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.

Katie Still Not Reading

New York, NY

#306354 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that is?
You asked and I already answered. In fact I'm pretty sure I answered twice. More evidence that you do not read.

But I'll answer again just for you....

Because it's common sense. If you're trying to persuade someone to your side it makes sense that you would not focus your attention on those "seriously dug in" on the opposition side, as you are not likey ever to change their mind. Instead focus on those who are unsure of where they stand on the issues.
As I said, common sense. And it applies to BOTH sides.

Now don't lie again and claim you never asked anything like you did before. OK ?
Katie Still Not Reading

New York, NY

#306355 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the op is saying without mom's (body functions) input, the embryo/fetus would cease to exist. Therefore only alive because the pregnant woman allows it to be alive. Not alive in the sense of independent life separate from the umbilical cord.
The other poster said "NOT ALIVE UNTIL BORN". The other poster is a moron.
Katie Still Not Reading

New York, NY

#306356 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Induced abortion is medical self-defense for those women who do not want to or cannot sustain a healthy pregnancy.
That's it.
You can't lump pregnancies that one simply "does not want" with those that cannot be sustaned or pose a physical life threat.
The latter can be classified as self defense. The former is not.
One individual pregnant woman at a time determines her own pregnancy without interference from the law, the clergy, or nosy parkers.
We know that. That's what we have a problem with.
You new here?
Katie Still Not Reading

New York, NY

#306357 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people have benign cancerous cells coursing through their bodies. It's not going to kill them. It is medical self-defense to remove those cancerous cells.
No it isn't. If those cells pose absolutely no threat then their removal would be considered elective surgery......NOT self defense.

READ.
Huh Duh

New York, NY

#306358 Jul 30, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Men don't carry human life. If they did, there would be an abortion mill in the lobby of every McDonald's, and two on every golf course.
No they don't. Hence they do not have a right to terminate such life.

Equality reigns supreme !!!
Katie Still Not Reading

New York, NY

#306359 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Then be grateful Roe v Wade protects you from forced abortion.
Stop promulgating this fallacy. Roe v Wade does no such thing. You could not be legally forced to abort before RvW or after.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#306360 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, agree, Rose. Sounds very idealistic. Let's be realistic here. There are over four million live births in the USA.
I'll be generous and say out of all the annual pregnancies in the USA, one million end in induced abortion. The majority of those during the first trimester.
Is this not an acceptable number to you? Even better, that these numbers of annual abortions have been consistently declining, well, doesn't that mean anything significant to you?
<quoted text>
Embryos/fetuses are, in general, "unsafe" in their mothers' wombs, Rose. Especially when you factor in all the things that have and do go wrong with any pregnancy. Not to mention the millions of fertilized eggs that are flushed down the toilet unknowingly on an annual basis.
Obviously your perspective is that pregnancy and child bearing are miracles in and of themselves, even while not an uncommon occurrence. Many people share that perspective, Rose, including me.
Added to my perspective is the fact pregnancy and childbearing come with risks. Some deadly. Therefore, imo, the pregnant woman should be the one to decide if her pregnancy is worth the risk.
Not all women are like Melanie from "Gone With the Wind". Some women are like Scarlett. If you remember, Melanie chose to get pregnant again, knowing it might kill her. It did. Scarlett chose to let Rhett go to his wh*rehouse rather than risk pregnancy. And all because she didn't want to lose the record of smallest waist size in her county. In the book, Scarlett's daughter with Rhett, Bonnie, is her third child. And she simply doesn't want any more.
Times for women haven't changed all that much since "Gone With the Wind" was written. And what little strides women have made is at risk of being tossed out because some people choose to focus on an embryo/fetus that is unaware of itself and its surroundings.
I realize the majority of pregnant women sure aren't unaware of themselves or their surroundings. And that's where the focus of civil rights belongs, imo.
Katie

You asked me the question ..I answered honestly and from my heart .

I was talking as you KNIW about the deliberate act of a healthy mom killing her healthy off spring before it is born

Not life threatening situations..nit already dead babies.
Not high risk pregnancies
Not ectopic pregnancies

And not miscarriages.

Deliberate acts by mothers

And sorry Katie nothing you say is going to change my answer to your question

Not withstanding that my country is not like That.

