Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311869 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

#318912 Dec 22, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
So she is being USED as an incubator? Her wishes, her families wishes matter not. This proves what some believe a woman's ONLY worth. SICK and DEPRAVED.
""Heartbroken, Erick Munoz is unable to fulfill his wife's wishes. She is, he laments, "simply a shell." Or more accurately, in the eyes of the state of Texas, a vessel, one which must be preserved as long as necessary to deliver what may well be a severely stricken or still born child.
Regardless, unlike the experience of the Delay clan a generation ago, the torment continues for Marlise's family. Doctors have said they may have to take the fetus to term.
""
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/21/1264... #
We don't know what her wishes were if she was carrying a child. She may very well have wanted to save her baby if she could.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318913 Dec 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I offered that story up and got no reaction except 'outrage' from Bitner. After I suggested that it was possible that the woman would have agreed to life support if it would save her child, I got no reaction.
I did respond to your post. Why must you lie so much?
worships reality

AOL

#318914 Dec 22, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>So it's not about the 'baby' at all....it's all about the way it got there...
<quoted text>So why is it okay to kill it under certain circumstances, but not others? It dies either way.
<quoted text>But the fact that her fetus is human, and alive, doesn't change, regardless of whether it was conceived in rape and violence, or joy and mutual horniness.
Does it???
the circumstances of it's conception make it a "real" threat.
the fetus conceived in joy and mutual horniness which subsequently becomes a life threat is just as human and alive as a fetus which poses no life threat, yet roe v wade allows it to be legally aborted for self defense reasons even after viability and no phony outrage or cries of hypocrisy from you.

bad axe has already explained this, shovel. why are you being obtuse ? is it deliberate ?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318915 Dec 22, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I did respond to your post. Why must you lie so much?
Maybe I missed it. If I did I apoligize. what did you say.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318916 Dec 22, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Given that most of the Bible is condemnatory of anyone who doesn't worship the Christian god, and threatens imperfect creations with eternal torture and agony, for our lack of perfection, I consider it 'hate speech' NOW.
That day has come.
Then the Koran or any religious book is hate speach. Should we start banning books now?

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#318917 Dec 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know what her wishes were if she was carrying a child. She may very well have wanted to save her baby if she could.
That is right YOU don't know what Her wishes were, but Her husband and family seems to know and their concern is for HER. Yours and the rest of the religiously handicapped have no concern for Her other than she remain an incubator.
worships reality

AOL

#318918 Dec 22, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Morality is taught and so changeable. What is not changeable is conscience.
far out. this cat is deep man.......deep.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318919 Dec 22, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your guilt over supporting abortion has caused you to desperately remove the killing of baby humans from the process.
You're becoming disconnected from reality.
You're a mess.
I think you are wrong she knows abortion kills a child and she doesn't care. She will spout her inane comments but she doesn't believe them for a moment.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318920 Dec 22, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is right YOU don't know what Her wishes were, but Her husband and family seems to know and their concern is for HER. Yours and the rest of the religiously handicapped have no concern for Her other than she remain an incubator.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't when another life is at stake. Cotrary to your opinion most mothers would do whatever they can to save their child. It is called selflessness.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318921 Dec 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The show won't lose any viewers.
And of course, the loss of viewership (not to mention advertisers) to all the OTHER shows on the network, means nothing in the face of Phil Robertson's untrammeled right to spout off on how homosexuality is wrong, and precludes gays from gittin' t' hebbun...

That's not the only show on A&E, miss. The network has its bottom line to think of....not to mention it's OWN POLICIES on hate speech to stand up for.

What's wrong....you don't like it that A&E is taking personal responsibility for its reputation? Chastising Phil Robertson for breaking the rules?

Pfft.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318922 Dec 22, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
the circumstances of it's conception make it a "real" threat.
the fetus conceived in joy and mutual horniness which subsequently becomes a life threat is just as human and alive as a fetus which poses no life threat, yet roe v wade allows it to be legally aborted for self defense reasons even after viability and no phony outrage or cries of hypocrisy from you.
bad axe has already explained this, shovel. why are you being obtuse ? is it deliberate ?
Bad Axe explained it quite poorly, and you failed to explain it at all.

Rape and incest babies are still human, so why is it okay to abort them?

If you had an ounce of consistency, and fewer ounces of hypocrisy, you'd be against abortion in cases of rape and incest. But we all know that you're not about the 'babies'....you're about controlling uteri and reproductive rights.

You couldn't possibly care any less about the 'babies': as soon as they leave the birth canal, it's "On to the next fetus," for you.....

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318923 Dec 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the Koran or any religious book is hate speach. Should we start banning books now?
Of course not. That the Bible is hate speech, is just my opinion. I don't wish to see it legislated as such.

Unlike some, I'm not rabid to change laws affecting everyone, to suit my personal preferences.

I just tend not to lob Biblical quotes at others, in the name of 'religious freedom'. It's known as 'doing unto others what I'd have others do unto me.'

(You might have heard that somewhere too....but maybe not.)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#318924 Dec 22, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I offered that story up and got no reaction except 'outrage' from Bitner. After I suggested that it was possible that the woman would have agreed to life support if it would save her child, I got no reaction.
Good afternoon "Ink."
I'll confess to groaning inwardly when I first read that story. That is nothing short of a confirmation of what many PC folks have been claiming about the PL side of the aisle for so long; that they're not at all concerned with the rights of the woman in question, only with "protecting the unborn." The fact that many conservatives who claim to be PL are in favor of cutting, or doing away with practically all taxpayer funded social welfare programs serves only to solidify the impression that they care not one whit about those who've been born, only those who haven't yet.
I'll admit that I find it rather ironic that many people on the PL/conservative side of the aisle who are the most vocal in claiming how dictatorial/draconian Obama and the Democratic party has been in pushing the ACA because it "forces" people to buy health insurance, yet seem to cheer on legislation that "forces" people to be kept "alive" against their earlier stated wishes.
I'm sorry, but offering up conjecture isn't really a valid enough reason to go against the woman's specified wishes.
Just as in the Terri Schaivo case, we know that this woman specifically stated she didn't want to be kept alive artificially. The fact that she is being kept so doesn't merely violate her rights, it deems that her rights are effectively void because she happens to be pregnant.
The thing I'm most curious about though, is exactly who is going to incur the cost of keeping her this way. Life support is not cheap, and with the fiasco that the implementation of the ACA has turned out to be, who knows if she even has an active health insurance policy.
I'm fairly certain that neither the lawmakers in Texas who pushed for this legislation, nor any local or national PL/RTL group is going to offer to pay her bills.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318925 Dec 22, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Ink."
I'll confess to groaning inwardly when I first read that story. That is nothing short of a confirmation of what many PC folks have been claiming about the PL side of the aisle for so long; that they're not at all concerned with the rights of the woman in question, only with "protecting the unborn." The fact that many conservatives who claim to be PL are in favor of cutting, or doing away with practically all taxpayer funded social welfare programs serves only to solidify the impression that they care not one whit about those who've been born, only those who haven't yet.
I'll admit that I find it rather ironic that many people on the PL/conservative side of the aisle who are the most vocal in claiming how dictatorial/draconian Obama and the Democratic party has been in pushing the ACA because it "forces" people to buy health insurance, yet seem to cheer on legislation that "forces" people to be kept "alive" against their earlier stated wishes.
I'm sorry, but offering up conjecture isn't really a valid enough reason to go against the woman's specified wishes.
Just as in the Terri Schaivo case, we know that this woman specifically stated she didn't want to be kept alive artificially. The fact that she is being kept so doesn't merely violate her rights, it deems that her rights are effectively void because she happens to be pregnant.
The thing I'm most curious about though, is exactly who is going to incur the cost of keeping her this way. Life support is not cheap, and with the fiasco that the implementation of the ACA has turned out to be, who knows if she even has an active health insurance policy.
I'm fairly certain that neither the lawmakers in Texas who pushed for this legislation, nor any local or national PL/RTL group is going to offer to pay her bills.
So am I.

But Ink's innate hypocrisy in these matters is well documented.

*shrug*
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318926 Dec 22, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And of course, the loss of viewership (not to mention advertisers) to all the OTHER shows on the network, means nothing in the face of Phil Robertson's untrammeled right to spout off on how homosexuality is wrong, and precludes gays from gittin' t' hebbun...
That's not the only show on A&E, miss. The network has its bottom line to think of....not to mention it's OWN POLICIES on hate speech to stand up for.
What's wrong....you don't like it that A&E is taking personal responsibility for its reputation? Chastising Phil Robertson for breaking the rules?
Pfft.
Simply it is the show that keeps A&E alive. They won't kill the golden goose.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318927 Dec 22, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Ink."
I'll confess to groaning inwardly when I first read that story. That is nothing short of a confirmation of what many PC folks have been claiming about the PL side of the aisle for so long; that they're not at all concerned with the rights of the woman in question, only with "protecting the unborn." The fact that many conservatives who claim to be PL are in favor of cutting, or doing away with practically all taxpayer funded social welfare programs serves only to solidify the impression that they care not one whit about those who've been born, only those who haven't yet.
I'll admit that I find it rather ironic that many people on the PL/conservative side of the aisle who are the most vocal in claiming how dictatorial/draconian Obama and the Democratic party has been in pushing the ACA because it "forces" people to buy health insurance, yet seem to cheer on legislation that "forces" people to be kept "alive" against their earlier stated wishes.
I'm sorry, but offering up conjecture isn't really a valid enough reason to go against the woman's specified wishes.
Just as in the Terri Schaivo case, we know that this woman specifically stated she didn't want to be kept alive artificially. The fact that she is being kept so doesn't merely violate her rights, it deems that her rights are effectively void because she happens to be pregnant.
The thing I'm most curious about though, is exactly who is going to incur the cost of keeping her this way. Life support is not cheap, and with the fiasco that the implementation of the ACA has turned out to be, who knows if she even has an active health insurance policy.
I'm fairly certain that neither the lawmakers in Texas who pushed for this legislation, nor any local or national PL/RTL group is going to offer to pay her bills.
Hey there John,

I would ask a couple of questions. Being a mother, who wouldn't want to be kept on life support for herself, I would indeed be willing to be kept alive for my child. Maybe she felt the same. I think most mothers would.

I also wonder why the father wants his child to die. My opinion from what I read is that he is concerned that there might be something wrong with the baby.

I would suspect that their insurance from the state would pay.
Skankville

West Hartford, CT

#318928 Dec 22, 2013
Christers are nothing but hate mongering hypocrits!!!!!

You are all useless!!!!

You all deserve to burn in your hell b a s t a r d s!!!!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318929 Dec 22, 2013
1) Why do we send innocent young men and women into war, then? Why not send convicted murderers?
2) You could use a science class yourself. A fetus is not considered part of a species; only born living members are.
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
P1 It is wrong to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
P2 Abortion kills Homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
Conclusion. Abortion is wrong
If you believe the first premise is wrong I would certainly question your judgement. If you think the second premise is wrong you need to go back and take 8th grade biology. No offense but it's true.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318930 Dec 22, 2013
Medical dictionaries define it as ending a pregnancy, followed by the death of the fetus. It's not the goal, just an unavoidable side effect...like bleeding is a side effect of surgery, not the goal.
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
From merriam-Webster
A medical procedure used to end pregnancy AND CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE FETUS.
Google it. Definition of abortion. It is the first hit. Period.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318931 Dec 22, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Medical dictionaries define it as ending a pregnancy, followed by the death of the fetus. It's not the goal, just an unavoidable side effect...like bleeding is a side effect of surgery, not the goal.
<quoted text>
That is just plain stupid. Of course the object is to kill the baby so that you won't be pregnant until the next accident.

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 Incognito4Ever 1,431,762
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 min Les Miles 32,402
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 10,086
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