Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310999 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#308946 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people like yourself think that everyone else wants to know about your bodily functions? Maybe a little descretion on the personal stuff is indicated.
I disagree.

Next...
worships reality

United States

#308947 Aug 22, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I always celebrate people exercising their rights without interference.
<quoted text>
nice try mutt. if you were truly celebrating the exercising of rights you would have also mentioned that during that period 'x' number of women also chose to continue gestating.
you were clearly celebrating only the death of the fetus.
viva killing! eh pedro ?

mutt.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#308948 Aug 22, 2013
Why don't you people have them prove themselves first, as those France, Britain, US show blueprint of any new project of New American century of war game plan first, and GANGS OF inciting ORCHESTRATORS show scheme of sketches in making the issue of chemical weapons about Syria if they have nothing to be afraid of doing the wrongs?

If they say about chemical weapons usage in Syria to talk about Syria, they must blame and denounce and charge US by using chemical agent the Agent Orange In Vietnam, and also get into serious condemnation of US using atomic bombs to Japan and censor US first, before moving on, to really lay the ground work and rules to go by, instead of talking about Syria now.

Just who is the UN as it is more like a corrupt unethical institution, as if by saying US can use atomic bombs and chemical Agent Orange by even pointing fingers to Syria instead?
It is US without being provoked and put into unrest by rebels inside, by going out to do genocide of millions of people in the last so many years so far after WWII. What they are saying is that they can kill as many people as possible, to even one billion, and that is just alright if they would keep dropping to exhaust all the bombs they have if chemical weapons would not be handled.

What and who make you think like that?

Since the time of internal fighting in Syria, there are more people who have been chemically poisoned in factories and within different environment settings and eventually or instantly die as a result in US alone, than the unproven number of people dying from chemical weapons in Syria.

Why don't you charge the US factories and places with poisoned environment in US first?

The matter is that terrorists orchestrated and incited by others to get into Syria by grouping rebels inside for posing fighting, is wrongful.
To fight against terrorist insurgent rebels, is gossiped by others of wrongfulness by pointing to chemical weapons to do their wrongs--THAT IS SO WRONG. How do people like Israel when it has nothing to do with Syria, by even jumping to say to challenge Syria, as what that intention of Israel would make the world disapprove it in this Syria case?

IT IS ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. NOBODY SHOULD USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS SUBJECT TO BE WRONGDOER AND MAKE VERY WRONGS, TO BE EVIL WRONGDOER AS DOING THE BAD WRONGFULNESS.

As few try to show AS IF THEY HAVE SUFFERED FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS POISONING, no clear solid pictures and facts are laid out, as they look like trying to act out in a movie with no real chemical substance for the poisoning, yet they keep coming out with the small figure of about 100 people dying from chemical poisoning in Syria, this seems to make no sense on the real facts basis.

THAT IS SO WRONG THAT THEY KEEP GOING FOR THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS SUBJECT. THERE are few who are further wrong, like France--as they don't care whatsoever, for all they want to do is to make some war. They are the bad wrongdoers, as evils are still going to be remaining wanting to be the evil, insane creed because they have not enough to fill their dirty, distasteful radicalism, AS IF WAR CRIMINAL Bush HAD NOT GIVEN THEM ENOUGH cloning mold in the fake, troubling masks they are wearing.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#308949 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No he didn't. Since it isn't there.
Post number 308890. Here's a sack of breadcrumbs....that's all the help you're getting.
Pull your head out of your ass.

Sheesh.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#308950 Aug 22, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Post number 308890. Here's a sack of breadcrumbs....that's all the help you're getting.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Sheesh.
If this is what you are referring to, it doesn't make the point.

"It does, however describe your god as ordering the israelites to rip open the pregnant women of their enemies, so I'm guessing the big guy's not all that opposed to abortion."

According to the Jewish Bible, God ordered the entire distruction of Samaria. Killed were men, women, children and unborn babies, everything alive. Nothing here represents an abortion.

Probably you shouldn't repeat things that you 'think' are in the bible without reading it yourself for context.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#308951 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't pay much attention to what you say. From your statement, it seems that you do accept the unborn as the woman's little boy or girl.
Embryo/fetus = potential life, a developing life not yet lived, a life possibly unable to live outside the womb. If gender is known, maybe a name can be decided.

