Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310234 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

Levittown, PA

#319068 Dec 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She may have told her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive no matter what. Who are YOU to say what she would want, when you wish to deny that her HUSBAND knew? You arrogant thing.
Stop with the name calling. I only offered up the question of the possibility if she felt differently when pregnant. You are the arrogant one insisting that you know she would want her child killed with her. If don't know if she would but you say she would be that heartless.
You are trying to make her out to be a heathen like you.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319069 Dec 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>So your basic premise, is that a woman should only have 'personal sovereignty' while pregnant, if she elects to carry to term - otherwise, screw her personal sovereignty, and LITERALLY force her to gestate, for the sake of your views.
Your morality sucks.
Well we have two personal sovereignties. One will die the other doesn't have to.

Why do you want this baby to die?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319070 Dec 24, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Personal sovereignty for an entity entirely dependent on another's body for survival, is a contradiction in terms, dear. We'll discuss 'the baby girl's personal sovereignty' when she's born.
Next....
Soon
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319071 Dec 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Networks see shows rise and fall all the time. They must enforce their own policies consistently or open themselves up to discrimination suits when they don't.
<quoted text>
So what happened to Cracker Barrel?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319072 Dec 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
There are well over a thousand christian sects, plus many unaffiliated believers...because y`all can't agree on what is and is not your god`s word. They're ALL "true christians" because there is no provable model for all to follow.
<quoted text>
Wrong, there is Christ.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319073 Dec 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with the name calling. I only offered up the question of the possibility if she felt differently when pregnant. You are the arrogant one insisting that you know she would want her child killed with her. If don't know if she would but you say she would be that heartless.
You are trying to make her out to be a heathen like you.
I called you no name. Still, if you can't take it, scroll on by my posts. no one is forcing you to read them. But for pity sake, grow up, and stop whining about it.

I am not "making her out to be" ANYTHING. And I NEVER said I knew what she'd want, Liar. YOU are the one trying to speak for her. In fact, YOU are the one trying to speak for all mothers, at the same time judging anyone who wouldn't do things YOUR way as bad mothers. You arrogant thing.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319074 Dec 24, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink: "We only hear from the husband who doesn't want the child"
Daddy BabyKiller has some 'splaining to do when his daughter discovers he pushed hard to rip her arms & legs off and execute her.
He's a proabort's hero! A father wanting to kill his daughter.
Feminists are so classy.
You know, I do think that the father may have some legitimate concerns about the baby's health but even so that is no reason to kill somebody. I just don't know any mother who would want to see her child die with her. I hope the family gets a beautiful healthy child that they will love as much as the other one.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319075 Dec 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I called you no name. Still, if you can't take it, scroll on by my posts. no one is forcing you to read them. But for pity sake, grow up, and stop whining about it.
I am not "making her out to be" ANYTHING. And I NEVER said I knew what she'd want, Liar. YOU are the one trying to speak for her. In fact, YOU are the one trying to speak for all mothers, at the same time judging anyone who wouldn't do things YOUR way as bad mothers. You arrogant thing.
That didn't work. You are making her out to be a heartless mother who would have her child die unneccessarily. You think everyone would do what you would do. She hopefully is different with a different attitude toward her unborn children.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319076 Dec 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That didn't work. You are making her out to be a heartless mother who would have her child die unneccessarily. You think everyone would do what you would do. She hopefully is different with a different attitude toward her unborn children.
You're lying through your teeth. I am not "making her out to be" anything. I'm not trying to speak for her.

YOU are the one doing that, you arrogant thing.

She has no "attitude" anymore, Witless. She's brain dead.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319078 Dec 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying through your teeth. I am not "making her out to be" anything. I'm not trying to speak for her.
YOU are the one doing that, you arrogant thing.
She has no "attitude" anymore, Witless. She's brain dead.
Yes you have decided that she wanted to die even if pregnant and you won't even consider that maybe she would save her child if she could be asked.

Tell me in each of your incarnations do you come back a better person with a better attitude? It seems like you are on your first go round and have a lot of improving to do.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319079 Dec 24, 2013
You really thiNk you can upset me? You ARE deluded. Your hypocrisy is the problem here; we've no choice but accept your mental disabilities.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeterPout: "...when they back up some of NR`s more vile posts, they've given up any pretense of morality."
{{{ NR wipes away a tear }}}
Awwwww........poor lil' fella.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it?
Why so sensitive?
Boo-hoo.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319080 Dec 24, 2013
Cracker Barrel is about as gay-friendly as Liberty U. They never really said wby they took the crap out anyway.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So what happened to Cracker Barrel?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319081 Dec 24, 2013
Who said nothing about abortion or homosexuality. So maybe christians should emulate their savior and STFU.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there is Christ.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319082 Dec 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Who said nothing about abortion or homosexuality. So maybe christians should emulate their savior and STFU.
<quoted text>
Neither did I and yes they should.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319083 Dec 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, fucwit, state interest can be based on whatever the state deems it to be as long as it doesn't interfere with the woman's life or health. It's a nod to the 10th amendment. You're reading something into it that doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
You have no idea what you're talking about. RvW clearly states that the State's authority to restrict or prohibit abortion post-viability is based on it's interest in protecting the fetus(potential life):

"With respect to the STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN POTENTIAL LIFE, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. IF THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

If you think there is one state that has a law restricting or prohibiting abortion post-viability in the absence of a maternal health or life risk, that bases that restriction on something OTHER than consideration of the fetus and it's interest in protecting fetal life, then produce it !!!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319084 Dec 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you have decided that she wanted to die even if pregnant and you won't even consider that maybe she would save her child if she could be asked.
Tell me in each of your incarnations do you come back a better person with a better attitude? It seems like you are on your first go round and have a lot of improving to do.
No, I have not decided anything for her. I clearly said that it's none of my business, that it is her husband's business.

YOU, lying sack, are the one trying to speak for her, and by implication all "good mothers".

Who said it's my first go round?

My attitude toward idiots is not the point of reincarnation.

You've mocked my religion at least twice today. Don't bother anymore denying that you do so.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319085 Dec 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have not decided anything for her. I clearly said that it's none of my business, that it is her husband's business.
YOU, lying sack, are the one trying to speak for her, and by implication all "good mothers".
Who said it's my first go round?
My attitude toward idiots is not the point of reincarnation.
You've mocked my religion at least twice today. Don't bother anymore denying that you do so.
It is in the newspapers so he has made it public and up for discussion.

Good mothers and most of us are would die for our children and not make them die for us. Htas off to moms.

I didn't mock your religion, I mocked you and you deserve it. You are your usual nasty mean self.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319086 Dec 24, 2013
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..
Absolutely correct. It was a horrible decision and remains horrible law. But sadly politics is also the reason it will never be overturned. There will never be a SC with enough courage and backbone to be able to endure the political backlash that they know would come their way if they ever overturned that predetermined travesty of a decision.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319087 Dec 24, 2013
hats

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319088 Dec 24, 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!
Yes, that is Mary in bitner's avatar.

Blessed be the Holy Mother. Merry Christmas.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr NoahLikesPi 247,600
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr OzRitz 6,944
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr John Galt 1,277,680
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr stewart scott 29,956
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Tue Pastor Pete 201,864
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Aug 20 Jcrombie67 282
Hoophall Invitational - Miami Aug 17 Hoophall 1
More from around the web