Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310174 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.

IRYW

Malvern, PA

#293379 Apr 24, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<........ I can only speak for myself..
For which we are grateful. The alternative is life grinding to a halt.......

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293380 Apr 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing you took the headline of this article at face value, and left it at that.
I read the rest, and the second paragraph ends with a lie:
"Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor."
She ACTUALLY testified that "...the decision to AID an infant who survives a failed abortion, should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor." Not the decision to kill it...the decision of whether or not heroic measures should be taken to save it, if it is dying. KILLING BORN BABIES IS ILLEGAL.
Why do you idiots think just because you're unwilling to read what you post, that we don't??
That wasn't even a good try.
How do you go from "....the decision to AID an infant..." to taking heroic measures ? Is putting a perfectly viable and otherwise healthy infant on a respirator to temporarily assist in its breathing considered a "heroic" measure ?

And what does "Left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor" even mean ? Suppose they disagree ? Do they flip a coin ? Who has the final say....the woman or the doctor ?

Doc: "Well looks like we got a perfectly viable healthy infant here. It just may need a little temporary artificial assistance to breathe. What do you want me to do with the little bugger ?

Woman: "Is it a boy or a girl ?"

Doc: "Girl"

Woman: "Nah....deep six the little sucker."

Who are you anyway ? I'm starting to go through your body of work here and your posts for the most part are insipidly inane. And you have this propensity for ending them with stupid post scripts like "next" and "just saying".....which ring a familiar bell.

Come clean. Just which previous posting PC dope are you ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293381 Apr 24, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think that that is relevant to anyone but you? This country is not a theocracy. What does your personal religious beliefs have to do with abortion law?
Nothing. Just because some oppose abortion on religious grounds does not make it an issue of religion. It is an issue of basic fundamental human rights. Argue it on that basis....if you can. My guess is you can't. If you could you'd have already done it by now.
Bit-O-Honey

Mooresville, NC

#293382 Apr 24, 2013
razzmatazz wrote:
<quoted text>Your defending Gosnell? He snipped live babies spinal cords, what kind of a monster are you Bitner?
First off, you're as dumb a bitch as Ink is. I'm NOT Bitner.

Second, your moron friend Skunky seems to think he's not a murderer. Go bitch to her.
Bit-O-Honey

Mooresville, NC

#293383 Apr 24, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. Just because some oppose abortion on religious grounds does not make it an issue of religion.
It does when they MAKE it about religion.
It is an issue of basic fundamental human rights. Argue it on that basis....if you can. My guess is you can't. If you could you'd have already done it by now.
The human rights are the womans, there's nothing to argue about there - except for those that want her rights taken away.

Are you one of those freaks that thinks abortion is a violation of the so called rights that a ZEF does NOT have?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293384 Apr 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you.
No. Says RvW :

"....State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion...."

You're stupid.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293385 Apr 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>You'd have to ask the State's legislators.
No she wouldn't. She'd simply have to read the RvW decision. They make it pretty clear what the state's interest is.
But you won't, because you don't really want to know. You just want to sit in judgment at your computer, bleat out the same inane questions, and pretend you're 'preventing' some woman, somewhere, from making her own legal medical choices.
Weird.
Who are you......really ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293386 Apr 24, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Its weider that you completely ignore the answers you've been given. "future tax-payers" ring a bell you dunce?
What a moron.....future taxpayer. Not even the SC used that terminology. Is it not a potential future taxpayer at 22 weeks prior to viability as it is at a viable 30 weeks ?

She's not been ignoring the the answers. The question has never been answered. Sure you parrot the RvW text that establishes some arbitrary point at which a fetus is worthy of legal protection but not one of you nudniks has ever answered the question of "why". And that is what is being asked. Why should a woman be beholden to some selected point in her pregnancy beyond which she cannot legally abort for any reason she wishes ? Does it cease being her body at this point ? Is it not still her private medical decision ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293387 Apr 24, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
It does when they MAKE it about religion.
No it doesn't. They can make it about anything they want to make it about. Doesn't make it so. Argue your position on it's merits. I'm betting you can't.
You come across as a real lightweight. Figuratively speaking that is.
The human rights are the womans, there's nothing to argue about there - except for those that want her rights taken away.
Are you one of those freaks that thinks abortion is a violation of the so called rights that a ZEF does NOT have?
Are you one of those freaks that thinks a fetus has to possess rights in order to be afforded legal protection ? Wake up. They already are.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#293388 Apr 24, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you go from "....the decision to AID an infant..." to taking heroic measures ? Is putting a perfectly viable and otherwise healthy infant on a respirator to temporarily assist in its breathing considered a "heroic" measure ?
And what does "Left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor" even mean ? Suppose they disagree ? Do they flip a coin ? Who has the final say....the woman or the doctor ?
Doc: "Well looks like we got a perfectly viable healthy infant here. It just may need a little temporary artificial assistance to breathe. What do you want me to do with the little bugger ?
Woman: "Is it a boy or a girl ?"
Doc: "Girl"
Woman: "Nah....deep six the little sucker."
Who are you anyway ? I'm starting to go through your body of work here and your posts for the most part are insipidly inane. And you have this propensity for ending them with stupid post scripts like "next" and "just saying".....which ring a familiar bell.
Come clean. Just which previous posting PC dope are you ?
Insipidly inane? Were those your new words for the day?