Anything more than that, imo, is equivalent to unrequited love. The embryo/fetus is incapable of analyzing basic emotions and has no base to process your feelings. That is, until becoming a newborn and experiencing life outside the warm waters of the womb. That's what makes a successful childbirth so rewarding, why the first look into a newborn's eyes is so special.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#308954 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is what you are referring to, it doesn't make the point.
"It does, however describe your god as ordering the israelites to rip open the pregnant women of their enemies, so I'm guessing the big guy's not all that opposed to abortion."
According to the Jewish Bible, God ordered the entire distruction of Samaria. Killed were men, women, children and unborn babies, everything alive. Nothing here represents an abortion.
Probably you shouldn't repeat things that you 'think' are in the bible without reading it yourself for context.
So, God aborts all of Samaria but you think this doesn't represent abortion?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#308955 Aug 22, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Embryo/fetus = potential life, a developing life not yet lived, a life possibly unable to live outside the womb. If gender is known, maybe a name can be decided.
Anything more than that, imo, is equivalent to unrequited love. The embryo/fetus is incapable of analyzing basic emotions and has no base to process your feelings. That is, until becoming a newborn and experiencing life outside the warm waters of the womb. That's what makes a successful childbirth so rewarding, why the first look into a newborn's eyes is so special.
Embryo or fetus is alive therefore 'a life'. A boy life or a girl life living it's life right where it is supposed to.

It is so rewarding to see that little life on a sonogram where you can see his face and all his features.

New technology makes it impossible to fool ourselves any longer.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#308957 Aug 22, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So, God aborts all of Samaria but you think this doesn't represent abortion?
God punished and destroyed all of Samaria according to the Jewish Bible.

Do you consider all deaths, abortions? I would say it was more of an execution.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#308958 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is what you are referring to, it doesn't make the point.
"It does, however describe your god as ordering the israelites to rip open the pregnant women of their enemies, so I'm guessing the big guy's not all that opposed to abortion."
According to the Jewish Bible, God ordered the entire distruction of Samaria. Killed were men, women, children and unborn babies, everything alive. Nothing here represents an abortion.
Probably you shouldn't repeat things that you 'think' are in the bible without reading it yourself for context.
"Killed were men, women, children and unborn babies,"

Did you just ignore the 'unborn babies' part when you were typing that?

The verse you refer to, is the ONLY place in the Bible where abortion is discussed. In spite of the fact that the word 'abortion' is not specific to the verse, "killing unborn babies" is what you friggin' SCPL are railing about when it comes to abortion. That's even what you call it. And God ordered it.

You stupid, stupid woman.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#308959 Aug 22, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>"Killed were men, women, children and unborn babies,"
Did you just ignore the 'unborn babies' part when you were typing that?
The verse you refer to, is the ONLY place in the Bible where abortion is discussed. In spite of the fact that the word 'abortion' is not specific to the verse, "killing unborn babies" is what you friggin' SCPL are railing about when it comes to abortion. That's even what you call it. And God ordered it.
You stupid, stupid woman.
Usually the woman survives an abortion, doesn't she? The point was that nothing be left alive. The people were so henious that even their children be killed.

You are the stupid one if you think God's intention was to abort the mothers. It was a massacre. Read it for your self, if you can read something beyond Dick and Jane.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#308960 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Embryo or fetus is alive therefore 'a life'. A boy life or a girl life living it's life right where it is supposed to.
It is so rewarding to see that little life on a sonogram where you can see his face and all his features.
New technology makes it impossible to fool ourselves any longer.
Your post claims I am fooling myself.

I say you're the one fooling yourself into believing all pregnancies culminate in a healthy delivery of a full term newborn. "Where life is beautiful all the time..."

I don't disagree technology opens a window onto the developing embryo/fetus. It's amazing.

But it doesn't negate the medical fact not every pregnancy is a wanted or healthy one. And we should offer safe, legal options to abort unhealthy/unwanted pregnancies since we have the capacity to do so. Denial of this option is selfish, sexist, and shows no compassion for a life already being experienced.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#308961 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God punished and destroyed all of Samaria according to the Jewish Bible.
Do you consider all deaths, abortions? I would say it was more of an execution.
Do you not see induced abortion equivalent to destroying life? That is the meaning behind my words that God aborted all of Samaria. All those posts consisting of "murdering innocents" isn't meant to imply woman has God-like capabilities when allowed to terminate unhealthy/unwanted pregnancy?

