Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317423 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

#319388 Dec 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Her response was, to say the least, irrelevant to anything I said in my post. I don't know where they get all this "hate" crap.
They can only describe that with which they are familiar.

It's much easier to say we 'hate god' or 'hate babies' or 'hate ourselves', than it is to admit that they are powerless to end abortion, or to affect another woman's reproductive choices.

They hate even the THOUGHT of admitting such a thing.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319389 Dec 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Precedence?
Your statement made it sound like fact, not a possibility. Even if you feel it is probable, that doesn't make it fact.
I just did my own search, and the only thing I could find was a condemnation of the state of New York holding the men responsible for the Medicaid expenses of a woman's delivery, to recoup them FOR THE STATE. Not quite the same thing.
So what you are arguing with me is that there is no precedence for men being sued for costs occurred from a pregnancy they were responsible for? I could site thousands, I'm sure, what you are looking for is a criminal law, it is a civil matter, there are already civil laws that hold you responsible for costs incurred as a result of your actions. Do you really need me to list examples?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319390 Dec 27, 2013
Bless the Child wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all equal in the eyes of God. I mean you no harm and only commented on your angry words. Atheism is merely the absence of God in your life. Many lose hope due to the struggles of life and start to doubt their beliefs. Atheists generally are such people. I hope you are well. I pray for your soul; and hope you find peace and joy during this most Holy season of Love.
We are all born with clean slates. You and your kind wish to inflict guilt, shame, hatred, and bigotry on the young, at as young an age as possible.

Teaching a child to fear a being he/she cannot see, to hate others for their differences, to feel guilt over bodily pleasure, and shame for doubting 'god's' existence, is child abuse.

You folks and your cult annoy the crap out of me.
worships reality

AOL

#319391 Dec 27, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you have the resources to raise all of these children? Typical to suggest something without thinking it through to the end.
would it make sense to preclude you from speaking out against infanticide simply because you might not have the resources to raise the potential victims of same ?

how stupid.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319392 Dec 27, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>So what you are arguing with me is that there is no precedence for men being sued for costs occurred from a pregnancy they were responsible for? I could site thousands, I'm sure, what you are looking for is a criminal law, it is a civil matter, there are already civil laws that hold you responsible for costs incurred as a result of your actions. Do you really need me to list examples?
Yes, do.

I'm saying that a man is not, currently, financially responsible for a woman's pregnancy, labor and delivery by law. And I never specified criminal law, I don't know where you got that from.

So, yes, I want a list.

A possibility of one man being sued by one woman doesn't cut it.
worships reality

AOL

#319393 Dec 27, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
You think everyone should be required to be organ donors? While alive or when dead? The example I gave you was from a father who was alive.
No, I do not think it is OK to kill an innocent person who has done nothing wrong. You flatter yourself believing I am in anyway afraid of you.
Do you believe in self defense?
yes.
Do you believe in systematic rape used for military purposes?
no.
Do you believe that women girls subject to this should be forced to bear the result?
no.
Do you believe they should have a safe and legal choice?
yes.
Do you believe that women/girls have the right to bodily autonomy?


yes. as long as it is truly "auto"nomy. and as long as it is just "their" body.
Do you believe that pregnancy does not in any way disturb the medical/physical well being of a woman/girl?
walking in high heels disturbs the medical/physical well being of a woman. does that mean we should have the right to kill a shoe salesman who dares try to sell them ?
if a pregnancy is determined by an md to be a certified health/life risk then a woman should have the option of choosing to legally abort. "that" is legitimate self defense. the use of deadly force must be justified in cases of self defense. claiming a normal pregnancy in and of itself poses an imminent threat to the extent that deadly force would be warranted and justified is just absurd.
Do you believe women/girls "owe"?
? explain.

Do you believe that woman/girls should be exempt from the rights you enjoy once pregnant?(or at anytime before or after?
no. i do not have the right to terminate human life without just cause. therefore she would not be exempt from any of the rights i currently enjoy.

