Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310006 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.

No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#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

Seattle, 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

Levittown, 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

Levittown, 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

Seattle, 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.@@
worsips reality

AOL

#316105 Nov 18, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it.
Scientific research says she does.
<quoted text>If the game gets thin, and she's not getting enough nutrition, she will...and try again when the food supply is better.
<quoted text>If they have too many fetuses, rabbits will eat the last few babies born in a litter. Be glad women don't do that...might really gross you out, poor thing.

<quoted text>Again, you'd rather an innocent child be born into a life of misery, neglect, exploitation, resentment, and abuse, than not be born at all.
no i wouldn't. liar. no one can predict that a child is going to live a life of abuse, neglect, resentment, etc. regardless of the circumstances under which it is born. at best you can say that the odds of the child living such a life are greater under certain circumstances. unless that is you've placed yourself on the level of a deity who can predict such things. you'd prefer to kill on the basis of yor presumption. you're disgusting.

And yet you go around calling yourself 'pro-life'. You're pro-birth,
i'm pro legal protection for innocent human life. get it right, shovel.
Shove it up your flatulent ass, fetus worshiper. You'd rather women risk life and health against their will,
another lie. i support the choice to the choice to legally abort in cases of md verified health/life threat.
if they have consensual sex, than be able to make our own medical choices. All a baby is to you, is 'the consequences of HER actions'.
Eat my shorts.
ewww! do they have that old lady musky stank?
worsips reality

AOL

#316106 Nov 18, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Well actually it could be,
but it isn't
embryo's have been created from the DNA in skin cells. I know a flake of skin isn't a human being dumb dumb.@@
human being is a legal/philosophical term. your skin flake is not even a human life, which a fetus "is".

so what was the point of your stupid post?
worsips reality

AOL

#316107 Nov 18, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>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.
what an absurd post. we're talking about which would be the preferrable option for someone faced with that choice, i.e. choosing to kill or choosing to place for adoption. would your personal inability or unwillingness to adopt preclude you from speaking out against a woman about to chosse to kill her born infant?

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) 2 min Eagle 12 240,034
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 19 min ritedownthemiddle 5,757
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min Nuculur option 1,236,487
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr stewart scott 29,781
News Former UConn Player Pleads Guilty -- Courant.com (Oct '07) May 29 tom wingo 22
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) May 29 Pietro Armando 201,809
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... May 25 Timotion 7
More from around the web