Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 346333 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.

Bless the Child

Allentown, PA

#318831 Dec 20, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you would be wrong. On all counts.
You obviously have an overactive imagination, and are completely lacking a sense of humor.
I see you have an avatar of the Blessed virgin Mary, with the phrase "Blessed Be". A very Merry Christmas to you!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318832 Dec 20, 2013
Bless the Child wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you have an avatar of the Blessed virgin Mary, with the phrase "Blessed Be". A very Merry Christmas to you!
No, it's not Mary.

You enjoy your Christmas, though.
Grown71

United States

#318833 Dec 20, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
My take is that free speech doesn't protect you from the discipline of employers if you say something that might affect their business, even if you say it "off the clock".
Can you say Facebook post? Sure you can.
I'm just curious why folks who scream equality and tolerance the most can betth most intolerant folks.

A@E can do as they wish, and i've never watched DDI, but I do know it is extremely popular .

Also the media tends to want us thinking every other person is gay.
It's simply not true.

A tiny sect of folks are gay, but it's the media"in" thing to fire those who speak against it. Imo
Grown71

United States

#318834 Dec 20, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to stir up trouble but it is interesting how TV is handling the controversy.
I had heard about this deal ten mins, before my post, but I think it will be another chic fillets deal.:) times ten.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#318835 Dec 20, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just curious why folks who scream equality and tolerance the most can betth most intolerant folks.
A@E can do as they wish, and i've never watched DDI, but I do know it is extremely popular .
Also the media tends to want us thinking every other person is gay.
It's simply not true.
A tiny sect of folks are gay, but it's the media"in" thing to fire those who speak against it. Imo
"I'm just curious why folks who scream equality and tolerance the most can betth most intolerant folks."

You wonder if The Dixie Chicks are asking the same question?

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#318836 Dec 20, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have known you'd play "thick headed". And am so disappointed you do.
A nosy parker is someone like Mrs. Kravitz off of "Bewitched" and fits the PLM and those who follow it to a T.
Oh really ? THAT'S what it is ???
If you hurry you can catch your sense of humor before it gets away.
If it's not my embryo/fetus, it's not my business. Therefore, unless the embryo/fetus in question is in my uterus and growing inside me, what I think about it is nobody's business but mine.
For crying out loud if you weren't going to answer the question couldn't you have said that in the first place instead of cutting and pasting all this crap that does nothing but repeat what everybody knows ?

You can speculate on that all you like, but if it's not your pregnancy, your embryo/fetus, it's not your business, either.
If I wanted to speculate I would have done so. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing by giving you the opportunity to give your opinion. You of course, declined. But not before wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting a slew of crap that is common knowledge
If you wanna think the unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy is equivalent to a wanted/healthy one, you do that. But to do so, you have to subtract the pregnant woman/girl from the equation. And that's exactly what the PLM and its followers are trying to do.
I never said they were equivalent. And I never said the pregnant woman should be discounted from the equation. The only thing I DID do was ask your opinion regarding what significance, if any, the fetus had, at any time, relative to the abortion issue.
How does a simple question put to you, come around to the PLM followers and what you think they are trying to do ?

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#318837 Dec 20, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have missed part of the context of your quoted piece above. "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
Page 410 U. S. 161
"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive.[Footnote 63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few
Page 410 U. S. 162
courts have squarely so held.[Footnote 64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.[Footnote 65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem.[Footnote 66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41...
Everything you've quoted here I've already acknowledged.
What does the fact that the fetus was never recognized as a person or granted any rights, have to do with the fact that RvW allows States to restrict abortion post-viability based on their interest in protecting fetal life ?
Now, can you do what I asked peter to do and find a state law that restricts abortion post viability on the basis of something OTHER than consideration of their interest in protecting fetal life ? If you can't just say so. Don't try and distract with this nonsense about the fetus not being a person or having any rights. Because none of that has anything to do with what I asked.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#318838 Dec 20, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Per Roe v Wade --
"The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician."
Here is the context surrounding what you've excerpted from Roe v Wade in the prior post.
"To summarize and to repeat:
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life
Page 410 U. S. 165
may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Page 410 U. S. 166
state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41...
Sorry I must have missed it, but in anywhere in this slew of cut and paste is there a State law which restricts abortion post-viability for any reason other than consideration of the protection of fetal life ? Which is what I asked for ?
I didn't think so.
I will say this though...you cut and pasted this RvW excerpt very nicely :
"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life
Page 410 U. S. 165
may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'
Which is exactly what I said.
Thanks.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#318839 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Okay, cat people, watch this. Pee first :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =PKffm2uI4dkXX
OMG hahahahhahahhaha I saw this before, I LOVE it. hahahahahhhaha

