Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314308 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.

Ocean56

AOL

#316083 Nov 18, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
bHitler: "Unless you wish to eliminate all medical treatments for unwanted conditions, you have no argument."
There you go again, referring pregnancy to a disease. Preganancy is how mankind was created to procreate...it's natural and normal.
Hate to break it to you, NoRelevance (not really), but pregnancy IS a "disease," or at the very least an UNWANTED medical condition, to any woman who never wanted pregnancy or children in the first place.

For me at least, pregnancy SUCKS, which is why I am so grateful for the availability of the reliable contraception that keeps me pregnancy-FREE. I so love NOT being pregnant. Any woman who either never wants pregnancy or children or who is DONE with the whole procreation thing would probably feel the same way I do about the idea of getting pregnant.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316084 Nov 18, 2013
Doo Doo on Stinky Feces wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had dogs my whole life. I've got a lovable mutt now that I'd step over you in a heartbeat to save. But even I recognize that dogs, cats, wildebeasts, etc are not equivalent to humans...legally, ethically, or morally. Pro life within the context of the abortion issue has never meant anything other than human life. Clean some of those fecal remnants from your cranium, will you ?
Perhaps you should school yourself on Pro Life. In the context of abortion, Pro Life believes the government has an obligation to preserve human life. This involvement of the government would include the death penalty and the right to die (euthanasia).

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316085 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Never. I had few plans that didn 't include my kids and husband. You have a very low regard for people in general. Maybe you should look in a mirror and see what is really bothering you.
Right, it's called "Me Time", how trivial. There are some women unlike you that have dreams of a career and college education that doesn't include kids. That isn't an inconvenience, it's a serious and difficult life choice. Your kids putting a wrench in your trivial plans for the day was an inconvenience.
You don't take things like this into consideration Ink. You have it in your head that women who choose to abort are couch potatoes, have no dreams, and no other responsibilities but to themselves. This sounds more like you.
No Relativism

United States

#316086 Nov 18, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You're just lying. We're all right here, reading as we go along, and can SEE how you are lying. Which makes YOU the failure.
Katie agrees with the thesaurus that "a human" (noun) and a "human being" are synonyms.

Do you agree?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#316087 Nov 18, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie agrees with the thesaurus that "a human" (noun) and a "human being" are synonyms.
Do you agree?
That's not what she said, and she's already pointed that out to you.

Why do you lie so much?

Oh, that's right, because lies are all you have to offer. The truth doesn't support your opinions. Got it.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#316089 Nov 18, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what she said, and she's already pointed that out to you.
Why do you lie so much?
Oh, that's right, because lies are all you have to offer. The truth doesn't support your opinions. Got it.
I don't get NR's stubbornness regarding this definition. From the first time he interrupted that long ago conversation on the philosophy of human being, he has overlooked everything the philosophy discusses -- like being aware of self and others, interacting with environment, etc.-- in order to claim because human and human being are synonymous in common usage, then a fetus is a human being. Even though the fetus has no ability to be anything beyond potential human being until outside the womb.

It's as if he chooses to ignore this even as he weirdly personifies that potential into the equivalence of a newborn. You'd think NR had a romantic vision of newborns playing inside their mothers' wombs.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#316090 Nov 18, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get NR's stubbornness regarding this definition. From the first time he interrupted that long ago conversation on the philosophy of human being, he has overlooked everything the philosophy discusses -- like being aware of self and others, interacting with environment, etc.-- in order to claim because human and human being are synonymous in common usage, then a fetus is a human being. Even though the fetus has no ability to be anything beyond potential human being until outside the womb.
It's as if he chooses to ignore this even as he weirdly personifies that potential into the equivalence of a newborn. You'd think NR had a romantic vision of newborns playing inside their mothers' wombs.
Since his "arguments" have no real facts, he has to make shit up, and twist what others are saying.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316091 Nov 18, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get NR's stubbornness regarding this definition. From the first time he interrupted that long ago conversation on the philosophy of human being, he has overlooked everything the philosophy discusses -- like being aware of self and others, interacting with environment, etc.-- in order to claim because human and human being are synonymous in common usage, then a fetus is a human being. Even though the fetus has no ability to be anything beyond potential human being until outside the womb.
It's as if he chooses to ignore this even as he weirdly personifies that potential into the equivalence of a newborn. You'd think NR had a romantic vision of newborns playing inside their mothers' wombs.
It's a common AC argument for which they have no historical or legal precedent to back it up.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#316092 Nov 18, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Right, it's called "Me Time", how trivial. There are some women unlike you that have dreams of a career and college education that doesn't include kids. That isn't an inconvenience, it's a serious and difficult life choice. Your kids putting a wrench in your trivial plans for the day was an inconvenience.
You don't take things like this into consideration Ink. You have it in your head that women who choose to abort are couch potatoes, have no dreams, and no other responsibilities but to themselves. This sounds more like you.
Guess you can't walk and chew gum. Do have a career and a profession as well as being a mom. My daughters have professions and careers as well as children. It can be done and done well.
You may choose not to in which case, you shouldn't get pregnant but don't think my kids got in the way of trivial things like watching soap operas. I worked around them and included them.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#316093 Nov 18, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get NR's stubbornness regarding this definition. From the first time he interrupted that long ago conversation on the philosophy of human being, he has overlooked everything the philosophy discusses -- like being aware of self and others, interacting with environment, etc.-- in order to claim because human and human being are synonymous in common usage, then a fetus is a human being. Even though the fetus has no ability to be anything beyond potential human being until outside the womb.
It's as if he chooses to ignore this even as he weirdly personifies that potential into the equivalence of a newborn. You'd think NR had a romantic vision of newborns playing inside their mothers' wombs.
Katie you can soothe your conscience or whatever to tell your self that the child in the womb isn't a child but even strong pro abortion advocates will tell you it is but it doesn't matter because 'only' the mother's feelings count.
They will very soon be newborns if you leave them alone.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316094 Nov 18, 2013
Oh look there is flake of skin on my arm. It's a tiny human being.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#316095 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie you can soothe your conscience or whatever to tell your self that the child in the womb isn't a child but even strong pro abortion advocates will tell you it is but it doesn't matter because 'only' the mother's feelings count.
They will very soon be newborns if you leave them alone.
Not all pregnancies go to term, even without induced abortion.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316096 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you can't walk and chew gum. Do have a career and a profession as well as being a mom. My daughters have professions and careers as well as children. It can be done and done well.
You may choose not to in which case, you shouldn't get pregnant but don't think my kids got in the way of trivial things like watching soap operas. I worked around them and included them.
I never said it couldn't be done. Your daughters made their own choices. Every other woman is afforded that same right.
You said you had plans that didn't involve your kids.(shrug)

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316097 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie you can soothe your conscience or whatever to tell your self that the child in the womb isn't a child but even strong pro abortion advocates will tell you it is but it doesn't matter because 'only' the mother's feelings count.
They will very soon be newborns if you leave them alone.
OMG how genius are you! Sofaking profound!
katie

Tacoma, WA

#316098 Nov 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie you can soothe your conscience or whatever to tell your self that the child in the womb isn't a child but even strong pro abortion advocates will tell you it is but it doesn't matter because 'only' the mother's feelings count.
They will very soon be newborns if you leave them alone.
Why would lies soothe my conscious? The first false premise of the entire PLM is that an embryo/fetus = newborn.

All one has to do is see the available advertising where there's a cute cherub smiling for the camera with the headline/caption that abortion is murder. <GASP!!> Who'd want to kill such a sweet thing anyway? And on purpose!! Horrid!

Which leads to false premise number two -- women who've aborted are murderers or have paid a hitman to murder their babies.

You can keep believing that for the both of us, Ink. I choose reality. And it soothes my conscious just fine.
worships reality

AOL

#316099 Nov 18, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>So you can't argue that adoption does either lol.
when faced with two options, neither of which completely solves the problem, i'll take adoption.
we already know which option you prefer.

kill! kill! kill!
worships reality

AOL

#316100 Nov 18, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true; women DO have the right to decide whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy.

It's just that you don't like the fact that a woman DOES have that right.
ya think ? you are one sharp cookie.

Deal with it.
posting on this forum is one of the ways he deals with it. don't like it ? too bad.
worships reality

AOL

#316101 Nov 18, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
Oh look there is flake of skin on my arm. It's a tiny human being.
no it isn't. it's part of a human. it is "from" a human. it is not a unique, individual, developing human life.

oh look! there is a stupid person.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316102 Nov 18, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
when faced with two options, neither of which completely solves the problem, i'll take adoption.
we already know which option you prefer.
kill! kill! kill!
By all means, run to the nearest abortion facility, hold up a sign saying "I'm willing to adopt". Bet you don't, won't, and never have.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#316103 Nov 18, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
no it isn't. it's part of a human. it is "from" a human. it is not a unique, individual, developing human life.
oh look! there is a stupid person.
Well actually it could be, embryo's have been created from the DNA in skin cells. I know a flake of skin isn't a human being dumb dumb.@@

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) 14 min Trump did curtsy 1,534,749
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 258,469
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 11 hr The phartss 33,088
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 16 Patriot 11,170
Penn State University & State College May 12 Truechange 1
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr '17 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr '17 DelucaKoehn 11
More from around the web