Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313233 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319957 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I am grown up and that is why I am so surprised by all your silly and childish comments. Most of the time I try to ignore your most stupid and superfluous arguments.
You do no such thing. You respond to 99% of my comments, mostly to whine about how mean I'm being to you. That is not the action of an adult, but a whiny baby.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319958 Dec 31, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ink," my friend, I think it'd cause you a lot less grief if you would pay attention to who's post was being responded to...just a suggestion.
Rudeness knows no bounds.
We've all been rude, nasty, inconsiderate--I'm hardly guiltless in this regard.
I do try to say to myself whenever I post, "I'd like to be a better poster today than I was yesterday."
Ridiculous? Probably. Sanctimonious? Maybe, but I'll trudge on in any case...
:)
LOL In that case I couldn't post to anyone.
VoteVets Org
#319959 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop trying to blame me for your mistake of not looking further into it. For starters, this is not the first time I've linked up this story from the late '80s here in this thread. Secondly, what I linked was the summarization of the story.
A summarization that left out the most important piece of information. But it was up to ME to research and find out the basics of the story...a story that YOU copied and pasted and included a link for. LOL !
Anybody could have taken it upon themselves to look further into it if they so desired.
Who would have thought they had to ? Who would have thought that someone taking the time to cut and paste an entire story that they felt that strongly about, would leave out such a basic and crucial piece of information ???

You chose not to. Instead, you are choosing to create a bunch of drama where none exists by trying to blame and invalidate me any way you can.
Pretty lame, but what more can be expected from the likes of you?
Invalidate you ? Who's trying to invalidate you ? In fact I said if I had been aware of the crucial piece of info you stupidly left out...I agreed that she should have been treated with chemo and not had a c-section. But you still refuse to acknowledge that.
Go get plastered you overly sensitive drama queen.

"May old acquaintance be forgot....."
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319960 Dec 31, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Im gonna do you on this, like you do me on science stuff.
You simply do not understand it.
For by grace are ye saved through faith. Not of works lest any should boast.
One is saved by grace, BUT they still must accept the free gift of God. Now thats no "work" involved, such as the kind many sects try and put on others.
Do this , this, this, and that, plus remain faithful till death kinda stuff. Which would be works. Not to mention any who say it takes what Jesus did PLUS what they do in order to go to heaven, are ignorantly making themselves a"co-savior" with Christ Jesus.
But -I have a feeling you have another answer. You always do ;)
I think it depends on what you mean by 'works'.

Jesus did say that what you do for the least of mankind, you do for Me.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319961 Dec 31, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
A summarization that left out the most important piece of information. But it was up to ME to research and find out the basics of the story...a story that YOU copied and pasted and included a link for. LOL !
<quoted text>
Who would have thought they had to ? Who would have thought that someone taking the time to cut and paste an entire story that they felt that strongly about, would leave out such a basic and crucial piece of information ???
<quoted text>
Invalidate you ? Who's trying to invalidate you ? In fact I said if I had been aware of the crucial piece of info you stupidly left out...I agreed that she should have been treated with chemo and not had a c-section. But you still refuse to acknowledge that.
Go get plastered you overly sensitive drama queen.
"May old acquaintance be forgot....."
From what I read in the links provided by Bitner Chemo wasn't an option and she didn't ask for it. The point of contention was the C section performed against her will.
VoteVets Org
#319962 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a redundant phrase. And from what I've seen clicking on more links than what you provided, it is not used.
It's not used because YOU found a few links that didn't use it ? But the links I provided ( PC sites by the way ) where it IS used don't count huh ? LOL !

It's definitely not found in the Merriam dictionary. But, hey, just this once, I'll concede you are correct provided you concede the excerpt below is correct. It *was* found in the very article you linked showing the author using "...the proabortion rights..." Deal?
"But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-peikoff...
Yes, I will agree that you correctly cut and pasted that excerpt and that every word in it is legitimate, is widely used, and is in Merriam-Websters dictionary.
Have a Happy New Year name caller.
Don't be so sensitive. Remember when you said you were OK with someone calling an embryo a useless clump of cells, and said anyone who was offended should grow a thicker skin ? Practice what you preach.
Or better yet, heed the words of Bitner who said :

"Suck it up, and stop whining about people being "nasty", or leave. No one is making you stay. Grow up."

Lighten up and go slam back a few you ditz.

"...we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne."
VoteVets Org
#319963 Dec 31, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>What you posted, "pro-abortion rights" means that you have the right to be pro-abortion.
But we are pro-"abortion rights" which means we have the right to choose abortion.
Yes you do ! Mazel Tov !

And any way you slice it....the phrase exists !
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319964 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I read in the links provided by Bitner Chemo wasn't an option and she didn't ask for it. The point of contention was the C section performed against her will.
"According to her clinic obstetrician, Angela emphasized two points about her health care: she wanted to be watched closely for any signs of recurrence of cancer and, having struggled so long to survive, she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised because of her pregnancy.

Unfortunately, during the 25th week of gestation, Angela was admitted to GWUMC and eventually diagnosed as having a lung tumor. Again, fighting to live, she wanted everything possible done to prolong her life. Surgery was ruled out, leaving chemotherapy and radiation as the only means of prolonging her life. Angela was informed that her baby was too small to be born, meaning too premature to have a good chance to survive, 2 and that her doctors did not consider intervention on behalf of the fetus appropriate until 28 weeks.3 She was also informed of the added risks to the fetus from chemotherapy and radiation, but Angela still decided to institute aggressive treatment of her cancer. This course was so clearly understood that her attending obstetricians did not consider, much less attempt, intervention for the fetus later that night when Angela's condition rapidly deteriorated, depriving Angela and the fetus of substantial amounts of vital oxygen for many hours.

The next morning, events took an unexpected turn. The hospital's administrators (who were also its liability risk managers) learned of the decision not to attempt delivery of the fetus. The administrator questioned the right of anyone but a court to make decisions affecting a potentially viable fetus, particularly in light of the political controversy over fetal rights. Although the decision was supported by Angela's parents and husband and by the obstetrical department as a whole, as consistent with the wishes of their patient, and despite the advice of legal counsel that the doctors should exercise their best medical judgment under the circumstances (which was not to deliver the - extremely premature and highly compromised fetus), the hospital required a court to decide what should be done for the fetus. Technically, the hospital sought a declaratory judgment as to "what it should do in terms of the fetus, whether to intervene and save its life."

In response to the hospital's petition, a court hearing was hastily convened at the hospital, counsel was rounded up in the hallways of the courthouse and appointed to represent Angela, counsel for the fetus was also appointed, and hospital counsel appeared for GWUMC. The hospital summoned all the witnesses who would testify at the hearing. Angela's family was brought to the hearing just before the proceedings began, with only minutes to confer with Angela's counsel. Angela's long-term cancer specialist, who had been at GWUMC the day before to consult on her case, was not contacted at all."
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/arti...

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#319965 Dec 31, 2013
Bless the Child wrote:
" Nobody who is pro-choice is pro-abort"
My observations are not the same as yours. I wish it weren't so but if you read these posts objectively there is a clear and strong pro-abortion case being made by some very angry women. My main concern is how they became so angry and bitter. They are most assuredly anti-God.
It would not be a stretch to say that they have experienced some traumatic event sin their lives to make them so angry and bitter.
I pray they find peace in this season of Love.
Stick to analyzing your god and your bible. You suck at analyzing people.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319966 Dec 31, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not used because YOU found a few links that didn't use it ? But the links I provided ( PC sites by the way ) where it IS used don't count huh ? LOL !
<quoted text>
Yes, I will agree that you correctly cut and pasted that excerpt and that every word in it is legitimate, is widely used, and is in Merriam-Websters dictionary.
<quoted text>
Don't be so sensitive. Remember when you said you were OK with someone calling an embryo a useless clump of cells, and said anyone who was offended should grow a thicker skin ? Practice what you preach.
Or better yet, heed the words of Bitner who said :
"Suck it up, and stop whining about people being "nasty", or leave. No one is making you stay. Grow up."
Lighten up and go slam back a few you ditz.
"...we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne."
"But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-peikoff...

Have you grown a thicker skin then? And were you conceding this author's claim is legitimate?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319967 Dec 31, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stick to analyzing your god and your bible. You suck at analyzing people.
Did you see the "Season of Love"? Since when did love shrink down to a season, something to be put away until brought out again next year?

And that op thinks others are full of anger? I guess that's what happens when you think love is a season between Thanksgiving and New Year's.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319968 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I read in the links provided by Bitner Chemo wasn't an option and she didn't ask for it. The point of contention was the C section performed against her will.
Then you were not paying attention. How typical of you.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319969 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"According to her clinic obstetrician, Angela emphasized two points about her health care: she wanted to be watched closely for any signs of recurrence of cancer and, having struggled so long to survive, she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised because of her pregnancy.
Unfortunately, during the 25th week of gestation, Angela was admitted to GWUMC and eventually diagnosed as having a lung tumor. Again, fighting to live, she wanted everything possible done to prolong her life. Surgery was ruled out, leaving chemotherapy and radiation as the only means of prolonging her life. Angela was informed that her baby was too small to be born, meaning too premature to have a good chance to survive, 2 and that her doctors did not consider intervention on behalf of the fetus appropriate until 28 weeks.3 She was also informed of the added risks to the fetus from chemotherapy and radiation, but Angela still decided to institute aggressive treatment of her cancer. This course was so clearly understood that her attending obstetricians did not consider, much less attempt, intervention for the fetus later that night when Angela's condition rapidly deteriorated, depriving Angela and the fetus of substantial amounts of vital oxygen for many hours.
The next morning, events took an unexpected turn. The hospital's administrators (who were also its liability risk managers) learned of the decision not to attempt delivery of the fetus. The administrator questioned the right of anyone but a court to make decisions affecting a potentially viable fetus, particularly in light of the political controversy over fetal rights. Although the decision was supported by Angela's parents and husband and by the obstetrical department as a whole, as consistent with the wishes of their patient, and despite the advice of legal counsel that the doctors should exercise their best medical judgment under the circumstances (which was not to deliver the - extremely premature and highly compromised fetus), the hospital required a court to decide what should be done for the fetus. Technically, the hospital sought a declaratory judgment as to "what it should do in terms of the fetus, whether to intervene and save its life."
In response to the hospital's petition, a court hearing was hastily convened at the hospital, counsel was rounded up in the hallways of the courthouse and appointed to represent Angela, counsel for the fetus was also appointed, and hospital counsel appeared for GWUMC. The hospital summoned all the witnesses who would testify at the hearing. Angela's family was brought to the hearing just before the proceedings began, with only minutes to confer with Angela's counsel. Angela's long-term cancer specialist, who had been at GWUMC the day before to consult on her case, was not contacted at all."


I am not arguing with you but one of the links Bprovided has a little different slant.

Upon admission to the hospital, Carder knew her condi-tion was terminal and decided to endure treatments that could prolong her life to 28 weeks at which point she would consent to a caesarean section. She chose this timeframe because her doctors advised it would provide the best chance of survival for her fetus.1 It quickly be-came clear, however, that Carder would not be able to reach this point, so she decided to forego the surgery and instead receive larger doses of pain medication and other treatments to remain comfortable until her death.2 She recognized that her fetus had likely been deprived of oxygen due to her weakened condition, and she consid-ered the added disadvantages of an extremely premature birth at 26 weeks, deciding the risks to her own health and comfort were not worth the small chance of producing a viable child.3 Carder&#8223;s doctor&#8223;s supported her choice. They felt the surgery would likely be fatal for Carder and at 26 weeks would provide little chance of survival for her fetus.4
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319970 Dec 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you were not paying attention. How typical of you.
In the immortal words of B;

There, Witless, you lazy thing. One of them has to "work". Get your head out of your ass, and do some research for a change.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319971 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not arguing with you but one of the links Bprovided has a little different slant.
Upon admission to the hospital, Carder knew her condi-tion was terminal and decided to endure treatments that could prolong her life to 28 weeks at which point she would consent to a caesarean section. She chose this timeframe because her doctors advised it would provide the best chance of survival for her fetus.1 It quickly be-came clear, however, that Carder would not be able to reach this point, so she decided to forego the surgery and instead receive larger doses of pain medication and other treatments to remain comfortable until her death.2 She recognized that her fetus had likely been deprived of oxygen due to her weakened condition, and she consid-ered the added disadvantages of an extremely premature birth at 26 weeks, deciding the risks to her own health and comfort were not worth the small chance of producing a viable child.3 Carder&#8223;s doctor&#8223;s supported her choice. They felt the surgery would likely be fatal for Carder and at 26 weeks would provide little chance of survival for her fetus.4
This does not contradict anything. No one has claimed that she had the chance to get well.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319972 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In the immortal words of B;
There, Witless, you lazy thing. One of them has to "work". Get your head out of your ass, and do some research for a change.
Hey, I'm the one who found the link for YOUR lazy ass, Witless. A link which, by the way, contradicts nothing that is being said. Learn to read, Ignoramus.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319973 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not arguing with you but one of the links Bprovided has a little different slant.
Upon admission to the hospital, Carder knew her condi-tion was terminal and decided to endure treatments that could prolong her life to 28 weeks at which point she would consent to a caesarean section. She chose this timeframe because her doctors advised it would provide the best chance of survival for her fetus.1 It quickly be-came clear, however, that Carder would not be able to reach this point, so she decided to forego the surgery and instead receive larger doses of pain medication and other treatments to remain comfortable until her death.2 She recognized that her fetus had likely been deprived of oxygen due to her weakened condition, and she consid-ered the added disadvantages of an extremely premature birth at 26 weeks, deciding the risks to her own health and comfort were not worth the small chance of producing a viable child.3 Carder&#8223;s doctor&#8223;s supported her choice. They felt the surgery would likely be fatal for Carder and at 26 weeks would provide little chance of survival for her fetus.4
That excerpt is from one of Bitner's links.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319974 Dec 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not contradict anything. No one has claimed that she had the chance to get well.
I didn't say you did but it does provide more insight into Angela's feelings. I find it interesting.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319975 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
That excerpt is from one of Bitner's links.
Right, that is what I said.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319976 Dec 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I'm the one who found the link for YOUR lazy ass, Witless. A link which, by the way, contradicts nothing that is being said. Learn to read, Ignoramus.
I was only adding more info. I know you hate that.

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 Grey Ghost 1,483,985
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 62,986
Lost Phone 16 hr Do no harm 1
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Sun TRD 71,320
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Sat Well Well 20,775
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) Jan 21 Maria pawlus 73
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) Jan 19 truth 7,994

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages