Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 341024 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.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274884 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.
So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274886 Jan 7, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But abortion, which is what the discussion is about, isn't murder. Never has been, never will be.
I didn't say it was nor do I think it should or ever could be.

To say that because the end result is the same there is no difference between induced and spontaneous abortion is absurd....whether you consider abortion murder or not.
There would be no need for RvW if that were the case. Even the SC acknowledged the difference when they rendered their decision. If there were no difference between spontaneous abortion and induced abortion then there would be no need for RvW and affirming a woman's right to abort. After all, there are no laws against spontaneous abortion nor will there ever need to be. So if induced is athe same as spontaneous....why the need for RvW /
Really? You're comparing women's right to make their own medical decisions regarding abortion to 9/11?
There is no difference in the country or the world today because women had abortions on Friday. And there wont be any difference in the country or the word tomorrow when women have abortions.
I don't know. Did YOU compare your mother and father's natural deaths and your friends murder to a woman making her own medical definition ?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#274888 Jan 7, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.
We all know what they are except petey. He thinks all his rights come from whatever government owns him.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274889 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between NO function and REDUCED function, you're too stupid to discuss the issue.
<quoted text>
We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274891 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.
Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.

And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274892 Jan 7, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, and you have an iota of intelligence, then you'll see your way clear to admitting that with regard to FHLs, the cause is protection of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term, and the effect if such right is denied, is the availability for prosecution of the perp for a separate offense.
"So are the laws really a deterrent ?"
Don't be that obtuse Doc. Are traffic laws not designed to keep people from violating them by the assessment of fines? Are DUI laws not designed to keep people from driving drunk?
"Vladdy : Viability is defined as the ability to survive outside the womb WITHOUT medical assistance.
Vladdy : Artificial life support means nothing unless the fetus is viable."
What's wrong with either statement?
Until you can find a law that applies to the entire medical profession, and that expressly conditions viability on medical assistance, both statements will remain true.
By the way here's another gem.....this one from Bitter. This one actually makes tinky's look intelligent :

"It's not separate until it is. At birth. If it's viable, or at least developed enough for medical intervention to keep it alive until it IS viable, then it continues to live. Before a certain point, it ISN'T viable, and no medical intervention will help. That point is sometime after 21 weeks, though it is rarely that early. 98.7% of all abortions occur BEFORE that point anyway."

If you don't see the problem with this one then the hurdles we need to clear here go beyond reading comprehension problems.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274893 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.
Ahh the old circular logic.. If it written and said by some one a looonnggg timmee ago.. Then it must be true Because it was said and written down a looonnnggg tiimmeee ago..

Ahh Inky. That was just too easy..

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274894 Jan 7, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.
And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.
Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274895 Jan 7, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.
Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
<quoted text>
Yep, and right up till the latter part of the 19th century young men would sometimes form a loving bond. it was expected they would out grow the need for a physical relationship with another man, but as Richard the "lion heart" demonstrated that was not always the case..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#274896 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?
**shakes his head** Yep, same stupidity even after all these years..

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274897 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you telling me this? I have no problem knowing where my rights come from.

Give the lecture to Petey. He said:

Ihave a constitutional right to point out that there are no god-given rights.
And he does. It's spelled in the 1st Amendment.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274898 Jan 7, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that one of your favorite photos?
Since when do I owe you an explanation?

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#274899 Jan 7, 2013
gtown
I'm not sure what you call the bible?

i call it another book of fiction,
Gtown71

United States

#274900 Jan 7, 2013
godless by choice wrote:
gtown
I'm not sure what you call the bible?
i call it another book of fiction,
Well before I met God, and He changed my "core " beliefs, then I geuss I would've agreed with you, but Idk? I never realy read it before that night about 13 years ago. I would've just asoon to cut my foot off, as to read the bible.

Now I have a good friend, who is about 57 years old, that got saved a few months before I did, and he would've agreed with you 100%.
He had read the entire bible atleast 4 times, before he was saved, and used to say that it was one of his favorite books, but it was fiction.

He nows reads it with an entirely new meaning.

It still amazes me how anyone would want to read anything about God, before they have had a one on one with God, but I am finding out more and more that they are out there.

All I know is before I met God, and was born again -I would have rather ate glass, then go to church or read a bible.

Now when I do thoughs things, it is becouse I desire to.

If given a lie detector and asked if there was a God, and what happened to me was real, then I could not lie, even if it meant my death, or the death of someone I love the most, like my 5 year old little girl.

It is something I will never get over.
It was the greatest thing to every to happen to me.
Praise the Lord!:)
HuskerDu

United States

#274901 Jan 7, 2013

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274902 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text><<<deleted for character restriction>>>
"A perp could still be charged and convicted with fetal homicide after the assault on a woman in the waiting room as she awaited the abortion of her unwanted fetus."

You make it sound like being charged with a crime is tantamount to a conviction.

"It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection"

True. But the crux of FHLs is protection of a woman's right to carry to term. Otherwise, what would you say would be another more compelling reason to seek a conviction for the UNWANTED killing of a non-citizen, who has no right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, when the law already provides for penalties for killing, or gravely hurting the person who does; additional deterrence? C'mon!

