Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311873 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320971 Jan 20, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do I come up with this stuff? You guys :)
Ofcourse you should feel sorry for them, but why do docs have a right to hold the baby?
Even charge the "mom", or not allow her to take home the baby?
Docs have a right to 'hold the baby', because they have a responsibility not to allow the baby to fall on the delivery room floor.

Are you honestly under the misguided impression, that women are not 'allowed' to hold their born/induced children who've died during the gestation/delivery process? Seriously?

If a woman requests to, she's granted that opportunity. Not all of us want that.

Charge her with WHAT??? Failure to successfully gestate? Great googly-moogly, you really ARE a prick. Or are you willing to cop to a charge of failure to successfully impregnate???

I'm guessing not.

As to taking the baby home, ask Rick Santorum and his wife (and if you're ready to stomach their answers, the living children of their union) what it's like to 'cuddle' with one's dead, aborted, fetus.

Santorum gained national prominence in 1996 when he spearheaded the Republican effort to override President Clinton's veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion. Santorum writes that managing the bill was "one of the most memorable and transforming moments of my life." During the debate, a sonogram showed that a baby Karen was carrying had a fatal birth defect and would die shortly after birth. At 20 weeks, Karen lay in the hospital near death with a 105-degree fever. Doctors warned that Karen could die unless labor was induced — an option the Santorums considered an abortion since it would result in the certain death of the child. Karen went into labor before a decision had to be made.
Gabriel Michael Santorum lived for only two hours. The Santorums spent the night in the hospital bed with their lifeless baby lying between them. The next morning they brought the palm-sized corpse to Karen's parent's house. They had their other children pose for pictures and cuddle with Gabriel. They sang lullabies and held a private mass.

Let me repeat for this to sink in:

They had their other children pose for pictures and cuddle with (THE NOW [and then] VERY DEAD) Gabriel.

Formative years....

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320972 Jan 20, 2014
I can just imagine the conversation they had....

Karen: Goodbye, Gabriel...

Rick: Not yet, sweetheart....I want to cuddle with him, don't you? Let's put him between us, and pretend he's just asleep for a while...

Karen: Yes my husband....cuddling with a corpse is a wonderful idea...what was I thinking?

Rick: You were in shock, dearest. I forgive you. Now, what shall we tell the kids at home, before the photo shoot...? You do realize we have to make the most of this political opportunity, right?

Karen: Yes, my husband. Using our dead son, whose continued gestation probably would have killed me, as political fodder, is a wonderful idea. I'll go make the bed now.

(blerf)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320973 Jan 20, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
You know what comes out of a vagina, right? <quoted text>
Depends on what goes in, eh?

Lots of stuff comes out of vaginas....especially at airports, hospital emergency rooms, and way stations.....they hold a much bigger mass than a colon, or a penis, does...just sayin.

:)
Gtown71

United States

#320974 Jan 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Docs have a right to 'hold the baby', because they have a responsibility not to allow the baby to fall on the delivery room floor.
Are you honestly under the misguided impression, that women are not 'allowed' to hold their born/induced children who've died during the gestation/delivery process? Seriously?
If a woman requests to, she's granted that opportunity. Not all of us want that.
Charge her with WHAT??? Failure to successfully gestate? Great googly-moogly, you really ARE a prick. Or are you willing to cop to a charge of failure to successfully impregnate???
I'm guessing not.
As to taking the baby home, ask Rick Santorum and his wife (and if you're ready to stomach their answers, the living children of their union) what it's like to 'cuddle' with one's dead, aborted, fetus.
Santorum gained national prominence in 1996 when he spearheaded the Republican effort to override President Clinton's veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion. Santorum writes that managing the bill was "one of the most memorable and transforming moments of my life." During the debate, a sonogram showed that a baby Karen was carrying had a fatal birth defect and would die shortly after birth. At 20 weeks, Karen lay in the hospital near death with a 105-degree fever. Doctors warned that Karen could die unless labor was induced — an option the Santorums considered an abortion since it would result in the certain death of the child. Karen went into labor before a decision had to be made.
Gabriel Michael Santorum lived for only two hours. The Santorums spent the night in the hospital bed with their lifeless baby lying between them. The next morning they brought the palm-sized corpse to Karen's parent's house. They had their other children pose for pictures and cuddle with Gabriel. They sang lullabies and held a private mass.
Let me repeat for this to sink in:
They had their other children pose for pictures and cuddle with (THE NOW [and then] VERY DEAD) Gabriel.
Formative years....
Yea- I meant hold as in you cannot take the baby home with you becouse the baby tested positive for drugs.

