Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313951 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.

Ink

Havertown, PA

#313576 Oct 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
And that would be your right to choose. Other women will make other choices, as is their right. All choices are equally valid.
<quoted text>
That wouldn't be a choice for me. I could do nothing else, plus I would have faith that things would work out well.

Some people feel obligated and responsible for their actions and not put a death sentence on someone else.
grumpy

Huntington Station, NY

#313577 Oct 17, 2013
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree wit the idea behind your philosophy, my outlook is centered further back. But I'll get back to that. I don't think anyone should have a life or death decision if they are not qualified to make it.
You see I don't even believe there should be the question of a life/death decision.
I believe in choice, I believe women should have that choice.
But the choice of whether to terminate a potential human, genetically distinct from the mother, or not is a question that doesn't need to be asked.
I believe the choice is whether or not to become pregnant in the first place. I have no qualms about abortion being used in cases of rape or incest, but you want to give the power of life and death to someone, who in the year 2013 in the US of A, can't manage to figure out how to go to Planned Parenthood or a doctor, or clinic in order to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place?
"I agree wit the idea behind your philosophy, my outlook is centered further back. But I'll get back to that."
Who gives a shlt where your outlook is centered!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313578 Oct 17, 2013
How does a non-sentient entity suffer? Unwanted children do suffer...some even kill themselves.
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
Being dead is a Hell of a lot worse than being unwanted.
-
Tell ya what,... We can do a fun experiment together. You go and try "dead" a while, and I'll go try out "unwanted" then we will meet back here in 18 years and compare notes.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313579 Oct 17, 2013
It`s the woman`s body and her pregnancy. Abortion doesn`t center around the fetus.
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree wit the idea behind your philosophy, my outlook is centered further back. But I'll get back to that. I don't think anyone should have a life or death decision if they are not qualified to make it.
You see I don't even believe there should be the question of a life/death decision.
I believe in choice, I believe women should have that choice.
But the choice of whether to terminate a potential human, genetically distinct from the mother, or not is a question that doesn't need to be asked.
I believe the choice is whether or not to become pregnant in the first place. I have no qualms about abortion being used in cases of rape or incest, but you want to give the power of life and death to someone, who in the year 2013 in the US of A, can't manage to figure out how to go to Planned Parenthood or a doctor, or clinic in order to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313580 Oct 17, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink: "In this article they do admit that it doesn't matter if it is a human being only the mother's right to kill it matters.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/ ... "
Feces: "Excuse me?"
________
A while back in a different thread I posed the following question to prochoicers:
"If you finally arrived at the conclusion that a unique, distinct human being is intentionally killed in an abortion, would it change your views on abortion?"
Guess what? NOT ONE prochoicer said it would change their views! Not Bitner, Katie, Foo, Kathwyn, Chicky, Nana, Ocean, etc.
Their reasoning? "It's not a matter of a human being in the womb, it's a matter of the woman wanting it there or not in her womb."
Would you like for me to ask the question again?
BTW: DNA analysis results of preborn babies already demonstrates unequivocally that a unique, distinct human being exists in the womb.
That's why I found the article quite startling and chilling. All of our efforts to prove that it is a child separate and unique is a waste of time because it doesn't matter. No pro abort cares that it is really a child being killed and not a wad of cells. All they care about is keeping abortion legal to allow themselves or their friends and family out of an irresponsible boo boo.

The problem is that the advertising of PP and others dehunanizes the child, the real deal and conflicted vulnerable young women fall for their financially profitable spiel and have the abortion. Later when they take the time to realize what was done, they often regret the choice they made.

Not evryone who has had an abortion is as coldhearted and callous as the women on here.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313581 Oct 17, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>"I agree wit the idea behind your philosophy, my outlook is centered further back. But I'll get back to that."
Who gives a shlt where your outlook is centered!
Don't you have something better to do?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313582 Oct 17, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting enough, Catholic bigot Chicky WORKS FOR a Catholic organization. She receives her paycheck from a Catholic Organization.
Hahahahaha!!!
The XXL betch is a mess.........
It would take guts to stand on principal and quit . Guess she can only take on unborn babies.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#313583 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
At any given moment 100,000 are available but that is not the same 100,000 children. The number may stay the same but the children don't. Daily new kids are becomming available and other kids are leaving with new parents.
I don't think you understand the process.
I'm pretty clear on the process and have dealt with it firsthand. Bottom line: there are way more children than there are families willing to step up to the plate to take them and that is a HUGE problem for those kids.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313584 Oct 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I truly don't know where you get that I don't take care of my child, but at any rate -I could've talk her into an abortion, but instead talked her out of one.
Just saying that option shouldn't have been available to us at.
Why not let drug addicts tell the doc how much med to give them, regardless if they truly need it?
It's their body, should be their decision, should it not?
The thing is, if she had left me, and did get an abortion, I wouldn't have had a say.
I'm the only reason he's here, but will Never tell him that.
Her getting pregnant was one of the greatest things to happen to me, since it played a major role in me knowing God.
People who find themselves in those places get "real" if they care at all about anything, others are just playing.
I truly do feel for those that are "there ",but an abortion is NOT what she nor I needed.
A life check is what we needed. It's what we got!
So what qualifies you or others to have power over the life of others?
If you were the same old shallow person that you used to be, the pro aborts would love you.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#313585 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I found the article quite startling and chilling. All of our efforts to prove that it is a child separate and unique is a waste of time because it doesn't matter. No pro abort cares that it is really a child being killed and not a wad of cells. All they care about is keeping abortion legal to allow themselves or their friends and family out of an irresponsible boo boo.
The problem is that the advertising of PP and others dehunanizes the child, the real deal and conflicted vulnerable young women fall for their financially profitable spiel and have the abortion. Later when they take the time to realize what was done, they often regret the choice they made.
Not evryone who has had an abortion is as coldhearted and callous as the women on here.
Incredible! But am sure you believe you're correct in your mind. What a judgmental hypocrite you are. Or maybe you're not one in real life, you just play one on the internet.

<blink> <blink>
grumpy

Huntington Station, NY

#313586 Oct 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you're wrong.
The ONLY righteousness I have was imputed to me.
Every human alive either has imputed righteousness OR they are self righteous,so which one are you?
Answer : self
You're a joke.

"The ONLY righteousness I have was imputed to me" You have no idea how self-righteous that is.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#313587 Oct 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol -you don't want to hear the truth.

:)
Oh yeah, funny topic!

The truth is that youre on here blabbing about "kill at will" while knowing from your own baby momas experience that women go through a lot when faced with a pregnancy.

You are a sick f@&!
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#313588 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Abort it --- kill it = Same thing, dead fetus.
Go cry to your dead god or your congressman instead of puking lies about a website then.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#313589 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what righteousness means?
If Gtown's claiming his righteousness was imputed to him, he's basically claiming he has none. That's why I asked if he understood what imputed means. I take it you don't understand what it means either. Or it's wrongly been used around you and you know no different.

<blink> <blink>

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#313590 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what righteousness means?
Sticking your nose in other people's business....?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313591 Oct 17, 2013
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>I'm pretty clear on the process and have dealt with it firsthand. Bottom line: there are way more children than there are families willing to step up to the plate to take them and that is a HUGE problem for those kids.
Is your point that these children should have been aborted?

50,000 are being adopted each year.

hhs.gov

Children Waiting to be Adopted, with TPR: The number of waiting children whose parentsí parental rights had been
terminated as of the last day of each year increased from 74,000 in FY 2004 to 82,000 in FY 2007. Since FY 2007, the
number has steadily declined to just 59,000 in FY 2012. The percentage of children waiting to be adopted whose children
whose parental rights had been terminated has shown a similar decline, from 63% in FY 2008 to 58% in FY 2012. Further
analysis reveals that the number of children whose parentsí rights were terminated during the year has remained very
consistent over the past several years (around 32,000), but the proportion that they make up of all waiting children with
TPR has increased, from 49% in 2009 to 55% in 2012, suggesting that the population of children legally free for adoption
may be shifting toward more children who more recently had parental rights terminated, as states have improved in their
efforts to get more children with TPR to adoption.
Children Adopted: Between FY 2002 and FY 2006, the number of adoptions remained relatively flat, ranging between
50,000 and 52,000. We saw an increase from 51,000 in FY 2006 to 57,000 in FY 2009, but the numbers decreased back
to 51,000 in FY 2011, and slightly back up to 52,000 in FY 2012. Note that although the numbers declined in FY 2010
and FY 2011, the proportion of adoptions to all exits from foster care has been relatively stable, just under 21% in the last
several years, with a slight increase in FY2012 at 21.6%.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313592 Oct 17, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Sticking your nose in other people's business....?
I didn't think you would have a clue.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#313593 Oct 17, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
If Gtown's claiming his righteousness was imputed to him, he's basically claiming he has none. That's why I asked if he understood what imputed means. I take it you don't understand what it means either. Or it's wrongly been used around you and you know no different.
<blink> <blink>
That's not what it means at all.

is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19).

I believe he was referring to #2

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#313594 Oct 17, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Sticking your nose in other people's business....?
Oh my! Yes, that about sums it up.

If the PLM had their druthers a pregnant woman would be closely monitored for any activity that would or could be construed as fetal unfriendly. Slap an ankle bracelet on and place her under house arrest.

If that makes her antsy, secure her to a bed until she gives birth. She's a vessel, really. Her thoughts, feelings, health, etc. are irrelevant and if she dies, she dies. ONLY God decides.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#313596 Oct 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought women got rid of all the unwanted ones through abortion.
You think the right to an abortion equates to the obligation to have one as well, apparently....
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't why you are pro choice?
I've gone over this many times: I am pro-life - therefore, I am pro-choice.(I happen to value quality of life at least as much as quantity of life. Your values may differ.)
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There shouldn't be any unwanted babies being born anymore.
There wouldn't be, if contraception was universally practiced, more consistently, by both genders. But the SCPL wants to put as many obstacles to that in the way, particularly in the way of women, as is humanly possible, on the grounds that they shouldn't have to pay for things which contradict their beliefs....
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume women who are having babies want them.
Yes...but you also ASSUME that every woman is genetically programmed to want babies. You assume women would be better off, if abortion was removed as a choice for dealing with unwanted pregnancy, because you assume that we would stop having sex except as a means to conception. And you also assume that women who have abortions are morally inferior to yourself.

Pah!!

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 VetnorsGate 1,521,726
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr As pharts 32,915
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 20 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr 20 DelucaKoehn 11
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 18 RNC 11,137
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Apr 8 Allycat1999 290
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar 25 BuzzerPhartss 2
More from around the web