Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309859 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.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287219 Feb 27, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Does you church share your opinion?
I don't know. The Church doesn't want to provide something it doesn't believe in.and goes completely against Church teaching.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#287220 Feb 27, 2013
Since the contention was that only 3% of PP's procedures were abortions, whether or not the speaker misspoke about patient population is moot.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, Stanek didn't make the correction & provide the numbers. Left-leaning NPR healh policy correspondent Julie Rovner is the one who made corrections.
You need to actually read material provided, do your best to avoid emoting before thinking/typing. Otherwise, you make an ass out of yourself. Again.
Caring.
_______
Rovner: Well, the conflict is really that PP keeps its statistics according to the percent of those services that are provided, not according to how many people get what. So it turns out that there are that indeed, abortions are 3% of the services provided, although and that was what, I think, Sarah Stoesz from PP kind of MISSPOKE when she said it was 3% of patients who come in get abortions.
It is actually a little bit closer to the 10% that Marjorie Dannenfesler suggested, because there are about 3 million patients who come in. There are about 300,000 abortions provided."
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/03/npr-fact-ch...
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287221 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No he doesn't.
You've been shown more than once what and why the charge and conviction of fetal homicide happened. It's up to you to understand it as its meant to be without your wishful thinking attached, mucking it up so you say the crap you said above.
Because he killed his unborn child, Connor.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287222 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to walk sjm thru the exchange step by step. I don't think she pays attention to her own words, half the time.
Was listening to reports about the Pope's last address to the people, etc. etc. I found it weird - odd -- that Jesus Christ was hardly mentioned. At one point someone reported that the Pope said something like "having my hand on the shoulder of God". I don't know if he was quoted correctly, but if he was...WEIRD, I tell ya! It's like the office of the Pope is more important than God, Himself.
I dunno. I'm not Catholic. I don't get it.
Maybe you should read his address before commenting on it.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287224 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I ever say *you* removed the posts?
Stop playing games. Of course you didn't say "I" actually removed the posts. How could I ? It would have had to have been someone from Topix. But you were clearly indicating I was responsible for their removal by others......

"I guess Doc needs to be coddled by some mod/bud who is working behind the scenes for him.'

"Screw Doc then, it's on him. I know I wrote those posts, and I know they were removed...and I know they were the ONLY ones I wrote that were removed."

"I'm now very disgusted. Here I am being called a liar and wondering how it is Doc is missing all these posts. Now I come to find out that these posts have magically been pulled. What a nice little scam Doc has got going on here."

"The info you're referencing sounds very relevant, so why should it be pulled? And why should you not be able to sign in? This is outrageous, and I now have a complete mistrust of Doc."

You never said I removed the posts huh ? Pffft.

In the words of the Waco Kid...."You devious sonuvabitch.....happy days!"
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287225 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I bought one for the girls around 10 years or so ago. It was very similar, but had cool stuff (like funky shaped "wheels"). I think now they've gotten a little more high tech. Should probably get one for the granddaughter. She'd love it!
How did the game of Life change? Ticket for not wearing a seat belt instead of speeding? Ticket for no insurance because you didn't land on the square to purchase it? LOL
They took out the funny spaces you could land on, like, "your aunt leaves you a skunk farm. Pay X amount of dollars to get rid of it". Less Paydays, too. lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287226 Feb 27, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it matter why I'm here my brother?
We know for certain why you are. You are letting the world think that over 3000 babies being killed and removed to be cast into the draft is a good thing, in Jesus Name.
You're full of sh^t. You lie.

Thanks for proving you're here to troll.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287227 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he killed his unborn child, Connor.


What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287228 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should read his address before commenting on it.
Fair enough. I DID admit, I didn't know if he was quoted correctly.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287229 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
They took out the funny spaces you could land on, like, "your aunt leaves you a skunk farm. Pay X amount of dollars to get rid of it". Less Paydays, too. lol
Dammit!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287230 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"In fact, "I" could have said that I lived by such a creed prior to 1973....and you would have had a major argument with it."
Well it's not prior to 1973 so I guess your question is moot.
Typical. Have absolutely no logical response ? Then indicate that the point is moot.
That "moot" response is a favorite of Katie's as well.
We're discussing this 40 years after 1973. We're discussing this in the context of the present, not the past. What I would've said when I was little kid in 1973 is irrelevant.
Irrelevant ? Possibly. In reality what is it that is said on this forum that in the grand scheme of things is NOT irrelevant ?
The point was a hypothetical. What you would said in 1973 may be irrelevant.....but nevertheless oh so revealing in terms of the convenient hypocrisy inherent in your position.
"It is the PC that have established the subjectively chosen point at which that life is worth anything or is worthy of protection.
Really? And when did I say that "chosen point" is? Refresh my memory.
Yeah REALLY. Viability. That is the point that RvW has said that prior to which a fetus is fair game and no justification is necessary in order to kill. And you agree with it.
What I have said is that I would not make the personal choice to have an abortion, and that I let others make that determination for themselves.
And you agree with the fact that they have this right, without restriction, prior to viability.
"The civil rights of the born are already restricted in cases where innocent human life is at stake."
If you want to speak about the broad category of civil rights then white American males have enjoyed the least amount of restrictions to their civil rights, and I'm guessing you're in that elite group. I wonder if Ole Doc would've been fighting for women's right to vote,
Yep.
or to end slavery.
yep.
And I wonder if Ole Doc is helping gay citizens obtain the right to marry their same sex partners
Helping ? Not sure what that entails. But I have no objection to it. I think the whole issue is silly. Let em get married. Who cares.
..or is Doc just interested in forcing the womenfolks to stay pregnant against their will. I guess in Doc's utopia women are really on the bottom of the totem pole. Even an embryo is supposed to have rights that supersedes a woman's rights.
I asked Ocean this before but she cowardly ducked it.....more than once. So I'll ask you......Just how would "ole Doc", whose only goal regarding abortion is to afford legal protection of human life in utero, do so and not be labelled as someone whose only interested in "putting womaen at the bottom of the totem pole ?"

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287231 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?

Because, like your side is so fond of saying, words have meaning. If it is an unborn child and can be murdered, then a woman who has an abortion and those that perform them are also committing murder.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287232 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, like your side is so fond of saying, words have meaning. If it is an unborn child and can be murdered, then a woman who has an abortion and those that perform them are also committing murder.
Heya, Sue. Did you miss my response to you?


Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope he doesn't easily make bail."
Agreed.
"As far as the terminology? Got me. Unborn or preborn child, the fact is that man assaulted a woman who was carrying a wanted fetus."
Then he shouldn't be charged with assulting an unborn child.
" Assuming that fact, albeit, it usually takes two people to wrangle, and I wonder if Ms. Fuller is an innocent victim."
If it is proven that she was equally responsible, shouldn't she also be charged with assulting an unborn child?

My reply:

STO:

Good point.

I made a post not long ago trying to explain to the PL side that I understand your POV. Didn't get many responses from PL.

You're right. It doesn't make sense. The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus. Therefore, she wouldn't be charged with assaulting the fetus -- because it has no rights and society assumes she's mentally ill. However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges.

Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries), if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss. The perpetrator gets charged with perhaps fairly minor assault (bumps and bruises) and that's it.

Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?

It's a fine line. I don't think anyone has a perfect answer.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287233 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should read his address before commenting on it.
Okay. I read it.

It was pretty boring. Lots of "Thank You's" to Cardinals and Bishops, etc. He spoke a lot about the Church. Not much about Jesus Christ. Wasn't a whole lot of substance there.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287234 Feb 27, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
In Roman 9: 1-3
Paul is saying, that he had a heaviness, and continual sorrow at heart, and if it were possible, that he could be accursed from Christ for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, that he would.
Why would he have such a heaviness at heart or sorrow for his brethren, if he didn't know what happened to those who die outside of Gods grace?
I understand how he felt, after becomming a born again christian, and realizing some truths of Gods Word -I to had a heaviness at heart for All people.
Not just those good ole folks and aunts and uncles, but ALL people.
Straight people, gay people, vile people, or sweet people. Which I know know the worst kind of person can be a very religious person, but it is Not faith in faith that saves a persons soul.
You may try and rid "your " world of the word Hell, but Jesus spoke about Hell 13 times for every 1 times, He spoke about Heaven.
If you were blind, He could make you see, but "you " say that you can clearly see, so your sin remains.
Not sure if true, but I was told that they could catch and kill monkeys, by making a small hole in a gourd,and filling the gourd with food "monkey food ",and the monkey reaches in and gets a handful, but cannot pull out his hand, and WILL NOT let go of the food.
If I seen the hunters comming, it would make me want to scream LET GO STUPID MONKEY AND LIVE!
This to me, is a great example of the lost struggling with the things of God.
Paul is not talking about Hell, in those passages. Read the whole chapter.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287235 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Heya, Sue. Did you miss my response to you?
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"I hope he doesn't easily make bail."
Agreed.
"As far as the terminology? Got me. Unborn or preborn child, the fact is that man assaulted a woman who was carrying a wanted fetus."
Then he shouldn't be charged with assulting an unborn child.
" Assuming that fact, albeit, it usually takes two people to wrangle, and I wonder if Ms. Fuller is an innocent victim."
If it is proven that she was equally responsible, shouldn't she also be charged with assulting an unborn child?
My reply:
STO:
Good point.
I made a post not long ago trying to explain to the PL side that I understand your POV. Didn't get many responses from PL.
You're right. It doesn't make sense. The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus. Therefore, she wouldn't be charged with assaulting the fetus -- because it has no rights and society assumes she's mentally ill. However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges.
Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries), if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss. The perpetrator gets charged with perhaps fairly minor assault (bumps and bruises) and that's it.
Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?
It's a fine line. I don't think anyone has a perfect answer.
"The woman can harm the fetus because she would theoretically have to harm herself to harm the fetus."

Abortion harms the woman?

"However, if someone else harms her and harms the fetus because of harm to her, then (depending on the state) there are separate assault charges."

As there should be, but only if the fetus is a child, if the fetus is "property" as PC'ers like to say then it should be a lesser charge than the assult on the woman, and it certinly should't considered murder.

"Now, if we get rid of the law for assault to the fetus, and the damage is by and large to the fetus (say she miscarries),"

How would this happen without assulting the woman?

"if the fetus has no protection, neither does she for her loss."

Why in't the fetus protected from it's mother? As for the loss, is she loosing property or a child?

"Then again, would it be fair to charge someone with fetal homocide if that person had no clue the woman they hit or pushed was pregnant? Early in the pregnancy, tussle between lovers, and she miscarries?"

Aren't people charged even when they didn't mean to kill someone?(unless of course they are a hunter, then they can just claim that they thought that it was a deer. LOL)
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287236 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point here regarding Peterson, fetal homicide laws, and existing unborn babies? I call 'em fetuses. So what? If I called 'em babies, like you're insisting, would it change anything?
It wouldn't change anything. It just shows that whatever you call it, you can and will be punished for killing it unles, of course you are the mother.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287237 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. I read it.
It was pretty boring. Lots of "Thank You's" to Cardinals and Bishops, etc. He spoke a lot about the Church. Not much about Jesus Christ. Wasn't a whole lot of substance there.
It was only a goodbye address not a sermon.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#287238 Feb 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Food for thought. I was just wondering what your thoughts were as to why this is happening.
Women need to respect themselves. God made a woman
to reproduce. To carry a child. To be a wife and a mother
and care for her family. We are a blessing.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287239 Feb 27, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Women need to respect themselves. God made a woman
to reproduce. To carry a child. To be a wife and a mother
and care for her family. We are a blessing.
This is from the LA TIMES

Johnson and her coauthors said they hoped that other Western nations would corroborate their findings using their own data. If a trend is established, research should investigate the reason for the increase, they added.

They hypothesized that the trend was due to a variety of lifestyle changes that have occurred during the study period. Diet, exercise, obesity, earlier onset of menstruation, use of birth control, delayed pregnancy and other factors all might play a role.

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) 8 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,232,406
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ratloder 70,016
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Mothra 53,485
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 23 hr The Rev 19,921
News The 10 commandments of cancer prevention (May '09) Fri usherhollens 17
News Strangers Come To Hartford Student's Aid (Mar '09) May 21 didusayhome 120
News Conn. Gay Couple Accused of Molesting Adopted Sons (Dec '11) May 21 Smg 591
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]