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.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242503 Jun 9, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you need to join the birther cause na dbe an nother Orlyntaitz.. the Opinion is is not The Decision of the court.
The Opinion talks about how the Decision was made. it is not The Decision.
I now really understand how the republican/teabagger/birther stay in business. Fools like you just keep right on believing in any fool thinmg that is sold to you by the far right.
Sheesh you can take any part of the Opinion out of context, but it is still not the Decision any more than the Concurrence or the Dissent.
LOL, your a simpleton Kathy, that's understood, and it's why us Republicans, and teabaggers dont want you running the country.
Let me put it to you this way, if a man was convected of a sex crime, and later DNA proved him innocent, would the "Decision" keep him in jail even tough HOW the decision was reached was overturned?
"Fools like you" shouldn't vote, for the better of our country.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242504 Jun 9, 2012
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately this thread could be a "case study" in the art of twisting words. It happenens on both sides, sometimes accidently but more often deliberately, and each side tends to turn a blind eye to the twisting on that happens from people on their side of the issue.
Yeah, I agree, well said. That's why I respect, but not always agree, with your posts. I know that you are speaking from your heart, and mind, with less regard for what people think about it. An honest, and respectable trait.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#242505 Jun 9, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I agree, well said. That's why I respect, but not always agree, with your posts. I know that you are speaking from your heart, and mind, with less regard for what people think about it. An honest, and respectable trait.
Thanks BA, I respect you as well.

I would be interested in your thought about my post #242501.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242506 Jun 9, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have argued fetal rights. I educated you on that too. Need the posts??
Yeah, show me where I have ever argued "fetal rights".

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242508 Jun 9, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You've decided you know more based on a portion of a discussion. You have not included the rest of the discussion, but you have ignored posts and links from me, Chicky, and others showing you your error. You continue to believe you know more. I continue to believe you are of the same school of thought as Doc and Lynne D, JM and K&P. They don't seem to mind when medical procedures are legislated by attorneys rather than by practiced by physicians. You don't seem to mind either.."
What you seem to be selectively ignoring is that the "legal" definition of "viable" is that as defined in Roe v Wade. It's not that I know more than you, Condescending Katie, it's that legal case precedence supports my arguments over yours. Your emotional inability to admit you are wrong does not equate to fact and reason, I'm sorry, but what more can I say?
Katie wrote:

Now, I notice you didn't comment on this piece posted yesterday. It was difficult because Topix actually pulled it (it's posted under my registered name). Here it is. It's a paragraph included in the same discussion as what you refer to as "the definition" of viability. I believe this portion blows away your theory. Blows it right outta the water. What say you, BA?
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive.[n63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [p162] courts have squarely so held.[n64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.[n65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem.[n66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori... ;
So, what does this have to do with the argument that Roe v Wade legally defines "viable"?
Katie wrote:
Let's put this out there for all to see --
"Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
It's not wise to only focus on one aspect of a complex decision. And it's not wise to count your chickens before the eggs hatch.
(from Topix)
"Please refrain from posting profanity or offensive material.
Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator."
WTF does this have to do with our posts? Are you trying to suggest that I'm behind your warning? LOL, you're to busy trying to support CS's ignorant arguments than making sense, why would I need help on this?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#242509 Jun 10, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>SOme might say they didn't f'her up bad enough.
She seems to think anyone here takes her seriously, besides the Skank, and even SHE doesn't take her seriously. Lynnie is a useful idiot, a tool for some others to play off of, but not much else.
Personally, I Think its amusing as hell to wind her up and see how long she spins. She's still as easy as she was as a teen apparently.
I know! I should probably knock it off but getting her going is my guilty pleasure. She's such a bimbo, I swear. BTW, I read some of Lynne Ds posts on that thread you linked and her ridiculous writing "style" is the same unique mess as Lily's. Between that and Lily's over-the-top defense of Lynne, who she had nothing to do with, is enough for anyone to realize that the two are the same person.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#242510 Jun 10, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it accomplishes a lot, for one thing, it shows how easy you are, and provides more laughter at you for so MANY of us here!!
ROFLMAO!
On the other hand, YOU just took the time to repost ALL of her posts, cementing the lie to your denials that you dont care.
You truly are a dumbass Lynne.
I think amusing myself and others is a worthwhile accomplishment, but I understand that someone as dour and mean as Lilynne wouldn't see the point. She's an ass and very good at it. However, I do appreciate her reposting all my comments. That was almost sweet of her.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#242511 Jun 10, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, I probably came off as being rude to you, I apologize.
I'm not sure which "knucklehead" you see as not getting it, I'm arguing the "legal" definition as put forth in R v W and asking for precedence to prove other wise. I just simply have not seen anyone show such yet, they just babble on about how they are right with nothing more than their opinion when legal precedence is against them.
Tell me Elise, what is your take on this? Did R v W legally define WHAT"viable" is?
I'm going to read the decision again before I answer. I'm not sure I want to actually attempt a serious discussion with some of the people on this thread. I usually come here to mess with them, not debate.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#242512 Jun 10, 2012
Some day I'll have to copyright this stuff...:)
pbfa wrote:
<quoted text>
I am SO reusing this!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#242513 Jun 10, 2012
It's okay, god told joseph in a dream to suck it up and deal, or words to that effect.
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
not just double standards but a contradiction in terms as well.
Think about this for a moment.
Mary gets knocked up by god. Who didn't give her a choice.. In any other story this would be a rape. But Mary is happy about all this....
Mary knocked up by a god she had no choice to say no to in the first place. Mary is now happy about this unwanted pregnancy by a god., That we are now to believe that ole Joesph is all to happy to care of now.
In a culture that not only frowns on this, but has some very lethal consequences to the woman for carrying a kid that is not her husbands.
Ummm does any one else see some blatant contradictions going on here?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#242514 Jun 10, 2012
No, because the lawyer isn't there to determine innocence or guilt; he is ther to provide the best defense of the defendant't rights concerning due process.

