• Sections
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 340609 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.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#319718 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok I see now. I Googled it.
The earth is billions4.54 billion years old.
Our moon however is only 4.52 billion years old, and has been with us ever since.
Must have been neat for that time with no moon.:)
Smart men out there bit.
Ugh! This is where I'm forced to accept the double-edged nature of that invaluable tool, the internet. It affords one the practically limitless availability of a treasure trove of encyclopedic knowledge, but has the unfortunate tendency to make users mistake Googling for "researching," or "studying."
I'll make this as brief as I'm able. To determine the age of any given sample of rock, you measure the amount of radioactive material it contains. As a rock ages, the radioactive atoms it contains decay into what are called "daughter atoms." Uranium decays into lead, radioactive potassium decays into argon. The more "daughter atoms" a rock contains, relative to its original radioactive atoms, the older the rock is. Studies thus far have shown that the average age of 3.6 billion years yet, many geologists are of the opinion that the earth is even older because samples taken from other sources if the solar system--the Moon for example--have been aged at approximately 4.5 billion years.
Now, the way scientists have calculated the age of the Universe they've set forth an equation.
The universe's age is represented by "t." Two representative galaxies are then used to measure distance "D," with a velocity "V." To make this easier, it's assumed that "V" is a constant. The equation that follows is D=Vt, or distance equals velocity multiplied by time. To find out how long ago the galaxies began to move away from one another you divide distance by velocity, or t=D/V.
Is it exact? Of course not. But it's a close as one can come to "objectively" measuring the available data and so far, the data presented has held up quite well.
Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who, would not have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#319719 Dec 29, 2013
Ugh indeed! "John" you know better..."proof-read " before hitting "post."
Sorry, that last sentence should have read:

"Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319720 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Aren't good works, meant to help others, more useful than "grace through faith"? What does grace through faith do for your fellow man?
It's almost as if you are saying that God wants worship for himself more than he wants people to do good things for each other.
That's exactly what that sounds like he's saying.
You are an idiot
#319721 Dec 29, 2013
I see the same old arguments by the same old posters. Nothing's changed. Morons.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#319722 Dec 29, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes me right because you cannot "protect {developing} human life" without controlling the woman/girl carrying it.
Wrong. You cannot presume that the intent and goal of the PL is to control. The goal is in fact to protect human life. The fact that it can't be done without "controlling" ( as you call it ) is just an unfortunate consequence.
( You like that ? It's the same language you PC dinks use when you try to claim the intent of abortion is only to end the pregnancy )
This is nothing but your belief based on your ideals and opinions, not on fact.
You're stark staring nuts. Opinion ? Not fact ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that RvW allows restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester in the absence of maternal health/life risk ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that many states have exercised the authority that RvW grants them and have indeed enacted such restrictions ?

Is THAT what you are claiming ????

The case in Florida I've mentioned where the pregnant woman was denied an abortion when she needed it for life-saving cancer treatments is a prime example. She and her fetus died. Her family is suing. Maybe the case has reached a settlement. Not sure. But the state of Florida had no cause to deny this woman a life-saving abortion because it deemed her fetus significant. Bet there's not a single case in the whole USA using such language. You'd be hard pressed to prove there is. But hey, why don't you give it a try, put your money where your mouth is?
What are you talking about ? Are you hallucinating ? Don't you have any sense ? Are you completely devoid of any semblance of the ability to reason ?
Of course this woman should have been allowed an abortion. Her pregnancy was an imminent threat to her life. As such and per RvW she should have been allowed to choose to abort.
What does this psycho babble have to do with the fact that RvW allows states to restrict abortion post-viability in the ABSENCE of a maternal health/life risk ?
The most obvious is using up resources provided by social programs paid for with our tax dollars. The next obvious is the same plus the added luxury of languishing in the foster care system, still using those tax dollars provided by us working folk. Or those preemies living in the NICU for months and months until they're able to come home. Or go into the foster care system.
Using that same logic a fetus could also have an impact on society as a whole. Advances in medicine have allowed surgeons to actually operate on a fetus in utero. If this is done on a fetus being carried by a woman on some government sponsored assistance then that cost is being borne by the taxpayer.
I call bull. Especially when Roe v Wade makes it clear "the state *can* if it chooses..." which also means it doesn't have to if it so chooses. There is no language in all of Roe v Wade mandating the state to make the fetus significant in any way shape or form. That is just your wishful thinking creating obstinate insistence where none exists. You're are adding to Roe v Wade what you wish to see and nothing more.
You call bull ?!?! Here's what I wrote :

"He doesn't need to rethink it at all. He is absolutely right. The significance that RvW accords the fetus post-viability when it allows the states to restrict and even prohibit abortion unless and only if there is a maternal health/life risk, and the significance the states accord the fetus when they opt to affect such restrictions....ARE inflexible."

Where did I say that RvW mandates such restrictions ? Where ??? Show me !!!
You're a liar. Plain and simple.

You have not only achieved perfection in ineptness, you have now achieved perfection in dementia, lying and deceit. Congratulations !

Judged:

3

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
Gtown71

United States

#319723 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Aren't good works, meant to help others, more useful than "grace through faith"? What does grace through faith do for your fellow man?
It's almost as if you are saying that God wants worship for himself more than he wants people to do good things for each other.
He kinda does. He is God.:)
Yet being a good person doesn't mean it helps others.
Most have a hidden agenda when helping others.

I'm thankful we don't have a God that gives us no choice in life.
I would think any pc person would be as well.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#319724 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gasp! No! You mean...you actually use it?!
:)
Yup, and I havecn't burst into flames, yet.
Gtown71

United States

#319725 Dec 29, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh! This is where I'm forced to accept the double-edged nature of that invaluable tool, the internet. It affords one the practically limitless availability of a treasure trove of encyclopedic knowledge, but has the unfortunate tendency to make users mistake Googling for "researching," or "studying."
I'll make this as brief as I'm able. To determine the age of any given sample of rock, you measure the amount of radioactive material it contains. As a rock ages, the radioactive atoms it contains decay into what are called "daughter atoms." Uranium decays into lead, radioactive potassium decays into argon. The more "daughter atoms" a rock contains, relative to its original radioactive atoms, the older the rock is. Studies thus far have shown that the average age of 3.6 billion years yet, many geologists are of the opinion that the earth is even older because samples taken from other sources if the solar system--the Moon for example--have been aged at approximately 4.5 billion years.
Now, the way scientists have calculated the age of the Universe they've set forth an equation.
The universe's age is represented by "t." Two representative galaxies are then used to measure distance "D," with a velocity "V." To make this easier, it's assumed that "V" is a constant. The equation that follows is D=Vt, or distance equals velocity multiplied by time. To find out how long ago the galaxies began to move away from one another you divide distance by velocity, or t=D/V.
Is it exact? Of course not. But it's a close as one can come to "objectively" measuring the available data and so far, the data presented has held up quite well.
Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who, would not have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims.
.

I geuss I stuggle with how any means of measurement can put a date on anything billions of years old.

As you see one can't really say without using words like opinion.
Scientist are of the opinion this and this.

I was being sarcastic about the goggle thing.

Regardless though John. This John was woken up by something I called God, and my core values had a complete hysterectomy.

Kinda like the man that was born blind. And Jesus healed .
The religious crowd was trying to get him to say Jesus was a sinner.
He finally said whether or not he's a center I don't know all I do know is I was blind and now I see.

Like that man there's many things I don't know one thing I do know is after I was woken up that night my entire life was changed.

Peace bro.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319726 Dec 29, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You think it's about control when in reality it is about the protecting of human life.
Just how many human lives do you believe you've saved with your cannoodling on an internet forum?

It's been shown over and over again, that criminalizing abortion, only results in the deaths of more women, due to illegal abortions.

Your premise rests on the opinion that protecting her life

(with safe sterile abortions, performed by qualified practitioners, rather than coat hangers and kitchen knives in a filthy apartment, performed by whoever is willing to provide the service, regardless of qualifications....or the utter lack thereof,)

is far less important than protecting the fetus within her, from the possibility that she might make a medical decision of which you disapprove..

The only lives you are concerned with protecting are the ones which haven't yet left the woman's body...and once that's accomplished, it's "On to the next fetus...." for you...

Here's a question for you -- what is the significance of the woman, relative to the abortion issue?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Khan the Great
#319727 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
There's nothing responsible about bearing a child you don't want, can't raise properly, or support.
<quoted text>
As though any one takes a pole muncher like you seriously. Why not just go back to your but pirate boy toy you old queen.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
katie
#319728 Dec 29, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You cannot presume that the intent and goal of the PL is to control. The goal is in fact to protect human life. The fact that it can't be done without "controlling" ( as you call it ) is just an unfortunate consequence.
( You like that ? It's the same language you PC dinks use when you try to claim the intent of abortion is only to end the pregnancy )
<quoted text>
You're stark staring nuts. Opinion ? Not fact ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that RvW allows restrictions on abortion in the 3rd trimester in the absence of maternal health/life risk ?
Are you trying to claim it is not a fact that many states have exercised the authority that RvW grants them and have indeed enacted such restrictions ?
Is THAT what you are claiming ????
<quoted text>
What are you talking about ? Are you hallucinating ? Don't you have any sense ? Are you completely devoid of any semblance of the ability to reason ?
Of course this woman should have been allowed an abortion. Her pregnancy was an imminent threat to her life. As such and per RvW she should have been allowed to choose to abort.
What does this psycho babble have to do with the fact that RvW allows states to restrict abortion post-viability in the ABSENCE of a maternal health/life risk ?
<quoted text>
Using that same logic a fetus could also have an impact on society as a whole. Advances in medicine have allowed surgeons to actually operate on a fetus in utero. If this is done on a fetus being carried by a woman on some government sponsored assistance then that cost is being borne by the taxpayer.
<quoted text>
You call bull ?!?! Here's what I wrote :
"He doesn't need to rethink it at all. He is absolutely right. The significance that RvW accords the fetus post-viability when it allows the states to restrict and even prohibit abortion unless and only if there is a maternal health/life risk, and the significance the states accord the fetus when they opt to affect such restrictions....ARE inflexible."
Where did I say that RvW mandates such restrictions ? Where ??? Show me !!!
You're a liar. Plain and simple.
You have not only achieved perfection in ineptness, you have now achieved perfection in dementia, lying and deceit. Congratulations !
You claimed Roe v Wade was "inflexible" even though I pointed out Roe v Wade makes it clear "the state *can* if it chooses..." which also means it doesn't have to if it so chooses. There are two sides to every coin.

Let me know when you feel like debating. Your logical fallacy, ad hominem attacks, are nonproductive.
Mike
#319730 Dec 29, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You have a right to your opinion. Whatever you may personally believe, for some women, in some circumstances, aborting a pregnancy is taking responsibility for their actions. Your approval or mine is not required or requested of. The only pregnancies that are our business are our own.
I consider it my business when any Homo Sapiens dies.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319731 Dec 29, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You cannot presume that the intent and goal of the PL is to control.
We don't have to presume anything...your posts make it quite clear that the intent and goal of your PL agenda, is to be the arbiter of who gets an abortion and who doesn't, and when....and as an afterthought, how, and possibly where. One only need look at any given piece of legislation out of the Texas Senate in the last 22 months for a plethora of examples .... not one of which has saved any lives, but endangered more than a few....but of course you already knew that.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>The goal is in fact to protect human life.
How are you going about this? Not by advocating for an end to the REASONS why a woman might get an abortion, but by making her jump through as many hoops as possible, to access a safe legal medical procedure....many of these hoops are deliberate attempts to coerce her into making the decision about her pregnancy that YOU approve of, and at least one of which is state-mandated instrumental rape.

And just for the record, Norm, I simply cannot WAIT for the men of the PL, to get what they keep whining and pining for : the utter cessation of women's willingness to have sex, unless she absolutely positively WANTS to carry his baby. And raise it with him, etc. You'll all develop intimate relationships with your hands, your pets, and eachother, if women clamp our legs as tightly as you seem to think we SHOULD.

(Of course, for the desperate, there's always rape.....which you probably don't believe is really a thing, anyway....the nasty sluts all want it....don't they, really??)

You fellas keep forgetting that if we're not giving it up, you're not going to be getting any.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that it can't be done without "controlling" ( as you call it ) is just an unfortunate consequence.
The fact that you have never, not once, made the ultimate call about the disposition of a pregnancy, is just an 'unfortunate consequence' of the fact that you will never, not once, be able to get pregnant.

You don't have a say in whether any given woman gestates her pregnancies. Period.

Accept this fact, and move on.

Next...

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mike
#319732 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You're not using scientific principles. Science is about cause and effect, not right and wrong. It is a biological principle that a fetal or oviform stage is not considered a member of a species. It's the same with an ant or duck or human being. It's not my standard.
Your " clear straight up question" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If a homo sapiens--or a fetus, in this case--is living in someone's property without permission, they can be evicted. There is no obligation to support anyone against your will.
<quoted text>
I am using scientific principles about the subject in question. Yes, the rightness or wrongness of any decision is not based on science at least not to most people including myself. Some people think ethics should be based on the laws of nature. Either way I don't want to get off track. You keep using the word "member." I am not. I have taken quite a few biology classes and I never recall learning about anything that qualifies something as a "member" or a non-member of a species. Even if "member" is a biological term (which I am sure its not) I am not using that term in my argument. My argument isn't based on whether or not a fetus is a member. Yes my question is a philosophical one, I agree. It also uses objective verifiable scientific terminology. So please answer my question. It is a simple yes or no question. If you want to elaborate afterwards feel free. Do you think it is ok to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong? Stop ducking the question. The way you keep trying to wiggle out of it makes it look like you are uncomfortable answering. The longer you go on without answering the more I think that you think that I have a point.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mike
#319733 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You're not using scientific principles. Science is about cause and effect, not right and wrong. It is a biological principle that a fetal or oviform stage is not considered a member of a species. It's the same with an ant or duck or human being. It's not my standard.
Your " clear straight up question" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. If a homo sapiens--or a fetus, in this case--is living in someone's property without permission, they can be evicted. There is no obligation to support anyone against your will.
<quoted text>
Your argument about eviction implies that you think its ok to kill someone who is living on your property without permission. Also anyone who pays taxes that they don't want to supports other people against their will.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319734 Dec 29, 2013
Your Mommy called. She said to get off the computer and go to sleep. She also wants to know why there's hand cream all over the right side of the keyboard.
Khan the Great wrote:
<quoted text>
As though any one takes a pole muncher like you seriously. Why not just go back to your but pirate boy toy you old queen.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319735 Dec 29, 2013
And you would be wrong. Nothing that happens within the "envelope" of another person's body is any of your business AT ALL.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider it my business when any Homo Sapiens dies.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319736 Dec 29, 2013
Don't fu**ing tell me how I may answer your question. And you need to take more, or better, science courses. A fetus isn't a homo sapiens (since the word "member" terrifies you.) It has the potential to become one if no internal or external circumstances arise. If that fetus is in a woman who chooses not to stay pregnant, it's okay with me if she aborts. I take no risks, endure no medical issues, or suffer possible life complications...SHE does. That's why SHE gets to choose if the risks are worth the potential reward. Not you, not me, not some tight-ass right-winger with half a brain who manages to get elected.

Do you think women should be constrained by the whims of biological happenstance?
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I am using scientific principles about the subject in question. Yes, the rightness or wrongness of any decision is not based on science at least not to most people including myself. Some people think ethics should be based on the laws of nature. Either way I don't want to get off track. You keep using the word "member." I am not. I have taken quite a few biology classes and I never recall learning about anything that qualifies something as a "member" or a non-member of a species. Even if "member" is a biological term (which I am sure its not) I am not using that term in my argument. My argument isn't based on whether or not a fetus is a member. Yes my question is a philosophical one, I agree. It also uses objective verifiable scientific terminology. So please answer my question. It is a simple yes or no question. If you want to elaborate afterwards feel free. Do you think it is ok to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong? Stop ducking the question. The way you keep trying to wiggle out of it makes it look like you are uncomfortable answering. The longer you go on without answering the more I think that you think that I have a point.

Judged:

4

4

3

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mike
#319737 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay fine...you're a legend in your own mind, however, there are no "pro-abortion rights". There are pro-choice rights. The freedom for each person to make their own personal choices.
Let me break this down for you since you don't understand what I mean by pro-abortion rights.
Pro means being in favor of. Abortion rights means right to have an abortion. If you say you are not pro-abortion rights that means you are not in favor of the right for people to have abortions. I would welcome the news but I'm sure you understand now that there is nothing inaccurate or unfair about the term. Also there are no sane 100% pro-choice people. If you are fully pro-choice that means you are an anarchist. That you believe in no laws whatsoever. That people should be abler to "choose" to do whatever they want to do. The whole pro-choice label is a way of the pro-abortion rights community trying to avoid using the word abortion. You see it all the time with pro-abortion rights politicians. They always use some euphemism which usually is scientifically inaccurate. They say reproductive rights or some other nonsense. When we are talking about abortion rights or restrictions we should be honest and not try and hide from what is really at issue. Most liberals including myself believe in gun control. The people who oppose gun control don't go around saying they are pro-choice (choice to own whatever weapons they want to.)

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319738 Dec 29, 2013
It's okay to evict someone even if that eviction could be fatal...say, during a deep winter cold spell. You have the right to enjoyment and protection of one's property without being responsible for what happens to squatters.

Congress and statesz have the right to collect taxes.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument about eviction implies that you think its ok to kill someone who is living on your property without permission. Also anyone who pays taxes that they don't want to supports other people against their will.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.