Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,953
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. Full Story

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319888 Dec 31, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rape culture?
Not that you believe or care but Sin has been around a long time..
Plus rape accounts for a very small number of abortions.
Trust you to completely avoid discussion of ways to actually reduce the number of abortions, by denying that the rape culture is so strong in this country, our legislators have mandated instrumental rape for women who seek an abortion, in several States.

Rather than actively seek to reduce the number of abortions by eliminating the CAUSES of most abortions (poverty, immaturity, lack of support, maternal risks of gestation, etc.) you'd much prefer to just say 'abortion should be illegal' so you don't have to expend any energy to prevent them. Much easier to just say "women shouldn't have abortions," than to actively work to reduce the need for an abortion, innit?

Sin = Self Imposed Nonsense. And yes, it's been around for a loooong time. The problem is, you SCPL are trying to impose your nonsense on the rest of us.
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#319889 Dec 31, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
No indeed not "grump," and the reason for that is simply that I don't understand the Higgs Boson branch well enough to adequately comment on it. I've read the articles in Time magazine, National Geographic, Smithsonian, and articles online and, quite frankly, the more I read, the more I find myself scratching my head. Theoretical physics and particle physics are branches of scientific inquiry that I've not studied. Yeah I've read a couple of books like, "God and the New Physics," or "Quark and the Jaguar," but these are subjects that really require a formal method of study and, more importantly, a solid understanding of the foundation material.
My math is fairly dreadful so, even though I made it through Physics, it was clear to me that I wasn't progressing much further along that avenue--heck even the Wikipedia entry for the Higgs Boson has enough eye-watering formulas to make my head turn to clay;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
What I was trying to illustrate for "Gtown," was that there are methods that scientists use to gauge the age of the Earth, and the Universe that aren't simply "guesstimations." There's an orderly process that they teach in basic Astronomy, that this isn't some mystical sort of "soothsaying," or blind stabbing randomly in the dark...
Happy New Year "Grump!"
But what good are your functions if it doesn't account for the boson variable? Physical chemistry required a new set of laws of Physics.
VoteVets Org
#319890 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be one who doesn't like to be corrected. Of course I read what you wrote. That's why I responded. Your redundant phrase "pro-abortion rights" doesn't exist while the word "pro-abortion" does exist and is defined by the dictionary. But go ahead, make up your own words and ignore the definitions of real words. It'll probably make for difficult discussion around here, just for an fyi kinda thing. Oh and my bad. The word popped up the year prior to Roe v Wade, not after like I'd said in my post to you.
"pro·abor·tion
adjective \&#716;pr&#333;-&# 601;-&#712;bo&#775;r-s h&#601;n\
Definition of PROABORTION
: favoring the legalization of abortion
— pro–abor·tion·ist noun
First Known Use of PROABORTION
1972"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro...
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 !
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#319891 Dec 31, 2013
Bless the Child wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen my brother. I have tried to politely converse with some on this site and have been attacked for some reason. I have become aware that some of these posters are apparently rabid pro-abortion atheists that detest religious people.
I am shocked by their hate and rage to say the least.
Just because a person is disgusted by your religiously inspired arrogance does not mean that person is an atheist. Keep that nose pointed upwards!
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#319892 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 !
What you posted, "pro-abortion rights" means that you have the right to be pro-abortion.
But we are pro-"abortion rights" which means we have the right to choose abortion.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#319893 Dec 31, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>In this country, women have the right to direct our own medical treatment. SCPL legislation has not limited that right - merely thrown up roadblock after roadblock to the EXERCISE of that right, in the case of this one medical procedure. The right to an abortion still stands.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and the right to choose treatment for prostate cancer was fraught with as many roadblocks to its exercise, as you SCPL have tried to place on abortion...oh, wait THAT would never happen. Men would have nipped that shit in the bud before it ever became a thing.
Keep quacking. Women have the same rights to bodily autonomy, personal risk assessment, and self defense as men do. You freaks just can't stand for us to exercise them, but by golly, we keep finding ways to do so anyhow.
I know that grinds your gears.....too freakin bad.
Next...
Playa: "In this country, women have the right to direct our own medical treatment."

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.
Fat Janet 327 LBS

United States

#319894 Dec 31, 2013
I'm disgusted with my fellow Christians! What hurtful, hatemongering people you are! I'm just as bad. Because I'm fat as a blimp and miserable I like to take it out on other people and spread hurt and hate!

I'm a mean, bitter fat old Christian hag!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319895 Dec 31, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "In this country, women have the right to direct our own medical treatment."
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.
No one said pregnancy is a disease. It is, however, a medical condition. We are not bound by out biology. It is a woman's legal, and moral, right to make her own medical decisions regarding her own uterus and pregnancy. Even if you don't like that fact.

Why do you lie so much?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319896 Dec 31, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "In this country, women have the right to direct our own medical treatment."
Directly and intentionally killing a unique, distinct human being is beyond the purview of a woman's right to medical treatment.
No, actually, it isn't. Directly and intentionally ending a threat from another unique, distinct human being, by ending that being's life, is legal as all get out. Deciding what level of threat that other unique distinct human being poses, isn't up to you. That's your whole problem with abortion: you don't get to decide who does or doesn't have one.

Pfft....
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
She moves into the realm of ending ANOTHER human being's right to life.
Which is perfectly legal, in the case of this particular medical procedure.

Sorry about your luck, control freak.(But not very.)
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Pregnancy is not a disease but how mankind was created to procreate.
The opinion that man was 'created' at all, is not universal, and should not be the basis for laws which affect even those who do not hold that opinion. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Next....
Fat Janet 327 LBS

United States

#319897 Dec 31, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because a person is disgusted by your religiously inspired arrogance does not mean that person is an atheist. Keep that nose pointed upwards!
She's a typical hatefilled Christian axxhole! We Christians Love to spread hate because we're so miserable ourselves. I'm fat and miserable so I try to hurt other people so I'll feel better. I'm a Christian axxhole!
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319898 Dec 31, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You have things backward. The C-Section was forced upon her against her wishes. She chose to treat the cancer, but the hospital wouldn't let her while pregnant. Her wishes were ignored even though, posthumously, the higher court determined her bodily autonomy was paramount over the fetus'.
"At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. Despite numerous doctors warning her of imminent death she survived. After years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy she was declared to be in remission. She got married and sought her doctor's advice on whether she could become pregnant with her health history. Since her cancer had been in remission for several years, her obstetrician said to go ahead and get pregnant, which she did.
In 1987, when Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant, her cancer was discovered to have recurred and metastasized to her lung. Her initial plan was to begin radiation and chemotherapy immediately as she had been through too much already not to at least try to prolong her life, regardless of risks to the fetus. The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. immediately gave Carder only days to live and disagreed with her choice to put her own life ahead of that of the fetus. Instead of treating the cancer, they ignored her protests and inserted an oral feeding tube into her and administered sedatives in an effort to delay her death and increase her fetus' chance of continued development."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C .
Your link brings up nothing and frankly the sory is hard to believe.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319899 Dec 31, 2013
After Crowe butchered Les Miz, I don't really have much respect for him. Hopkins is always dependable, but he's not a main character.

What happens if the devout don't like the movie? They've spent too much on it to make it just for the devout, which is a small audience.
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,but that is,not ODD for,Hollywood ..spending so much on that NOAH movie,..Russell Crowe ..Tony Hopkins,...nothing this,big since the,sixties for the,believers...except the,PASSION..wish that had been in English ...
Watch that trailer !!!,
Have a,great year Peter.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319900 Dec 31, 2013
story

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319901 Dec 31, 2013
If taxes take away the right to property, then how are property taxes even a thing?

You don't get a voice in a woman's pregnancy. Period.
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxing people takes away their right to property. The right to do whatever you want is not guaranteed by the constitution. When you take someones money away from them it limits their freedom to do what they what to do with the money they earn. So yes you believe in limiting peoples rights in order to help other homo sapiens survive. I believe we should help provide for the general welfare of all homo sapiens. Including the unborn ones.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319902 Dec 31, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link brings up nothing and frankly the sory is hard to believe.
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.)
Ink

Levittown, PA

#319903 Dec 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said pregnancy is a disease. It is, however, a medical condition. We are not bound by out biology. It is a woman's legal, and moral, right to make her own medical decisions regarding her own uterus and pregnancy. Even if you don't like that fact.
Why do you lie so much?
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.

“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

Levittown, 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.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min leosnana 1,153,357
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min polymath257 232,749
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr LonePalm 2,660
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Joe fortuna 201,151
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 13 hr Bruin For Life 28,359
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web