Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309860 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.

feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#291020 Mar 28, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying that a miscarriage is still technically an abortion is not the same thing as saying there is medically no difference between a spontaneous and an induced abortion.
You remain......not so bright.
Her point, which everyone seems to ignore, is that spontaneous abortions are still counted as abortions.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#291021 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
In the medical field, there is no miscarriage.
There is spontaneous and induced abortion.
Medically abortion is defined as pregnancy ending prior to term. Look it up and verify for yourself instead of trying to argue.
They just don't want to accept that and instead let their personal feelings inhibit their ability to understand something so simple.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#291022 Mar 28, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
They just don't want to accept that and instead let their personal feelings inhibit their ability to understand something so simple.
Yes, and the layers of nuance in your words have not been missed (by me at least). Look at all the havoc being wreaked over women's civil rights while wall street and corporations as people go ignored. It's a misdirection by those in authority. But to what gain? Drive us into the dirt until there's no middle class and we're no different than Venezuela or Brazil?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#291023 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What? I'm complaining? Is that how you take in other people's information/reality? In such a negative light you may as well as heard ocean waves drowning out all sound?
:(
These women who think that speaking up about the realities of life is whining and complaining are riding on the coat tails of the ones who aren't afraid of fighting for what we deserve. They reap the benefits of activism, but sit back "demurely," saying nothing and doing nothing. Oh, well, let them. They're afraid.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291024 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
<Sigh>, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you've been misquoting me again.
I'll leave it there people can see for themselves.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291025 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
And what? You take that to mean it's the responsibility of the abortion procedure and laws rather than the people who didn't do their jobs properly? That's what Sue was claiming last night. That Gosnell was allowed to stay open because of abortion.
I disagree with that claim. People didn't do their jobs properly. So Gosnell was allowed to remain open when he shoulda been hauled off and closed for good.
The grand jury described 'why' they didn't do their jobs and it was becaus for the reason that I posted.
Ocean56

AOL

#291026 Mar 28, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
Sorry,but working in the home is not a low life position like you suggest by your derogatory remarks. Women take pride in their lives and just because you hate putting your motherhood first,doesn't mean that you speak for all women. Mothers abandoning their parental roles as moms to do outside work is not "progress". You want to have a child,then raise the child,not dump your responsibilities on another.
As far as I'M concerned, if a woman's ONLY options in life are marriage and motherhood and nothing else, then that WOULD be a miserable position for a woman to be in. Contrary to what YOU want to believe, not all women WANT to be wives or mothers, and thankfully, they aren't forced to do so. Thankfully, many women (in the U.S. and other more progressive countries at least) ARE free to have higher educations and careers afterward and only become wives and mothers if they WANT to.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if regressive imbeciles like you, Gtown, Tommydumdum, and others had your way, women would still be stuck in the 19th century, with NO rights at all. Thanks to the 19th and 20th century feminists, women DO have rights, many of which you undoubtedly take for granted, while trashing the brave women who fought so hard to obtain them. Personally, I'm very glad I was born in the mid-20th century, NOT the 19th. IMO that was an absolutely miserable time for women.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291027 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You two have overactive imaginations. AND you two are the ones being overly emotional, as you accuse US of being.
My mother was pro-choice, and it bothered me not at all. I'm pro-choice, and it bothers my children not at all.
It's not about you even though you try to put yourself in the middle of everything.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291028 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's not because they hold abortion as more important. Which is what you'd claimed last night. And I disagreed with it.
So are you now seeing it as people didn't do their jobs properly or are you still holding the abortion procedure and laws to blame for Gosnell's clinic being ignored for so damn long?
Sure it is. Can you imagine the uproar if those conditions were found, and then ignored, in any other medical "clinic"?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291029 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What? I'm complaining? Is that how you take in other people's information/reality? In such a negative light you may as well as heard ocean waves drowning out all sound?
:(
Sorry you responded to a post I wrote to elise. She was the whiner not you. Your post was very positive.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291030 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
And what? You take that to mean it's the responsibility of the abortion procedure and laws rather than the people who didn't do their jobs properly? That's what Sue was claiming last night. That Gosnell was allowed to stay open because of abortion.
I disagree with that claim. People didn't do their jobs properly. So Gosnell was allowed to remain open when he shoulda been hauled off and closed for good.
"And what? You take that to mean it's the responsibility of the abortion procedure and laws rather than the people who didn't do their jobs properly? That's what Sue was claiming last night. That Gosnell was allowed to stay open because of abortion."

It's the responsibility of the people who were willing to put woman's lives at risk to protect the sanctity of abortion. Women don't mean much, abortion does.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291031 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
In the medical field, there is no miscarriage.
There is spontaneous and induced abortion.
Medically abortion is defined as pregnancy ending prior to term. Look it up and verify for yourself instead of trying to argue.
"There is spontaneous and induced abortion."

Why do you think that there would be a need to differentiate if there was no difference?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291033 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
In the medical field, there is no miscarriage.
There is spontaneous and induced abortion.
Medically abortion is defined as pregnancy ending prior to term. Look it up and verify for yourself instead of trying to argue.
Do you realize that doctors have covered up botched abortions by playing with the wording of their reports this way?

A doc can put in their report that they did a D&C to remove "retained products of conception" because of an incompete abortion. An incomplete abortion can be caussed by the doc failing to remove all of the fetus during the abortion, or it can be because the woman's body failed to expell the fetus after it died.
bman

Commack, NY

#291034 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you repeating yourself? The answers are in the post you responded to. Learn to decipher.
You didn't answer my question. I guess that explains a lot.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#291035 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
In the medical field, there is no miscarriage.
There is spontaneous and induced abortion.
Medically abortion is defined as pregnancy ending prior to term. Look it up and verify for yourself instead of trying to argue.
You're repeating yourself sweetheart. I've already acknowledged that by definition they are both considered abortions.
That does NOT mean that medically there is no difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced abortion.

Death by a bullet through the heart and death by congenital heart defect would both be defined as death by cardiac arrest. Both could hardly be considered medically the same.

I am not arguing precious. I'm stating fact.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#291036 Mar 28, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Her point, which everyone seems to ignore, is that spontaneous abortions are still counted as abortions.
No, that was YOUR point. And I know I didn't ignore it. It's the first thing I acknowledged in my response to her.
Her point is that there is medically no difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced abortion. Which is absurd.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#291037 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The fetus is not separate from the woman carrying it. It is part of her body as her body fulfills all requirements necessary to keep fetus alive. Woman dies, fetus usually dies. Woman drinks and drugs, fetus has withdrawals after delivery. Without the woman, there is no fetus. Until the scientists finalize their artificial womb. That day's getting closer, but a different topic altogether.
Not every state recognizes fetal homicide laws. These laws were designed to protect the women who'd lost their wanted pregnancies to a 3rd party.
Wrong. These laws were not designed to protect the women who'd lost a wanted pregnancy. If it were the reason they were designed then the laws would have been embraced by the pro choicers. In fact they opposed them. The laws were designed to create a separate homicide victim that the perpetrator could be prosecuted for killing. The PC brigade opposed the creation of the fetus as a separate victim, believing it was a step in the direction of granting the fetus rights.
Your "wanted" pregnancy assertion also misses the boat as a perpetrator could still be charged with fetal homicide in an attack on a woman in the waiting room of a clinic awaiting termination of that "unwanted" pregnancy.

In the past, the lost fetus was not recognized in court and not compensated for if charges were brought up.
You see, women legally have civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. This allows them to accept or reject their pregnancies and determine their own futures from there.
When a 3rd party comes along and assaults or kills the woman and she loses her pregnancy or her fetus is injured, the courts in the past did not recognize this as a loss. Now they do. And the women or their family members left behind can seek compensation while the 3rd party can be tried and, hopefully, convicted for it.

Why don't you go back and read prior posts? These topics get repeated and cycled every few weeks, months, hell every few hours sometimes.
Yeah they do get recycled. And no matter how many times they do.....you STILL get it wrong.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#291038 Mar 28, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a signifigant difference. One is intentional, one is not.
Of course it's a significant difference. Never understood where these nudniks were going with this line of reasoning anyway.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291039 Mar 28, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was YOUR point. And I know I didn't ignore it. It's the first thing I acknowledged in my response to her.
Her point is that there is medically no difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced abortion. Which is absurd.
foo makes the brilliant point that one is decided by the woman's body and the other her mind.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#291040 Mar 28, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm sure you don't.
Of course she wouldn't find it significant. She's stupid.

But ask Bitter this --- If it isn't a significant difference then why the need for RvW ? The SC did not have to decide that woman had the right to spontaneously abort....and spontaneously aborting was never illegal. So if they are both effectively the same with no significant difference, then why did the SC feel it necessary to hear and render a decision on one......and not the other ?

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 239,069
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min RoxLo 1,232,441
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 16 min Pvidal 5,562
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Fri Hector Valente 201,809
Seeking financial and lending help or assistanc... (Jan '13) Fri Olsen Pole 4
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri tom wingo 29,760
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) May 17 tom wingo 84
More from around the web