Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311353 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319904 Dec 31, 2013
Nobody has a right to force someone to support them against their will. Not you, me, or a fetus. Funny how you seem to be making the woman irrelevant to her own pregnancy.
You're whining about paying taxes but think women should be slaves to the contents of their own uteruses.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing that is the closest I'm going to get to an answer to my question. You believe that it is ok to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong. It seems rather self-evident to me that we shouldn't discriminate and kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong based on completely arbitrary criteria. You don't believe in equality for all homo sapiens. As a liberal I pride myself on the fact that I push for equality and non-discrimination of all homo sapiens. You clearly think that we should be able to discriminate against certain homo sapiens that you determine are not worthy of any legal consideration based on your own arbitrary criteria. Your position is quite conservative. It is a small government, anti-eguality, and pro-discrimination position. I'm willing to bet that you have absolutely no problem with abortions performed on female homo sapiens based only on their gender. Once we find physical evidence that determines that homo sapiens are conceived gay you will probably still support the right to kill those homo sapiens based on their sexual orientation. Your position is sexist and homophobic. I appreciate the fact that you finally gave me somewhat of an answer. I sure wish it hadn't taken a week to get it though.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319905 Dec 31, 2013
In reference to court cases upholding a woman's right to direct her own medical care, See also:
1. Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center
In re Fetus Brown, 689 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)(overturning a court-ordered blood transfusion of a pregnant woman)

2. In re Baby Boy Doe, 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)(holding that courts may not balance whatever rights a fetus may have against the rights of a competent woman, whose choice to refuse medical treatment as invasive as a cesarean section must be honored even if the choice may be harmful to the fetus).

3. Stallman v. Youngquist, 531 N.E.2d 355, 359-61 (Ill. 1988)(refusing to recognize the tort of maternal prenatal negligence, holding that granting fetuses legal rights in this manner “would involve an unprecedented intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of the [state’s female] citizens”).

All found in favor of the born citizen - the woman.

Our courts do occasionally make the right call.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319906 Dec 31, 2013
You asked about the authority to tell you what is your business. Since the law defines what is open to your scrutiny and what is not, that's your authority. You can still whine about it...and god knows you will...but you can't do anything about it because they are tied to our right to privacy.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do pro-abortion rights people always do this. Its the current law so I can't disagree with it. It is just non-sense. Partial birth abortion is illegal. I'm not so afraid to argue about it that I just dismiss everyone's opinion by saying its what the law says therefore you can't disagree with it. It shows a sign of weakness when you resort to such tactics. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is none of my business whether or not the law should be changed. That goes for any law.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319907 Dec 31, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, you tell me I got it backwards with you having the benefit of the additional information NOT included in your original post.
Go back and read your original post and link. All that is indicated in there is that she was 26 weeks pregnant, doctors had determined that her death was close, her family didn't want the section because it might shorten her life (no explanation how a c-section could shorten the life of someone whose death was already imminent) and that the hospital was seeking a c-section in order to save her potentially viable fetus. Nothing about the fact that she intended to undergo chemo to possibly save or prolong her life or that chemo at that point was even an option.....NOTHING.
Based on your original post my questions and comments were valid and I had nothing backward.
In hindsight given the additional info you provided she certainly should have been given potential life saving chemo. So there goes your theory that all PL were pleased with the decision and outcome.
Never ASS-ume.
From what I got of the story, the only reason not to have chemo would have been hers. Refusing her treatment isn't something the hospital would ordinarily do.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319908 Dec 31, 2013
YOU'RE the one obsessing over fictional dinosaur "wang". Godzilla, btw, is a female who reproduces parthenogenically.
Khan the Great wrote:
<quoted text>
You will go to salivate over the monsters wang. You are a pathetic old tinker bell.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319909 Dec 31, 2013
The number of abortions is irrelevant, since it always comes down to 1 woman making 1 decision about 1 pregnancy. How many women do the same thing doesn't matter, since rights are individual.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I wrote "pro-abortion rights" not "pro-abortion." I don't think pro-abortion just means you think abortion should be legal. It think it mean that you like abortion and want more of them to happen. The pro-abortion position only applies to probably 1 in every 1,000 people. So I don't use it to describe anyone. I have never meet anyone who said they wanted there to be more abortions. The closest I have ever come to is a guy who said he doesn't care how many abortions happen. I'd be willing to bet that some of the 100% pro-abortion rights people on here still don't agree with him. This is also are more common but somewhat rare position. I say "pro-abortion rights" because it is a totally fair and accurate way to describe the position that holds that people should be able to get abortions.
Fat Janet 327 LBS

Westford, MA

#319910 Dec 31, 2013
I'm a Christian and I stink!
Ink

Havertown, PA

#319911 Dec 31, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Her link only 'brings up nothing,' if you don't click on it, dear...works perfectly fine when I click on it.
Oh, and the story is true, regardless of your level of 'belief' in it ....
(That assertion works for non-fundies, too! Imagine that.)
Thanks for the instructions but it still doesn't work.

Why would the hospital refuse her treatment unless she was beyond hope? If there was any hope that chemo would help her they would have administered it. I doubt it had anything at all to do with her pregnancy.
Fat Janet 327 LBS

Westford, MA

#319912 Dec 31, 2013

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319913 Dec 31, 2013
Don't you get it? By shoveling her snow, you prevent her from having to do it, avoiding that fatal heart attack, and rising up to glory! Your callous actions have trapped her on this earth just that much longer! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

I have to go shower now....
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Mr. G you're over thinking this whole thing. Yes, I agree that true altruism is in short supply, but not as rare as you seem to think.
Let's say I spend an hour praising God, and even preaching about the glory of God to some people...and then let's say I spend an hour shoveling snow out of my elderly neighbor's driveway so she can get out. Now, which activity actually had a positive impact on another person? What actual good did my time spent glorifying a god actually do for anyone?
Why would a deity prefer that I spend my time glorifying him over spending my time trying to do some good in this world?
Let's say one person dedicates their whole adult life to doing good works...helping the poor, the sick, helping the starving in Africa...all kinds of world-changing things big and small right down to helping neighbors in need, BUT never for a moment even believes in a god let alone glorifies one with worship.
Now let's say there is another person who prays, glorifies, preaches about and worships a god all their life, has "faith through grace" but never really bothers to do any good for anyone, on a large or small scale.
Now let's say there is a Heaven...are you telling me that person 2 gets into this Heaven but person one gets nothing because they didn't even believe there is a god??
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319914 Dec 31, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I got that the abortion was forced, kook. The hospital wanted to do it to save her unborn child. The parents did not want it because it would "shorten her life". I said that. You need to READ.
Ineptness is posting a story and an accompanying link that you feel makes an important point, but which leaves out the most important piece of information.
If you're going to take the time to post a link and cut and paste a story, how could you leave out the most important piece of info ? And then have the gall to blame someone else for not doing the research on a story YOU volunteered and YOU cut and pasted ?
Why not just post her name and tell everyone to research it ? Why bother posting an incomplete story at all ?
Wait, you're the "brightest crayon in the box" ditz aren't you ?
Now it all makes sense. LOL !
Stop trying to blame me for your mistake of not looking further into it. For starters, this is not the first time I've linked up this story from the late '80s here in this thread. Secondly, what I linked was the summarization of the story. Anybody could have taken it upon themselves to look further into it if they so desired. You chose not to. Instead, you are choosing to create a bunch of drama where none exists by trying to blame and invalidate me any way you can.

Pretty lame, but what more can be expected from the likes of you?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319915 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the instructions but it still doesn't work.
Why would the hospital refuse her treatment unless she was beyond hope? If there was any hope that chemo would help her they would have administered it. I doubt it had anything at all to do with her pregnancy.
The hospital refused her treatment, because the administrators felt they knew better than she did what was in her best interest, and acted accordingly.

Since they acted in direct opposition to her medical decision, and said action resulted in her death, the hospital was required to pay her family restitution, and penalties for wrongful death.

As you might imagine, that was too little, too late. Nonetheless, the precedent set in this case makes it a landmark decision in favor of a woman's right to direct her own medical care, and refuse treatment even if doing so harms the fetus.

If you'd clicked on the link and actually READ the court case, you'd know this....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319916 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is her legal right under certain conditions. If it was her moral right, there wouldn't be any conditions because everybody's morals are at a different level.
Wrong.

One, they are not "at a different level". Your self-righteous arrogance is showing. They are merely different.

Two, the FACT that each of us feels differently about the morality of this issue means that it's legality cannot BE based on any particular moral code, but on the civil rights outlined in, and protected by, the Constitution.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319917 Dec 31, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the phrase "pro-abortion rights" exists.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.p...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-peikoff...
"...which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.'
You need to take a break from this forum.
Go out and celebrate the New Year tonight....get plastered. You already post as if you're drunk so you might as well really be.
Happy New Year ditz !
It's a redundant phrase. And from what I've seen clicking on more links than what you provided, it is not used. It's definitely not found in the Merriam dictionary. But, hey, just this once, I'll concede you are correct provided you concede the excerpt below is correct. It *was* found in the very article you linked showing the author using "...the proabortion rights..." Deal?

"But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-peikoff...

Have a Happy New Year name caller.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#319918 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I got of the story, the only reason not to have chemo would have been hers. Refusing her treatment isn't something the hospital would ordinarily do.
Her name was Angela Carder. If you really want to find out, copy and paste her name into your search engine, Ink. Have a Happy New Year.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#319919 Dec 31, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
YOU'RE the one obsessing over fictional dinosaur "wang". Godzilla, btw, is a female who reproduces parthenogenically.
<quoted text>
Eh, only if you're referencing the 1998 Roland Emmerich, Dean Devlin film that starred Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, and Jean Reno. Most self-respecting "G" fans--including yours truly--don't consider that, erm, "movie," to be related to the Tokyo-stomping character in any way whatsoever.
Even with the earlier films such as "Son of Godzilla," it's noted by the characters in both the original Japanese dialogue, and the AIP and Toho-International dubs that Godzilla's acting as a "father" figure.
Personally, I'm actually looking forward to this latest installment.
From what I've gathered, Walter White from "Breaking Bad," decided to use Godzilla as his latest "enforcer" to solidify the "Blue-Sky" methamphetamine empire he'd created. Unfortunately, as happens all-too-often in such enterprises, Godzilla got his nose down into the meth-pipe and is now smashing his way through the northwest coast looking for Walt(who's clearly on the lam,) to provide him with more...



Happy New Year "Pete!"

JK.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#319920 Dec 31, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know from your post that you knew several who were raped. Which is very sad, but statisicaly there are not many abortions performed on rape victims.
It would be a horrible situation.
It is also a completly different situation than most abortions, which are due to oops. Yet even with oops i truly feel for those women. I find myself torn as a human being on this issue. Knowing how i would perhaps feel if my daughter was raped one day, and then as a christian I dont feel torn.
Can you tell me how each one is doing?
Those who did and those who didnt?
The two that became pregnant are both doing well, both happy with their decisions. The two that were gang raped are still dealing with it after 30 years, and the other has moved on and doing well.
Gtown71

United States

#319921 Dec 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't arrogant, given how many times you've been told by those of us you are preaching at here that we just don't care. After all, you're not preaching to the already converted are you?
I will never post another post, if you will do the same if someone ask you to.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#319922 Dec 31, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Directly and intentionally killing a unique, distinct human being is beyond the purview of a woman's right to medical treatment. She moves into the realm of ending ANOTHER human being's right to life. Pregnancy is not a disease but how mankind was created to procreate.
Pregnancy is a medical condition/circumstance for the woman/girl and none of your fcking business. Why don't crawl back in your mommies uterus and quit riding skirt tails ya little tit sucking freak?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319923 Dec 31, 2013
https://www.nymc.edu/Clubs/quill_and_scope/vo...
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/arti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C .
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/coe...

There, Witless, you lazy thing. One of them has to "work". Get your head out of your ass, and do some research for a change.

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) 4 min huh 1,395,955
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min hpcaban 255,520
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Into The Night 9,874
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon Barbi A 201,865
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jun 27 Trojan 32,289
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web