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#308962 Aug 22, 2013
Katie wrote:
Apparently they were teen lovers caught up in the age difference. She was 14, he was 19. Here's the story. I still think it's odd and Old Testament-like since it used to be women could choose whether to have the state pursue child support or not. And the state could not *force* visitation... at least not my state.
<shaking head at absurdity>
http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/sup...
He was ..they were both stupid ..at least she is not having to raise the child of someone who forced her .

Still if he's a felon ..She should not have to see him ..But he SHOULD
Support that child ..

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#308963 Aug 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Usually the woman survives an abortion, doesn't she? The point was that nothing be left alive. The people were so henious that even their children be killed.
You are the stupid one if you think God's intention was to abort the mothers. It was a massacre. Read it for your self, if you can read something beyond Dick and Jane.
I've read the Bible cover to cover, at least 6 times. It lacked any other mention of "killing unborn babies" than within the context of God's command.

You say abortion is killing unborn babies. Given my understanding of YOUR use of the words 'killing unborn babies', the use of this concept within the verse provided indicates to me, that this is the only context in which abortion is discussed in the Bible. I'm going to stand by my assertion.

Since you're so knowledgeable about its contents, please point out ANY chapter, or verse, or line of scripture, which mentions the word 'abortion' specifically - in any context whatsoever.

I'll wait.

While I'm waiting, and you're growing ever more aware of the futility of your digging, perhaps you'll consider the absence of that word as an indication of the importance with which your 'God' imbued it. In his inerrant judgment. With his omnipotence, and his all-seeing self.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#308964 Aug 22, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I am surprised the state doesn't deny paternity to a rapist. And have no idea why it would write in paternal responsibility as conditions for probation of rape. Is that state's courts living in Old Testament days?
Boggles the mind, does it not? If raped victims know they'll be tied for years to their "monster" ... makes a strong case for terminating a pregnancy. Do they not see this? It must be hard enough to carry to term knowing that the child was conceived in an act of violence, but to have to "share" custody? Geez.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#308965 Aug 22, 2013
Just caught up reading. No force. Regardless, she wants nothing more to do with loverboy and shouldn't her wants trump his, at least in this situation?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#308966 Aug 22, 2013
Junket wrote:
Just caught up reading. No force. Regardless, she wants nothing more to do with loverboy and shouldn't her wants trump his, at least in this situation?
You would think so, AJ. Maybe all that'll come of it is the young man will begin his adult life racking up child support arrears and find no way to get above water. Maybe the young woman (she's gotta be 18 now, right?) began her adult life using assistance and she's getting close to the cut-off mark. The state'll want to be reimbursed. Wonder if that trumps woman's wants.

Bet it does...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#308967 Aug 22, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Boggles the mind, does it not? If raped victims know they'll be tied for years to their "monster" ... makes a strong case for terminating a pregnancy. Do they not see this? It must be hard enough to carry to term knowing that the child was conceived in an act of violence, but to have to "share" custody? Geez.
According to the other article ..it was non forced statutory rape .

He,was,19. She was,14..think he wants to give up rights,if he can NOT pay child support.
She wanted to get a damages settlement from Him
Instead of child support ..sounds like a lawyer was involved ..as mist fourteen. Year olds don't think THST far ahead ..But she is sort if an adult now.

That child needs to be supported ..

She should never have to see him again..But there is more to the story

They had a relationship..stupid .where were her parents,when she was dating him.

Though I was sixteen dating a 20 year old ..thought WED get married .

STUPID ..

She should never have to see him ..But he should pay child support

IMO

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#308968 Aug 22, 2013
Junket wrote:
Just caught up reading. No force. Regardless, she wants nothing more to do with loverboy and shouldn't her wants trump his, at least in this situation?
IMO the kids,needs trump both ..he is bugging her just to get out of support .

He will give up ..I think ...if it doesn't work..
Getting out of support .

She should never have to see him.

But life is long..both may mature ..who knows But he SHOUKD support that child

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) 13 hr Sue 1,375,295
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 hr Thinking 254,960
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Earthling-1 9,555
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Mon Trojan 32,248
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 28 Ela 38
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Apr 27 Jesse 201,845
News Kenny Drummond's Prep School Thingy (Jan '08) Apr 23 Bret Link 21
More from around the web