Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 315314 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318355 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Well then why do we have people labeled as "criminals" when they live by their moral codes? Say for instance a woman who kills her newborn or older child when they are unwanted? They feel as a mother,that it is the best moral solution. They obviously don't want to have anyone else raise that child. You may think that it is wrong and evil,but apparently,they don't. WHO is right? WHO should be the deciding factor here? You or the mother of that child?
You can play this game til the cows come home but we all know right from wrong. Harming or killing another is wrong regardless of our circumstances or reasons as to *why*.
We have criminals because we have laws. Laws, unlike morals, are objective. They are not based on any one moral code BECAUSE morals are subjective, and relative to the person/group holding them. We have laws to govern an entire society, not just one segment of it, and so our laws reflect what society sees as acts that should be illegal. It's called consensus.

That's what you people just don't get, that laws and morals are not the same thing at all.

Morals are subjective. The fact that you and I agree that an act is immoral (and despite Ink's disbelief, you and I DO hold some of those things in common), doesn't make that an absolute. It just means that particular act is immoral to both of us. And just because two people (or groups) think an act is immoral, doesn't mean it MUST be declared illegal. And there is a third choice, too, people for whom the act is neutral. And just because an act that YOU hold to be immoral is ALSO declared illegal, does NOT mean that law is based upon YOUR moral code.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318356 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Well then why do we have people labeled as "criminals" when they live by their moral codes? Say for instance a woman who kills her newborn or older child when they are unwanted? They feel as a mother,that it is the best moral solution. They obviously don't want to have anyone else raise that child. You may think that it is wrong and evil,but apparently,they don't. WHO is right? WHO should be the deciding factor here? You or the mother of that child?
You can play this game til the cows come home but we all know right from wrong. Harming or killing another is wrong regardless of our circumstances or reasons as to *why*.
Your last sentence, by the way, is completely wrong.

Are you seriously implying that you would not harm someone in self-defense? Perhaps even kill them if they were trying to kill you? That you would not harm someone to stop them from harming someone you love? Really?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#318357 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your first paragraph.
The second one is just silly. Nobody wants to punish anyone. What we want in a civilized society is for people to take responsibility for their actions. Learn some self-control. If you can't take responsibility for your actions,then perhaps you need to to grow up. Life choices have consequences. The natural result of sex is pregnancy. That is how we all came to be. That act is not a game. It is a pleasurable act that God intended for a married couple to show love and bonding..then to procreate at Gods will. That is not a punishment. It is nature. Perhaps an umarried couple shouldn't be sleeping together sharing such an intimate act with each other if they have no intentions of staying together or procreating. All I hear is women and young girls who end up alone after they get pregnant. If you asked them prior to the pregnancy,they'd try to justify their sleeping around. They wouldn't tell you that they were booty calling for some horny guy who they know would never stick by them if they got a disease or pregnant.
I think that it is amazing how you make prolifers the bad guys when we are the ones who want women to respect themselves and their bodies, AND to not punish their developing child by having them executed in the womb because you aren't ready to mother them. I guess you need to use us as a scapegoat for your irresponsible behavior.
Stop judging women who choose to terminate unwanted/unhealthy pregnancies as "disrespecting their bodies, of not taking responsibility for their actions, of lacking self control," or of believing they were "booty calling for some horny guy who they know would never stick by them if they got a disease or pregnant," and I might start believing you PLers aren't the control freak bad guys you portray yourselves to be.
zzz

Paris, France

#318358 Dec 14, 2013
Rational and well thought out responses/thoughts on this topic are lost on some people but bravo to those (e.g., katie and others) making an admirable effort at reasoned discourse.
www.trainerwithbenefits.wordpress.com

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#318359 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
The second one is just silly. Nobody wants to punish anyone. What we want in a civilized society is for people to take responsibility for their actions. Learn some self-control. It is a pleasurable act that God intended for a married couple to show love and bonding..then to procreate at Gods will. That is not a punishment. It is nature.

I think that it is amazing how you make prolifers the bad guys when we are the ones who want women to respect themselves and their bodies, AND to not punish their developing child by having them executed in the womb because you aren't ready to mother them.
Procreate at gods will? This does not jive with "nature". If your goofy god has nothing better to do then sit around listening to the moans and groans of people fcking and determining who he will grant children to in the process has nothing to do with nature or natural. Also if this is your gods will what would be his purpose for "granting conception through rape and incest? Sure sounds like a hateful god that you worship. A real woman hater.
Grown71

United States

#318360 Dec 14, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>If women are obligated to gestate by law, then by default when we become pregnant, we lose the rights to bodily autonomy, personal risk assessment, and self-defense, in service to someone else's idea of what's 'right' and 'wrong'...
Your stance insists that pregnant women must remain that way until delivery, miscarriage, or death. Period.
How charming.
Not my stance. The stance of law says the woman can abort UP TO a certain time. Right ?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318361 Dec 14, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my stance. The stance of law says the woman can abort UP TO a certain time. Right ?
Wrong.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318362 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Well then why do we have people labeled as "criminals" when they live by their moral codes? Say for instance a woman who kills her newborn or older child when they are unwanted? They feel as a mother,that it is the best moral solution. They obviously don't want to have anyone else raise that child. You may think that it is wrong and evil,but apparently,they don't. WHO is right? WHO should be the deciding factor here? You or the mother of that child?
You can play this game til the cows come home but we all know right from wrong. Harming or killing another is wrong regardless of our circumstances or reasons as to *why*.
Get real Sassy. Killers and criminals who are in their right mind know right from wrong too, that's why most of them try to cover up their crimes.

The only one playing games here is you with your perpetual stupidity.

BTW, I addressed your death penalty tantrum.
Grown71

United States

#318363 Dec 14, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
If a fetus isn't useless, it must be useful. How is a fetus useful?
<quoted text>
An unborn child or fetus can and are very useful in many ways. They give joy and promise of new life to many many people. However I can also see if the child isn't wanted , then it could bring sorrow and pain.

My opinion is that most cases where a baby isn't wanted is from a bad situation to start with. It is like a cough or sneeze. Many signs of a deeper problem. My dear friend that died a couple years ago from lung cancer was hurting in her back and shoulder. The gave her meds for the pain, but her main issue was the cancer.

We live in a time where we ALL want a reset button. We can simply "fix it is" and move on. It's been my experience, that most don't change and will need another fix soon.

I'm not being self righteous about this, since I would've wore out my button by now.:)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318364 Dec 14, 2013
You can't read for content. The law protects the fetus, and should. The law doesn't protect the fetus from the woman, and shouldn't.
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
like you were when you said you'd agree to legally protect the fetus from it's inception, eh ? only your attempt at clerness came back to bite you.
<quoted text>
there you go comparing a fetus to a born person again. watch yourself.
<quoted text>
nice try but your initial proclamation included no such qualifier. you thought you nailed me but you got burned. now you're backpedalling by installing qualifiers after the fact. that is, only "after" you tried lying to cover your sorry ass. like i never said "legally protect" or that that wasn't the post you were responding to.
you're pathetic. slink away.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318365 Dec 14, 2013
WR`s been at the Boones Farm again.
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get that idea? Mrs. Schiavo's death was caused by dehydration. Not starvation. Both Bitner and I said that yesterday. I provided a quote from CNN showing that. Bitner never denied stating Mrs. Schiavo did NOT starve because she did NOT starve to death.
You're not as good at this deception as you seem to believe you are.
Grown71

United States

#318367 Dec 14, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> They don't care about fighting for women to be able to electively abort after their limited time frame. THOSE women apparently don't get to make their own choices. THEY are forced to gestate. MOST of these women/men are not pro-choice after all.
And what makes women who kill their unwanted newborn or 3 yr olds,wrong? They don't want their child NOR do they want anyone else to have them(just like the ones who don't want to adopt out their child after birth).
They are slipping off their own hypocritical slippery slopes and they don't even see it.
Although I see a major difference in killing a unborn child and one that is already here the reasons behind doing such things to be the same for women either financial burden or a stress related issues it would cause them to do so

Yep the fact still remains that after a certain point in time women who are pregnant are forced to continue in most states.

It seems that these women are punished by simply waiting tooh long according to most anti. Choice people.
Grown71

United States

#318368 Dec 14, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
So can women who are 9 months pregnant chooze to abort no matter where they live in the US?

For any reason , just as a woman who is only 5 weeks can?
Grown71

United States

#318369 Dec 14, 2013
Fyi - before my core values were changed by God . Not only was I for abortion I will also been the first to say Terri Schiavo should have been amon among others who w who were a drain on our finances. I am still amazed at how so many when I see those right abo and how I used to feel about suc and how I used to feel about such subjects. As I look back I had the same mind frame is many who feel those who are no longer any value to society , should be put down like a wounded dog. Remember feeling threatened by so many in the world and though there were way to many people. I thought there should be limits on kids like China does now. Even though I felt many people should be done away with, I was never thinking how I should've been one of those people;)