One million..800 thousand ...whatever babies are NOT safe in their mothers womb..due to nothing other than ..they are not wanted by the mother's responsible for putting them there ..

They carry a death sentence through no fault of their own
Ocean56

AOL

#306361 Jul 30, 2013
Huh wrote:
Well sex can be good and fun and feels great. What is so wrong with that? Now it is 2013 not 1913...get with the times.
I believe I said that TEEN sex is a BAD IDEA, for the reasons I already stated. I think teens are better off being sex-FREE (meaning free FROM sex) while they're in middle and high school. Teen girls who wisely decide to be sex-FREE (or SF for short) don't have to worry about getting pregnant or STD's, so they don't have to worry about paying for diapers and formula either.

I wasn't talking about consenting adults. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in some of my previous posts.

Sex-FREE = Pregnancy-FREE / STD-FREE

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#306362 Jul 30, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>she's still respectable to others when she does post.
Thanks Neo ..And if no one reads them ..oh well ..But then. How do they know ??

SIGHHSS dramattcally for effect
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306363 Jul 30, 2013
Katie Still Not Reading wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked and I already answered. In fact I'm pretty sure I answered twice. More evidence that you do not read.
But I'll answer again just for you....
Because it's common sense. If you're trying to persuade someone to your side it makes sense that you would not focus your attention on those "seriously dug in" on the opposition side, as you are not likey ever to change their mind. Instead focus on those who are unsure of where they stand on the issues.
As I said, common sense. And it applies to BOTH sides.
Now don't lie again and claim you never asked anything like you did before. OK ?
Why do you think that is?
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306364 Jul 30, 2013
Katie Still Not Reading wrote:
<quoted text>
The other poster said "NOT ALIVE UNTIL BORN". The other poster is a moron.
Why do you think that is? I mean really.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306365 Jul 30, 2013
Katie Still Not Reading wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't lump pregnancies that one simply "does not want" with those that cannot be sustaned or pose a physical life threat.
The latter can be classified as self defense. The former is not.
<quoted text>
We know that. That's what we have a problem with.
You new here?
Aren't you?
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306366 Jul 30, 2013
Katie Still Not Reading wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. If those cells pose absolutely no threat then their removal would be considered elective surgery......NOT self defense.
READ.
Get a grip.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306367 Jul 30, 2013
Katie Still Not Reading wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop promulgating this fallacy. Roe v Wade does no such thing. You could not be legally forced to abort before RvW or after.
Prove it's a fallacy.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#306368 Jul 30, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie
You asked me the question ..I answered honestly and from my heart .
I was talking as you KNIW about the deliberate act of a healthy mom killing her healthy off spring before it is born
Not life threatening situations..nit already dead babies.
Not high risk pregnancies
Not ectopic pregnancies
And not miscarriages.
Deliberate acts by mothers
And sorry Katie nothing you say is going to change my answer to your question
Not withstanding that my country is not like That.
One million..800 thousand ...whatever babies are NOT safe in their mothers womb..due to nothing other than ..they are not wanted by the mother's responsible for putting them there ..
They carry a death sentence through no fault of their own
The question regarded the concept of personal privacy and bodily autonomy -- civil rights that every single American have established upon them at birth.

You want to change this concept to include embryo/fetuses prior to birth. To exclude pregnancy from bodily autonomy.

How do you expect to do without removing the civil rights of pregnant women?

Why should pregnant women be exempt from bodily autonomy and personal privacy?

If pregnant women CAN be exempt from bodily autonomy and personal privacy due only to the condition of their pregnancy, won't all people at some point also be exempt? That's how the Hitlers of the world gain power... and you seem all for it even as you call Hitler evil.