Do you believe that anyone should be a life support system for another against their will?(you never answered that one, you danced around it).
no. but that applies to born humans. you're not comparing fetuses to born humans are you ?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319394 Dec 27, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Roe v Wade addresses abortion realistically, intelligently, and with consideration for the 'interests of the State.'
How do you propose to 'address' the complicated issue of abortion?(Since 'personhood' amendments are being rejected right and left, and so far all the 'pro-life' side has accomplished with regard to 'intelligently' addressing it, is to increase the number of hoops women must jump through, and make us wait longer, to get one?)
Well, first of all, let me clarify what position I take on abortion, since you and another assume I am a PL extremist here simply because I understand the realistic value of a fetus as a potential human life. I have argued that Roe v Wade is the most logical "legal" argument/decision on the abortion issue, but it's not perfect and was not free of political leanings. I would take R v W as a good starting point, but after the fourth month I think abortion should be limited to extreme cases such as sever fetal defect, realistic health issues with the woman, obviously, always the life of the woman would take precedence. After the point at which the fetus is viable, only the health/life of the woman would take precedence over killing a human fetus. I've never considered "personhood", not sure why you mentioned that, but I will say that people like you and Morgan make people like me consider laws like those in Texas that require a woman to understand exactly what she is doing, necessary laws. I had a bitch nurse try to push me and my wife into aborting our "developing", healthy, beautiful and intelligent daughter, with an ignorant, demeaning betrayal of my developing daughter. Thank god we were old enough, and intelligent enough to make our own decision, and she was born, healthy. How many more babies could have been born healthy without the ignorance of you and your ilk pounding the drum of "I am woman hear me roar!"?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319395 Dec 27, 2013
It's a fact that a man is not required by law to pay for a woman's pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's a fact that he faces no risks to his health or life due to that pregnancy. It's a fact that when fertilization occurs, he's not anywhere around, and the sperm he deposited is acting on it's own. It's a fact that he has no right to make any decisions for that pregnancy.

It's her uterus. It's her body. It's her life and health that may be negatively impacted. It's her pregnancy. It's she who is financially responsible for that pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's her decision whether or not she will continue the pregnancy.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319396 Dec 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, do.
I'm saying that a man is not, currently, financially responsible for a woman's pregnancy, labor and delivery by law. And I never specified criminal law, I don't know where you got that from.
So, yes, I want a list.
A possibility of one man being sued by one woman doesn't cut it.
OK, I will, not tonight but I will, it's ridiculous Bit. What you're missing is that there are already civil laws and precedence that any person that causes damages via medical conditions to another is liable for costs incurred. Or perhaps your argument is that pregnancy is not a medical condition? lol, another argument... I will provide some cases.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319397 Dec 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
It's a fact that a man is not required by law to pay for a woman's pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's a fact that he faces no risks to his health or life due to that pregnancy. It's a fact that when fertilization occurs, he's not anywhere around, and the sperm he deposited is acting on it's own. It's a fact that he has no right to make any decisions for that pregnancy.
It's her uterus. It's her body. It's her life and health that may be negatively impacted. It's her pregnancy. It's she who is financially responsible for that pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's her decision whether or not she will continue the pregnancy.
Wow, It sounds like bad experience, I'm sorry. But the truth is that any cost incurred for a pregnancy the man is at least 1/2 responsible, any cost necessary to raise that child, the man is at least 1/2 responsible. A far as "her uterus...her body...her life" well, no, once she made a conscience decision to have sex and a developing fetus is involved, it's no longer JUST about her, even the SCOTUS agrees with me on this.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319398 Dec 27, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, these so called prolifers are merely procontrol, these personhood bills speak volumes! The push is to grant personhood from "the moment of conception" is an attempt to eliminate the actual "personhood" of the woman/girl and reduce her to second class status. Granting personhood is religious based and nothing more.
You have no clue what my position is here, most others do. You show your ass when someone doesnít agree with you, I'm sorry, but you are not the most important person to everyone else, nor are your rights absolute when it comes to killing a fetus. The SCOTUS says that once a woman becomes pregnant there are other compelling considerations, if you donít like it, donít get pregnant.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319399 Dec 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
We are a nation of laws, not morals, and our laws are based on the rights granted by the constitution. Morality gave us sodomy laws, blue laws, abortion laws, miscegenation laws, etc. We have slowly been able to dismantle that mechanism, allowing freedom for all, not just "the approved".
<quoted text>
What you seem to confuse is that "morals" do not have to have religious foundations, in fact, religious morals were founded by man, not God, do you understand that? Unfortunately, their "morals" were not inclusive of any other view point but their own, which really was not moral, right/just. What I was saying is that although there may not be a "moral" conclusion to the abortion issue, since morals are subjective, there must be a moral approach to a compromise, which considers all, realistic and relevant.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319400 Dec 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Only if he has agreed to defray the costs and backed out. Unrelated adults have no obligation to pay other people's bills.
<quoted text>
So if you slapped NR in the nose and broke it you would not be liable for the damages/costs incurred because you are not related?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319401 Dec 27, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Pregnancy is an extreme circumstance. You'll never face pregnancy, much less 'aborting a fetus', and your 'holier than thou' mumblings are offensive to those of us who value our rights to direct our own medical care....with our without your approval.
You want to control the outcome of a pregnancy so badly, go get your own uterus.
You have no say over anyone's reproductive choices other than your own.
Or maybe it comes down to this, if you donít like the fact that the SCOTUS found that once a woman is pregnant it is no longer JUST about her, donít like it? Donít get pregnant! But youíre fooling yourself if you think that good men are not a major part of supporting a pregnancy and a born child. Well, sometimes you canít see the trailer for the trailer park, perhaps you should hold out for a good partner rather than the man with the crack pipe? Sorry, but I guess Iím not "holier than thou"...

