Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310175 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.

rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294227 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the situation in countries where abortion is currently illegal prove your speculation wrong.
I don't know if you addressed my post from yesterday, or if you didn't see it, so I'll ask again. Are you aware that in Canada, a country that has NO legal restrictions to abortion, there were only slightly more than 64,000 abortions in the latest recorded year, and have had less than 4,000,000 performed since abortion was decriminalized?
RvW doesn't give anyone a "pass", it gives women a choice, and the best possibility of doing what many would do anyway safely.
On the Canada thing..and I did not see it..anyway I have no answer. OBVIOUSLY they are doing something else to prevent pregnancy or having mord babies.

But I cannog imagine that having somd rsstri tions here. A few. Makes womdn have mord. If tgat is what yoh mean..its illogical. Bug maybe I am misunderstanding the post?

IF THEYard hsving so many fewer..Thsnk God and wd should figurs out wht becsuse abortion is Not Criminalized here. So that is not why. So whatever else they are doing ..we should too.

Of course I think even 64 thou is high also bug nothing like here.
razzmatazz

Falls City, NE

#294228 Apr 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Rose. Many so called "christians" here, such as Gtown and Tomtom (who you just responded to), Knutter among others - consistantly demean Jews and anyone else of different faiths. I apologize to YOU and to other actual Christians if I come across as harsh, but having one's faith constantly demeaned and bastardized by these fools is ridiculous, PARTICULARLY when they whine that its done to them constantly.
I gave a link in my previous post you may find interesting.
LOL, we don't demean Jews. You demean God by believing in the slaughter of the unborn.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294229 Apr 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you read that of all (100%) the women at risk for unintended pregnancy 11% did not use contraception the month they got pregnant, would't you automatically realize 89% did use contraception the month they got pregnant?"
Not if they aren't using conraception correctly and/or consistantly. They might as well not be using contraception at all.
So you cannot state how the op was using a misleading number? I'll tell you what, the differentiation was with those at risk for unintended pregnancy. The op wasn't using a misleading number as you claimed.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294230 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. No woman is required to look at an ultrasound in an OB/GYNs office, Rose. And one is not required to be performed on any pregnant woman there unless the doctor thinks it's necessary. And even then, a woman can refuse to even have one.
You are wrong. In NO other medical situation is a person forced to have a medically unnecessary procedure in order to have another legal procedure done. None. And you really need to stop ignoring the fact that we are not talking about anything OTHER than a doctor being FORCED to perform one, and her being FORCED to look at/hear about one by law.
If a woman chooses to look, and changes her mind, that is one thing. If she is FORCED to look, that is manipulation, and that's another. Just like it is if a woman's husband browbeats her into having an abortion. BOTH are wrong. Those laws are not done for the purpose of information, but to manipulate the outcome. That is wrong. Period.
YOU are assuming she doesn't already know what's there. And there is no evidence, in states where these kinds of laws are already in place, that it has changed even ONE woman's mind in the first place. Yet they've had to pay for an unnecessary medical procedure with no other purpose that to TRY to change her mind, because some busybodies want to affect the outcome. It's none of their business.
WHO should make our medical decisions for us, Rose? Us, with the expert advice of our physicians? Or politicians who have no medical training, and who are just trying to fulfill a political agenda?
But who says it is medically unecessary.. and how can they firce her to look at it.

In yhe case of OBs who deliver babies..at some point they are going to fo sn ultrasound as part of care..for msny reasons. But it is standard care these days..whether or not the eoman looks at it is not relevant to hef care.

Yes in my day docs did not use them..There were none but I do belirve it is the standard of care now. I kearned a lot from the pregnancies of mh kids. So manh yools the docs havs snd use them. Yhey dont just go by feel now.

Perslnally think thst maybe thr docs want the uktrasounds to know mord about the abortion.
Yes it costs. But it would have to be safer. Shd can close her eyes..but zi bet at a lot of clknucs the screen is not even in her line if sight if she chooses nof to see. And I jmagine a lot choose not to.
Her lookkng is not as important ad the doc seeing. BUG it is tgerd for her to see if she WANTS to. IT SHOULD be. IMHO
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294231 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yes, but it only boils because the stove is a direct conduit to "god's glory."
<quoted text>
Heh! Funny, Cptr!!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#294232 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
On the Canada thing..and I did not see it..anyway I have no answer. OBVIOUSLY they are doing something else to prevent pregnancy or having mord babies.
But I cannog imagine that having somd rsstri tions here. A few. Makes womdn have mord. If tgat is what yoh mean..its illogical. Bug maybe I am misunderstanding the post?
IF THEYard hsving so many fewer..Thsnk God and wd should figurs out wht becsuse abortion is Not Criminalized here. So that is not why. So whatever else they are doing ..we should too.
Of course I think even 64 thou is high also bug nothing like here.
What I am saying is that your speculation that without RvW people would be more "responsible" is incorrect, based on the facts at hand. Again, you failed to address my point about the abortion rates in countries where it is currently illegal being about the same as here.

And we don't have SOME restrictions or just "a few", we have quite a few in many states, and people on your side of the debate are promoting more and more on a daily basis.

You do realize that if abortion were illegal, there would be NO restrictions or oversight at all, right?
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294233 Apr 29, 2013
PLAYA it was mh prdvious post to Bigner not Ocean. On yours I coukd nog get the scroll to get to reply on the quote part. SORRY

Ladt 2 posts to Bitner kn ultrasound

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#294234 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Just a suggestion; we all have to find our own path.
I find it interesting that my post to you got a negative icon. Hmmm...
<quoted text>
I'll get it together eventually...and then I'll probably forget where I put it!!

The negative icon thing doesn't surprise me at all...there are so many negative folks in here, that it's a surprise my posts don't get more of them....

:)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#294235 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
But who says it is medically unecessary.. and how can they firce her to look at it.
In yhe case of OBs who deliver babies..at some point they are going to fo sn ultrasound as part of care..for msny reasons. But it is standard care these days..whether or not the eoman looks at it is not relevant to hef care.
Yes in my day docs did not use them..There were none but I do belirve it is the standard of care now. I kearned a lot from the pregnancies of mh kids. So manh yools the docs havs snd use them. Yhey dont just go by feel now.
Perslnally think thst maybe thr docs want the uktrasounds to know mord about the abortion.
Yes it costs. But it would have to be safer. Shd can close her eyes..but zi bet at a lot of clknucs the screen is not even in her line if sight if she chooses nof to see. And I jmagine a lot choose not to.
Her lookkng is not as important ad the doc seeing. BUG it is tgerd for her to see if she WANTS to. IT SHOULD be. IMHO
Haven't you been paying attention? The laws are the they doctor MUST perform and ultrasound, even when it is not medically necessary, and that they MUST either show her, or describe to her, the ultrasound in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. THAT is what we are objecting to. NO ONE is objecting to a woman looking if she chooses. No one.

If a doctor doesn't think it's medically necessary, then it is. If he doesn't, then it's not. But the law takes away from him that judgment call that only he is qualified to make. And there is NO medical reason to try to force a woman to look at it, or hear the fetus described by law.

HOW will her looking at it make the procedure safer when it's the DOCTOR performing it? Please don't ignore this question.

And no, you are wrong about obstetricians. They MAY at some point SUGGEST an ultrasound. Yes, it falls under routine care. But they are not required to do so by law, and the woman can refuse to have it done. NO ONE is trying to force it on the woman under those circumstances. And there is no medical reason to require one by law for all abortions.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294236 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you been paying attention? The laws are the they doctor MUST perform and ultrasound, even when it is not medically necessary, and that they MUST either show her, or describe to her, the ultrasound in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. THAT is what we are objecting to. NO ONE is objecting to a woman looking if she chooses. No one.
If a doctor doesn't think it's medically necessary, then it is. If he doesn't, then it's not. But the law takes away from him that judgment call that only he is qualified to make. And there is NO medical reason to try to force a woman to look at it, or hear the fetus described by law.
HOW will her looking at it make the procedure safer when it's the DOCTOR performing it? Please don't ignore this question.
And no, you are wrong about obstetricians. They MAY at some point SUGGEST an ultrasound. Yes, it falls under routine care. But they are not required to do so by law, and the woman can refuse to have it done. NO ONE is trying to force it on the woman under those circumstances. And there is no medical reason to require one by law for all abortions.
I wrote a post addressing this last night that's gone unanswered. And how there are lawsuits in the works regarding the forced ultrasound unconstitutional. Guess we'll have to wait and see how this turns out before Rose is willing to venture her idea may not be such a hot one after all.
Gtown71

United States

#294237 Apr 29, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>I said the Topix Community. A community is a little bit larger than one or two ppl.@@ dealing with a damn 4th grader here.
To be fair -I did use the word represent :)

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#294238 Apr 29, 2013
Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of the time, dummy. Other times its lying, scheming, anti choicers LIKE YOU, reporting every posts in an effort to get me banned like RC admitted. It sure is amusing when one on your side has a fit of conscience, comes clean and admits the deception from you reprehensible liars,, huh? Don't think I don't know your part in all of that.
Like with Lyin lily/lori/lynne/pervsevere and BS'er.
:-D
You are,'t worth that much if my time.
Gtown71

United States

#294239 Apr 29, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>This might come as a shock, but Prophets are not held in high esteem in the Old Testament. It was the Priests, who performed all religious acts. The prophets were enemies of the Priests.
The irony is that those whom opposed the Priests in Jerusalem were the Pharisees (prophets) so Jesus would have been a Pharisee and in Christianity Pharisees are hipocrites.
There is a way the seems right to a man.:)

I'm just going to stab at it, but since the bible sorta tells alot about Jesus /pharasees . If Jesus was one, He wasn't a Gold card member.:)

He wasn't one by the way.

