometimes earning a higher income. Sexism exists and thrives, today, and women like you are supporting it with your foolish denials.
Most notably, women make less than men in the Obama administration...or did during his first term.

In the same occupation, women earn equivocally the same as their male counterparts.

A female waitress and a male computer programmer will have a discrepency. Same for a male waiter and male programmer.

The vast discrepency is mostly in this president's mind. Which is a redundant analogy, sorry to say. It's not about his vision. It's about America's vision. Unfortunately, the two don't align.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#284463 Feb 17, 2013
Eddie M wrote:
<quoted text>
I never trust people who repeatedly say how harmless they are, jmho.
Me neither, Eddie.
And it is good to see you.
Glad to read you outlasted the storms :)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284464 Feb 17, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Only progressive secularist liberals think it's okay to push their agendas and beliefs on everyone else and it must be accepted.
Abortion, unions and gay marriage are just a few examples.
All of us have to pay for Planned Parenthood and union dues whether we believe in doing so or not.
That's not pushing their beliefs on others?
Gay marriage is voted down primarily by democrats - blacks and Hispanics.
There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.
"Progressive secularist liberals...?" Are there any other kind in your world? I suppose that progressives and liberals can't possibly be religious as well as far as you're concerned.
Seriously, what do you object to, secularism, or people who don't enthusiastically embrace some form of evangelism?
Nobody's "cramming" abortion down anyone's throat. Against abortion, fine, don't have one! Gay marriage? Against it, like "Karma" said, "don't marry someone of the same sex!" Unions? Admittedly I'm on the fence about this one; I'm in favor of child-labor laws, a 40hr work week, overtime, collective bargaining for employees, OSHA--though they can be a pain in the ass--I'm in favor of workplace safety rules. However, I do think that, as a whole, unions have become parasitical entities that take far more than they give.
We all have to pay taxes of one form or another. Nobody likes doing this--not even those "progressive-secularist-l iberals" you so despise. Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions--they've stated this ad-nauseum. If you're not a union member, you don't have to pay union dues--unless of course you're talking about taxpayer dollars that pay unionized civil-servants in which case I'll agree with you.
Where precisely do you get your "facts" from?
It's true that the Hispanic and African-American communities have more, shall we say, "conservative" views regarding same-sex-marriage, but to say that they, and "Democrats" are the ones who "primarily" vote this down--as opposed to good "tolerant" conservatives--is an out-and-out denial of reality.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284465 Feb 17, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think that you, like Schlafly, see what you wish to see; a "rose-tinted" version that doesn't gel with reality. You're trying to "twist" the argument to fit your "revisionist" idea of society; where everyone resembled Ward and June Cleaver, or when it was "Morning in America."
Nobody is doing what you claim...all they're doing is pointing out the very real inequalities that still persist even in this day and age.
I don't believe in utopia so you can save that nonsensical argument for someone who does; if you're going to go on and on about the "evils" of liberalism(you clearly dislike anyone to the "left" of you!) or start spouting the "Objectivist Ethics" of Ayn Rand, you're most definitely not going to persuade me that your point of view is the correct one.
And please, spare me the "Marxist, Communist, Socialist" labels that are so freely tossed about by those on the proverbial "Right."
They've become more than a little tiresome...
You would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with very specific instances where women's rights are being threatened in the work force or in any field or profession.

You'll have to deny women are running for the presidency, the vice-presidency, governorships and congresswomen.

You'll also have to deny women have become astronauts, are on the war front and a vast number of women are CEOs.

But please point out where this discrepency is so aggregious that this president has to continually make it an issue.

It's a power point grab. Nothing more.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284466 Feb 17, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think that you, like Schlafly, see what you wish to see; a "rose-tinted" version that doesn't gel with reality. You're trying to "twist" the argument to fit your "revisionist" idea of society; where everyone resembled Ward and June Cleaver, or when it was "Morning in America."
Nobody is doing what you claim...all they're doing is pointing out the very real inequalities that still persist even in this day and age.
I don't believe in utopia so you can save that nonsensical argument for someone who does; if you're going to go on and on about the "evils" of liberalism(you clearly dislike anyone to the "left" of you!) or start spouting the "Objectivist Ethics" of Ayn Rand, you're most definitely not going to persuade me that your point of view is the correct one.
And please, spare me the "Marxist, Communist, Socialist" labels that are so freely tossed about by those on the proverbial "Right."
They've become more than a little tiresome...
Did or did not this president say in his book that he "sought out Marxists professors"?

Did or did not he have an avowed communist on his staff before being forced to resign and a Mao-Tse Tung admirer before she too had to resign?

Something isn't right. Unless one is a marxist or communist sympathizer themself. Societies who ignored red flags wish they hadn't in hindsight.

It's very possible we are repeating history and not learning from it.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284467 Feb 17, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.
"Progressive secularist liberals...?" Are there any other kind in your world? I suppose that progressives and liberals can't possibly be religious as well as far as you're concerned.
Seriously, what do you object to, secularism, or people who don't enthusiastically embrace some form of evangelism?
Nobody's "cramming" abortion down anyone's throat. Against abortion, fine, don't have one! Gay marriage? Against it, like "Karma" said, "don't marry someone of the same sex!" Unions? Admittedly I'm on the fence about this one; I'm in favor of child-labor laws, a 40hr work week, overtime, collective bargaining for employees, OSHA--though they can be a pain in the ass--I'm in favor of workplace safety rules. However, I do think that, as a whole, unions have become parasitical entities that take far more than they give.
We all have to pay taxes of one form or another. Nobody likes doing this--not even those "progressive-secularist-l iberals" you so despise. Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions--they've stated this ad-nauseum. If you're not a union member, you don't have to pay union dues--unless of course you're talking about taxpayer dollars that pay unionized civil-servants in which case I'll agree with you.
Where precisely do you get your "facts" from?
It's true that the Hispanic and African-American communities have more, shall we say, "conservative" views regarding same-sex-marriage, but to say that they, and "Democrats" are the ones who "primarily" vote this down--as opposed to good "tolerant" conservatives--is an out-and-out denial of reality.
Secularist progressive is a phrase coined by Bill O'Reilly in his book "Culture War".

It's an ideology that rejects any notion of a supreme being having any influence whatsoever in how we conduct our personal lives or a society as a whole. It advocates situational ethics, i.e. an anything goes mentality, over any standards requiring a moral compass to strive for a higher plane of existence.

Not all conservatives are against abortion and gay marriage but the majority of blacks and Hispanics in states where gay marriage was voted down voted against it. They are primarily democrats.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284469 Feb 17, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are a religious freak. You have no credibility, Bitner. Is that your name? Where is your location? Afraid I'll show up at your house? That is just plain sick. If you are that fearful, you should hire armed guards.
No, you're a moron.

I'm not a 'religious freak'. You obviously have me confused with someone else. Either your reading comprehension, or your memory, is very poor.

Yep, Bitner is my name. Anyone who's posted here for a while, if they have a good memory, knows my approximate location. Even before a registered poster had the ability to hide their location, where I actually lived never showed up. It always said one of several nearby towns, rather than my own.

No I'm not afraid of anyone showing up. I have no need of armed guards, because I'm already armed.

Grow up. Like I said, most of us outgrew the whole "double dog dare" thing a long time ago.

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.

Tamarac Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,375,634
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 58,887
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr USS LIBERTY 70,492
News College student launches new line of dolls for ... 13 hr Redefined 3
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 20 hr zazz 98,025
News Broward school bond projects could face big cos... May 1 Marcy June 1
News Kamla in Us as Trini businessman honoured in Fl... May 1 Marcy June 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Tamarac Mortgages