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319402 Dec 27, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Clear what up? My contention that an embryo/fetus does not equal a newborn? Or that until a healthy delivery, embryo/fetus has no guarantee to become a newborn? Or ... Wait! What about this one? If it's not my embryo/fetus, it's not my business.
We clear now?
What are you talking about ya dork? You responded to a post I made to Bitner which had absolutely nothing to do with your answer, or any imaginary conversation I was having with you.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319403 Dec 27, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Clear what up? My contention that an embryo/fetus does not equal a newborn? Or that until a healthy delivery, embryo/fetus has no guarantee to become a newborn? Or ... Wait! What about this one? If it's not my embryo/fetus, it's not my business.
We clear now?.
Ok, so, that's definitely short of calling a fetus a "worthless wad of cells", donít worry, I won't tell Chicky.=========
katie wrote:
Okay, that's what I was replying to. When reading the forum, I realized I must've clicked on the wrong post when hitting reply. My mistake. The post above with the same response from me was out of whack. Sorry.
Dork
Gtown71

United States

#319404 Dec 27, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>They can only describe that with which they are familiar.
It's much easier to say we 'hate god' or 'hate babies' or 'hate ourselves', than it is to admit that they are powerless to end abortion, or to affect another woman's reproductive choices.
They hate even the THOUGHT of admitting such a thing.
I am powerless to end abortion. Better?:)
Like many things in this world , just becouse its legal, doesn't mean its good.
Like many things in the past.
Gtown71

United States

#319405 Dec 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
It's a fact that a man is not required by law to pay for a woman's pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's a fact that he faces no risks to his health or life due to that pregnancy. It's a fact that when fertilization occurs, he's not anywhere around, and the sperm he deposited is acting on it's own. It's a fact that he has no right to make any decisions for that pregnancy.
It's her uterus. It's her body. It's her life and health that may be negatively impacted. It's her pregnancy. It's she who is financially responsible for that pregnancy, labor and delivery. It's her decision whether or not she will continue the pregnancy.
It is a fact that she gets the right to choose if the baby lives or dies.
It is a fact that she can have his child killed "aborted".
It is a fact that if she chooses to let the baby be born, then she can force him to pay and pay.

Now why should a young man be punished with a baby just for making a mistake ?

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#319406 Dec 28, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Again, spare me! Seriously.
Don't speak for me! TIA
I was pregnant, I do know how it feels. I don't appreciate the whoas me crap that you like to make it out to be for every woman. NOT!
But seriously,, spare the whoas me crap when it comes to the 'risks' of pregnancy. And the changing body of a pregnant woman, and all that entails.
Seriously RC, I'm going to ask you because I know you will give me a thoughtful, honest answer.
I go to work every day to support my wife and kids, I have been hurt physically at times but I keep on. Many in my trade have lost fingers, limbs, and some their lives, but its part of being a man, a husband, a father, I feel it's my responsibility/obligation. I would never hurt or kill any potential life to this family to make it easier for me. Yeah, I understand that I could never endure the temporary inconveniences and pain of pregnancy, as I could never understand the true beauty and majesty of giving birth to something that truly grew from me and within me. And I do understand that there are times when abortion is a necessary option, but is there ever a time when abortion is ONLY about the woman's personal interests? Is there ever a time that the woman considers that fetus just a "worthless wad of cells"? Is there ever a time that a woman aborts without considering the father or the potential child? As a man, and considering some of these womenís posts here, I question how they could ever even attempt to insult people like me, you or your husband's view that life is precious and must be considered as such.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319407 Dec 28, 2013
You keep bringing up science, and scientific terminology is not subjective. A fetus is a potential member of a species, not a member until successfully born.

Why do people like you keep arguing scientific principles while clearly not comprehending them?
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Member of the species. The term "member of the species" can be subjective as well. What exactly qualifies someone as a "member" can be subjective. A fetuses are homo sapiens stop denying basic scientific principles. They are living organisms which are biologically classified as homo sapiens.

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) 1 min RoxLo 1,599,991
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 19 min Trojan 34,167
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Unhealthy People 11,548
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 14 Hellepsoaio 12
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep 12 Love 292
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 11 Rose of Tralee 201,880
News Kenny Drummond's Prep School Thingy (Jan '08) Aug 28 FindPhartss 23
More from around the web