Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 315279 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

#318521 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No one can own another human life.
So why do you keep trying to own pregnant women's morality?

It's alive, dear, but it's not 'a life' until it's....

....wait for it.....

BORN.

Before that, it's potential for a human life.

Ever hear of a stillbirth?

Gestation doesn't come with a guarantee that 'a life' will result, Ink.
It just doesn't.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318522 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not separate. It is inside of, and attached to, the woman's uterus, using her organ systems. Attached to, by the way, means no separate.
There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body. Consider the following:
1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2.Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1
3. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
4. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
5. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."2
6. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
7. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
8. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.3
9. As of February 2013, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn children independently of the mother (except in the case of abortion).4 These laws make it possible to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder.
10.Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.5

11. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.6


No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
abort73.com

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318524 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. These rights are not transferred to the mother. You have a purely secular view of the world so we will never agree.
No, I have a secular view of government. I have a theistic view of the world, same as you do.

If you want to go there, wonderful. Here is the meaning of unalienable...

"Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable"

By the way, you're quoting the DOI, which is not legally binding. Our laws are based upon the Constitution, which states we, as citizens, have the right to "life, liberty and property".

Still, whether you want to claim "life, liberty and property", or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and I do understand why you left that one off), then the WOMAN'S rights cannot be "separated, given away, or taken away from her.

SHE has the right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

If SHE decides that her right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness means she should continue her pregnancy, no one can take that away from her.

If SHE decides that her right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness means she should terminate her pregnancy, no one can take that away from her.

Remember, unalienable means they cannot be separated from her, given away (either by her, or by anyone else TO another), or taken from her.

And, of course, if you want to be anal about it, the fact that her rights cannot be GIVEN AWAY could be interpreted to mean that she could, in a situation where her life was in danger due to her, be forced to ABORT her pregnancy.

Your argument is invalid.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318525 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No you can't. I would think that someone spiritual like yourself would know that.
Yes, I can. Part of my spirituality assures me of this.

Careful now, after claiming you don't mock the religions of others, you're coming perilously close to giving lie to that claim.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318526 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you like to think that but it has never been the norm to abort your babies. Most civilizations created children for the prosperity and future of the culture. More people meant survival. Children and families were valued and prized. Today it is the norm in a society that values nothing. Par for the course.
One doesn't abort babies. Baby is a term of endearment, anyway. One aborts a pregnancy.

This post disregards the facts of history entirely. Or, rather, halfway.

As always, you ignore what you don't like, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Get your head out of your ass.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318527 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
A complete and separate human fetus.
You are wrong.

It is not only not separate, when 99% of abortions occur, it's not anywhere NEAR "complete".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318528 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body. Consider the following:
1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2.Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1
3. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
4. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
5. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."2
6. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
7. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
8. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother.3
9. As of February 2013, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn children independently of the mother (except in the case of abortion).4 These laws make it possible to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder.
10.Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.5
11. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.6
No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
abort73.com
These opinions change nothing.

It's attached to the inside of the woman's body. Attached means not separate.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#318529 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
A fetus is a life unto itself. Totally separate and unique. With it's own blood type and DNA. If it isn't your DNA then it isn't part of your body. We have learned a lot about the human body through science.
Look lady....if my body contains a fetus, that fetus qualifies as contents.

Your attempted spin that I claimed it was 'part of my body' doesn't hunt. I never claimed the fetus was a 'body part'....just that my body contains MY fetus.

(You'll note that I didn't refer to it as "God's fetus" or YOUR fetus...no, I said "MY fetus.")

I own my body, and its contents.

Deal with it.

Next....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#318530 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. These rights are not transferred to the mother. You have a purely secular view of the world so we will never agree.
Do you know what 'inalienable' means????

If gestation to term was an 'inalienable right', then ALL pregnancies would result in live births.

Hint: they don't.

Next....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#318531 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
A complete and separate human fetus.
This is ridiculous....a complete and separate human is BORN...until then, it's anything but 'separate' from the woman in whom it resides.

That cord has to be CUT, remember?

If the doc just yanked it out, she would bleed to death.

Jeez, you're obtuse.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318532 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have a secular view of government. I have a theistic view of the world, same as you do.
If you want to go there, wonderful. Here is the meaning of unalienable...
"Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable"
By the way, you're quoting the DOI, which is not legally binding. Our laws are based upon the Constitution, which states we, as citizens, have the right to "life, liberty and property".
Still, whether you want to claim "life, liberty and property", or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and I do understand why you left that one off), then the WOMAN'S rights cannot be "separated, given away, or taken away from her.
SHE has the right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
If SHE decides that her right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness means she should continue her pregnancy, no one can take that away from her.
If SHE decides that her right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness means she should terminate her pregnancy, no one can take that away from her.
Remember, unalienable means they cannot be separated from her, given away (either by her, or by anyone else TO another), or taken from her.
And, of course, if you want to be anal about it, the fact that her rights cannot be GIVEN AWAY could be interpreted to mean that she could, in a situation where her life was in danger due to her, be forced to ABORT her pregnancy.
Your argument is invalid.
If her life is in danger, that is another situation.

My argument is quite valid. You don't own another human to do with as you please whether or not she has civil rights. The child in utero has a distinctly different DNA and possibly blood type. In fact a woman cannot have two different blood types and DNAs.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#318533 Dec 16, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>To no longer be pregnant.
Pretty simple, really.
Next...
I don't think it's that simple, dirtbag. You mean to say if an artificial womb is developed and said fetus is transferred thereto, thereby rendering the "plan" of the woman seeking an abortion complete....but also insuring that a bouncing baby will be hers in about 7 months, will be an acceptable scenario to the one seeking an abortion ?
Sorry, but a ded bebby will always be an indispensable part of that plan. And that's just the way a dirtbag such as yourself likes it.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318534 Dec 16, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know what 'inalienable' means????
If gestation to term was an 'inalienable right', then ALL pregnancies would result in live births.
Hint: they don't.
Next....
Yes I do. Those rights given to us by God or Nature. Not manmade civil rights. Manmade civil rights always benefit the powerful.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318535 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
These opinions change nothing.
It's attached to the inside of the woman's body. Attached means not separate.
Those aren't opinions. They are facts.

Does that mean that, in your opinion, cojoined twins are not separate people?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318536 Dec 16, 2013
conjoined

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318537 Dec 16, 2013
And Ink?

The fact that the UNalienable rights mentioned in the DOI cannot be "separated, given away, or taken away" (with no qualifiers you notice, which means under ANY circumstances) is the REASON our laws are not based upon them, but upon the CIVIL RIGHTS outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution.

If our laws were based upon the concept of unalienable rights, we could not prosecute criminals and put them in jail (which would infringe on their "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318538 Dec 16, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's that simple, dirtbag. You mean to say if an artificial womb is developed and said fetus is transferred thereto, thereby rendering the "plan" of the woman seeking an abortion complete....but also insuring that a bouncing baby will be hers in about 7 months, will be an acceptable scenario to the one seeking an abortion ?
Sorry, but a ded bebby will always be an indispensable part of that plan. And that's just the way a dirtbag such as yourself likes it.
That technology will become available to replace surrogate mothers and for women who don't want to 'ruin' their bodies. That would not interest these women because they don't want to end the pregnancy which the artificial womb would do, they want to end the life of the child.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318539 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
It is not only not separate, when 99% of abortions occur, it's not anywhere NEAR "complete".
Complete in this case doesn't mean completely formed, it means that everything is completely set in place for that child to be unique.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318540 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If her life is in danger, that is another situation.
My argument is quite valid. You don't own another human to do with as you please whether or not she has civil rights. The child in utero has a distinctly different DNA and possibly blood type. In fact a woman cannot have two different blood types and DNAs.
Witless, in the situation I spoke of, with the endangerment of the woman's life, the point was that she could be FORCED to abort, you know, in order to save that life that she's not allowed to give away an "unalienable" right to?

Would you be okay with that, you Moronic Thing?

For the love of all things sacred, slow down when you read.

The fetus is not separate, no matter how many times you claim it is.

And it has no civil rights.

And yes, if it was inside my body, I WOULD own it.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318541 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
And Ink?
The fact that the UNalienable rights mentioned in the DOI cannot be "separated, given away, or taken away" (with no qualifiers you notice, which means under ANY circumstances) is the REASON our laws are not based upon them, but upon the CIVIL RIGHTS outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution.
If our laws were based upon the concept of unalienable rights, we could not prosecute criminals and put them in jail (which would infringe on their "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
No, it means that we have rights not given to us by the law of any country or any man. If you choose to violate societies laws you pay the price and forphet your freedoms. One of those rights is the right to life.

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) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,565,666
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr And phart 33,426
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 hr John 258,478
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sun Into The Night 11,293
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