Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,232
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. Full Story
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294252 Apr 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be an important number would be: the number of women who used contraception correctly and consistantly.
<sigh>
Never said otherwise.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294253 Apr 29, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
it wasn't even faintly amusing.
Go find your sense of humor. Monday shouldn't be that bad...

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#294254 Apr 29, 2013
razzmatazz wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, we don't demean Jews. You demean God by believing in the slaughter of the unborn.
Razz, saying the Jewish faith demeans God is demeaning.*facepalm*
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294255 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
HMM thought I answered. Something that they are doing is replacing abortion. Restrictions or not. IF there are none it is not logical to assume thst the restrictions cause More maybe they get better BC and sex ed. Maybe they dont HOOK up as much.maybe their kids are not ss hooked on following the exsmples of Hollywood. Have no idea.

I know that if Roe went away tomorrow..it would tske a long time for society to change..But we are at heart self interested. We woukd adapt..MEN AND WOMEN. And yes some women may have unplanned pregnancies ..but the dads csn be forced to support..there is open and clisdx adoption etc. The smarter ones would be udong prote tion agson both men and women. Hsving had a heartbreakkng pregnancy..one is likely to do EVERYTHING to avoid it. I know I did gk the poiny of getting a ligation...but there is so much long term out there that ghey can use.

Anyway Bitner..I know this is supposition. It will never happen..we should maybe try to figure ouf why the rate is lower logically it has something to do with somethinv other than the availability of abortions..

Maybe it is our society that breeds so many. J get yout poiny but mjne is hypothetical..and does not involve destrying human life. Obviously we are at opposite ends. But maybe we on our side snd thd PC decision makers should figurs ouf why the differdnce inrates..is sbortion a business over there? Business and politics go hand in hand
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294256 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A WOMAN being forced to look at, or even voluntarily looking at, an ultrasound won't make the abortion any safer.
Still waiting for you to address my one post about the abortion rates in countries where it is currently illegal, and in Canada where there are no legal restrictions.
I keep saying tge doctor needs to look in a clinic or a regulat ob. Tge woman aborting or delivering does not. IT IS a standard of care BUT if she wants to it is there for her to look af. Why is everyone so afraid she will look or change her mind. I really do not understand.

Pkease ses I did answer best as pissible on Canada
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#294257 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.
True, or he a hateful, religious wacko.
Maybe both.....
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294258 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 did read. I think the law in a case it exists feels that this should be a standard of care..docs knowing MOREabout tge pregnancy. Maybe some are trying to preclude unsafe practices. I just dont see why more info is NOT bettef than less when it comes to womens bodies and procedures.
If some states dont do it ..than to me the woman is getting less care.

They are not bombarding her with xrays or using dosing her with extra drugs. Well unless she went to Gosnell

SORRY Bitner. Just dont see thexharm.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294259 Apr 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I read them. I feel we are still at an impasse on this one...the states whose ultrasound laws have not been overturned, are obliging women to undergo a procedure (trans-vaginal ultrasound in most cases, but trans-dermal in the rest) which their physician may or may not have recommended, but has been insisted upon by those who want to coerce her into making the decision THEY would prefer, rather than the one she went to the clinic to fulfill. It's coercion, Rose, because may of these states, I think 13 of them, require her to view the ultrasound, and have the fact that she did so documented by the physician, before an abortion can be legally performed.
My state legislature passed several laws last year, which were ruled Unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. One of which mandated women seeking an abortion to undergo, and view the results of, a trans-vaginal ultrasound beforehand, regardless of whether or not her doctor felt it was necessary - and I'm not just speaking of surgical abortions, but medical ones which don't require other invasive techniques.
Another, indemnified doctors from malpractice lawsuits, brought by women to whom the doctor had deliberately LIED about the condition of their fetuses, because the doctor THOUGHT they might consider abortion if they knew the truth. Doctors, under this law, would have been able to withhold information VITAL to that informed consent you speak of...without legal repercussions....just because of their BELIEF that the women might have CONSIDERED an abortion.
Another would have authorized a state-run website, onto which the age, county of residence, education level, occupation, and family size, of individual women obtaining an abortion would have been placed, for perusal by anyone who accessed the site.
All of these laws were passed in an effort to humiliate, coerce, and dehumanize women who seek a legal medical procedure. They were absurd, they were Unconstitutional, and they were overturned, thank goodness.
And I'm sorry, but I don't agree that people would have less, or even safer, sex, if abortion was illegal.
They would just have more unsafe abortions.
Well let me say Ughh to most of those laws .
I CAN see rquiring it..and maybe the woman signs something that she HAD one... not viewed it..And this can cover the doc in case tge abortion goes bad.

If tests ars done..much as I hate abortion..the woman should always have access to the info ...esp from her OB..