So are you for evil people being in control of pregnant women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy?
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#306369 Jul 30, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Repentance has to be real ..God knows ..this man had a hardened heart and soul ..no way he had true repentance ..Not was he ever saved.
I'd bet on it
Spare us your absurd judgements. You have no clue what is in the "heart and soul" of any person and you certainly don't know if he repented before he died. You have nothing more than your wishful speculation. Sounds more like you just don't want him in your fabled heaven, regardless of your religions absurd rules.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#306371 Jul 30, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The question regarded the concept of personal privacy and bodily autonomy -- civil rights that every single American have established upon them at birth.
You want to change this concept to include embryo/fetuses prior to birth. To exclude pregnancy from bodily autonomy.
How do you expect to do without removing the civil rights of pregnant women?
Why should pregnant women be exempt from bodily autonomy and personal privacy?
If pregnant women CAN be exempt from bodily autonomy and personal privacy due only to the condition of their pregnancy, won't all people at some point also be exempt? That's how the Hitlers of the world gain power... and you seem all for it even as you call Hitler evil.
So are you for evil people being in control of pregnant women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy?
KATIE

You asked what kind of country I wanted to see.

I answered honestly .

I'm not going to change the answer..I want unborn babies,safe .

Not subject to a,law that allows the moms to end their lives..

And all the other things,I said regarding EXACTLY what I mean.

Trying to avoid semantics.

I do not mom s,dying in childbirth ..nit carrying dead babies etc

I am not s leaking of miscarriages.

You know what I mean

And yes,I realize that this is,BIRthday country any longer .

Preborn offspring can legally be terminated .

I get that

And as a nAtion we Will never be able to go back to a time when it was,not legal

Your side brings up pictyres,of back alley abortion .as if it was common...it was not..Not even in our vocabulary ..Maybe for sex workers?? But fir the mass number if unwed mothers IT WAS NOT..
And that is a fAct ..We did not do it..have it suggested ...nothing like THST

IT WAS,NOT EVER THE NORM. as is the millions if abortions,since.

Unwed mother homes were the norm or women raising the kids. We DEALT.

And that was before the pill.

If there had been no ROE..contraception would be the norm ..And raising the kids and adoption ..NOT NOT BACk ALlEY ABORTIONS,

If the number of abortions was the same tech year as the number if back alley abortions, were,...they would be rare indeed.

But abortion is NOT rare.

And one reason is using abortion..the killing of one's own offspring as birth control

And so sadly ...I will never see that kind if COUnTRY where pre born
Babies are all SAFE from their mothers.

Abortion IS NOW A NORM.

And sad to say if it was illegal ..they still WOUlD be done ..because society sees them as a right ..ON this day and age

And half the women having them...according to your statistics..I think it's higher..DO NOTHING TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND PREVENT THE PREGNANCY.

AND THAT IS IS really sad... As In this era..Freedom and civil rights SHOuld go hand in hand with responsibility..But who cares it's her RIGHT TO ABORT HER OWN CHILD...eh o cares if she tries to prevent another abortion ..certainly not the women's rights groups ..they get to raise MORE money ..why should they care care if it's harder on her body and soul to have another and another ..it's just a fetus!!!

SAD
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#306372 Jul 30, 2013
just choose life wrote:
<quoted text>You are judging again, you have no idea if Hitler repented, that is between Christ and Hitler. Hitler was pure evil, but he was a human being, whom God loved too, hard to think that but God loves everyone. Hitler would not be at the same table,place in Heaven, as the ones he persecuted, but you are judging again. You as a Christian should know that everyone, yes everyone is forgiven if asked for forgiveness.
Your posts are littered with judgements.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#306373 Jul 30, 2013
Francisca wrote:
<quoted text>Are you teaching your kids how to have sex so that they do it right? Do you and your husband have sex to demonstrate?. There are a few sick fuks here who think that showing pornographic material is okay. Exploitation of women is a crime against us women. I am a feminist who fights this. Teaching children about this is child abuse.
NEVER ONCE SAID PORN. Just education and telling them about sex....Cant hide it from them so better they learn what is right and wrong.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#306374 Jul 30, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Spare us your absurd judgements. You have no clue what is in the "heart and soul" of any person and you certainly don't know if he repented before he died. You have nothing more than your wishful speculation. Sounds more like you just don't want him in your fabled heaven, regardless of your religions absurd rules.
He who curses my people shall be cursed.

And lol.You and knit agree ..

And a monster who was truly evil in Spirit is in heaven???

God MEans, HIS CURSES.

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) 1 hr ChristineM 243,290
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr RoxLo 1,251,062
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr LonePalm 6,239
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... 4 hr Goose 1,640
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) 20 hr Fartman 24
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 30 KeS 201,822
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jun 29 tom wingo 29,826
More from around the web