Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311864 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

#317694 Dec 7, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Some women are happy to be pregnant some are not, does that change the moral significance of what is developing inside of them?
Some women are happy to be pregnant, even if they were raped. Does that change the moral significance of allowing them to abort, even though they won't take you up on it?

"MORAL significance" is the prerogative of the pregnant woman in question, who doesn't have to give a rotund rodent's rear about your morals, and is free to rely on her own. If she doesn't want to gestate, she can say 'no'... even if she's already pregnant.

Sorry about those teeth you're grinding into uselessness over there in the cheap seats, fella...but she has the same right to personal risk assessment that you and I do. No one can make the decision for her. It's her RESPONSIBILITY, to direct her own life - not yours.

I know you just hate that.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#317695 Dec 7, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Some women are happy to be pregnant some are not, does that change the moral significance of what is developing inside of them?
Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience.
No Relativism

United States

#317696 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I can, and usually does, but not always, and that's not what an abortion is for.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced,(and here's the important part of that definition, so pay attention) BY THE REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION (for the stupid, the embryo or fetus are the products of conception).
Parentheticals and emphasis mine. The rest is the medical definition of abortion.
It says ending the pregnancy by REMOVAL of the embryo/fetus, not the death of same.
Deal with it.
Bitnerd: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced BY THE REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION. It says ending the pregnancy by REMOVAL of the embryo/fetus, not the death of same.

Upon live birth, the medical term "fetus" is no longer appropriate when describing the little human. In order for the fetus to be considered a fetus upon removal, he/she must be DEAD.

If this were not the case, then childbirth would be considered abortion b/c it ends the pregnancy.

"What a sweet little girl. When did you have your abortion?"

You're a confused mess.

No Relativism

United States

#317697 Dec 7, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience.
grumpy: "Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience"

Absolute moral truths do exist.

What you believe in is moral relativism....i.e. if YOU think it's moral, then it is moral. This is wrongheaded and explains how you can support executing preborn baby Jews while at the same time acting like your sad over the execution of Jews by Nazis.
_______

grumpy: "What is not changeable is conscience"

This may be true if the person is a sociopath who lacks a working conscience. For everyone else, our conscience can be guilty, clean, etc. It is changeable.

For somebody who has lived over 80 years, you sure didn't learn shit while you were here.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#317698 Dec 7, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience.
That is, I think, the fundamental flaw in the PLM's argument against abortion when they wish to steer the conversation away from their objections being based on religious grounds. Ironically, I also happen to think it's their greatest strength.
The PLM has made some serious advances in their efforts to restrict abortions by appealing to those on the opposing side that there is a point in time when an abortion should not be performed except in the most extreme circumstances such as whether it'll save the life of the mother. They've made a convincing case that after a certain amount of time has passed, it's "morally" objectionable to terminate a pregnancy except when it's absolutely necessary to do so.
Many people on the opposing side have considered this and, however reluctantly, agreed on the whole with that argument.
This is why there has been such a passionate debate on the subject of "viability."
That said, there have also been those who've tried to advance this agenda to say that there's an "absolute" code of morals that applies to everyone and is universal and not subject to question.
These "moral absolutists" are actually harming the PLM because they're implying--none too discretely--that their opponents have to go along with this argument and, if they do embrace this, then they--by default--have to agree with every other objection these folks happen to have regarding abortion. The perfect illustration of this is the efforts of our darling "Sassafrass" who is now the sole definer of what everyone else's position happens to be. Though she won't admit defeat, I think she knows she's lost the whole "proabort" labeling strategy so she's gone for a similar path; if you happen to be in favor of abortion, for any reason whatsoever, at any time, you're an "evil proabort." If, however, you happen to be in favor of reasonable restrictions as to when an abortion ought to occur, then you're an "anti-choice proabort."
No Relativism

United States

#317699 Dec 7, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't matter - relationship is exactly the same: the fetus accrues all the physical benefits, to the detriment of the woman's body, and there is no benefit to the woman during pregnancy. Not unless you want to count emotional benefits, and you, nor anyone other than the pregnant woman, can quantify those.
Pregnancy, whether you LIKE it or not, is a medical condition.
A fetus, whether you LIKE it, or not, is a parasite.
Of any species.
Deal with it.
Playa: "Doesn't matter - relationship is exactly the same"

What matters is that you are WRONG.

Mother/offspring relationship does NOT meet the criteria of Host/parasite relationship because they are the SAME SPECIES.
No Relativism

United States

#317700 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Does she have legal grounds? No idea. That would probably depend on the state, wouldn't it? And whether or not she won would depend on the judge.
Do I personally believe she should be ALLOWED to sue? Is THAT the question you are trying to have answered?
Humor us; share whether you believe a mother who pays for an abortion should be allowed to sue the abortionist if her baby survives.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317701 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitnerd: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced BY THE REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION. It says ending the pregnancy by REMOVAL of the embryo/fetus, not the death of same.
Upon live birth, the medical term "fetus" is no longer appropriate when describing the little human. In order for the fetus to be considered a fetus upon removal, he/she must be DEAD.
If this were not the case, then childbirth would be considered abortion b/c it ends the pregnancy.
"What a sweet little girl. When did you have your abortion?"
You're a confused mess.
No, the real mess is you.

Sorry, but I'm right.

An abortion is the termination of a PREGNANCY, by the removal of the products of conception. Not the death of same. Period.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317702 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
grumpy: "Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience"
Absolute moral truths do exist.
What you believe in is moral relativism....i.e. if YOU think it's moral, then it is moral. This is wrongheaded and explains how you can support executing preborn baby Jews while at the same time acting like your sad over the execution of Jews by Nazis.
_______
grumpy: "What is not changeable is conscience"
This may be true if the person is a sociopath who lacks a working conscience. For everyone else, our conscience can be guilty, clean, etc. It is changeable.
For somebody who has lived over 80 years, you sure didn't learn shit while you were here.
You are wrong. Morals are subjective, not objective, and relative to the person/group holding them.
No Relativism

United States

#317703 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your extreme dishonest is showing again.
Words taken out of context prove nothing but that you are dishonest.
As the point was that once the pregnancy is over, whether or not the fetus survives, the next to the last sentence is another lie.
Your last sentence is just plain stupid.....but then again, that you all over.
Bitnerd: "How a woman feels after the abortion is not the point. What she chooses to do after the abortion is also irrelevant."

The mother of the dead baby can sue for psychological injuries after her abortion. She can claim the abortuary/abortionist failed in providing the standard of care for appropriate pre-abortion screening.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317704 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Humor us; share whether you believe a mother who pays for an abortion should be allowed to sue the abortionist if her baby survives.
Why the dance? When I asked if that WAS the question you were asking, why didn't you just say yes?

That would depend on the circumstances. YOU may live in a make-believe world where everything is black/white, but in the real world most situations are shades of gray, and therefore cannot be determined ahead of time.
No Relativism

United States

#317705 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the real mess is you.
Sorry, but I'm right.
An abortion is the termination of a PREGNANCY, by the removal of the products of conception. Not the death of same. Period.
If the abortionist delivered the baby, pregnancy would end.

Do you consider childbirth abortion?
No Relativism

United States

#317706 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. Morals are subjective, not objective, and relative to the person/group holding them.
Bitnerd: "You are wrong. Morals are subjective, not objective, and relative to the person/group holding them."

So if Grumpy believes rape is morally okay, then rape is morally okay?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317707 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitnerd: "How a woman feels after the abortion is not the point. What she chooses to do after the abortion is also irrelevant."
The mother of the dead baby can sue for psychological injuries after her abortion. She can claim the abortuary/abortionist failed in providing the standard of care for appropriate pre-abortion screening.
You're confused. You cannot claim that the death of the fetus is what makes an abortion an abortion, and then turn around and say the woman can sue "after her abortion" if the fetus doesn't die.
No Relativism

United States

#317708 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the dance? When I asked if that WAS the question you were asking, why didn't you just say yes?
That would depend on the circumstances. YOU may live in a make-believe world where everything is black/white, but in the real world most situations are shades of gray, and therefore cannot be determined ahead of time.
Bitnerd: "Why the dance? That would depend on the circumstances."

Looks like you're the one dancing.

Explain to me a circumstances in which you believe the mother could sue the abortionist when her baby survives the procedure.

TIA.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317709 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
If the abortionist delivered the baby, pregnancy would end.
Do you consider childbirth abortion?
No, I consider it the end of the pregnancy at, near, or past full term.

An abortion is prior to full term, whether spontaneous or induced. Your mistake is in trying to twist my words. I never said, or implied that an abortion is the only way a pregnancy can end.
No Relativism

United States

#317710 Dec 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confused. You cannot claim that the death of the fetus is what makes an abortion an abortion, and then turn around and say the woman can sue "after her abortion" if the fetus doesn't die.
I said the woman can sue for psychological damage after her abortion. Read my post again.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317712 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitnerd: "You are wrong. Morals are subjective, not objective, and relative to the person/group holding them."
So if Grumpy believes rape is morally okay, then rape is morally okay?
Ah, I see, you don't understand what I mean by "subjective", or "relative to the person/group holding them". Got it.

Nevermind, I thought you could keep up. I see I was wrong.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317713 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitnerd: "Why the dance? That would depend on the circumstances."
Looks like you're the one dancing.
Explain to me a circumstances in which you believe the mother could sue the abortionist when her baby survives the procedure.
TIA.
No dance. I'm being precise.

No, I'm not going to judge. You want to come up with a specific hypothetical, I'll consider weighing in on it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317714 Dec 7, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the woman can sue for psychological damage after her abortion. Read my post again.
Well then, that's off the topic we've been discussing, isn't it?

And can she? Why don't you prove that. I want to see a link to a case about a woman who went willingly in to have an abortion that successfully sued afterward.

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 Grey Ghost 1,431,588
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Bruin Nation 32,399
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Brian_G 10,074
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Joe Fortuna 257,121
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Sep 18 Go Blue Forever 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 10 yess 201,881
News UCLA Basketball: Grad Transfer Octeus to Bruins (Jun '14) Aug 31 Trojan 2
More from around the web