Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 322277 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.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317155 Nov 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, I'm not remembering this the way you are. You are now claiming something I have no proof of. So why don't you link us up and let me read what it is that's got you so riled up. Because as far as I'm concerned, you're acting like a rabid dog over something somebody else said and claiming I've offended everyone because of it.
So, put up the link, the post, and let's see what's got your panties in a bunch.
Otherwise, you've gotten to the point where you are making up lies, using ad hominem which, imo, invalidates whatever point you've tried to make.
Sorry Katie, but he is right, and I do remember it.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317157 Nov 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Is that the game you're playing? Because that's EXACTLY what insisting that abortion is 'killing a person' does.
What? Give me a break, now I said that abortion is "killing a person"? Show me where I said that, and dont accuse me of playing games when you cant even qoute someone correctly.
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion is legal killing, in self-defense.
If an organism invades your domicile without your permission, and threatens to end, disrupt, or even 'inconvenience' your life, you'd be happy to kill it, even if you had left all the doors and windows open so it could get in there.
I rent my domicile - but I own my body.
If you think yours the only gender with that right, you're sadly mistaken.
Deal with it.
Wow, you're fu'cked up, sorry but what the hell is that? Youíre going to compare an organism attacking a human body to natural pro-creation,(intended or not), that's just f'cked up. How many shrooms does it take to get that far from reality?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317158 Nov 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ask again, since you declined to answer me that last time: Are you willing to sign a pre-sex agreement to be legally and financially responsible for providing a pregnancy every time you have sex?
This would entail assuming the financial burden for any and all complications to the pregnancy resulting in a need for medical treatment, as well as compensating your female partner for every side-effect of pregnancy, such as swollen ankles, loss of dentition, etc, AND would include the legal right on behalf of the woman, to sue you if she DOESN'T conceive as a result of your consent to sex.
I'll await your answer with fervid anticipation, sonny...
In the meantime, I suggest you order a few cases of Lubriderm and a few pallets of Kleenex...you know....for those thousands of sessions with Rosy Palms and her 5 sisters, in your foreseeable future.
Yeah well, I already did answer it when I got to it, sorry I didnít give you the urgency you demanded, but feel assured I certainly wasnít avoiding your intellectual superiority, lmao...

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317159 Nov 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Kevin, you've been around these forums long enough to know if people aren't speaking the same language, the discussions won't move forward.
The medical definition of abortion does not distinguish between induced and spontaneous abortion. It simply states abortion is pregnancy ending prior to term. Seems the same above in the Roe definition, termination of human pregnancy. Both specify pregnancy ending as primary.
So, who's playing the word game?
Again, the definition of abortion per Roe v Wade, the relevant definition with legal precedence ""(a)'Abortion' means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus."

Tell me how this definition has anything to do with a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage, it even says "with an intention other than ......... to remove a dead fetus." And again, to keep you from burying the original subject, how do you terminate a living fetus without killing it?
How is a natural miscarriage even relevant to the abortion topic, laws or decisions?
_Bad Axe
#317160 Nov 29, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah well, I already did answer it when I got to it, sorry I didnít give you the urgency you demanded, but feel assured I certainly wasnít avoiding your intellectual superiority, lmao...
who cares