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318370 Dec 14, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Morals are not universal or concrete. You can't honestly believe everyone is living with the exact same set of morals as everyone else.
Morals are subjective, I understand that, a "moral society" bases its laws on what is considered right, or just by the majority of it's people. In order to make a determination of what is right/just all aspects of the question, and realistic value of those aspects, must be considered. In abortion, some may consider killing the fetus immoral, others may consider forcing a woman to carry to term immoral, to address that question as a society we must consider both arguments and their realistic value. Since I've been posting back here in the last couple weeks all I have tried to address are those that are being unrealistic about the value of a living human fetus, or perhaps the exaggeration of the woman's rights by comparing her to a slave. We cannot base our laws, as a moral society, on anything less than reasonable arguments.
Personally, I believe that aborting a fetus without extreme circumstance is immoral, as I believe imposing my beliefs on a woman and forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term, without myself being responsible or suffering the consequences of that pregnancy, immoral. Abortion is a complicated issue and no law, or ruling, will satisfy both sides, so it has to be addressed realistically. It seems to me that most people here see their side as good and the other side as bad, while neither side even considers the other's arguments. I have not tried to argue what is moral, only that the question has to be addressed as a moral society, seeking what is right/just, intelligently, considering all aspects, and their realistic value.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318371 Dec 14, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What is what? All I've said all along is that I didn't and don't try to control how others express themselves. I don't take it personally if one refers to an embryo/fetus as a "useless wad of cells" even if I don't agree. People need to be more thick skinned, imo.
This topic is old and I am not recalling it the same way you and NR did. Again, you or NR can provide the posts proving you're right or not. Without benefit of those posts, this is nothing but a weird side issue being twisted by you and NR from my perspective.
Katie, this argument looks like many arguments I've had with you, and I've seen others have with you, about things you've said. So let's just cut to the chase and clear it up, in your opinion, what is the significance of the fetus relative to the abortion issue?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318372 Dec 14, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the first point, I was asking for a law, really. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. That one man may be sued, successfully or not, was not my question. It was your assertion that he WAS financially responsible that caused THAT question.
It would be civil law, and there is plenty of precedence to hold him accountable for some of the monetary cost incurred to her during the pregnancy.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318373 Dec 15, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
Apparently, you don't like me pointing out the innate hypocrisy, in YOUR argument : that all fetuses are human, but only the ones conceived outside of rape should obligate a woman to gestate them.....MY argument is, that it should be the woman's choice whether or not to gestate, regardless. Yours is just stoopid.
.
It's not my "innate hypocrisy", it's your inability to understand anything outside the realm of simplicity. Common sense dictates that when a woman is pregnant there are more considerations than just her rights. There is the consideration of the State's interest to protect the potential life of the fetus as well (btw R v W concurs with what I'm saying here). There are points in the pregnancy where one argument is more compelling than the other, so when a fetus is viable, the State's interest is more compelling than the woman's mere implied right to privacy, but those interests never exceed the State's interest in protecting the woman's life or health. Forcing a woman who was raped would/could impose unreasonable risks to her mental health, so her rights would be more compelling in that situation than in a consensual sex situation. So, you see, there is a major difference that has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
not a playa1965 wrote:
Gee, let's ask 'em..... Show of hands?
My fellow PC posters understand I'm not the one claiming that abortion should be 'allowed' in cases of rape. I'm the one claiming that a woman has a right to an abortion, if she needs one, REGARDLESS of how it got there.
You just want to punish her for having consensual sex, by obligating her to become a parent...but if she gets pregnant as a result of rape, well THEN she gets a pass.
You're completely full of shit.
lol, wow, I think the only ones that will show their hands are the PL people here so you will keep making their case that rape cases are no different than consensual sex, so they can pass restrictive laws with no exceptions, Seriously, drop this argument, you're losing badly.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318374 Dec 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hand up and proud to have you on our side of the debate.
You are correct again! He is completely full of shit.
He is passionate (as most controlling males) on "his" set of determinations on how a "woman/girl" should conduct herself. If raped they will allow you a choice as a pat on the head. If consensual she must follow through as a punishment.
The fact that that so called prolifers only find value in a fetus contingent on how it developed speaks volumes and puts them in the hypocrite category....not to mention control freak category.
lol, ya dork, I'm not going to go through the correct and legal explanation again, but refer to my reply to your buddy and maybe between the two of you.... well, have someone else color you some pictures with crayons and hopefully explain it to you?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#318375 Dec 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry YOUR analogy is flawed.
If you consider a fetus of equal value to a woman/girl then why would you kill one to save the other?
Have you ever had someone read R v W to you? Understand it and come back and discuss it, There are Rights and Interests involved, and never have I said anything about "equal value" WTF are you even mumbling about you silly man-hater?
Morgana 9 wrote:
A pregnancy is always a risk/threat to a womans health and welfare both physically and financially. In case you haven't heard her body changes dramatically in pregnancy, her circumstances change along with her health. But, how would you know, being a male and never carrying a pregnancy? You are in the clueless section and will remain there until you have walked in the shoes of pregnant women since the beginning of time till the end.
Good luck with that.
Well, such is life, there are risks in walking out your door, does that alone give you a right to kill anything that POSSIBLY may be a threat to you? Obviously you hate men, and the thought of being pregnant, so donít have sex with men and that will solve your problems, but donít expect the rest of society to base their laws on your preferences, ya twit.

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) 1 min VetnorsGate 1,566,893
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 28 min Trojan 33,439
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 39 min Into The Night 11,297
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr superwilly 258,482
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 12 New boy 201,878
News Johnny Brown Added To Coaching Staff (Oct '07) Jul 1 Brown Pharts 3
News Tragedy strikes family members of Leasure (Jul '08) Jun '17 Evidence phart 9
More from around the web