Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313676 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.

Ink

Havertown, PA

#320826 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I support women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. That means I support their rights to make their own determinations. None of you understands a thing when you refuse to accept that little tidbit. I don't determine what instances call for termination prior to term and which do not. A physician would make that call and it'd be between him/her and the patient. Therefore, your attempts at trying to label me a nosy parker like you are futile and false.
Roe v Wade has determined when a woman can or cannot have an abortion.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#320827 Jan 17, 2014
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
No stupid. There is no THEORY about it at all. It's FACT. In their interest to protect fetal life and in the absence of a health or life risk to the mother, the state may act to to restrict or even prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester.
Why do they have such a hard time accepting that. The fetus, obviously has some protections from it's mother.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320828 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I support women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
Not fully you don't. And stop saying you do.
That means I support their rights to make their own determinations. None of you understands a thing when you refuse to accept that little tidbit.
I don't accept that little tidbit because it's not true. If her pregnancy is in the 3rd trimester and she has no health or life risk then you would NOT support her or her doctor's determination to have an abortion because it would be against the law that you said you support, remember ?


I don't determine what instances call for termination prior to term and which do not.
You may not personally but you support the laws that DO determine when she cannot have a legal abortion. Or are you going to deny that now ?
A physician would make that call and it'd be between him/her and the patient.
Wrong. A physician would NOT be able to make the call to have a legal abortion in the 3rd trimester without an existing health or life risk. And you agree with that.

Nosy parker.
katie

Seattle, WA

#320829 Jan 17, 2014
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
No stupid. There is no THEORY about it at all. It's FACT. In their interest to protect fetal life and in the absence of a health or life risk to the mother, the state may act to to restrict or even prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester.
Nuance is not your friend. This determination is left up to the states, per Roe v Wade, making it a theory, not FACT. Not every state puts restrictions on terminations prior to term, even in the 3rd trimester. But where you get lost is in this fact; induced termination in the 3rd trimester may not be safe for the woman so an early delivery is done even if fetus is not able to survive outside the womb.

It is funny imagining you popping a vein in your forehead as you type out what you insist must be true in the world according to you.
katie

Seattle, WA

#320830 Jan 17, 2014
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Not fully you don't. And stop saying you do.
<quoted text>
I don't accept that little tidbit because it's not true. If her pregnancy is in the 3rd trimester and she has no health or life risk then you would NOT support her or her doctor's determination to have an abortion because it would be against the law that you said you support, remember ?
<quoted text>
You may not personally but you support the laws that DO determine when she cannot have a legal abortion. Or are you going to deny that now ?
<quoted text>
Wrong. A physician would NOT be able to make the call to have a legal abortion in the 3rd trimester without an existing health or life risk. And you agree with that.
Nosy parker.
Wow. Just because you insist it doesn't make it true. I support women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.

A perfect example: I do not support what the hospital in Texas is doing with the brain dead pregnant woman against her and her family's wishes. That is usurping the woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. Now, if you support what that hospital in Texas is doing, that makes you the nosy parker, not me.
katie

Seattle, WA

#320831 Jan 17, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Roe v Wade has determined when a woman can or cannot have an abortion.
Roe v Wade has determined the woman's civil rights are never lost to the developing embryo/fetus -- that's why woman's life and health are always exempted even late term. That later term induced terminations annually number less than one percent probably has no bearing on the way or what you think about Roe v Wade. So believe what you want. You will anyway.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#320832 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuance is not your friend. This determination is left up to the states, per Roe v Wade, making it a theory, not FACT. Not every state puts restrictions on terminations prior to term, even in the 3rd trimester. But where you get lost is in this fact; induced termination in the 3rd trimester may not be safe for the woman so an early delivery is done even if fetus is not able to survive outside the womb.
It is funny imagining you popping a vein in your forehead as you type out what you insist must be true in the world according to you.
Induced termination is the same thing as induced early delivery.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#320833 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Roe v Wade has determined the woman's civil rights are never lost to the developing embryo/fetus -- that's why woman's life and health are always exempted even late term. That later term induced terminations annually number less than one percent probably has no bearing on the way or what you think about Roe v Wade. So believe what you want. You will anyway.
They are lost to the fetus if viable in a healthy pregnancy in most states. The women who can't conjure up an illness go to the Gosnells of the country and they are ridded of their babies.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320834 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuance is not your friend.
And reading is not yours.
This determination is left up to the states, per Roe v Wade,
Did you see where I said the state MAY restrict or prohibit ?
As I said, reading is not your friend.
making it a theory, not FACT.
That doesn't make it theory.( Theory : "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" ). It is a true Constitutional FACT. States have the constitutional right to restrict abortion in the 3rd trimester. Just because some of them choose not to exercise it does not make it any less a fact. You have the right to vote. Just because you may choose not to does not mean your right to vote is a THEORY.
What an outrageously stupid statement.
Not every state puts restrictions on terminations prior to term, even in the 3rd trimester. But where you get lost is in this fact; induced termination in the 3rd trimester may not be safe for the woman so an early delivery is done even if fetus is not able to survive outside the womb.
So what ? What does this have to do with the fact that states have the constitutional right to prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester ? Or the fact that you agree with those restrictions ?
Just who is it that got lost here ? Certainly not me.
It is funny imagining you popping a vein in your forehead as you type out what you insist must be true in the world according to you.
The vein popping is from uncontrollable laughter.

The states constitutional right to restrict/prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester is a theory ???
LOL !!!!!!!!!!