I take it you favor boys? What's with this 'deep six the girl' shit?

Oh, and I'm you, of course. Isn't everyone?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#293389 Apr 24, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No she wouldn't. She'd simply have to read the RvW decision. They make it pretty clear what the state's interest is.
Correct. The state's interest is in the viability...of the future taxpayer.
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>Who are you......really ?
Not a playa...at least you know that much.
I'm...really...a poster on this message board.
The one your mama warned you about...
Why are you so curious....really?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293390 Apr 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Insipidly inane? Were those your new words for the day?
I take it you favor boys? What's with this 'deep six the girl' shit?
Oh, and I'm you, of course. Isn't everyone?
And in all of this tripe, still not one answer to any of the questions I asked.
I'm gonna have fun dissecting your idiocy.

You're a lightweight.

Who are you......really ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#293391 Apr 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. The state's interest is in the viability...of the future taxpayer.
No, the state's interest in protecting fetal life. There is no mention of their interest as a taxpayer. Do state's enact murder laws for the purpose ensuring more tax revenue ?
Besides, there's no guarantee that that life would end up paying taxes. It could end up as a deadbeat parasite.....like you.
<quoted text>Not a playa...at least you know that much.
I'm...really...a poster on this message board.
The one your mama warned you about...
Why are you so curious....really?
Not a playa my ass. Who are you....really. C'mon. We won't think any less of you. How could we ?

Just sayin'

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#293392 Apr 24, 2013
I don't think razz should be around small children.
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That poster is not me, Moron. Learn to read. Look at a map. Have a small child teach you how.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#293393 Apr 24, 2013
It's a sad story, but it happened before I was born. But it certainly showed me at an early age how to deal with tough situations and death.
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>So sorry Cp.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293394 Apr 24, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, believe whatever you choose to believe.
When are you going to get outraged when women are forced to continue unwanted pregnancies? You do know that that happens as much as forced abortion, right?
Oh is that legal

Seems like the only forcing that is legal is to have tge abortion..or call it coersion..

I thought a woman always legally has the choice to abort
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#293395 Apr 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Approximately 3500 women will make a choice to end their pregnancies. And approximately three times as many will make the choice to CONTINUE their pregnancies.
No, the numbers don't stagger me, because I realize two things...
a)It's always a question of one woman making a choice for one pregnancy, and
b)It's none of my business.
I should care what Hillary Clinton says, why, exactly?
Of course you don't care. You are a proabortion pagan. One of many in here. You are part of the culture of death and proud of it. The deaths of so many unborn children on your conscience. The only way you can sleep at night is by being a pagan.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#293396 Apr 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't think razz should be around small children.
<quoted text>
This from the gay guy. You do realize all the problems the Catholics had with their gay priests and young children. You guys should just stick to eqch others buts.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#293397 Apr 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post here is tacit acknowledgement that there IS a difference between what Gosnell did, and what legally run clinics do.
The only difgference is he got caught. Abortionariums all operate the same way. They profit off of death, and you support them, pagan.
Gtown71

United States

#293398 Apr 24, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks,weirdo:)
I prefer passionate creative thinker, but weirdo works.:)
You're a strong lady, and really been on my mind. I wish I could show you elise, but I can't.

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) 12 min shinningelectr0n 1,252,386
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Aura Mytha 243,503
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sun Earthling-1 6,277
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Sun GoGoGrandMaHillary 1,653
News Trail Blazers 'like what Tim Frazier brings' at... Sat Fartman 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 4 tom wingo 29,828
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) Jul 2 Fartman 24
More from around the web