Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311496 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.

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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318542 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do. Those rights given to us by God or Nature. Not manmade civil rights. Manmade civil rights always benefit the powerful.
Again, you ignore those facts you don't wish to see.

Unalienable means "not to be separated, given away, or taken away". You want to claim those rights for the fetus, but deny them for the woman.

Our civil rights benefit EVERY citizen. Conversely, the denial of the civil rights of ANY citizen threatens EVERY citizen's civil rights.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318543 Dec 16, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
That is your secular view. Only a secularist would say ' he is alive but he isn't a life. Secular sensibilities.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#318544 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do. Those rights given to us by God or Nature. Not manmade civil rights. Manmade civil rights always benefit the powerful.
Nature gave you rights? God gave you rights? Please demonstrate and clarify this.

Seems like an imagined sense of entitelement.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318545 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That escapes common sense.
The fetus is a separate human being which you cannot own.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318546 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Those aren't opinions. They are facts.
Does that mean that, in your opinion, cojoined twins are not separate people?
No, those were opinions.

Conjoins twins are not, in fact separate. Are they two people? That would really depend. Are there two mostly whole bodies, or at least two heads with fully developed brains, aware of themselves? Then yes. But that's not always the case, is it. And they most certainly are not separate. That's what conjoined MEANS, you idiot.

A fetus isn't separate, and it isn't a person. And yes, that last is opinion, because that issue is a MATTER for opinion.

As has been pointed out already, this comparison is not apt, because it's not a case of one twin living completely off the organ systems of the other. They are sharing a body/organs.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318547 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/una...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalie...
You'll have to click on the link to INalienable there.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary...
That one also refers you to INalienable
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definiti...
This one does to, because unalienable is a variant of inalienable.

ALL saying the same thing, and it's not what YOU are saying.

Again, our laws are not based upon the concept of unalienable rights for that reason, because they COULDN'T be given away or removed, no matter what.

That is why our laws are based upon the concept of CIVIL RIGHTS instead.

And a fetus has no civil rights.

You wouldn't be able to grant a fetus either civil rights OR unalienable rights without removing some of those rights from the woman. Which, as I've proven, cannot BE done with her unalienable rights.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318548 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That escapes common sense.
The fetus is a separate human being which you cannot own.
No, it's neither separate, nor a human being.

If it's in my body, I own it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318549 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete in this case doesn't mean completely formed, it means that everything is completely set in place for that child to be unique.
Says you. It was badly articulated, then.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318550 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your secular view. Only a secularist would say ' he is alive but he isn't a life. Secular sensibilities.
I'm a Theist, and I say that while the fetus is alive, it is not yet living a life.

And no, it is not "a life" in the way you are using it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318551 Dec 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That escapes common sense.
The fetus is a separate human being which you cannot own.
And yes, you ignored yet ANOTHER question.

You don't get to complain when someone else doesn't answer YOUR questions anymore, Hypocrite.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318552 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/una...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalie...
You'll have to click on the link to INalienable there.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary...
That one also refers you to INalienable
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definiti...
This one does to, because unalienable is a variant of inalienable.
ALL saying the same thing, and it's not what YOU are saying.
Again, our laws are not based upon the concept of unalienable rights for that reason, because they COULDN'T be given away or removed, no matter what.
That is why our laws are based upon the concept of CIVIL RIGHTS instead.
And a fetus has no civil rights.
You wouldn't be able to grant a fetus either civil rights OR unalienable rights without removing some of those rights from the woman. Which, as I've proven, cannot BE done with her unalienable rights.
It has nothing to do with manmade laws. It is about God and nature.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318553 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes, you ignored yet ANOTHER question.
You don't get to complain when someone else doesn't answer YOUR questions anymore, Hypocrite.
Who's complaining? I have nothing to complain about.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318554 Dec 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's neither separate, nor a human being.
If it's in my body, I own it.
You only think you do. It is pretty pompous to think that you can own human lives.

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 moshx 1,405,492
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Eagle 12 256,083
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 19 hr Trojan 32,308
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Wed IB DaMann 9,991
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 25 NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web