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#320835 Jan 17, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Says the woman who aborted her child because YOU felt that you were above him/her.
Where did I ever say I aborted? You lie yet again, Sassy.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#320836 Jan 17, 2014
Pluto is a planet wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're lying. I don't think LNM ever had an abortion. What post did you get that from?
She IS lying. As usual.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320837 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Roe v Wade has determined the woman's civil rights are never lost to the developing embryo/fetus -- that's why woman's life and health are always exempted even late term.
A woman's right to life is never lost to a fetus. Her right to privacy/personal autonomy however IS lost to those state's that choose to exercise their constitutional right to protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester when there is no heath or life risk.
While you say you agree with these restrictions, you still don't seem to want to accept them. You are a walking talking paradox

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#320838 Jan 17, 2014
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It was not the same scenario. I changed the scenario drastically. I added that you were NOT excited about the prospect of raising a child ( which you said was the reason you went ahead with your other pregnancy even though you weren't emotionally or financially ready). And I also added that in addition to being financially and emotionally unprepared, you were NOT physically able to raise another child. If all these factors came into play and, in short, there was not ONE single solitary positive aspect for you having another child, would abortion ever be a consideration for you ? And if not, why ?
I don't think I used the term "excited" and I don't think you changed the scenario "drastically". I believe I said I wanted children anyway.

I will tell you something...I find all the what if, now change up, what if again hypotheticals ridiculous. I don't know what I would do because your rewritten version never happened to me, so I just don't know. After two kids I didn't want anymore and took the utmost precautions to make sure I did NOT face any such scenario, so why now do I have to rack my brain to try and figure out what I would do? And if I did answer I suspect you'd rewrite the question again and I get another *but what if this and what if that* question.

I faced a real situation and I made a real decision. To me that is what counts. Not these endless "what if...what if...what if.." yada yada questions.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320839 Jan 17, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Roe v Wade has determined when a woman can or cannot have an abortion.
Of course it does. And katie, as she said herself, agrees with RvW.
She agrees that a woman has the right to an abortion when SHE deems it appropriate.

What a nosy parker.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320840 Jan 17, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just because you insist it doesn't make it true. I support women's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
Not fully you don't. And stop saying you do.
A perfect example: I do not support what the hospital in Texas is doing with the brain dead pregnant woman against her and her family's wishes. That is usurping the woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. Now, if you support what that hospital in Texas is doing, that makes you the nosy parker, not me.
This is not a perfect example at all. A perfect example of you supporting a woman's full right to privacy and personal autonomy would be a woman going to a doctor seeking a 3rd trimester abortion with absolutely no health or life risk, and you saying you support her right to do so.
But in fact you would oppose that woman's right to personal autonomy because you agree with the restrictions RvW allows.

For the record I do not agree with what the hospital in Texas did, for whatever that has to do with RvW allowing States to restrict 3rd trimester abortions.

“Something's heavy on my heart”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#320841 Jan 17, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I used the term "excited" and I don't think you changed the scenario "drastically". I believe I said I wanted children anyway.
I will tell you something...I find all the what if, now change up, what if again hypotheticals ridiculous. I don't know what I would do because your rewritten version never happened to me, so I just don't know. After two kids I didn't want anymore and took the utmost precautions to make sure I did NOT face any such scenario, so why now do I have to rack my brain to try and figure out what I would do? And if I did answer I suspect you'd rewrite the question again and I get another *but what if this and what if that* question.
I faced a real situation and I made a real decision. To me that is what counts. Not these endless "what if...what if...what if.." yada yada questions.
You suspect wrong. I am just looking for an honest answer to a simple question. I wouldn't rewrite anything.
Of course you may not know what you would do when faced with such circumstances. But what you at least should be able to say is if abortion would even be on the table as a possible option in those circumstances, meaning circumstances beyond those specific ones you previously listed.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320842 Jan 17, 2014
The safety issue concerns the woman--you know, that inconveniently-sentient life support system the fetus has to put up with?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly would be unsafe for the fetus to be aborted. By safety you mean the state protects his life from being needlessly ended.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320844 Jan 17, 2014
Well, I'm truly sorry you exist. Does that help?
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> No no no not so fast missy. You accused knit of something else. You said that knit *wished* that demons would rape her grands. Even that knucklehead John (oopsy, did I just say that out loud) was going to show me proof of her saying that. BOTH of you lied .
An apology is in order. Now get to it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320845 Jan 17, 2014
RvW IS law; it's just not A law. SCOTUS decisions carry legal force.
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell Morgana the same thing. She seems to think it's law also.....
Morgana: "Katie agreeing with RvW is justified. RvW is just and reasonable law."
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#320846 Jan 17, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, woe is me--my darling "Sassafrass" has put me out with the proverbial "cat."
In the middle of Winter no less.
Whatever am I to do...even though she gave me the "winkie" face at the end of her post?
While the original post of "Knit's" has long since been deleted by Topix, if you're attempting to deny that this was her handiwork darlin' there isn't anyone who's not currently, thoroughly, "aligned" with you who'll agree with you...
BTW, you'll never be "done" with me luv--you can't help yourself!
;)
John, my dearest John, you are trippin up once again. How can you do this to me after all we've been through?? I trusted you and you let me down. You said that*you* had the post of hers to prove playas allegations and yet, you didnt. You got all giddy when you showed a post of hers that you *thought* was going to fly. To add insult to injury, you now are telling me that it was deleted.

john,.there is no such post where knit "wished demons would rape her grandchildren"., so please apologize for fibbing about it.

kthanks.

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 sonicfilter 1,509,496
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr DelusionalPhartzz 32,828
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Sat BuzzerPhartss 2
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,478
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web