And websites..horrid...terrible.

I hete to say this but the measures you say were passed esp tge last sound like something thrown in to make sure they would be overthrown. Or sonething thrown in as a compromise to pass it.

When a simple bill saying that uktrasounds should be the standard of care for abortions and dekiveries eould have sufficed.

Have I said before I dont trust the pols. I dont.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#294260 Apr 29, 2013
I oppose circumcision. It is barbaric, but not necessarily insane. I don't believe a parent should e able to alter the child in any way before the age of majority--no tattoos, no piercings, nothing. Only in the case of actual medical necessity should circumcision be allowed.

BTW--it's mostly the (male) doctor who recommends circumcision, and the father who wants it.
The Prince wrote:
<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!

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#294261 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep saying tge doctor needs to look in a clinic or a regulat ob. Tge woman aborting or delivering does not. IT IS a standard of care BUT if she wants to it is there for her to look af. Why is everyone so afraid she will look or change her mind. I really do not understand.
Pkease ses I did answer best as pissible on Canada
Just for the record, I am not AFRAID that anyone will change her own mind, Rose. If she does, after viewing an ultrasound she requested, I'd be thrilled.

Are you so afraid she won't ask for one, that you think she should be coerced into it? Most women do ask, you know - but those are the ones who anticipate their delivery with joy, rather than apprehension and resentment. And seriously, do you think women who DON'T want to see the ultrasound believe they're carrying a fish, or a watermelon? They know what they're pregnant with, already.

I am appalled that she may be COERCED by the State to make a choice in the state's interest rather than her own. As much as that she may be coerced by her sexual partner, to HAVE an abortion. To me, both are equally wrong, but when the State does it, it's the law, while when a partner does it, it's against the law. Doesn't make sense.

I don't think the end justifies the means on this.

As I said, any pregnant women who WANT an ultrasound done, ALREADY GET THEM, pretty much without question. And any doctor who feels it's necessary to perform one before performing an abortion, ALREADY has every opportunity to ask her if she wants to see it...just not the obligation.

And women are always free to ASK for one themselves, if they want one, Rose.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#294262 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well let me say Ughh to most of those laws .
I CAN see rquiring it..and maybe the woman signs something that she HAD one... not viewed it..And this can cover the doc in case tge abortion goes bad.
If tests ars done..much as I hate abortion..the woman should always have access to the info ...esp from her OB..
And websites..horrid...terrible.
I hete to say this but the measures you say were passed esp tge last sound like something thrown in to make sure they would be overthrown. Or sonething thrown in as a compromise to pass it.
When a simple bill saying that uktrasounds should be the standard of care for abortions and dekiveries eould have sufficed.
Have I said before I dont trust the pols. I dont.
I can't tell you how glad I am that the courts said "uggh" to those laws too...

:)

But as far as your last assertion...the laws were made with the specific purpose of furthering the politicians' agenda... the woman's personhood be damned. The politicians were not shy about telling us this, when the Pro-Choice coalition asked many questions about their purpose and efficacy. "We believe they increase the chance that she will choose life," was the answer over and over again. And all of them passed handily in a mostly male, thoroughly Republican senate, and then again in the house. They're still on the books, but they are unenforcible
Gtown71

United States

#294263 Apr 29, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I have seen how she spells G-d, unless she's mad, then she has no problem spelling God, with all the trimmings .

Folks say I don't respect their religious views, or them yet so far I haven't used any vile words toward them, and have no idea who their god is, with foo it seems her god allows anything and everything, and all folks go to Heaven, even if they must go somewhere and burn off a few sins first??

Idk -What I do know, "believe" is Jesus saves.
I have seen what He can do.

He loves you and all people, and yet we see what the world thinks of Him.
They curse His name -this Man who came and died for them??

What if He wasn't even real? Still that kinda story would never warrent such a vile responce from so many???!!?

The reason people respond sooo vile toward His message, is becouse He is real, and it tears at their sin filled flesh "man", just like it did those who stoned Steven.

Foo says she is a jew????@@

May I ask if you have any spiritual beliefs?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#294264 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
we are at heart self interested. We woukd adapt..MEN AND WOMEN..
We have adapted - we invented birth control, and legalized the choice to terminate when it fails. Returning to the days when abortion was criminalized, through the closing of abortion clinics, and the persecution of responsible obstetricians who know what they're doing, will only cause more deaths.
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes some women may have unplanned pregnancies ..but the dads csn be forced to support...
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but, why is it so often about "force" with you, Rose? Force her to have an ultrasound, force the dads to pay child support, and basically attempt to 'force' her to keep her legs closed,'if she knows what's good for her'.
It doesn't work.
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
there is open and clisdx adoption etc. The smarter ones would be udong prote tion agson both men and women.
Leaving the dumber ones the only ones procreating unintentionally?