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317161 Nov 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You, apparently, aren't speaking the same language. Therefore, this discussion won't be able to move forward.
In a nutshell, I disagree with your contentions and notice you are adding and subtracting from Roe at your whim.
That shows a lack of integrity.
.
Well unfortunately, you have lost a lot of credibility over the last few years here Katie, so simply saying I am adding and subtracting from R v W without specifying exactly what you are referring to is just more of your silly smoke and mirrors. I'd be more than willing to address any inconsistencies or inaccuracies you are referring to, but my bet is you wonít go there, so donít attack my integrity, TIA.
katie wrote:
Btw, babies were bought and sold under the guise of adoption for years in this country. I know two grown men bought and sold through attorneys in the '60s. One of their birth moms was told her son had died as he was whisked away from her "loving arms" at her father's request. There is other research to back up this anecdote. It goes back to the Depression, maybe before.
That was done legally?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317162 Nov 29, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
K, I've been pregnant twice. I don't understand all these hardships that are being portrayed with pregnancy, and raising a child. I loved/love it all! Everything about it.
I didn't think EVER that I was risking my life. You can give me stats all you want, but not once did I ever consider it that way. I don't know of anyone (my girlfriends with kids) that ever felt differently.
Yes, there were complications, and I had two C-sections, but I wouldn't change the end result for anything, and I'd risk it again, and again, and again, etc. etc. etc. I wouldn't even consider it a risk cause if you want to get technical, isn't everything we do have some sort of 'risk' attached?
Good post RC, I agree, and my wife would as well, she had a glow about her every time she was pregnant and even when we were faced with the diagnosis of a downs baby she insisted she carry the entire pregnancy and we would accept the outcome. I understand that not all pregnancies are wanted, nor are all people capable or willing to become parents, but to demean the beauty and wonder of the creation of a human life simply to justify guilt, inadequacies, indifference, or even just inability, does not change the significance of the developing life inside a pregnant woman.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317163 Nov 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Aren't the little rape-babies human too?
Wow that's a real sensitive question coming from someone who advocates womenís rights, donít you think? Is that what you would call a baby a woman decided to keep even though it was a result of rape? No person with any compassion would force a woman to carry a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest to term. I have never advocated for such, maybe I just type too fast for you?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317164 Nov 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I think you figured out your inability to come up with a reasonable response.
<quoted text>That wasn't it. And if consent to sex was consent to pregnancy, you fellas would be just as able to get pregnant.
One cannot consent to another's medical condition. Period.
<quoted text>So, that's a 'no' on the "willing to sign up for responsibility for a pregnancy with every sex act" bit. That's what I 'figured'.
You're all talk and no walk.
Next...
No actually, I'm a successful businessman with two very wonderful and successful children, as well as being married to a very happy and content wife for 25 years. I give to the needy more than you and probably everyone you know combined, I'm honest, respectful of those deserving, but integrity is what I live by, my best asset. And you are?????

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#317165 Nov 29, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Since, with only two exceptions, EVERY SINGLE anti-abortion bill or PERSONHOOD Amendment offered on a ballot, has been soundly defeated by the voters, I believe you're sadly mistaken there, dear. Pro-choice IS the majority....
Wow, you're thick, I said that the PLM extremists views were in the minority, how was I mistaken, by assuming you could read correctly?
not a playa1965 wrote:
<
Nonetheless, in all reality, Civil rights cannot be removed by majority rule. That's not how it works in America.
The Constitution of the United States is in the business of defining and protecting rights - not removing them. Civics 101.
Hence, the Supreme Court rulings, striking anti-abortion laws down left and right, at great cost to the taxpayer.
Next...
Well actually sunshine, I'm not sure what you are referring to by "Civil rights" the civil rights act was put in place by the majority of legislators and could actually be removed by the majority of legislators. But I donít think that is want you are so lamely referring to. Abortion is not a "constitutional" right but it is allowed via the Roe v Wade decision which based it on a woman's implied right to privacy and they extended that implied right to cover medical decisions, and then determined that killing a developing human fetus was a "medical decision". It really was a flawed decision but it did address the legalities of abortion. And those are guidelines States follow until challenged, that's how our laws work.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#317167 Nov 30, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Katie, but he is right, and I do remember it.
Interesting.

Maybe you can provide those posts, then?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#317168 Nov 30, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I was talking about comments he made to you and about lala.
You are probably confused since you're not here except over long holiday weekends.

But maybe you, NR, JM, and Rachel/Leslie are better "friends" than anyone seemed to know.

Who cares anyway? I don't.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#317169 Nov 30, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> I've never been "offended by her in the past". You are naive to think that this poster isn't Chicky.
Chicky supports killing innocent children as CHOICE,as do you,so why would Sandy Hook "seriously affect" her?
Why don't you people (proaborts)stop playing these sympathetic games?
If you need it explained, you'd never understand it. Why don't you have any considerations for people who are not like you?

Intolerant much?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#317170 Nov 30, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Well unfortunately, you have lost a lot of credibility over the last few years here Katie, so simply saying I am adding and subtracting from R v W without specifying exactly what you are referring to is just more of your silly smoke and mirrors. I'd be more than willing to address any inconsistencies or inaccuracies you are referring to, but my bet is you wonít go there, so donít attack my integrity, TIA.
<quoted text>That was done legally?
You are adding/subtracting from Roe when you claim Roe's definition is "different" than the medical definition of abortion. It is no different. You added your opinion of fetal demise to it and claimed it was part of Roe. It is not. But you still used it as an example that I am playing word games.

And, yeah, those "adoptions" were done legally, through attorneys. Of course, the birth records were destroyed years and years ago, though.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#317171 Nov 30, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>No actually, I'm a successful businessman with two very wonderful and successful children, as well as being married to a very happy and content wife for 25 years. I give to the needy more than you and probably everyone you know combined, I'm honest, respectful of those deserving, but integrity is what I live by, my best asset. And you are?????
Thanks for the information. BUT nothing you wrote had A THING to do with her post. Your apparent need to boast does not suffice for a response.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317172 Nov 30, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I have never said a thing about giving the z/e/f rights.
How can you protect it without giving it some rights? I'm going by the PL "right to life" stance which refers specifically to the z/e/f. So if we give the z/e/f the any kind of right(s) it would have to be done by usurping the rights of the pregnant woman.

How can we tell women that their rights are being subjugated in favor of a z/e/f? How can such a thing be reconciled?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317173 Nov 30, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> I've never been "offended by her in the past". You are naive to think that this poster isn't Chicky.
Chicky supports killing innocent children as CHOICE,as do you,so why would Sandy Hook "seriously affect" her?
Why don't you people (proaborts)stop playing these sympathetic games?
What's wrong with being "sympathetic"? A person doesn't have to understand a person's pain to understand they are IN some kind of pain.

Does the reason for someone's pain have to be relevant to you for you to have any sympathy for them?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317174 Nov 30, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
K, I've been pregnant twice. I don't understand all these hardships that are being portrayed with pregnancy, and raising a child. I loved/love it all! Everything about it.
I didn't think EVER that I was risking my life. You can give me stats all you want, but not once did I ever consider it that way. I don't know of anyone (my girlfriends with kids) that ever felt differently.
Yes, there were complications, and I had two C-sections, but I wouldn't change the end result for anything, and I'd risk it again, and again, and again, etc. etc. etc. I wouldn't even consider it a risk cause if you want to get technical, isn't everything we do have some sort of 'risk' attached?
I think that's really wonderful...but your personal experience doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone is the same.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317175 Nov 30, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Ditz,pay attention. I DON'T shop on Black friday nor do I care who does to get a good deal. My problem was with them beginning black friday on THANKSGIVING DAY...thus making families not be able to spend the day together.Friday is not THANKSGIVING so there is no problem.
Again, Moron, anyone shopping at any time on that Black Friday is part of the problem, even before they expanded it into Thursday, because people have to work on Thursday to get ready for that Friday.

And I don't believe for one minute you don't shop on Black Friday. You wouldn't have had such a problem with my criticism if you didn't.

You're lying again. You know I'm right.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317176 Nov 30, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, my darling "Sassafrazzle," looking back, I can't believe I didn't run this by you first.
I mean, with your extensive history with people who've undergone this sort of dilemma, why didn't I first consult you?
With your illuminating words, it all becomes so clear...
I've obviously been a hypocrite my entire life!
I certainly appreciate a martini now and again, a glass of good wine, a mug of good ale or hard cider when the weather gets to be a tad chill. Yet I'm a hypocrite for thinking that it's a good thing that we've laws in place to prevent children from doing the same.
I'm most definitely hypocritical in that every single day, I exercise my privilege to drive, but happen to agree that we have such things as, "rules of the road," speed limits, seat-belts, State-wide inspections--I mean, really, if I was truly into "driver freedom," why would I care whether or not someone else's car had brakes, headlights, a working horn, or driving after imbibing...
Oh, thanks for reminding me, I did smoke, but quit ten years ago, yet despite its obvious health hazards, why don't we allow children to buy cigarettes--freedom to choose eh?
I simply can't believe how hypocritical I've been.
Thanks, my love, for showing me just how short-sighted my ways have been.
Still friends...?
SMOOCH!
May all of your wishes come true at once!
;)
Excellent post!!! Very articulate as always!

Sassy is grasping at straws with this (very overused) restrictions crapola. Our society is not some lawless free-for-all, and she knows this, but she insists on beating this argument to death as if abortion should be THE ONE THING that has no rules or restrictions.

The...choice...still...exists. ..even...with...restrictions.

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) 3 min smile n wave 1,659,253
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Anthony Ramon 35,116
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 9 hr SolarWarmist 11,925
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep '17 The pope 258,482
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web