Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 337157 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

Drexel Hill, PA

#309035 Aug 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
When a christer brings their god into the argument, I will point out that their sourcebook contradicts them--especially when they claim the bible condemns abortion, which it does not.
<quoted text>
It does because of the commandment not to murder and in the bible an unborn child is spoken of as a child. Many passages refer to the unborn as the child in the womb. God speaks of knowing that child before it is born.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309036 Aug 23, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Women have the right to life."
So do baby women.
But not fetal females - or fetal males, for that matter.

The 'right to life' is finite. Everybody dies. Some of us die before we're born. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your deity of choice.

ZEF, is that you?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309037 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Women are adults, Witless.
They all started in the womb.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309038 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it? That's your perspective then?
I disagree. That's based on the fact the majority of induced abortions occur during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy when gender is not known.
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
Reading is Fundamental

New York, NY

#309039 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She offered to accept a settlement in lieu of child support, if she didn't have to have a relationship with him. It's the STATE that is insisting on the child support.
He needs to be in prison. Of course, the state wanting him to pay child support is the REASON he's not. He couldn't possibly make enough there to do so.
It's not her, it's the state.

I don't believe they can insist on child support from him while not allowing him visitation.
They can and they did. You need to read. And all you old hens need to curtail your over the top histrionics until you know the facts.

"The victim nevertheless claims that she is entitled to relief because the conditions of probation bind her to an ongoing relationship with Melendez. Her claim is based on a misunderstanding of what the sentence requires. In fact, no visitation or other obligations were imposed on the victim as a result of the sentence....."

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/sup...
Katie Not So Smart

New York, NY

#309040 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So, God aborts all of Samaria but you think this doesn't represent abortion?
Aborts all of Samaria? Since as you've stated previously abortion terminates a pregnancy, nothing more.....was all of Samaria pregnant ?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309041 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage is a prediction of what would happen. If any women were ripped open, the Assyrians did it.
You're moving away from the initial comment which was that God apparently has no problem with abortion when he commands others to destroy the entire nation of Samaria, including their children, babies, and pregnant women. God commanded the entire nation destroyed. Nothing says I Love You like total mass destruction, does it. Obviously you're cool with it since you're playing the blame game now instead sticking to the topic.

And that passage you're dancing around, the one in Numbers where women were made to drink the bitter water to show if they had committed adultery or not, the same bitter water which would render here barren even if she was currently with child? You remember that passage? You, on your own time, can look into further if you wish. I don't have any enthusiasm of discussing it again.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309042 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
They all started in the womb.
Way to ignore the point, Witless.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309043 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
Your ignorance is showing. Sexism could not possibly apply when the gender is not known.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309044 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
That doesn't matter oh obtuse one. We all know gender is decided when the sperm fertilized the egg. We all know gender is generally not known at the time the majority of induced abortion occur.

In order for your claim that abortion is sexist when female embryos/fetuses are aborted, the gender would have to be known.

And here that isn't an issue. I am well aware your PLM is trying to make it an issue, though.

Guess you're getting a head start.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309045 Aug 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
He won't get the kid; he's a felon on parole and I would presume also now a registered sex offender. But she can keep him in court for a very long time and at tremendous cost.
The question in my mind is, why the hell did they allow a 14yo rape victim to have a kid to begin with?
<quoted text>
"He won't get the kid," eh? I wouldn't have thought he would get paroled....or get a court ruling in his favor, regarding parental rights, for that matter...but apparently those both happened. Accordingly, I can see some asshat of a judge granting him full custody, as well. If 'best interests of the child' were the operating principle here, the judge(s) failed miserably all the way around...what's to stop them from sticking to that pattern?

To answer your question, the mother had no intention of 'allowing' her 14 year old to gestate this baby...but the daughter must have agreed to the abortion, or she wouldn't have been given one. Their motives / reasons for the abortion might have differed. From what I understand, dude was mom's boyfriend first. Circumstantial evidence supports the idea that mom wanted kid to abort, to keep from giving evidence of paternity...to keep the rape charge against him from materializing, due to the lack of same.

Nonetheless, the decision to abort the fetus is well within the legal purview of the daughter, and the legal procedure, for collecting DNA evidence of paternity from the products of conception, was not followed. Mom should be absolved of criminal charges, if there are any. JMO
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309046 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're moving away from the initial comment which was that God apparently has no problem with abortion when he commands others to destroy the entire nation of Samaria, including their children, babies, and pregnant women. God commanded the entire nation destroyed. Nothing says I Love You like total mass destruction, does it. Obviously you're cool with it since you're playing the blame game now instead sticking to the topic.
And that passage you're dancing around, the one in Numbers where women were made to drink the bitter water to show if they had committed adultery or not, the same bitter water which would render here barren even if she was currently with child? You remember that passage? You, on your own time, can look into further if you wish. I don't have any enthusiasm of discussing it again.
God did not command anyone to destroy any nation.

Nowhere in Numbers does it say that the woman drinking bitter waters was pregnant.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309047 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is showing. Sexism could not possibly apply when the gender is not known.
And when it is known to be a girl and she is killed, that is sexism.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309048 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And when it is known to be a girl and she is killed, that is sexism.
Not necessarily. Still, no one was discussing gender selective abortion. No Relevance was just spouting his normal stupidity.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309049 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It does because of the commandment not to murder and in the bible an unborn child is spoken of as a child. Many passages refer to the unborn as the child in the womb. God speaks of knowing that child before it is born.
Where does 'God' speak of 'aborting' it?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309050 Aug 23, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the subject is the woman's right to intentionally kill her baby or not.
There is no right to intentionally kill one's baby.

BABIES ARE BORN.
Therefore, BABIES have recognized rights.

Fetuses do not.

Next...

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309051 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage is a prediction of what would happen. If any women were ripped open, the Assyrians did it.
"They were just following orders."

Nazi much?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309052 Aug 23, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Where does 'God' speak of 'aborting' it?
He speaks of not committing murder. Aborting a child 'He knowns' is murder.
No Relativism

United States

#309053 Aug 23, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no right to intentionally kill one's baby.
BABIES ARE BORN.
Therefore, BABIES have recognized rights.
Fetuses do not.
Next...
Did you ever read history books that describe how Jews & blacks didn'thave rights?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309054 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No He didn't, unless you can point out the passage that shows me wrong.
You still digging for the use of the word 'abortion' anywhere in the all-encompassing word of God?

Or did you finally recognize that as an exercise in futility?

If 'God' is against abortion, why does he not specifically command against it?

Don't hand me the 6th commandment, as if you believe God intended to include abortion as a murder - if he did, he was very unclear in his intentions. Pretty careless omission for an omnipotent deity to make, wouldn't you say? Especially, in light of the fact that he enumerates COUNTLESS things which he DOES consider 'abominations'....yet curiously omits mention of that one anywhere in the Word.

Next...

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) 3 min Jacques Ottawa 1,747,027
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr FART HIDE 64,573
the queen Wed UpYerAss 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Tue Smiley 21,533
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 23 Black Ice 72,074
News Stoshball Out On Assignment Apr 23 Gavone 1
News FBI at Carabetta Office Building on Center and ... (Jun '11) Apr 22 Fefa 30

Wethersfield Jobs

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages