Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 340603 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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290208 Mar 24, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from all this, aside from the original point made months/years ago now, I'm done being sidetracked on one phrase.
Of course you're done. You're wrong. I'd say I was done too if I was as wrong as you. Why subject yourself to more ridicule ? Or put yourself in a position where you're forced to compose babbling, nonsensical responses like this one.

I know you don't like it when I post "reaching viability".
Wrong. I love it when you do. You only demonstrate how clueless you are every time you do.

I know you think it's incorrect, inaccurate, what have you.
Wrong again. I don't THINK it's incorrect. It IS incorrect. There is no context within which the term "reaching viability" EVER makes any sense for a born infant. NONE.

I know you will insist you're right and I'm wrong forever and ever and ever because it's what you do. You enjoy it. You get off on it. You'd probably spend every waking moment just trying to prove me and other PCers wrong.
You know what I find hilarious? How you keep referring back to one specific incident where I let loose and dropped all pretenses of civility with you and others because you'd dropped it with me first by insisting I approved of infanticide.
I keep referring back to one specific incident ? When was that ? Find one example of me referring back to a specific incident. Again, if I KEEP doing it it shouldn't be that hard to find.
And when did I ever say you approved of infanticide ? You lie.

Since that time and before, I've mostly ignored all the name calling BS coming from you and your side in the spirit of civility. Sure I get a jab in here and there, everyone does. Even you. But you're the one who carries on and on and on about it.
I bet you don't even remember why I first used the phrase "reaching viability" or the context of the discussion. You've been so stuck trying to "correct" me, you blew right past my point and made it nonexistent.
That's why I'm done with this conversation. It can't move forward because you won't let it. You're like a guy who hears only a portion of a sentence, gets stuck on it, misses the entire point, and wonders why people aren't listening.
You're done wit it alright. How many times have I heard that ?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290209 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think women would want special consideration.
She didn't say anything about women, Witless. She said "parent".
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290210 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to read, Witless. Gtown understood what I meant.
Learn to write, Bitter.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290211 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to write, Bitter.
What I wrote was fine, as proven by the fact that two other people understood it. Do you enjoy looking stupid?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290212 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't say anything about women, Witless. She said "parent".
Women are parents.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290213 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Women are parents.
Yes, they can be. And so can men. Sue didn't say anything about "special consideration" for women, just that both parents should not be called up. Again, do you ENJOY looking this stupid?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290214 Mar 24, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Would that it were only so simple. If it's the concept of fetal rights that bothers you, a fetus can be afforded legal protection without being assigned rights per se. In fact fetuses are already afforded a level of legal protection post-viability. Sure its under the guise of the "states right to protect potential life", but it is legal protection nevertheless."

That still gives women a choice earlier in their pregnancy.
Why should it matter ? If the basis of of woman's right to abort is based on the right to privacy/personal autonomy then why should there be restrictions at ANY point ? Her circumstances haven't changed. She still has an entity (human life) attached to her and sustaining itself through that attachment.
On the other hand, if that entity is entitled to legal protection, which at some point, the SC has said it is, then it should be entitled to protection at all times. It is the same entity. Just at a different stage of its development. Just as an infant is at a different stage of development than a toddler.....or a toddler from an adolescent.
Nope, when you rip the facade away from RvW it fails on every level.
"How did we get so far away from the point of RvW being terrible Constitutional law ?"

But can you dispute what I wrote? Men don't have anything comparable. They will never have this type of issue. Their rights are not really put in this kind of jeopardy.
Of course I don't dispute that. Who can ? To do so would be to ignore the uniqueness of the process by which every one of us came into being. How does the fact that men don't have anything comparable....in any way justify the legal termination of human life ? If it were a fact that men could also become pregnant would you then say that restriction of a woman's right was OK because men could be comparably restricted ? If not then why would you raise the point at all ? Your argument has no logical basis.

Can you dispute that RvW is terrible Constitutional law ? Or are you saying because you agree with the decision that they ultimately reached......that justifies the fatally flawed means by which they reached that decision ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#290215 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to read, Witless. Gtown understood what I meant.
You say that an infant can reach viability with medical assistance and you have the balls to call anyone else 'witless" ?
Gtown71

United States

#290216 Mar 24, 2013
Susanm wrote:
OK, worked last night and work tonight, gotta get some sleep. Have a great day all.
Same here -sleep well.:)
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290217 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they can be. And so can men. Sue didn't say anything about "special consideration" for women, just that both parents should not be called up. Again, do you ENJOY looking this stupid?
If you are registered with the draft and you get called up, you go.
Gtown71

United States

#290218 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Or one child per family. I think there was such a stipulation before, about only one son per family.
I think china has that now, L, but not out loud.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290219 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are registered with the draft and you get called up, you go.
Thank you for proving you have NO idea what Sue's point was. Which, just by the way, had nothing to do with WOMEN, but FAMILIES. You witless thing, you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290220 Mar 24, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think china has that now, L, but not out loud.
Really? China only allows one son to be drafted per family? Because that WAS what was being discussed, you know.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290222 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? China only allows one son to be drafted per family? Because that WAS what was being discussed, you know.
LOL Stupid, they are allowed only one child to be born. How the hell can they send more?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290223 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Stupid, they are allowed only one child to be born. How the hell can they send more?
Wow, sarcasm, like so much else, is obviously beyond you.

Also, that's only for urban families, and doesn't include twins, or if both parents are only children themselves.

Dammit, woman, do yourself a favor, and just stop posting. Or educate yourself. You're looking dumber by the second.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290224 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for proving you have NO idea what Sue's point was. Which, just by the way, had nothing to do with WOMEN, but FAMILIES. You witless thing, you.
I know her point. I just don't agree with it. If you want women called up for the draft, they should go when called .

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290225 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I know her point. I just don't agree with it. If you want women called up for the draft, they should go when called .
Obviously, you DON'T understand her point, or you wouldn't keep implying it was just about the women. She didn't say women shouldn't be called, just not both parent in any given family. You flocking idiot.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290226 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, sarcasm, like so much else, is obviously beyond you.
Also, that's only for urban families, and doesn't include twins, or if both parents are only children themselves.
Dammit, woman, do yourself a favor, and just stop posting. Or educate yourself. You're looking dumber by the second.
It effects 91% of the population. 91% of the population can only contribute their one and only child to the states military.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290227 Mar 24, 2013
affects

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290228 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It effects 91% of the population. 91% of the population can only contribute their one and only child to the states military.
Again, I was being sarcastic in that post, Witless.

And where does your figure of 91% come from? I seriously doubt that 91% of the population of China lives in urban areas. And even if they did, the exceptions for women carrying twins, ethnic minorities, or a couple who are both only children themselves would decrease that number further.

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) 33 min Hopscotch 1,760,155
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Joe Mama 21,699
News Democrats back Bysiewicz for lieutenant governor 10 hr BPT 4
News Woman accused of stabbing police officer in thr... Sun Committee For Dec... 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Sun FARTS DOG 64,672
Gangstalking and Harassment (Jan '13) Sat Pusses 328
Cromwell-the most racist town in CT (Jun '10) May 18 Josh and Tammy 34

Wethersfield Jobs

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages