Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326399 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320190 Jan 4, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
God already knows that I'm no better than anyone else. Yet He does not base my or anyones worthyness on how good we are. He bases it on what we decide to do with Him.
I dont condemn anyone. If you feel that way then perhaps you should ask yourself why.
You did condemn.

You're fooling no one, you know.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#320191 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you honestly believe that Bitner supports the right to kill the baby resulting from a caesarean section delivery?
C'mon now...even YOU aren't that dumb....
Look, we all know you hate the fact that there are abortions done for reasons of which you personally disapprove. We get it. But seriously, do you not understand that women are not just walking wombs, or that pregnancy is an intensely personal thing, about which women MUST retain the right to make our own decisions?
Gee, we're sorry you don't like some of our decisions about our own pregnancies....but not enough to make those decisions subject to your approval.
Raging against abortion, and taking potshots at the women here who disagree with your position, is doing N O T H I N G to reduce abortions.
If you REALLY want to reduce abortions, teach your kids early about sex, pregnancy, and responsibility.... teach them self-respect. By example.
Advocating for unauthorized life-support procedures on the corpses of women, and forcing them to gestate, isn't a very good example to set for your kids.
JMO
Playa: "Do you honestly believe that Bitner supports the right to kill the baby resulting from a caesarean section delivery?"

The baby was in the womb when she reached out & grabbed the doctor's finger. If you read any of bHilter's posts, you would have noticed her staunchly referring to the baby girl as "fetus". That baby girl's life is still fair game in the minds of you proaborts.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#320192 Jan 4, 2014
Brilliance wrote:
What the religious zeolite want is meaningless so go eff yourselves!!lol
Dear Brilliant Chicky, go work for a Catholic organization. Wait....you already do. Irony much?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#320193 Jan 4, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. I don't see you as valuing women at all. You expect, you don't respect if you expect women to bear an unwanted pregnancy. You see pregnancy as a Sunday walk in the park and not as a hardship/medical hardship. If you expect women/girls to bear an unwanted pregnancy with no benefit to themselves you consider them nothing more than an incubator. I think you need to own the attitude you actually have and stop pretending to consider women as equals or as humans.
Morgana: "I don't see you as valuing women at all."

We obviously don't see you valuing baby females. In fact, you do all you can to see that they are dismembererd and intentionally killed.#FakeFeminist
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#320194 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>No. You are reading it correctly: Cancer is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in whom it grows. A fetus is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in which it grows.
Same-same, when it comes to whether or not the person in whom it is growing, has the inalienable right to decide for oneself whether it goes or stays. What bothers YOU, is that if you looked at the abortion issue logically, with a modicum of honesty about its realities, you would have to agree that if you want to keep your right to kill your cancer, women have to keep the right to self-defense against toxic pregnancy....the right to "kill our fetuses " as the Drama Queens like to phrase it.
The reality is that pregnancy is a dangerous enterprise, and to obligate women to risk it without our consent, is completely ridiculous.
Playa: "Cancer is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in whom it grows. A fetus is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in which it grows."

^^^ It's proaborts like Playa who make the best prolife arguments. Her outright disregard and disrespect for innocents is clear. Nobody reading her posts would want to be associated with her. She's as cold and insensitive as they come.^^^

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320195 Jan 4, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW....I will type even more slowwwwwwwwwwwwly for you.
If life is precious concerning the fetus as you say, then explain the difference in a fetus conceived by consensual sex and rape. Take your time.
I understand RvW perfectly, please post a site where it draws a difference between rape and consensual sex and the privacy of. Hurry up, I want to read this.
Look, you're just kinda simple, but the reality is that there are two concerns in the abortion issue, the pregnancy of the woman, and the developing life of the fetus, two separate concerns that must be weighed against each other. Each are legitimate concerns, for arguments sake letís just say both are equal, now through in the fact that a woman was raped and must endure the reality of that rape everyday of her pregnancy, would the protection of her life/health not tip the scales in her favor? Does that mean that the life of the fetus is any less precious? No, but it does mean that the concerns for the woman's life, which is precious as well, are more compelling than the arguments protecting the precious potential life of the fetus. There are no winners in abortion. Personally, I think your, and NR's, arguments that a woman who is rape should not receive exceptional consideration offensive and ignorant.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#320196 Jan 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A fetus demonstrates an act that everyone knows is reflexive, done with no thought or conscious control, and No Relevance masturbates himself to orgasm. But, the good feeling from that still can't remove his uterus envy, poor thing.
And STILL he has nothing to offer the forum but lies, and irrelevancies.
bHitler: "That fetus in the photo http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/photo-of-b... demonstrates an act that everyone knows is reflexive, done with no thought or conscious control. But, the good feeling from seeing that can't remove your uterus envy."

Reflexes are present for a purpose. That baby girl's grasp reflex will still be present when she's taken from the womb....along with many other reflexes. A reflex doesn't make her less human.

You say some of the dumbest things in your quest to dehumanize humans.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320197 Jan 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if the state chooses to exercise it's right to protect it's own interest. RvW doesn't mandate that it do so. ALLOWS it, yes. MANDATES it? No.
I never said R v W "mandates" anything, I was talking about States that have laws that regulate abortion, which all states do, and it's the State's interest which allows it to mandate such.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320198 Jan 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the fact that the STATE may, if it wishes, sue a man to recoup the money the STATE paid out was never the question.
I say again, no man is financially responsible for a woman's pregnancy care, labor and delivery by law. THAT was what I said, and yes, there WOULD need to be a law for it to be true for all men. Feel free to prove that they are so legally responsible at any time. But stop wasting my time, whining that you can't believe I want proof of something I wasn't asking for in the first place.
This is stupid Bitner, but last try. If I went into a business partnership with you and our business went into debt would we not be equally responsible? There is no difference, civil laws are on the books, there is case precedence, all to support this, there is no need to a law to state this specifically, as you are requiring. Look, there are laws against murder, but there are not specific laws for murdering with a knife, a grenade, a machine gun, a pistol, a shot gun, a bow and arrow, a rock, a piece of glass.......... get it?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320199 Jan 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Cancer is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in whom it grows. A fetus is alive, and human, with the potential to kill the person in which it grows."
^^^ It's proaborts like Playa who make the best prolife arguments. Her outright disregard and disrespect for innocents is clear. Nobody reading her posts would want to be associated with her. She's as cold and insensitive as they come.^^^
I'm a realist. Your arguments come entirely from emotion, and are for the most part irrational, melodramatic, and juvenile. Even your science is skewed...and you refuse to accept the facts that abortion is a natural function of the body, and that medicine has gone about manipulating nature as regards our bodies, almost since time began.

You can't seem to grasp the concept of free will, or of that 'personal responsibility' you're always yammering about, when discussing the issue of abortion - women who abort a pregnancy, are taking responsibility PERSONALLY, for the direction of our lives.

Adults, particularly those of us who value our freedom to make personal risk assessments, and to defend ourselves, realize that women are capable of making the right choices for our reproductive lives, without the approval or interference of anyone else. We don't particularly care whether or not you like the way we handle our business.

That you don't like one of the choices, is your problem. Not the pregnant woman's.

And damn if it don't make your brown eyes blue, crybaby....

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320200 Jan 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>

You've been maintaining, by implication and (IIRC) outright statements, that RvW mandates action on the states' parts. It does not. It ALLOWS such action, under certain circumstances, past certain gestational stages. It does not mandate any action on the part of the state.
Show me anywhere that I said R v W mandates or requires anything Bitner, I understand R v W as well as anyone here, and better than most.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320201 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, you sound angry....and full of rage. I'm pretty sure I nailed it - otherwise you wouldn't protest this much.
Next....
Yeah, I will admit my intolerance and impatience for ignorance, lol, but by no means does your ignorance making me mad make you right....

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320202 Jan 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Do you honestly believe that Bitner supports the right to kill the baby resulting from a caesarean section delivery?"
The baby was in the womb when she reached out & grabbed the doctor's finger. If you read any of bHilter's posts, you would have noticed her staunchly referring to the baby girl as "fetus". That baby girl's life is still fair game in the minds of you proaborts.
Why are you so afraid that women are lining up to end viable pregnancies, for the sole purpose of killing our babies? Why do you have such a low and vile opinion of women?

Who hurt you, honey?

Those late-term abortions you are alluding to, are done to PREVENT pain, for both the mother and the potential child. Women who have to resort to late term abortions, are responding to a medical need....they're truly not planning to use the results in some sacrificial rite to Pluto, you know...

They're grieving the loss, of both wanted pregnancies, and their dreams of motherhood. They're the ones who have to deal with that loss - and you are hell-bent on making it even MORE painful, by castigating their choices.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320203 Jan 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to excuse Badaxe. He's a bit ambiguous when it comes to his abortion views. To him life is precious unless you were concieved in rape. Likewise, his euphemisms
such as "when it comes to potential human life, it must be weighed against existing/established human life" http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833... cause him cognitive dissonance.
He's trying hard to stand up for preborn babies, but his half-baked beliefs thwart his efforts. He's a walking contradiction. Maybe he wants a foot in both camps in order to be fair to himself...and to be fair to his wife - who had an abortion before they met. Problem is, when he straddles both camps a smell of hypocrisy is released from his cracks.
Badaxe is aware of his disjointed & disconnected arguments. This awareness makes him grumpy. Instead of taking his duplicitiousness out on others, he should look at himself and his views honestly.
Actually, you're just very simple, and you cant see past your own self-righteousness to understand there are other views than yours that are legitimate and intelligent, chubby. I see you found an opportunity to bring in my wife's abortion, which had nothing to do with me or the topic, to make your point. How pathetic. NR, no self-respecting, intelligent poster here wants to belong to your extremist club, so get over your greasy, chubby, doughnut munching, cross dressing, sawed-off little ass, no one gives a f**k about your extremist views!

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320204 Jan 4, 2014
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I will admit my intolerance and impatience for ignorance, lol, but by no means does your ignorance making me mad make you right....
I'm right because I'm right. Whether you're angry about it, or not, is irrelevant.
Just as your opinion is irrelevant, with regards to any given woman's pregnancy.

And it really chaps your ass.

Next...

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320205 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
Your premise works on the assumption that all men are 'good men'. We both know that's not the case, and that deadbeat dads (and moms) are actually quite common.
When you figure out a way to physically bind a man to his unborn progeny for nine months, allocating to his body all the risks of gestation, let me know.
I live in a house, in a very quiet neighborhood - if you think living in a trailer park is somehow shameful, don't buy a trailer.
I'm quite aware that you are in no way 'holier' than I ...perhaps you should stop trying to be.
What's a 'crack pipe'?
<quoted text>It's a public forum, fella. I'll answer any question, or respond to any post, I care to.
You just used up 65 words avoiding a rational response to my assertions, and instead of refuting the assertions, you decided personal slurs might have a chance at shutting me up.
Didn't work.
Still just me, nailing your ass to the wall of your puffery.
What's a 'crack pipe'?
Next...
You responded as if you were the one I was addressing, with no indication that you realized you were talking for someone else. Either I caught you being deceitful
( which, understand, is no great cause for celebration, it wasn't that hard) or you just like to speak for other because you just think you're that smart...lol,.....NEXT.....

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320206 Jan 4, 2014
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>You responded as if you were the one I was addressing, with no indication that you realized you were talking for someone else. Either I caught you being deceitful
( which, understand, is no great cause for celebration, it wasn't that hard) or you just like to speak for other because you just think you're that smart...lol,.....NEXT.....
I responded. My response displeased you. You resorted to red herrings and puffery...and still have not refuted my assertions.

Keep lobbing whiffleballs....it's what you do.

*shrug*

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320207 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm right because I'm right. Whether you're angry about it, or not, is irrelevant.
Just as your opinion is irrelevant, with regards to any given woman's pregnancy.
And it really chaps your ass.
Next...
Your opinion is that a raped woman should deserve no more consideration in abortion restrictions than a woman pregnant by consensual sex, that is simply ignorant and
inconsiderate of a woman's concerns. Yet you want to be the spokes person for woman's rights, simply because "you are woman hear me roar"? Sorry butch, you don't get to trample on compassionate, and reasonable considerations of all in the abortion issue.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320208 Jan 4, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
He's like those scary kids you hear about who go totally unphased by spanking.
<quoted text>
You goofy sh*t, you're thick as a brick, how does someone tell stupid how stupid stupid is when stupid is too stupid to understand stupid? That's how I feel replying to your stupid posts.

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#320209 Jan 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I responded. My response displeased you. You resorted to red herrings and puffery...and still have not refuted my assertions.
Keep lobbing whiffleballs....it's what you do.
*shrug*
So you're not "dedbebbies"? That was the simple question, but you've avoided answering it.....

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 UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 min Chosen Traveler 35,356
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min RoxLo 1,683,118
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Wed Sweet 293
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jan 16 hojo 12,044
News Horsechief commits to Pacific (Mar '06) Jan 4 NicePhartts 8
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Dec 24 Randy from Wooster 201,884
News Girl Charged After Sending Explicit Selfie: 'I'... Dec 23 Ink Pharted 4
More from around the web