The priest is not an officer of the court and is not there to deal in legal matters. They may hide under the seal of confession, but unless it is specifically done in the manner of a confession, there is no such confidentiality. That the church would use confession to protect a child molester is a sad commentary on the morality of the RCC.
Susanm wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. We were talking about the RC church and their covering up abusive priests.
One of the points that was brought up is: What is the difference between one priest covering up the abuse of another priest, and a lawyer defending a person who admits that they commited a crime? Their guilt would be considered "privileged"and "confidential" information in both cases

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242515 Jun 10, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I'm going to read the decision again before I answer. I'm not sure I want to actually attempt a serious discussion with some of the people on this thread. I usually come here to mess with them, not debate.
Kev rocks and is well worth having a real and thoughtful discussion with.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#242516 Jun 10, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Really? So when he asserts that arguments from me and Doc are that a fetus MUST require "artifical aide" to be considered "viable", or when he suggests that my arguments are that R v W mandates States to proscribe abortion at viability, we should consider him as honest, even though he obviously intentionally twists what is said? Tell me, did you see my discussion with him when he portrays himself as a Florida prosecutor and suggested the victim of domestic abuse was equally responsible as the abuser if she returned, innocently, to the abusive relationship? Did you see him fail to understand what the definition of "Assault" was in Florida?
People can pretend to be what they are not here, I understand that, but to brag about how much better they are than others, like he has, well, yeah, we'll call him on that!
I'll be perfectly honest and confess that whenever those arguments about "viability" come up, I scroll past them.
I'm sick to death of this collective "pissing-contest" everyone's having over this.
I will say that whenever I've corresponded with "C-D," he's always been thoughtful, respectful and worthwhile.
I was going to say the same about you but your reactionary post here is giving me second thoughts with regards to that...

Look, I happen to like "C-D." I don't care one way or another whether you happen to approve of that or not.
I also like "Sue," and "Chicky," and a whole host of others who I'll not bother to name.
I do like some people on both sides of the aisle regarding this thread. Obviously, I'm bound to really annoy people in both camps by the stand I've taken.

Sorry, but that's simply who I am...

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#242517 Jun 10, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>It's partly sunny here.
Or is that partly cloudy?
Anyway, we're having some of those "sun breaks".

Finished my shift.
Walked around the lake with granddaughter.
But am ignoring the dishes right now.

:D
Sounds like a lovely day, Katie! Gotta love walks around lakes with grands!!

Yesterday I did dishes, laundry, and then prepared my entire house for a serious fumigation after the biggest damn wolf spider, ever, crawled into my room Friday night. A hazard of living in the freaking woods!(wait for it......)

Anyway I set off six fumigators and took my dog out for a few hours in the evening. So today, which is finally a warm sunny day, I'll hang out blankets and scrub things down knowing there won't be any hideous surprises. Anywhere. Ever. Again.

I'm pretty sure out in those woods the mice and spiders have been having orgies and that monster in my room was a cross breed. It was GIGANTIC.*shivers*. I heard it walking across some packing paper. I thought is was my dog sticking her nose in the packing paper.Think about that...... It was so big I HEARD IT WAKING on the paper. I found it curled up dead IN MY SNEAKER Sat. morning after a bath in bug spray. Effin spiders. Hate them.

They're probably anti choose fetus worshippers.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#242518 Jun 10, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
not just double standards but a contradiction in terms as well.
Think about this for a moment.
Mary gets knocked up by god. Who didn't give her a choice.. In any other story this would be a rape. But Mary is happy about all this....
Mary knocked up by a god she had no choice to say no to in the first place. Mary is now happy about this unwanted pregnancy by a god., That we are now to believe that ole Joesph is all to happy to care of now.
In a culture that not only frowns on this, but has some very lethal consequences to the woman for carrying a kid that is not her husbands.
Ummm does any one else see some blatant contradictions going on here?
The modern legendary versions of the scriptures has Mary and Joseph all happy and everything is rainbows and glitter, but in reality Mary was not very happy and put up a fuss and was almost dumped by Joseph. The Christian versions are quite sanitized and polished.

The Christian version also sets up the idea that women are simply breeders who should be more than happy to be baby making machines who pump out dozens of new Christians in their exhausting lifetime.

God could have simply come to Earth in any form at any time but according to Christian mythology chose to come here via the hardship of a young girl who would eventually get to watch her son get tortured and executed. Nice.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#242519 Jun 10, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>Can just imagine the conversation among her "back-waxers:"
"Alright boys, no need to snicker, just plug them hedge-trimmers in and let's go to work!"
Lol.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#242520 Jun 10, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>Fundies are full of contradictions. They say whatever they think will support their dogma at the moment. They say God gave us "free will" and then talk about what God wants us to do, "God's will" they call it. So a woman uses her "free will" and chooses abortion and then the fundies say she's going against "God's will" or what "God wants".

ssdd?
Just a bunch of self righteous bs. The best part is that if they fail to do "gods will" it's ok because god forgives EVERYTHING. Always.

Well, except abortion and the evil demon women that murder their precious offspring. That needs to be made illegal even though there is nothing in the bible that is against it, nor anywhere "god" says life begins before birth. Not to mention no evidence whatsoever there is even a god.

It's all about the Fundies. NOT their god.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#242521 Jun 10, 2012
Susanm wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. We were talking about the RC church and their covering up abusive priests.
One of the points that was brought up is: What is the difference between one priest covering up the abuse of another priest, and a lawyer defending a person who admits that they commited a crime? Their guilt would be considered "privileged"and "confidential" information in both cases
A lawyer and a client have a different relationship than two priests who are colleagues.

Is this post of yours another attempt to defend and justify what those child raping priests, and the ones who covered for them, did? I found your post to be disgusting.

What is it with this faux-Christian prevalence to use the defense that other people may have done something similar so what's the big deal? That's like saying *well yeah John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer but heck so what Jeffry Dahmer, so what?*.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#242522 Jun 10, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see a double standard. There are standards and there are no standards. There are morals and there are no morals. That's where free will comes in. You can pick to live either way. Get it 'free will'?
Actually, you're making that up. Jesus handed a bunch of murderous men some stones and said yeah the one who is sin free can go first. NO ONE DID. NO ONE. You must have missed that. In addition, when he said go and sin no more, he didn't follow her around calling her "baby killer", or "whore" or tell anyone else to do that. She still had free will to choose what to do even after seeing the supposed ACTUAL JESUS.

And if what you're claiming is correct then once someone like you or knutter or swinedog commits your life to jesus then you're free will is OVER. You've used up your free will and made the "right" free will decision. So then, why do you have to keep going to confession and doing penance and get absolution if you've fulfilled your free will duties and have decided to live "with standards"??? Someone forcing you to "sin"??

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#242523 Jun 10, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, your a simpleton Kathy, that's understood, and it's why us Republicans, and teabaggers dont want you running the country.
Let me put it to you this way, if a man was convected of a sex crime, and later DNA proved him innocent, would the "Decision" keep him in jail even tough HOW the decision was reached was overturned?
"Fools like you" shouldn't vote, for the better of our country.
Ahh badaxe youy are a fool..

here in lies the difference between us.. i want you to vote.. I want you to open your fool mouth so that people will understand just what sort of idiots like you are really trying to do to this wonderful country.

Typical far right conservative advising people not to vote. When they do not like to hear from the other side.

Guess what I vote in just about every election. Excepting of course the democrat/republican primary.

And I stand by my post when i stated
The Opinion talks about how the Decision was made. it is not The Decision.
"I now really understand how the republican/teabagger/birther stay in business. Fools like you just keep right on believing in any fool thinmg that is sold to you by the far right.
Sheesh you can take any part of the Opinion out of context, but it is still not the Decision any more than the Concurrence or the Dissent."

And I really do think you should join the birther cause BadAxe I think it would be a good fit for you. As they are as clueless of the Constitution as you are here.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Homer 1,484,003
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Patriot 10,806
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 17 hr Chosen Traveler 32,719
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jan 20 Sue 286
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Jan 17 Go Blue Forever 75
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jan 17 louis 19
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jan 15 RiccardoFire 201,891
More from around the web