AWESOME! thanks for the pick me up!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#318840 Dec 21, 2013
That'll be a new FB post! TIA! hahahahaha

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#318841 Dec 21, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> :::yawn:::
I visualize you as a chimney smoker,being in your PJ's all day long,with dirty,unkept hair,having like 50 cat crawling all over you and your keyboard/computer.
((sigh)) can't you take it for what it was meant for. Lighten up, once in a while take your caps lock off and enjoy something else. Appreciate it for what it is.

I sure enjoyed it Bitner! Thanks

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#318842 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Okay, cat people, watch this. Pee first :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =PKffm2uI4dkXX
http://www.pawbonito.com/a-cat s-guide-to-taking-care-of-your -human/

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318843 Dec 21, 2013
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal Pete , there are Christians within both sects you mentioned.
Many lost people in both as well.
A person is either a Christian or not, no matter where they publicly attend worship services.
What's your thoughts on the A@E / Phil R. Topic?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318844 Dec 21, 2013
RvW was a constitutional decision based on medical and legal facts. There is nothing in either demanding protection of the fetus.
Bless the Child wrote:
The Roe v.Wade law was just a political decision based on neo-liberal ideas. It ignored science. the unborn child must be protected. Reading the comments of the LIBERAL HALF-WITS on this blog are sickening..
Stick to your abnormal sex and witchcraft games.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318845 Dec 21, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Okay, fair enough.

But consider this realistic scenario; A woman used birth control, the birth control failed, she does not want want to be pregnant and did take precautions to prevent that outcome, but never-the-less she is now pregnant.

Half of society is saying, "too bad, stay pregnant, don't be a murderer". The other half of society is saying, "don't force that woman to remain pregnant against her will".

The Supreme Court made its decision. The woman prevails over the z/e/f, but the SC says it's not an absolute since elective LTAs are not legal.

That seems like the best compromise we can reach.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318846 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
My take is that free speech doesn't protect you from the discipline of employers if you say something that might affect their business, even if you say it "off the clock".
Can you say Facebook post? Sure you can.
Okay, I'm not quite up to speed on this discussion but I must say that I'm against giving employers too much power. If I go to work and do my job as expected and to the satisfaction of my employers and then go home and write a FB post, seen by my friends there, that my company sucks, then I don't think they should have the power to reach into my "off the clock" personal life to prevent it. I could just as easily be sitting in a coffee shop with a group of friends while airing my grievances and negative opinions against my employer. If a boss should be in there buying coffee and I don't see him/her should he be able to discipline me at work the next day for my remarks? I say, no.

Some years ago I went to work at a pharmacy as a clerk and they had a package of papers for new hires to sign which "forbade" us from speaking negatively about the company outside of work. It also forbade us from drinking within 12 hours of working a shift (responsible people wouldn't drink before work anyway, I hope) and the 12 hours AFTER working a shift. I didn't even really drink much, but c'mon. How much fkn reach into our personal lives do employers want.

When I'm on the clock I do things their way, off the clock my life is none of their business.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318847 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
<quoted text>
For how long?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318848 Dec 21, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had heard about this deal ten mins, before my post, but I think it will be another chic fillets deal.:) times ten.
For sure.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318849 Dec 21, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>OMG hahahahhahahhaha I saw this before, I LOVE it. hahahahahhhaha
AWESOME! thanks for the pick me up!
You're quite welcome. I thought it would be a nice break from the arguing, but apparently the bitter hag, Sassy couldn't bring herself to accept it as it was meant to be taken. She just used it to attack. What an ass!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318850 Dec 21, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
LOL, that was great, too. It sounded like the same voice.

Thanks.

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) 24 min Politico Incorrecto 1,783,462
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Trojan 36,117
News Racers' Stark opting for NBA opportunity Jun 20 Opting phartse 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jun 10 hojo 12,419
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 5 Public Accommodation 201,480
do you need a loan (Sep '13) May 30 zan 5
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May '18 Go phartse 4