What's that going to look like in 50 years?
Gtown71

United States

#294265 Apr 29, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
True, or he a hateful, religious wacko.
Maybe both.....
I wish he could be more of a loving person like you FECES FOR JESUS.@@
sarcasim implied :)
Bit-O-Honey

Mooresville, NC

#294266 Apr 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen how she spells G-d, unless she's mad, then she has no problem spelling God, with all the trimmings .
Folks say I don't respect their religious views, or them yet so far I haven't used any vile words toward them, and have no idea who their god is, with foo it seems her god allows anything and everything, and all folks go to Heaven, even if they must go somewhere and burn off a few sins first??
Idk -What I do know, "believe" is Jesus saves.
I have seen what He can do.
He loves you and all people, and yet we see what the world thinks of Him.
They curse His name -this Man who came and died for them??
What if He wasn't even real? Still that kinda story would never warrent such a vile responce from so many???!!?
The reason people respond sooo vile toward His message, is becouse He is real, and it tears at their sin filled flesh "man", just like it did those who stoned Steven.
Foo says she is a jew????@@
May I ask if you have any spiritual beliefs?
You are a stupid man. People are not responding in a vile manner to any message from your pretend god, they're responding in a vile manner to YOU. The message doesn't mean shit, and the messinger - YOU - is an idiot.

Why are you asking about someoen elses spiritual beliefs? So you can demean them too?
Gtown71

United States

#294267 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I oppose circumcision. It is barbaric, but not necessarily insane. I don't believe a parent should e able to alter the child in any way before the age of majority--no tattoos, no piercings, nothing. Only in the case of actual medical necessity should circumcision be allowed.
BTW--it's mostly the (male) doctor who recommends circumcision, and the father who wants it.
<quoted text>
You think circumcision is barbaric?
abortion not?

Have you ever truly thought about it all cpeter?
Bit-O-Honey

Mooresville, NC

#294268 Apr 29, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either a faux-Christian or just naieve.
LOL YOU? Calling someone ELSE a "faux christian"????

LOLOOL! The IRONY!
Bit-O-Honey

Mooresville, NC

#294269 Apr 29, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<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!
What the HELL is this idiot talking about??
Gtown71

United States

#294270 Apr 29, 2013
If the law allowed and stated that a woman may choose to abort her unborn child up to, just before giving birth,for any reason whatsoever? I wonder how many pro "choice" people on here, would still be pro choice.

Many prochoice folk would only be concerned for the safety of the "mom" that wishes to abort her unborn child at 8 1/2 months.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294271 Apr 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Just for the record, I am not AFRAID that anyone will change her own mind, Rose. If she does, after viewing an ultrasound she requested, I'd be thrilled.
Are you so afraid she won't ask for one, that you think she should be coerced into it? Most women do ask, you know - but those are the ones who anticipate their delivery with joy, rather than apprehension and resentment. And seriously, do you think women who DON'T want to see the ultrasound believe they're carrying a fish, or a watermelon? They know what they're pregnant with, already.
I am appalled that she may be COERCED by the State to make a choice in the state's interest rather than her own. As much as that she may be coerced by her sexual partner, to HAVE an abortion. To me, both are equally wrong, but when the State does it, it's the law, while when a partner does it, it's against the law. Doesn't make sense.
I don't think the end justifies the means on this.
As I said, any pregnant women who WANT an ultrasound done, ALREADY GET THEM, pretty much without question. And any doctor who feels it's necessary to perform one before performing an abortion, ALREADY has every opportunity to ask her if she wants to see it...just not the obligation.
And women are always free to ASK for one themselves, if they want one, Rose.
Should just make it part of the care.. and btw somewhere in some post you talked about OBs

Watching the Doctors..talkkng about ultrasound before delivery and what they tell the doc. And why they are necessary
As I said before the laws saying a woman has to look at them are weird..but the ultrasound should be done before the procedure...

Maybe with all the problems with safety at some of these clinics..even the PC politicians are for more safety..
That other garbage about putting info on the Internet that is identifying should be against HIPPA. And as I say some idiot for or against abortionstuck it in the bill as a compromise..idiots.
.TOO MUCH STUFF IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NOW. like when they published the names and addresses of those people up north who had guns registered. I am all for background checks and licensing BUT that stunt is a good argument against itIMHO..off topic I know.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE.they are talking on the Docs about baby shower gender parties..with an ultrasound and all. All the friends and family get to see it..cute idea.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Grey Ghost 1,125,512
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 39 min Adam 230,021
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 1 hr Some Parents Dont 453
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 5 hr Earthling-1 1,512
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 7 hr Bruin For Life 27,914
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Oct 17 Mary Downformore 201,187
Get your Gator Jamberry Nail Wraps Oct 16 jambycatherine 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE