Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326627 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.

Katie

Seattle, WA

#275838 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cHisLittlePeter: It's not a fu**ing child; it's a fetus, and the PLM can go to hell
Katie said it's okay for us to refer to the boy or girl in utero as a "baby".
Take it up with her.
How you get the above from my claim it doesn't matter what pregnant women call their ZEFs is beyond me. Take it up with your creative self, NR, and leave me out of it.

You suck at this.
Big time.
Ocean56

AOL

#275839 Jan 11, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
Why keep the reasons for wanting an abortion a big secret? There's nothing to be ashamed of afterall and everyone around you should be proud that you're a person who always makes good decisions. You're incapable of making a bad decision.
The reasons why a woman has an abortion are PRIVATE. Therefore, her reasons, whatever they may be, are none of your business.
Ocean56

AOL

#275840 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
Actually he (or she) is right on this one. Pregnancy is meant for creation. It's how you, I and everyone else on the planet exists because of pregnancy. If you disagree please amuse me and explain how else humans are created. The stork? I guess pro-"choice" people can't hide the fact that they THEMSELVES were the fetus in the womb. It's true my friend, you didn't just show up and appear, you and your biological mother had to go through the 9 months of pregnancy.
So what. A woman has the same right NOT to have children as she does to be a mother. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and women can reject that option for a number of reasons, none of which are any of your business.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275841 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: When I posted, "No, I don't think calling fetuses in general 'a useless wad of cells' is belittling to anyone" I was agreeing?
Um. Yes.
You were agreeing that "calling fetuses in general 'a useless was of cells' is belittling to anyone."
Dumb question.
Huh?

Tell me, do I believe, in general, that referring to a fetus as a "useless wad of cells" is belittling or not? yes or no?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275842 Jan 11, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>Fetus that have been gestating for nine months have greater self awareness that neonates born prematurely after eight months of gestation. People mature with age not environment.
Behaviorally speaking, there's little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy The Cat in the Hat. The abortion debate may never be the same.
The scene never fails to give goose bumps: the baby, just seconds old and still dewy from the womb, is lifted into the arms of its exhausted but blissful parents. They gaze adoringly as their new child stretches and squirms, scrunches its mouth and opens its eyes. To anyone watching this tender vignette, the message is unmistakable. Birth is the beginning of it all, ground zero, the moment from which the clock starts ticking.
Not so, declares Janet DiPietro. Birth may be a grand occasion, says the Johns Hopkins University psychologist, but "it is a trivial event in development. Nothing neurologically interesting happens."
Armed with highly sensitive and sophisticated monitoring gear, DiPietro and other researchers today are discovering that the real action starts weeks earlier. At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.
"Fetus that have been gestating for nine months have greater self awareness that neonates born prematurely after eight months of gestation. People mature with age not environment."

Not true. It's birth that begins the process of awareness. A preemie will have as much brain activity as a full term born on the same day. Medical tests, fetal brain scans, show this to be true. Medical texts are out there explaining it. Pay attention. And stop inserting your own wacky ideas as if these are fact.
Ocean56

AOL

#275843 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
You overreact and make an ass out of yourself...often.
What I said was accurate on all accounts.
It is through pregnancy that mankind procreates. You exhibiting a hissy fit makes you look uneducated, & moronish.
Yes, moron, and I said that a woman has every right to REJECT pregnancy and children if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities that motherhood involves.

It seems to me that the one throwing hissy fits about a woman's choosing to REJECT motherhood is you. Too bad, pal. NO woman has to get or stay pregnant just to make anti-choice imbeciles like you happy.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275844 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Kathy does seem gay.
You'd know all about that, right, NR?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275845 Jan 11, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
You refer to "the tragedy in Newtown, CT". Which was people being shot in head. And how a PL responded to that. I link a post of a PC responding to a PL post, by threatening to shoot the PL in the head. And you see no comparison?
No, not to what I was discussing. Stop inserting your wacky ideas as if these are fact.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275846 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dumbo, let me inform you that I made another post about this. In it I posted:
~" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/ ...
"This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2004’’ or ‘‘Laci and Conner’s Law’’.
SEC. 2."
"‘‘§ 1841. Protection of unborn children
‘‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the
provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the
death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty
of a separate offense under this section.
‘‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or
death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
‘‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
‘‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge
or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
‘‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily
injury to, the unborn child.
‘‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally
kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead
of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided
under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally
killing or attempting to kill a human being."
Also note, the fetus is legally called HUMAN BEING.
You pro-choicers are the most uneducated fools to ever speak on abortion that I've ever come across. "~
It's not only called "unborn child", but also called "human being".
Mrs. Jumbo, do tell how the above excerpt explains what was written in court transcripts during the Peterson trial and how it was reported by newspapers. That's what KW was discussing, lazy reporting.
Ocean56

AOL

#275847 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
You overreact and make an ass out of yourself...often.
What I said was accurate on all accounts.
It is through pregnancy that mankind procreates. You exhibiting a hissy fit makes you look uneducated, & moronish.
The people who have chosen to be childFREE would strongly disagree with you, NoRelevance. Here's a link to an article on why many people choose NOT to have children, and NO, I didn't write it.

http://piperhoffman.com/2012/03/07/ten-really...

TEN REALLY GOOD REASONS NOT TO HAVE KIDS

by Piper Hoffman

"Nearly one in four parents (22%) say that if they could do it over they would not have children, according to a Dear Abby poll. Dr. Phil found that 40% of parents “would not have children if they knew the problems in creating a family.” And way back when, a 1970&#8242;s Ann Landers column reported that 70% of parents wished they had not had children.

Don’t become one of those people.

I chose not to breed after a lot of self-examination and pausing frequently each day to ask myself “if I had a kid, what would I be doing now? Would it be better than what I actually am doing now?” To help you make a thoughtful decision instead of just getting preggers because that is what folks do, consider the following.

1.Pregnancy and childbirth: I don’t need to detail how the pros and cons balance out here, even for men – who will, after all, usually have to live with and tend to the ballooning mom-to-be.

2.Babies: They are often loud, smelly, and damp with fluid or goo of unknown origins.(Spit-up? Snot? Drool? Or something really gross?) Your baby care and maintenance routine will include frequent diaper changing, interrupted sleep, and suctioning snot. Stores actually sell special devices to stick up Junior’s nose and slurp everything out, traumatizing both yourself and your little angel. My husband swears he remembers undergoing this torture even though he was an infant at the time.

3.Toddlers & Up: Loud, whiny, clutchy, demanding, and destructive, with a penchant for self-injury. Your pastimes with these tots are repeating yourself, being interrogated (“Why? Why? Why? But why?”), suffering tantrums without throwing any yourself, and being the bad cop.

4.Teenagers: Loud (when in groups or listening to music), sullen, secretive, and disobedient. Your new hobby: finding a balance between respecting their privacy and needing to know whether they are smoking, drinking, having sex, sexting, doing drugs, doing their homework, depressed, or being bullied. Fun bonus automotive obsession: dreading the day they can drive, teaching them to drive, arguing over which car they will drive, and worrying about them when they do drive."

**********

Click on the link above if you want to read the whole article.
bman

Commack, NY

#275848 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
He is only half right, my friend. I was referring to the part of his post that's a lie. You figure out which part that is, if you can.
Then you should have been more specific. That's why I thought you meant the whole statement was a lie. Try to think before you type next time.
bman

Commack, NY

#275849 Jan 11, 2013
To Ocean 56
Wow you must be an embarrassment to the pro choice argument. Saying that there is something wrong with having a child? 70 percent of parents say that they wish they never had children? Here's a reality check for you- OF COURSE ITS HARD TO RAISE A KID. Who said it was supposed to be easy? But that's what makes the bond between mother and child so special. They go through so many hard, and sometimes traumatic, events together which is why the bond is so important. It was hard for your parents to raise you and my parents to raise me. You and this Piper Hoffman need to look at reality. Every CHILD should have their choices, including life- from conception to natural death. If the moms making the "choice" in the first place wasn't born, they wouldn't even have the choice to do anything. Don't you see? Abortion stops the cycle of life.
sickofit

Austin, MN

#275850 Jan 11, 2013
How about religous people mind there own business and stop doing all the sins they do first...then when the religous people are perfect in every way we can talk about the rest of us..

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#275851 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "Newborns actually don't have self-awareness and have a limited concept of pain; fetuses have none."
Fetal pain laws are popping up around the country.
Would you like to try again?
That's because the science was ignored.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#275852 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bhitler: "A fetus who can't feel pain, and is not even aware of it's own exitstence to feel fear, is never the same as a child who can."
Pain is subjective. Do you know when the baby is aware of itself? Regardless, you exploit their temporary weaknesses to the point of death. Coward.
The baby wants to live. Even extinctually s/he realizes she is supposed to live...& will try to move from the murder weapon.
You puff out your fat gut thinking you're so "tough" and "in control" of defenseless human beings because they can't speak for themselves.....or withstand the evil force of a sharp curette, forcep, toxic chemical, suction, etc.
You're not tough. Your a fat pig who bullies innocents to death.
It turns out that YOU are the weakling....the one thing you were trying to avoid becoming......
........dumbass..........
What a bunch of crap you just spouted. Not one bit of it true, Drama Queen.
Ocean56

AOL

#275853 Jan 11, 2013
bman wrote:
To Ocean 56
Wow you must be an embarrassment to the pro choice argument. Saying that there is something wrong with having a child? 70 percent of parents say that they wish they never had children? Here's a reality check for you- OF COURSE ITS HARD TO RAISE A KID. Who said it was supposed to be easy? But that's what makes the bond between mother and child so special. They go through so many hard, and sometimes traumatic, events together which is why the bond is so important. It was hard for your parents to raise you and my parents to raise me. You and this Piper Hoffman need to look at reality. Every CHILD should have their choices, including life- from conception to natural death. If the moms making the "choice" in the first place wasn't born, they wouldn't even have the choice to do anything. Don't you see? Abortion stops the cycle of life.
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.

In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#275854 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I missed that part of Roe v. Wade that said babies in the womb can be killed because they supposedly don't "suffer".....and that a human life is defined based on whether one suffers or not.
Here's a thought: If the babies aren't suffering at the moment, give them a little time and they will. They are expected to continue to develop and grow & the prognosis for them meeting your criteria is great.
By the way, Junket is evidently getting bored killing babies and may randomly classify fat people as "not worth living".
Put down your butter & bacon sandwich, dear........
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.

It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.

LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
bman

Commack, NY

#275855 Jan 11, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, goofy, I posted the article "Ten Really Good Reasons Not to Have Kids" to annoy the idiot NoRelevance. He appears to be so stuck in the past that he believes the ONLY purpose of sex is pregnancy. Procreation is NOT the only purpose of sex, no matter what idiots like him (or you) believe.
In any case, it is a CHOICE whether to have children or not, and if a woman chooses NOT to
have children for whatever reasons that apply to her, that's HER decision and none of your business. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it if she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it
involves. Don't like the fact that women (and men too, of course) CAN reject motherhood? Too bleeping bad. It isn't YOUR call to make.
Okay, then wouldn't ADOPTION be the better choice? Abortion isn't the only choice a woman has. If you're so pro-"choice" then why do you sound like you're saying a mom only has the choice to have a baby or abortion? Those aren't the only two choices out there. But organizations like Planned Parenthood never say the word adoption. When people ask a woman why they had an abortion alot of them say "I had no choice." I love the old argument, "Mind your own buisness about women's health." Okay, so I should ignore the fact that a woman is carrying "something" with a beating heart. That's like telling an enviornmentalist to mind thier own buisness about not wanting trees in the rainforrest to be cut down. Like telling an abolitionist in the 1850's to mind their own buisness about a slaveowner owning his "property"(slavery, like abortion, was also considered a constitutional right) Just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275857 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Not really. But if FHL's didn't exist there would not even be a mechanism to charge. You can't be convicted unless you're charged first.
"It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection"
True.
Then we agree ! And your statement that FHL's exist for one reason and one reason ONLY, is not accurate.

But the crux of FHLs is protection of a woman's right to carry to term.
Saying it's the crux of FHL's is a lot different than saying it's the ONLY reason for their existence.

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!
Strictly punitive. If my wife is hurt or killed and her fetus killed during an assault on her person, I want the perp to pay, for the crime against her, and for the crime of homicide against the human life she carried. For me that would be a compelling reason and at that point I couldn't care less if it was a future deterrent.
"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.
You miss the point. Do you do that a lot in court ?
I didn't say laws were never a deterrent....only that there effectiveness as a deterrent is debatable.
And my point was that the FHL was obviously NOT a deterrent in that specific case. And that in the absence of it acting as a deterrent in that specific case it also served as a mechanism to charge and hopefully convict and punish.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#275858 Jan 11, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
First of all I'm not arguing YOUR view. I'm arguing your ridiculous defense of THEIR view.
I've not misrepresented anything anyone else has said. Ever. In fact those I've cited have actually clarified their position and confirmed my representation of what they've said. Need I remind you of that moron chicky....claiming that a preemie that needed artificial support was not viable ? You rightly disagreed with her.
That was just before she grabbed her viability ball and left in a huff.
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.
Love your beach story. What does it mean ?
My viability argument does NOT hang on the word albeit. My viability argument disputes their definition of viability which defines it as the ability to survive EXCLUSIVELY without medical assistance.

The core of viability is self survival out of the womb.
That it is. With OR without medical assistance.
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.
Excellent. Your definition is a lot different than theirs. Ya see their contention....and the one you're still missing is that if an MD places it on life support as a means to ensure that remaining 50% ability....then it is NOT viable.

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.
Right. Which means they would make a determination of non-viability and not apply any medical assistance.
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 ?"
Again. The point was never YOUR position. It was your defense of THEIR position.

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) 1 min HarrietsMuumuu 1,684,586
NAACP For Who? 1 hr Bruddah Z 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Sat Fitius T Bluster 21,382
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Jan 18 Let It Snow 1,671
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) Jan 17 Ken 89
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Jan 16 Into The Night 64,397
News Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim speaks outside the C... Jan 14 America Gentleman... 3

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages