Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311610 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#301239 Jun 19, 2013
What if the numbers Fitch?

Has madame kindle been shopping?
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree that if the numbers Abercrombie good news.
Playa. Each and every abortion done ...still ending a human life
Maybe more women and men are being safe..
Still thinkthink celebs coukd do a great public service with the message,HOOKING UP IS NOT GOOD..

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#301240 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She was concerned that the US would become a Catholic country. Maybe you think she has a point that only you and she sees.
Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.

Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301241 Jun 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Ink? It's what I said. It still has nothing to do with what you asked. Do you know what a theocracy is? Did you read the posts regarding the Religious Right and its quest to create a theocracy in the USA?
That sentence was a "what if" example for Rose. If you'd like, you can answer.
What if you were told America is now Catholic and you have to follow the Catholic faith? Not the faith you've followed throughout your life, but their (meaning the Religious Right's) version of it anyway?
How would you, Ink, respond to something like this in the future?
No I didn't read the posts. Was there anything factual to read or just your fears?

I can't believe that the religious right is taking over the country and I didn't know about it. Please fill me in.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#301242 Jun 19, 2013
You're going to need the 55-gallon drum of febreeze.
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
We get it already...you're better and smarter than everyone else and you know everything about everything, so can we open some windows now and finally clear the stench of your arrogance out of the room?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301243 Jun 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.
Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
You're joking, right?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#301244 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I was saying that there were exceptions and there are.
Those being imminent death of the pregnant woman, and for SOME women who report rape or incest within 24-48 hours. Not all. Just some. Which ones??

The fact remains that exceptions protecting the continued health of the mother, or respect for her personal feelings regarding a severly/profoundly compromised fetus, are not included in this bill. And those are the exceptions Rose and I were discussing.

Your two cents added nothing to the discussion.
As per usual.
Next...
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#301245 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She was concerned that the US would become a Catholic country. Maybe you think she has a point that only you and she sees.
No I wasn't. Try to follow along.

I gave a "what if" to Rose for consideration.

How come after the first time I mentioned that it's not what I said, you continued to insist it was? Shouldn't you be trying to understand what was said and seeing if you can add anything productive to conversation of the Religious Rights' quest for creating a Christian theocracy in America? You do understand it's founded by Presbyterians, right? Perhaps it would be *their* version of Catholicism the USA would be following.

How do you like them apples?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301246 Jun 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Those being imminent death of the pregnant woman, and for SOME women who report rape or incest within 24-48 hours. Not all. Just some. Which ones??
The fact remains that exceptions protecting the continued health of the mother, or respect for her personal feelings regarding a severly/profoundly compromised fetus, are not included in this bill. And those are the exceptions Rose and I were discussing.
Your two cents added nothing to the discussion.
As per usual.
Next...
You originally said---

"Then why are there no exceptions to the ban on all abortions after the 20th week, which passed in the House of Representatives YESTERDAY???"

I pointed out that you were in error and you later posted those exceptions. It is important to be accurate.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#301247 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The consent to sex would have to be unprotected in order to conceive a child. Unprotected sex is the cause of most abortions.
You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion
.
More astounding BS from you. You seem hellbent on making shttt up. Where did I even mention protected or unprotected sex??

Please explain how you get:
"You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion"

From

"consent to sex does not equal consent to carry and have a child"
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301248 Jun 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No I wasn't. Try to follow along.
I gave a "what if" to Rose for consideration.
How come after the first time I mentioned that it's not what I said, you continued to insist it was? Shouldn't you be trying to understand what was said and seeing if you can add anything productive to conversation of the Religious Rights' quest for creating a Christian theocracy in America? You do understand it's founded by Presbyterians, right? Perhaps it would be *their* version of Catholicism the USA would be following.
How do you like them apples?
I didn't realize that you were just being silly. Now I see the humor.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301249 Jun 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.
Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
She was just joking. There is nothing to see. She made it up but you fell for it too.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#301250 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The consent to sex would have to be unprotected in order to conceive a child. Unprotected sex is the cause of most abortions.
.
You can't really be this stupid to claim that "sex would have to be unprotected on order to conceive a child".

I stand corrected, you might be that stupid.

You've yet to remove your head from your arse. Dont reply until you do so, thanks.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301251 Jun 19, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
More astounding BS from you. You seem hellbent on making shttt up. Where did I even mention protected or unprotected sex??
Please explain how you get:
"You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion"
From
"consent to sex does not equal consent to carry and have a child"
You sound a lot like bitter tangled up in precise words instead of intent.

To me your comment means that if you agree to have sex and put yourself in a position of becoming pregnant with child then having an abortion and killing the child is perfectly acceptable.

Am I wrong?

I on the other hand would expect a woman consenting to sex and not wanting a child to have enough personal responsibility to use protection and avoid causing the death of a conceived human.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#301252 Jun 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Then why are there no exceptions to the ban on all abortions after the 20th week, which passed in the House of Representatives YESTERDAY???
Apparently, Congress has something other than a brain. That bill will waste countless taxpayer dollars, in defending against rulings of its blatant Uncontstitutionality, should it ever pass in the Senate...which is highly unlikely, given that even the old white Republican Congressmen who WROTE the filthy thing, describe it as 'symbolic'.
But what it doesn't do, is protect the health of women who discover their pregnancy is toxic after the 20th week, or whose fetuses are diagnosed as severely / profoundly compromised after the 20th week...or who don't even discover they are pregnant until after the 20th week, Rose.
Tough luck for them, eh?
The whole purpose of even PROPOSING this legislation, is to make a point: namely, that the lives of women are secondary to the Religious Republican Right's agenda, regarding the intensely personal issue of abortion. To show the old white Republican base that its elected leaders take controlling a woman's reproductive function more seriously than her economic status, or her job prospects.
All I can say is, 2014 cannot come soon enough to vote these pasty faced rape-apologists out of office.
The bill addresses,abortion ..Not emergency care fir a,mom in dire,straights..

If a woman is in a hospital they are not killing a baby..They are,saving both my ex if possible..if not possible they will deliver..the baby and mom woukd hopefully survive..they are not killing moms..That would be stupid in the first place..besides inhumane.

They ars saying at a certain point going fir an ABORTION in and if itself.with a healthy mom... Would be illegal..

Delivering a baby who dies nit survive is nit the same as killing it in the womb..then taking it out ...I know you understand this.

Also removing an ectopic pregnancy (not applicable in the ban obviously) 2779or a dead baby is not the same as the willful deliberate act if ending the life of the child in the womb.
For purposes of distinction which you all like to limp together..one is an abortion which woukd be banned. One is the care of the mom in which the baby may die.

Again plays you know there is a difference

And you are correct it won't be law...
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301253 Jun 19, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't really be this stupid to claim that "sex would have to be unprotected on order to conceive a child".
I stand corrected, you might be that stupid.
You've yet to remove your head from your arse. Dont reply until you do so, thanks.
Do I need to show you charts on the efficacy of the different contraceptions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she has any number of ways to protect herself. Or she can just have an abortion when needed.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#301254 Jun 19, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
The bill addresses,abortion ..Not emergency care fir a,mom in dire,straights..
If a woman is in a hospital they are not killing a baby..They are,saving both my ex if possible..if not possible they will deliver..the baby and mom woukd hopefully survive..they are not killing moms..That would be stupid in the first place..besides inhumane.
They ars saying at a certain point going fir an ABORTION in and if itself.with a healthy mom... Would be illegal..
Delivering a baby who dies nit survive is nit the same as killing it in the womb..then taking it out ...I know you understand this.
Also removing an ectopic pregnancy (not applicable in the ban obviously) 2779or a dead baby is not the same as the willful deliberate act if ending the life of the child in the womb.
For purposes of distinction which you all like to limp together..one is an abortion which woukd be banned. One is the care of the mom in which the baby may die.
Again plays you know there is a difference
And you are correct it won't be law...
They don't know the difference.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#301255 Jun 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), left, and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). Franks authored the 20-week abortion ban that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday.(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday 228 to 196 that prohibits women from having abortions 20 weeks after conception.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point. It contains exceptions for women whose lives are in danger as well as some rape and incest victims who can prove that they reported their assaults to criminal authorities, but it contains no exceptions for severe fetal anomalies or situations in which the woman's health is threatened by her pregnancy.
You were saying??
That statement contradicts its,self..exceptions fir danger to
Mom but no exception if her health is threatened..

If her health is threatened she should be in a hospital..Nit an abortion clinic..And they sort of clearly state they are nit saying she should die.

But AGSIN it won't pass..many women who are fir choice in general..especially those who have carried children find the idea of deliberate elective abortion. Abhorrent..
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#301256 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't read the posts. Was there anything factual to read or just your fears?
I can't believe that the religious right is taking over the country and I didn't know about it. Please fill me in.
I don't have "fears". I posted the history of the Religious Right for Rose's perusal. Of course, anyone interested in reading objective fact is free to do so.

Why should I fill you in on anything? You do such a fine job of jumping to conclusions whether read posts or not.
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#301257 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize that you were just being silly. Now I see the humor.
Um, no, wrong again. I have been discussing a serious topic. The Religious Right has existed since the late 1960s and it is working to create theocracy in America. That means democracy gets flushed down the toilet. Or you do you think that's just being silly?

Try to be accurate. You just got done telling someone else to be accurate. It's good to practice what you preach and not be a hypocrite.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#301258 Jun 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You originally said---
"Then why are there no exceptions to the ban on all abortions after the 20th week, which passed in the House of Representatives YESTERDAY???"
I pointed out that you were in error and you later posted those exceptions. It is important to be accurate.
Wonderful. I'm sure the uterus police will be accurate, when deciding whose miscarriage does or doesn't conform to the squad's idea of "acceptable", as well.

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 An NFL Fan 1,418,030
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Ronnie Pickering 256,552
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Trojan 32,325
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 14 hr OzRitz 10,064
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web