I've offered this suggestion before, but instead of trying to fiquer stuff out in our own minds, why not just call upon the name of the Lord, and the only living God, is the only One, who could come forth :)
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#294240 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Read most of that page i do know Jews do not believe He was Messiah. Obviously I do. I believe He will the prophecies that are mentioned..When He returns. I believe He did fulfill some of them Isaih for one. I wish I was more knowledgeable on prophecy.
And at that time. The end of what we know as the world now. The Messiah will come. We will All know Who He is:)
But one of my pet peeves..is putting down people of the Jewish faith. To me..and most Christians..we are the adooted chikdren of Abraham. This was told that he would be father to many nations.
There are Jews who believe He was Messiah..Messianic .. and more who dont..As I say we will all know soon enough..until then ..we have the freedom to believe what we do.
Do I hate when people make fun of my lord..ljke feces..you bet. But as I say..it is not mg pkace to put down those who worship the same God as I do..or anyone else..for their Faith. DESPite What I believe. And why on earth Would Anyone Listen To What I Say About Jesus if I make fun of their religious beliefs. I may feel they are way off. Then I just try not to comment.
But the Old Testament is part of my own beliefs. If I mock it ..I mock myself and the Jew who is my Lord.
As I said in my last post ..lol. I try to shut my kindle if I get really riled up. Prince caught me at a bad moment and enough is enough. And peolle making fun of or cursing me. I try not to answer. Z :)
Are you a faux-Christian troll? I never demened "real" Jews. grumpy is a real jew. The pagan lesbain isn't. She is a faux-jew. She uses the jewish label to justify and protect her anti-Chritian tirades. I know and associate with many people of the jewish Faith and think of them as brethern. Ask your new lesbain buddy about the idea of the "Judeo-Christian" philosophy and see her response. These are evil and vile people. They are the mouthpieces of Satan. You can kiss their azzes if you like, I know better. At some poin they wil turn on you and you will be the newest Christian "troll".

But play along for now. You are either a faux-Christian or just naieve.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#294241 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Name these scientists.
By your logic, foreskins are a part of a man's life. Having them removed is a form of insanity.
<quoted text>
"By your logic, foreskins are a part of a man's life. Having them removed is a form of insanity."

In a way, yes. It is a barbaric practice that has no relevence in the modern world. It is the intentional mutilation of a male child. The pagan females love it, sinc ethey hate men. I would guess you would support the mutilation of a female childs vagina, if it was a cultures tradition.

Hypocrite!

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#294242 Apr 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So you cannot state how the op was using a misleading number? I'll tell you what, the differentiation was with those at risk for unintended pregnancy. The op wasn't using a misleading number as you claimed.
What would be an important number would be: the number of women who used contraception correctly and consistantly.
worships reality

United States

#294243 Apr 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh! Funny, Cptr!!
it wasn't even faintly amusing.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#294244 Apr 29, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
My advice is not to response to The Prince, he is clearly a troll out to get as many responses as he can muster.
Says the vile pagan that uses a disgusting hateful anti-Chrisitan avitar. Of course any real Christian is a troill to you nest of pagans. I will never stop speaking up for the millions of unborn children slaughtered in this country. You continue your proabortion rants. I will keep figthing the reality that human life begins at conception and to intentionaly destroy that life is a sin against mankind and God.

If that makes me a troll in the eyes of some Satan infested pagans, I wear the title proudly!

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#294245 Apr 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to your friend foo, she feels she speaks for all of y'all :)
Plus I noticed she said I do mean things to jews. Lol
My salvation is based on a Jew.:)
May God bless the Jews :)
I'm just as guilty but spelling out the word that starts with a G and ends in a d is kinda mean. Do you know why she doesn't spell out the word? It's interesting, maybe she'll explain it.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#294246 Apr 29, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a faux-Christian troll? I never demened "real" Jews. grumpy is a real jew. The pagan lesbain isn't. She is a faux-jew. She uses the jewish label to justify and protect her anti-Chritian tirades. I know and associate with many people of the jewish Faith and think of them as brethern. Ask your new lesbain buddy about the idea of the "Judeo-Christian" philosophy and see her response. These are evil and vile people. They are the mouthpieces of Satan. You can kiss their azzes if you like, I know better. At some poin they wil turn on you and you will be the newest Christian "troll".
But play along for now. You are either a faux-Christian or just naieve.
You're actually starting to sound like a Skinhead.

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) 11 min Anon 243,134
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min GOPidiots 1,250,621
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 55 min LonePalm 6,215
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... 3 hr Brian_G 1,625
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) 14 hr Fartin24 7 22
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Tue KeS 201,822
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jun 29 tom wingo 29,826
More from around the web