Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310006 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.

worships reality

AOL

#295249 May 8, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that you consider a viable fetus a "parasite".
just using the pro choice logic. don't like it? i'm not surprised.
the fetus sustaining itself off of the woman's system does not cease at viability.

Speaks volumes about you troll, as does the rest of your bullshit that's been answered over and over again.
nope. my bullshit has not been answered. bitner even admitted it hasn't, and never will be. follow along.
Ultimately, it IS her decision and if she's THAT determined, she WILL find a way.[?QUOTE]

we're talking legally here.

[QUOTE]Women should be restricted because of the VIABILITY of the fetus you moron,
really? why should some subjectively selected point in a parasite's development take a way a woman's right to personal autonomy?
as well as the health of the mother (as well as that of the VIABLE fetus), which is what the USSC stated when giving a timeline for restrictions.
that much i agree with.
Damn you people are stupid.
i like you. you're not very bright but it doesn't slow you down one bit.
worships reality

AOL

#295250 May 8, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The state's rights are protected when we restrict abortions post viability.
How come that hasn't sunk in yet?
maybe because it has no basis in fact. there are no states' "rights" in this case. the state has only, as per roe v wade, an "interest" in potential life. an interest they may or may not choose to exercise.

napppy time !
worships reality

AOL

#295251 May 8, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we DO know that, given every single charge against him was thrown out because of lack of evidence.
Grow the hell up azzhole.
sorry azzhole. no charges were thrown out. the case went to the jury. they deliberated. they found him "not guilty". not innocent mind you. but not guilty.

damn you people are stupid.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#295252 May 8, 2013
razzmatazz wrote:
<quoted text>Abby Johnson: Pro-life advocate
I honestly find it laughable when an abortion supporter starts giving me advice on how to be a better Christian. I find Foo very laughable when she posts about Christians.
And the rest of us find it laughable when you call yourself a christian. We know better, and you prove you're not every time Knutbar.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#295253 May 8, 2013
razzmatazz wrote:
<quoted text>Someone who has a strong belief in God doesn't support abortion. She in fact is for destroying the Image of God. Now tell me she has a strong belief in God. another thing, she thinks Christians and the Muslims have different Gods. She won't admit the God of Abraham is the same God of Christians and Muslims.
You are a moron. If you think jesus is g-d, then NO YOU DO NOT HAVE THE SAME G-D AS A JEWISH PERSON.

This isn't rocket science you dumbazz.

DAMN you're stupid.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#295254 May 8, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
You're welcome for the few seconds I took you from reality!
my pleasure
Okay, for a second there, I was going too call you the voice of reason and sanity.

But I forgot, you CAN'T be! <<grin>>

<<<<<<< <hugs>>>>> >>>
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#295256 May 8, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Found this on some website, the name of which I can't remember, but it was about Elizabeth Smart, kidnapped and repeatedly brutalized by her captors, as a young girl... and in the news lately for her subsequent strength in her recovery. It spoke volumes about your point above:
"...Our culture deliberately socializes women to be taken in. We condition girls (explicitly! Not even covertly!) to believe that if they're not sexually attractive, they're nothing. They're garbage. They might as well not exist. We reinforce, over and over, that their attractiveness has an expiration date, so the only thing they can do is desperately leverage that attractiveness while they can. If they resist that conditioning, we sexualize them against their will, and if they give in to that conditioning —or worse, if they are raped by a predator — we reveal the trap: Now you're a slut, and it's your fault. Now you're tainted. Now you're worse than nothing. Now you might as well not even cry out when your rapist takes you to the gas station in a wig and sunglasses."
She's on a speaking tour, promoting the abolition of 'abstinence only' education, in favor of thorough and frank sex ed, in public schools.
Ms. Smart is also a devout Christian and credits her Faith in Jesus as helping her cope with the pagan evil she endured.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#295257 May 8, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
It should be noted that states CAN assert interest in third-trimester fetuses, but is not obligated to do so. Nor can it intercede if the pregnacy is a danger to the woman.
<quoted text>
Yeah, I forget those who think the fetuses are granted rights by restrictions overlook those little facts. That they don't realize MAY is not synonymous with WILL.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#295258 May 8, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a moron. If you think jesus is g-d, then NO YOU DO NOT HAVE THE SAME G-D AS A JEWISH PERSON.
This isn't rocket science you dumbazz.
DAMN you're stupid.
Hey dimwit, Jesus dies on the cross for the sins of Jews and Gentiles alike. By his stripes we are all saved. You like to confuse the issue with your pagan inspired rants. Jesus is your Savior as much as he is mine.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#295259 May 8, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe because it has no basis in fact. there are no states' "rights" in this case. the state has only, as per roe v wade, an "interest" in potential life. an interest they may or may not choose to exercise.
napppy time !
Are you going to sit there and cry the fetus has civil rights, but not the woman and not the state then? Because that's exactly what you've been saying.
<rolls eyes>
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#295260 May 8, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Christian hating hypocrite.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#295261 May 8, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe because it has no basis in fact. there are no states' "rights" in this case. the state has only, as per roe v wade, an "interest" in potential life. an interest they may or may not choose to exercise.
napppy time !
Who are the nutcases following you and agreeing with you? The monkeys are running the zoo!
worships reality

AOL

#295262 May 8, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
She most certainly did. Several times. Every time she says her opinion is irrelevant, she's answering.
nope. every time she says her opinion is irrelevant she giving a reason why she won't answer.

she's already said flat out herself that she hasn't answered that question and never will. you're calling her a liar now?

lullaby and goodnight......
worships reality

AOL

#295263 May 8, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to sit there and cry the fetus has civil rights, but not the woman and not the state then? Because that's exactly what you've been saying.
<rolls eyes>
no it isn't. show me one post where i claimed the fetus has civil rights?
exactly what i've been saying? liar.
<gives finger>
worships reality

AOL

#295264 May 8, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I forget those who think the fetuses are granted rights by restrictions overlook those little facts. That they don't realize MAY is not synonymous with WILL.
i realize it fine. i said it before you did. check post 295250.

you're not getting enough sleep.

nap time.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#295265 May 9, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I said she did want one..Beck in the 80s ..ghost would a young person with no real education ghat I saw know how long a law case would take..and her reasons right then. Could not have been fame. THEY used s different name..She was the one pregnant. SHE obviously did noy Want The baby. We are a lot mord savvy on thi ngs like this now..She was not.
SHE diduse the Roe name later for sure. Personally I am glad her baby was born and glad it hes had anonymity ..bug having that child was hog her intent ss far as I can see frlmehat they wrote
SORRY still think she was used..and feel sorry for her.
She would have given birth, anyway, or had an illegal abortion. She had a free choice of going to court to fight for her right to legal abortion. She could have said no. She wasn't a young girl and she wasn't intellectually or mentally challenged. She changed her personal view on abortion years later. So what? That doesn't make her a victim.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#295266 May 9, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, but how much credit do you give yourself for your transformation?
That type of "Christian" doesn't take responsibility for anything, good or bad. It's all in his god's hands and out of his own. How convenient.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#295267 May 9, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
it's still his car ? how stupid is that ? he's not allowed to drive because he is a potential health/life threat to others. his driving while under the influence is a very real threat to the rights of others. is your brain even semi functional?
read this slowly so you can finally understand :
everything... has... restrictions...for...a...reaso n....and...the... reason...is...the...potential. ..adverse...impact....on...the ...rights of others.
just whose rights are being protected when we restrict abortions post viability?
post viability it is still the woman's pregnancy, it is still her body, it is still her private medical decision and the fetus she carries is still a parasite with no rights at all.
so I ask you again --- why should a woman be restricted to "any" window in order to exercise her right to a make a private medical decision?
You know, as everyone has told you many times, that it is state's rights that are protected. There's no need to have it explained to you, yet again. Just read back on this thread, or, better yet, read one of thousands of documents and texts on the subject. Now, what the hell is your problem, weirdo?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#295268 May 9, 2013
tampabayallstar wrote:
I think abortion is the only word rednecks know how too spell.
LMAO!!!

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#295269 May 9, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
no, but it's a valid question to ask if you agree with them. and that question you keep ducking.
<quoted text>
no crime at all. in fact i'd love to hear your opinion.
<quoted text>
don't ever confuse whining and bitching with matter of factly asking a direct question.
<quoted text>
way to go out on a controversial limb.
<quoted text>
no i wouldn't. in fact i've said i admire the honesty of those on here who are consistent in their opinions regarding a woman's right to choose......at "anytime". you on the other hand are a mealy mouthed hypocrite.
<quoted text>
"i'm fine with it" tells me nothing. it implies you are willing to live with it as it is. but it doesn't tell me if you agree with them or not. once and for all, do you agree with the restrictions as they are, or would you prefer that a woman retined her right to choose at any time and for any reason?
<quoted text>
their you go again with the non committal answer. "they don't bother me". what a coward.
also be careful what you assume. wr does not believe abortion should be "totally illegal"
I gave you my answer...abortion is an available option, for a period of time. If a woman doesn't get an abortion within that time then that in itself is a decision too. Yet again, that is the opinion you keep whining that I didn't give. That IS my opinion.

I'm "fine with it" IS agreement...dummy. They "don't bother me" is how I feel. I once told Sassy that I'm not "comfortable" with elective LTAs (AKA "post-viability). That is how I feel. I'm simply not going to rewrite my opinion in several variations to make you stop whining about what I say on the matter. Your attempted manipulations are just another symptom of being a fundie control-freak. Don't like my answers? Tough shit.

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) 5 min sonicfilter 1,236,531
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min ChristineM 240,070
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 12 min TerryE 5,773
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 23 hr stewart scott 29,781
News Former UConn Player Pleads Guilty -- Courant.com (Oct '07) May 29 tom wingo 22
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) May 29 Pietro Armando 201,809
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... May 25 Timotion 7
More from around the web