Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309896 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

Levittown, PA

#320765 Jan 16, 2014
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> How many times have I written that I'm against restrictions on abortion? There's no point in you berating me for something with which I disagree. As for the woman who is kept alive to give birth, that is a decision left to her medical POA. Your snarkiness is unnecessary, but if it makes you happy, please, enjoy.
No restrictions?
No Relativism

United States

#320766 Jan 16, 2014
Penelope wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as useless as dogshit on the bottom of a shoe. You're a joke, a clown, the village idiot. People here laugh at you. You're pathetic. Do your gagging on a boner thing. That's funny!
\

Chicky, remember the time you denigrated the Catholic Church...and then said you work FOR a Catholic organization?

Hahahahahaha!!!!

You do not say what you mean, or mean what you say.

You put food on your table from a check received from a Catholic organization.

You're an imbecile and hypocrite.

I laugh AT you.

Often.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320767 Jan 16, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Elective abortions can occur within the first TWO trimesters, not just the first.
That woman is being kept "alive" by an overre4ach of state interest, just like FL tried to do in the Schiavo case. It doesn't grant the fetus rights, the decision is negating the rights of the husband. YOU educate YOURSELF, you hollow-headed homunculus.
<quoted text>
"State interest"

What does that mean? What is their interest in a fetus?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320768 Jan 16, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, here is the thing, basement dweller: Worships Fetuses and you No Relatives are doing nothing more than riding skirt tails trying to keep women in line.
You are a typical misogynists and nothing more.
Why do you feel that a woman giving birth is "keeping her in line"?
No Relativism

United States

#320769 Jan 16, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy New Year "Rose!"
Always a pleasure to "see" you luv.
:)
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Best,
John.
Hi "John-KKK"

You support killing an inordinate number of black babies in the womb.

Goodbye, "John-KKK"
No Relativism

United States

#320770 Jan 16, 2014
Husker wrote:
<quoted text> He must have had them removed.
He handed his "tea bag" over to cPeter so he could play hacky sack.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320771 Jan 16, 2014
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You're incorrect. I have answered with a simple, clean cut yes. While I personally find very late term abortion to be disturbing, I maintain my philosophy of personal autonomy. Now, I'm sure you will attack me for this opinion but, since you seem to have forgotten previous discussions, there you go.
Why do you find a late term abortion disturbing?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320772 Jan 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
"State interest"
What does that mean? What is their interest in a fetus?
Read the RvW decision. Educate yourself.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320773 Jan 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you feel that a woman giving birth is "keeping her in line"?
Why do YOU feel the need to twist what other posters are actually saying?
No Relativism

United States

#320774 Jan 16, 2014
Penelope wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. Jesus freaks are against education and embrace ignorance.
I hope Foofoo's bacterial vaginosis cleared up. It can be passed during lesbian sex. I bet her scissor partner wasn't happy with her. Ya know?

Caring.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320775 Jan 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the RvW decision. Educate yourself.
I already know. It is to protect prenatal life. I don't think your fellow pro abort knows.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320776 Jan 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I already know. It is to protect prenatal life. I don't think your fellow pro abort knows.
I don't know any pro-aborts. Why must you lie?

No, it's to protect the state's interest in the safety of women, and the POTENTIAL life represented by the fetus. There are states that show no interest in the fetus, imposing no restrictions on the abortion procedure itself, but still show an interest in the safety of the woman. So no, you are mistaken.

“TRAIL OF TEARS”

Since: Dec 13

CHEROKEE NATION, USA

#320777 Jan 16, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
When you prance around with your balls tucked behind your butt, you appear as effeminate and cowardly as cPeter.
Caring.
I don't understand your ranting. What have I done to you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320778 Jan 16, 2014
--SPOONER-- wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand your ranting. What have I done to you?
You wrote a civil post to a pro-choicer. That is the way posters like NR, and several others work. They attack anyone on their side of the debate who is friendly to the other side, going so far as to accuse them of BEING on the other side. THAT is what drove Rose away.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320779 Jan 16, 2014
The doctrine of state's interest encompasses the state's rights to ensure public safety. Since abortion in the third trimester entails as much danger to the woman as childbirth, it becomes a matter of regulating medical risk. In theory, the state may act to ensure the safety of the viable fetus; however, it may not interfere with abortions performed for medical reasons.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
"State interest"
What does that mean? What is their interest in a fetus?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320780 Jan 16, 2014
You're such a sad, stupid child.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
He handed his "tea bag" over to cPeter so he could play hacky sack.

“TRAIL OF TEARS”

Since: Dec 13

CHEROKEE NATION, USA

#320781 Jan 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote a civil post to a pro-choicer. That is the way posters like NR, and several others work. They attack anyone on their side of the debate who is friendly to the other side, going so far as to accuse them of BEING on the other side. THAT is what drove Rose away.
Makes sense to me. I told C Peter that we disagreed on some things, but so what!

When folks understand we are all different to some degree, this world will be a better place.

Peace.
gidget

Scottsdale, AZ

#320782 Jan 16, 2014
Husker wrote:
<quoted text> I never wished anythoing on anyone , ever. I said if your grandkids GROW UP LIKE YOU . You don't read what is there, you go with what the pro aborts say. You probably follow every little fad or fashion out there. Anyway, yeah, the devil will have his way with people like chicky, she is a vile piece of work. In fact she is the devil's minion. People don't like to post about spirituality, but we need to know. We live in an era of evil being the norm and called ok , pre marital sex, same sex marriege, abortion. It's cool with a lot of pweople to agree that it's okay to kill your child, live with someone , etc. Christians are called stupid and uneducated and bigots. Fifty years ago having values meant something, now having values means your a bigot. I will speak out against evil, I am not afraid to. Christ is with me.always. So if you think chicky is some kind of hero, go ahead and follow her, be her friend, then you are truly going to face the consequences. If people don't stop glorifying immoral lifestyles, abortion and other Godless acts, be ready to face the lake of fire and a lot of demons.
It's your hell, you psychopath - you die in it. You & all your imaginary boogeymen. Soon.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320783 Jan 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know any pro-aborts. Why must you lie?
No, it's to protect the state's interest in the safety of women, and the POTENTIAL life represented by the fetus. There are states that show no interest in the fetus, imposing no restrictions on the abortion procedure itself, but still show an interest in the safety of the woman. So no, you are mistaken.
You can try and reword it to suit yourself but the state is protecting the prenatal life meaning a life before birth.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#320784 Jan 16, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The doctrine of state's interest encompasses the state's rights to ensure public safety. Since abortion in the third trimester entails as much danger to the woman as childbirth, it becomes a matter of regulating medical risk. In theory, the state may act to ensure the safety of the viable fetus; however, it may not interfere with abortions performed for medical reasons.
<quoted text>
It certainly would be unsafe for the fetus to be aborted. By safety you mean the state protects his life from being needlessly ended.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min jimi-yank 53,484
News Police say Conn. pastor's shooting may be linke... 10 min DaveinMass 9
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min Bluestater 1,233,748
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr Ratloder 70,034
News Protesters Fight Deportation of Army Veteran Fr... 11 hr Mag 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Tue Bam 19,928
Review: Nirenstein Horowitz And Associates (Sep '12) Tue hrichard91 37
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]