I never heard the story of dead baby, but why does it bother you? Who knows why they chose to do what they did. People do many things that may appear odd to many others, but I thought you would be all for whatever thry CHOSE to do?? It seems they considered the child part of their family without regard to size. Many take pics of family gathered around dead relatives.

I know a man who was born weighing only 1lb 6oz. He is as normal size as you can get now at 6' tall and 190lbs. Plus he just turned 60.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320975 Jan 20, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea- I meant hold as in you cannot take the baby home with you becouse the baby tested positive for drugs.
I never heard the story of dead baby, but why does it bother you? Who knows why they chose to do what they did. People do many things that may appear odd to many others, but I thought you would be all for whatever thry CHOSE to do?? It seems they considered the child part of their family without regard to size. Many take pics of family gathered around dead relatives.
I know a man who was born weighing only 1lb 6oz. He is as normal size as you can get now at 6' tall and 190lbs. Plus he just turned 60.
I don't dispute the legality of the Santorums' choice to cuddle their dead fetus, nor even their decision to include their living children in photographs with their deceased sibling....What I DO dispute, is the morality of doing so.

I consider that hideously immoral.

Should my offense, at what I consider the ludicrous behavior of the Santorums, be held as the basis for laws against taking a dead infant home to cuddle and say goodbye to?

I think not.

Be careful what YOU wish for....your personal preferences regarding the outcome of any given pregnancy, could also meet with legal opposition. The other side of the coin you insist on flipping, is a one-child policy involving MANDATORY abortions.

Pendulums
always

swing.......

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320976 Jan 21, 2014
Oh, and what the FLUCK were you trying to convey with THIS twaddle:

"...Yea- I meant hold as in you cannot take the baby home with you becouse the baby tested positive for drugs."

If a baby (born, alive baby) tests positive for drugs, what would you propose as a consequence to the woman who tests positive for cancer fighting drugs? AIDS-fighting drugs?

Drugs which prevent high blood pressure in the mother, and can contribute to it in the fetus?

Do you see the slippery slope here, or do you have on the same hobnailed boots with which you'd like to trample the US Constitution in the name of 'saving potential lives', and figure you can put the brakes on the precedent of forced gestation when it's your raped 12 year old daughter, who was wandering the projects in a freak dehydration incident, and it was decided by the local males that she was ripe for the picking....who comes up pregnant.

Oh, wait....your compassion for anyone lacking your personal life experiences has been duly noted....as absent.

You can't see the bluebells for the buffalo. What was I thinking???
Gtown71

United States

#320977 Jan 21, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't dispute the legality of the Santorums' choice to cuddle their dead fetus, nor even their decision to include their living children in photographs with their deceased sibling....What I DO dispute, is the morality of doing so.
I consider that hideously immoral.
Should my offense, at what I consider the ludicrous behavior of the Santorums, be held as the basis for laws against taking a dead infant home to cuddle and say goodbye to?
I think not.
Be careful what YOU wish for....your personal preferences regarding the outcome of any given pregnancy, could also meet with legal opposition. The other side of the coin you insist on flipping, is a one-child policy involving MANDATORY abortions.
Pendulums
always
swing.......
So you are saying what they did is not something you would vote for, and even find it to be very immoral. Ok.

I would ask where you get your moral line from,but prob. No need. As for your next post???
Next.....

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#320978 Jan 21, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
Just curious as to why people get upset when babies are born addicted to drugs? Some say how horrible it is as new born babies addicted to crack and other drugs cry so much. I can only imagine and also think it's horrible, but iit us not like the "mom" gave the baby drugs after the baby was born. It took place while inside her womb. HER WOMB / HER BUSINESS , Right??
Are you somehow trying to deny that it is her womb and her body? You just gave the perfect example whatever the mother puts in HER body effects the fetus. Care to dispute that the fetus is separate?

What now? All pregnant women/girls jailed and watched till delivery? I would not put it past the the fetus worshippers.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320979 Jan 21, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do I come up with this stuff? You guys :)
Ofcourse you should feel sorry for them, but why do docs have a right to hold the baby?
Even charge the "mom", or not allow her to take home the baby?
No, you don't get this crap from us.

The doctors do not have such a right.
Gtown71

United States

#320980 Jan 21, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you somehow trying to deny that it is her womb and her body? You just gave the perfect example whatever the mother puts in HER body effects the fetus. Care to dispute that the fetus is separate?
What now? All pregnant women/girls jailed and watched till delivery? I would not put it past the the fetus worshippers.
Of course what the mother puts in her body effects her baby. She feeds her baby untill her baby is born, and then she will continue to feed her baby, unless she has an abortion. Then she feeds her baby untill she chooses to have her baby aborted. Some may even say killed. Many women experience a miscarriage, in which she feeds her baby untill the baby dies for whatever reason. Now I realize many say that since many women experience miscarriages then it is no different then her having an abortion. I think that it crazy. Many people die everyday of natural causes, but does not make killing people ok.......
Gtown71

United States

#320981 Jan 21, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't get this crap from us.
The doctors do not have such a right.
I think I do get this from you guys. Her womb / her business.
Doctors may not have such right, but they can get the ball rolling and inform the people who do have such rights.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#320982 Jan 21, 2014
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I do get this from you guys. Her womb / her business.
Doctors may not have such right, but they can get the ball rolling and inform the people who do have such rights.
No, you do not get from us the ridiculous notion that we can't feel sorry for the pain of a neonate just because we are pro-choice. Period.

What have we got to do with what the police do? How is this our responsibility suddenly? Why shouldn't we have, and express our opinions on the subject? What NON-POINT are you lamely trying to make here?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#320983 Jan 21, 2014
In fairness, crack is extremely addictive and many people can never overcome their need for the drug...even when they become pregnant. The mechanism of addiction literally changes thought processes; logic means nothing. They aren't so much uncaring as helpless.
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Just curious as to why so-called 'pro-life' people are enthusiastically promoting the gestation of babies addicted to crack, by women who deliberately got high during pregnancy.
I can only imagine the callousness and cruelty toward the born child in this scenario. If the woman is so uncaring as to deliberately inflict such poison on her fetus, what might she do to her born child, if she is forced to carry to term, and raise that child?....
And PLEASE don't pretend there are "lines" of folks waiting to adopt a crack baby. There are some FEW folks who will take on such a Herculean challenge, to be sure, but the majority of those children drift through the State system for the better part of two decades, before being pitched into the street, with a hundred bucks and a new pair of shoes, to fend for themselves as best they can. This is what your agenda results in, in the really real world, fella.
Own it.
Fat Janet 300 plus

New Britain, CT

#320984 Jan 21, 2014
Xtians are the lowest form of life. They think their shit doesn't stink. They lie, cheat, are slutty animals who thrive on other people's misery and pain. You're all so revolting!!!
Fat Janet 300 plus

New Britain, CT

#320985 Jan 21, 2014
Every useless hatemongering Christian in the world should blow their own messed up brains out.
No Relativism

United States

#320986 Jan 21, 2014
Fat Janet 300 plus wrote:
Every useless hatemongering Christian in the world should blow their own messed up brains out.
Your train of thought needs a caboose.
No Relativism

United States

#320987 Jan 21, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So we're not allowed to feel sorry for the pain of withdrawl a neonate goes through just because we are pro-choice?
LOL, ridiculous. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
bHitler: "So we're not allowed to feel sorry for the pain of drug withdrawl a neonate goes through just because we are pro-choice?"

You don't have a single compassionate bone in your entire morbidly-obese body.

You hold more regard for a butter 'n' bacon sandwich than you do for little humans in utero.
No Relativism

United States

#320988 Jan 21, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Depends on what goes in, eh?
Lots of stuff comes out of vaginas....especially at airports, hospital emergency rooms, and way stations.....they hold a much bigger mass than a colon, or a penis, does...just sayin.
:)
Baby Derek was removed from your "tunnel of death" in ripped-up pieces.

Tennis anyone?

Go back to work, you worker's comp fraud.
janet scalecrusher

Sonora, CA

#320989 Jan 21, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your train of thought needs a caboose.
Your tongue needs to be removed from my gigantic poossay!

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#320990 Jan 21, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
In fairness, crack is extremely addictive and many people can never overcome their need for the drug...even when they become pregnant. The mechanism of addiction literally changes thought processes; logic means nothing. They aren't so much uncaring as helpless.
<quoted text>
Anyone so stupid as to ingest it in the first place, and subsequently so helpless as to become enmeshed in addiction to it, is too stupid and helpless to be an effective parent, and probably shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool.

JMO.

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) 2 min ritedownthemiddle 1,432,257
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot 10,091
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr New Age Spiritual... 257,123
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr Les Miles 32,402
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Sep 18 Go Blue Forever 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 10 yess 201,881
News UCLA Basketball: Grad Transfer Octeus to Bruins (Jun '14) Aug 31 Trojan 2
More from around the web