"In any case, if a woman is assaulted and as a result her fetus, wanted or unwanted, is killed, then it is obvious that the FHL did not protect her right to carry to term now....did it ? "

If it was that simple, why not lobby to abolish orders of protection against domestic violence? A piece of paper won't stop a bullet; so what other reason could there be for a protective order to exist, but to show that the victim's right to carry on with a life free from fear and abuse is being protected?

Laws exist to provide penalties. That's true. But, herein as well you're being obtuse and unbelievable shallow. If people would not break laws; why would we need penalties? Laws exist because people will break them, and the penalty for doing so IS the deterrence. Go ask any lawyer in your firm.

Doc, stop trying to make your viability argument on misrepresentations of what others have said, especially when you're trying to argue MY view on the subject.

You're still hanging your viability argument on the word "albeit."

Albeit = although. The very core for the use of "although," is keeping the end result intact.

Examples:

"Although I've been to the beach countless times, I still get exponentially excited about going."

"I still need to set my GPS to go to my favorite restaurant, although I was there three times in the last 6 months."

Does it matter how often I've been to the beach, when the point of emphasis is that I am excited about going every single time, or how many times I've been to my favorite restaurant when the point of emphasis is that I need to set my GPS every time? Of course not.

Same applies to viability. The core of viability is self survival out of the womb.

My position has always been, and will always be the same. A fetus is viable if it possesses a 50% chance, or greater, of survival outside the womb. This means that it can, at minimum, make the O2/CO2 exchange at least at 50% ratio. That it may be placed on life support as a means to ensure the remaining 50% ability is achieved, is irrelevant to the core concept of viability. If a fetus is only able to make the O2/CO2 exchange at a 40% ratio, no amount of medical assistance will prevent its demise. So doctors are, more likely than not, to not even try.

Now, if you still want to debate my point with me, please stick to debating my point and not everyone else's. Ok

"You gettin this ?"

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274903 Jan 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>By the way here's another gem.....this one from Bitter. This one actually makes tinky's look intelligent :

"It's not separate until it is. At birth. If it's viable, or at least developed enough for medical intervention to keep it alive until it IS viable, then it continues to live. Before a certain point, it ISN'T viable, and no medical intervention will help. That point is sometime after 21 weeks, though it is rarely that early. 98.7% of all abortions occur BEFORE that point anyway."

If you don't see the problem with this one then the hurdles we need to clear here go beyond reading comprehension problems.
Doc, why are you trying to validate your opinion with the correct opinion of other people?

There's nothing wrong with Bitner's statement. Unless, of course, you think that if technology is able to accurately measure a fetus' chance of survival outside the womb at 49%, a competent doctor will not administer medical assistance, in an abundance of caution.

The only disagreement, albeit extremely slight (there's that albeit/although example again) that I could possibly have, I've stated it, and in hindsight, I really can't say I disagree much with it.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#274904 Jan 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Being "Happy " has very little to do with peace and joy.
Many confuse the two, just like love and sex.
It grieves me to here how many don't believe in the one true God, and you are right about how people worsgip different gods, but they cannot all be right.
Few be that find the truth.
Crissy Moran (a former porn star) found the truth.
Lead guitar player from a band called (korn) found the truth.
Gtown 71 (John) found the truth.
Any who look may find the truth.
Honey, before you try making up your own little homilies of wisdom, you need to have some wisdom. What you write are nuggets of bulls*t. Your uncontrolled need to beat your beliefs over the heads of others is a sign of your need to constantly convince yourself of what you want to believe. You try too hard. Relax, buddy.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#274905 Jan 7, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
The same ones that are in the constitution Inky. Or is it that you think the Constitution grants any rights?
Read carefully: The Constitution limits government. It does not grant rights; it recognizes the rights we already have. If the rights you thin are rights are not expressly stated in the constitution, then you'll look at the 9th Amendment, and at case law to determine whether what you think is a right, is a right.
The right to have an abortion is a right, and it's protected by the constitution.
Well said. Ink won't get it.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#274906 Jan 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is also the reason Jonathon had a child, with a woman, becouse he to was gay. Lol
Plus, the biggest downfall for David was after he lusted after Bathsheba not Bob.:)
Plus he tried to cover it up, by bringing her husband home, and throwing him a party, before sending him to his wife. Yet Uriah had more chivalry then most, and did not go home to his wife. So David got him drunk, in the hopes that he would then go home, which again he did not. I geuss you also think uriah was gay and just wanted to stay with david. Lol
I geuss, that is why david had uriah go back to the front line to be killed, so as to cover up the affair he has with uriah?
Just becouse you are gay, don't mean everyone is. There have always been gay people, but very few compared to all others.
Whether or not you believe the bible was inspired by God, it still is plain to see, that David was anything but gay.
Maybe he was. Gay men are capable of having hetero sex, silly. Lots of men were are bisexual back then, anyway What's the big deal?

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,761,823
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min Blake Potter 64,678
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Voter ME 21,719
Do pretty Girls Fart??? Wed Guy 5
News Democrats back Bysiewicz for lieutenant governor May 21 BPT 4
News Woman accused of stabbing police officer in thr... May 20 Committee For Dec... 1
Gangstalking and Harassment (Jan '13) May 19 Pusses 328

Wethersfield Jobs

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages