Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313680 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

#276070 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
It is because of morons like you (not a baby until cord cut....not a baby until 48 hours after birth to allow the brain to develop more...blah blah...) and cPeter (a newborn is not viable if requires medical assistance to survive) that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was signed into law (2002). The government had to spell it out for ignoramuses like you.
Learn more.
You've talked yourself into believing I have said these things in parenthesis (not a baby until cord cut....not a baby until 48 hours after birth to allow the brain to develop more...blah blah...).

Now, quit being dishonest and providing partial quotes as non sequiturs. And try to remember the context these thoughts are attached.

To start, I've never said, "not a baby until cord cut" as a stand alone. It goes with a hypothetical you asked and I graciously answered. Now, you are smarmy enough to continue on with your charade, but I'm done with the whole thing.

Birthing is a process. Transforming from fetus to newborn is a process. Brain functions and bodily functions begin a slow process of growth and development following the mechanisms of delivery. There is no magical moment where fetus becomes baby as some of you like to believe.

To end, I've never said, "not a baby until 48 hours after birth to allow the brain to develop more..." I have stated, and you've quoted, newborn brains aren't fully functioning, the process is about 48hrs following delivery.

You are beyond pathetic using these fallacies over and over again like your crazy filled fantasies involving aborted fetuses (real or imagined).
Gtown71

United States

#276071 Jan 11, 2013
Yes and no, ofcourse I never met the child, and I don't think about the child very much either, but I am the man.
My wife brings up the child from time to time, and will still cry from time to time over the loss of the child.

I do believe the child in the womb is a baby, just like when babies are born, they begin to grow bigger, and smarter. The baby inside the womb is doing what it does. It is going from something extremely small into several pounds in most cases. I ofcourse am against abortion, but if it is going to take place, I think the sooner the better. Partial birth, and late term abortions are even more inamaginable. I realize the later into the pregnany the more the baby grows. The biggest reason I'm against abortion, has nothing to do with wanting to control women, it has to do, with knowing that abortion will not solve the problem they have. Also most abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest, that many use for the rights to abort. Most are done , jusy becouse they want one and it is legal to get one.

.s
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your honest answer.
You clearly make a distinction between a miscarriage and your 5 year old.
When you say "has a child of their own", you don't seem to be referring to the miscarriage. It appears you are only referring to your 5 year old. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you consider a miscarriage as "[having] a child"?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276072 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo: "Sentinence has NOTHING to do with being able to SAY something ."
You idiot. It's Junket who used the "saying something" as her argument.
I know what sentient is and proof of that is in my post following the one you took that sentence from. The post where I said,
~"A child on life support who is in a coma can't feel pain either. But is it okay to rip that child apart limb from limb? The obvious answer; NO.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the pain is known and felt. It's the ACT itself that's wrong, whether or not the victim is concious and can feel pain. "~
You have zero impulse control, like a child. You JUMP to post something just to argue with pro-lifers, and you don't ever know what you're talking about.
This time it's you jumping on your belief that I don't know what "sentient" means, when I do.
You made a raging fool of yourself again.
LOL you have no clue.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276073 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Making smoking illegal for women only would be.
Fact .
Pregnant women, not women in general.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276074 Jan 11, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit, Mr. "atorney". You know damn well depending on the state, a good DA would prosecute that case regardless of the mothers intentions and he would get a conviction against the person who killed the unborn child. A drunken driver kills a pregnant woman and her unobrn child the Da gets a conviction for both even if she was driving to an abortionarium. Dispite your strong abortion rights stance, that is the way it is.
You know that if you are a "lawyer", the rest is just your usuial peacocking to impress the pagan proabort broads. Why work so hard they drop their drawers for an ice cream cone.
Why do you think they all left the Chrisitian Faith.
Um how would the DA find out she was going to abort her pregnancy is she's dead already?
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276075 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. You've called me evil and Satan possessed and told me I'm going to hell, but dammit, sjm, this is the meanest, nastiest, most depraved remark you've ever thrown my way.
Lillynne is a stanky, putrid mess and believe me, I wouldn't want to meet her using morse code.(yack)
You are the lowest of the low for that one.
Wait a cotton pickin minute here,when did i tell you that you're going to hell? Fibber.

You most definately are evil and possessed if you support killing innocent lives that God created, as choice.

As for the rest of your post,...well, I don't believe it. Don't be embarrassed ;) we know the truth. Between you and honeyfoofoo -i don't know who is more obssessed with her.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276076 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Most AC agree with exceptions.
Oh do they?

I love how you just weaseled out of what i said. Nice try.

Do you support elective abortion until the day of expected due date?

Please answer. I can't wait to see how hypocritical you are ;)
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276077 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Two-bucks a trick won't pay the bills.
OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

You know that I am on to your posting style games.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276078 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
That is discrimination. And it's not illegal everywhere in the US.
I disagree that it's discrimination.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276079 Jan 11, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
Tne Times magazone had a cover story about how the abortion issue is moving more and more pro-life. They didn't call the folks we deal with here, "pro-choice". They correectly refer to them as "abortion-rights" people. Fiercely pro abortion rights!
We all know thta to be true. They play with the word choice but what they reallhy drop their panties for is "Abortion-Rights".
It is the only term that really defiens these radical proabortion pagans.
Absolutely true. They are proaborts when THEY 'think' a woman should have choices as to when and why she kills her baby. They speak out of both sides of their mouths.

They want her to have choices to kill in the early stages (no respect for the fetus)....then they want to decide for her by restricting her choices ( suddenly the fetus deserves protection).

@@
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276080 Jan 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
These fundies certainly know how to put on a good clown show. Sassy swings between enraged meltdowns and horny flirtations, which is funny. And I like how she keeps writing as other people from NY who just happen to agree with everything she usually posts. <snicker> She's hilarious. Especially when she does her gagging on a penis thing..."ah gagagaga". Nothing like imitating giving a bejay... LMAO!!!
Your post is total rubbish.

No, I don't "keep writing as other people from NY".

Don't believe me? I don't care.

How about that ;)
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276081 Jan 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
A street corner. She's the bejay queen of Upstate. You can tell by all that gagging she does.
You sound a tad bit jealous there long night moo'ing ;)

Is that your fantasy job?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#276082 Jan 11, 2013
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely true. They are proaborts when THEY 'think' a woman should have choices as to when and why she kills her baby. They speak out of both sides of their mouths.
They want her to have choices to kill in the early stages (no respect for the fetus)....then they want to decide for her by restricting her choices ( suddenly the fetus deserves protection).
@@
"They" who, Stupid Sassy?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#276083 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Men can be shirtless on public beaches.
Women can't.
Get to work..........
Not everywhere. You do realize there are nude and topless beaches in this country, right? And even in resort areas that don't allow women to be topless on the beach, also have laws against men being shirtless on the "boardwalk" areas, right?
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#276085 Jan 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"They" who, Stupid Sassy?
If a pregnant woman had a scheduled c-section for January 2, would you support her choice to electively abort on January 1?.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276086 Jan 11, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you answering "No" to?
"No", you don't deny having the same DNA and SS# as LynneD, or "No", you won't answer?
Thanks for contradicting yourself in saying "Now lie again". If you've only responded "this once" there can't be an "again". lol
You won't give a straight answer, but if you'd like to respond "again", please be my guest. It's fun watching you twist yourself into knots.
Others have asked me questions about this and lie saying I haven't answered. That's what was meant when I said "now lie again".

I misread your question because I assumed it was the same stupid one asked already. I thought you asked "Do you have the same....?"

My answer is NO.

Now lie again and say I didn't answer the question.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276087 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is forced abortion going on in America, it is illegal. If it's illegal, girls have recourse because there is no such thing as legally forced abortion. Which is what you're saying when claiming, "...many ARE forced."
How much hand-holding do you need to comprehend what people say? I mean really.
You're a mess who can't read for comprehension.

Legal or not is irrelevant.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276088 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do either of you understand bodily autonomy refers to medical purposes? Nobody can force a person "to put heroin, or marijuana, or any other drug into our bodies without fear of legal repercussion." But a doctor can legally use drugs to treat you and you can comply or not. That is bodily autonomy and the proper context of said phrase.
I said that I have had bodily autonomy and have never lost any of my rights to bodily autonomy, and all without having any of my children in utero killed. Removing the right to have our children in utero killed doesn't take away our right to bodily autonomy, over OUR OWN bodies. It would take away the right to e3nd the lie of the human body in utero.

You're the one that acts all drama queen like a fool as though women would lose other rights and bodily autonomy if abortion wasn't legal.

They wouldn't. We women who have not had abortions still have all the rights afforded to women, even if abortion wasn't legal.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276089 Jan 11, 2013
*...right to end the life of the human body in utero.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#276090 Jan 11, 2013
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Methinks STO has a secret crush on the real Lynne ;)
You never stop talking about her.
Maybe you're right, because he does.

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) 2 min leosnana 1,509,756
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 44 min Mikeymike116 20,936
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr ANTARCTICA DATA CUT 63,580
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) 7 hr Vaneisha 85
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 hr TRD 71,275
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 12 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,076
News 16 Members And Associates Of La Familia Gang Ar... (May '08) Mon Hypocrites 305

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages