Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310948 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.

katie

Auburn, WA

#321434 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Eloquently put, Miss Katie. The fetus worshipers are proud that they've constrained providers and pushed the limits of the law, to the point where Kermit Gosnell flourished - and they want it to be like that everywhere.
In a recent Washington Post story on the Gosnell case, a former leader of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's abortion surveillance branch states that the problem of sub-standard clinics that provide abortions has become so rare in recent years, that the CDC shut down the surveillance operation. In addition, the CDC said 10 people died of abortions in 2010, the last year for which there is available data, compared to 793 people who died in bicycle accidents. The same report described the fact that abortion clinics are regulated in different manners in different states.
I think the CDC surveillance operation should be re-instated, and outpatient clinics of all kinds held to the standards under which they are certified. Feet to the fire, if necessary. But dammit, if wider sidewalks, and the requirements for hospital privileges, etc. are really aimed at safety, why aren't ALL outpatient clinics held to these same standards?
Safety is just a ruse to attain the goal of shutting clinics down. Just like focusing on fetal development is just a ruse for stealing women's civil rights of personal privacy and bodily autonomy.

How anyone is still fooled into believing otherwise is concerning and curious. jmo
katie

Auburn, WA

#321435 Feb 1, 2014
Bitner wrote:
Amidst the darkness, the Lady is stirring,
Gently awakening from frozen dream.
All the world has awaited this moment,
The return of the Maiden
And Her promise of oncoming Spring.
Blessed Imbolc
~author unknown
This brings a smile to my face, thanks, Bitner :)

(after this morning where my frustration levels peaked and then went into the red, it was much needed. so again, thanks)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321436 Feb 1, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Safety is just a ruse to attain the goal of shutting clinics down. Just like focusing on fetal development is just a ruse for stealing women's civil rights of personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
How anyone is still fooled into believing otherwise is concerning and curious. jmo
I'm more cynical than you, I guess...since I don't believe the SCPL doesn't believe it wholeheartedly, and willingly throws itself at the push to close clinics by whatever means work. Women's rights, autonomy, self-direction, personal risk-assessment, and lives, be damned.....it's all about Fetus, the Great and Powerful.

God knows, it isn't about "babies".....not the born ones, anyway.....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321437 Feb 1, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This brings a smile to my face, thanks, Bitner :)
(after this morning where my frustration levels peaked and then went into the red, it was much needed. so again, thanks)
You're welcome :)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321438 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Can you guess what happens to child molestation rates, when the Catholic church is held responsible for turning its pedophile priests over to civil authorities?
Not a whole lot.....

http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-mor...
Next...
Next ? You have another meaningless, irrelevant statement to make ?
katie

Auburn, WA

#321439 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm more cynical than you, I guess...since I don't believe the SCPL doesn't believe it wholeheartedly, and willingly throws itself at the push to close clinics by whatever means work. Women's rights, autonomy, self-direction, personal risk-assessment, and lives, be damned.....it's all about Fetus, the Great and Powerful.
God knows, it isn't about "babies".....not the born ones, anyway.....
Hi NAP. I truly believe the PLM is NOT about the babies (ZEFs to you and me). Fetal development is the hook to draw others into the movement. When the old evangelicals were getting wind that induced abortion had the probability of becoming federally protected, they literally sat around and brainstormed how to block this. And all because they believed women's duty was as a wife and mother. This was coinciding with the ERA which the same evangelicals didn't want passed (they won that one), so they wanted to draw women into their movement. What better way than to begin by equating ZEF with baby? Pretty damn simple, but it worked and continues to work especially with the 3D ultrasound images.

Only thing, it's all a lie. The premise is a lie and the supporting arguments are just more lies. I've read enough "fact checkers" to know for sure and have linked up many sites stating such throughout the years.

But recently I came upon this article/blog and found it interesting. Even more, I found it hopeful. If this woman can see the light, there must be others who can, too. And then they'll tell two friends who'll tell two friends who'll tell two friends and so on and so on.

This resonates with me because, until 2005 (the Terri Schiavo fiasco to be exact), I thought of myself as prolife, too. "Life, what a beautiful choice" had been repeated around my area for years and years.

Anyway, it's long and rambling, but worth the read. Have a good weekend :)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321440 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm more cynical than you, I guess...since I don't believe the SCPL doesn't believe it wholeheartedly, and willingly throws itself at the push to close clinics by whatever means work. Women's rights, autonomy, self-direction, personal risk-assessment, and lives, be damned.....it's all about Fetus, the Great and Powerful.
God knows, it isn't about "babies".....not the born ones, anyway.....
Why should it be ? Born "babies" already have laws protecting their life.
As far as the born are concerned anyway, it is a fact that conservatives, which for the most part include PL, are more generous in donating their time and money to causes benefitting the born than the liberal PC.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-co...

You are a trip. You spend every waking hour of your empty life on this site taunting the PL, mocking their supposed impotence in preventing any woman from exercising her right to legally kill unborn human life, and outright daring them to try and stop them....and then when they take you up on that dare and are somewhat successful, you get your oversized grandma panties in a major snit.
You are pathetic. Useful only to be laughed at.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321441 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a whole lot.....
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-mor...
My point.

The only things that happen to 'teen pregnancy rates' when Planned Parenthood leaves town, is that fewer pregnant teens in town receive prenatal care, and more pregnant teens go to a town with a Planned Parenthood for it.

(Next....)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321442 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Casey Anthony: One more reason abortion is legal.
Better before birth, than after, I always say.
Next...
Is that right ? You always say ?
Well being that Casey Anthony's baby was wanted...and conversely there are countless examples of unwanted babies who end up being loved and leading happy, productive and enriched lives, just who is going to be the one to decide which lives should be aborted and which should be allowed to be born based on that wonderful principle you live by ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321443 Feb 1, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. So a fertilized egg...is the same as a baby.
No. And an infant is not the same as an adult. Different stages of life for the very same entity.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321444 Feb 1, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
The heartless, cold one on here is you. The woman is dead. Her family is suffering. And all you care about is an embryo. What must that woman's parents be going through? Her husband? Her siblings? Even her friends?
They're going through what any other relative or friend is going through who has lost a loved one. As you said, the woman is already dead.
You people make me laugh. Many of you have gone out of your way to point out that you don't care, nor should anyone else care what happens to their mortal remains once they are gone. Even going so far as to make little of and joking about the rituals others go through as a means of showing respect to such remains. Now your sympathy and concern over the treatment of a woman who is already dead rings oh so hollow.

But make them live through many more months of this brain dead woman being on artificial life support so her body can be used and then finally discarded. You have no empathy, no compassion. You are just a sick, twisted, rigid...stone.
In this case the baby was determined to be severely brain damaged and not viable so the decision to not keep the woman alive was rightfully the correct one.
But let me ask you this...if this woman had a 10 year old daughter who needed a life saving transplant and due to some medical anomaly her comatose, brain dead mother was her only compatible donor, but her daughter was not yet physically capable of enduring the transplant operation, but was projected to be in a period of time, would you support keeping this brain dead woman artificially alive until such time that her daughter was strong enough to endure the operation ? Or would you oppose keeping this woman alive and thus condemning her daughter to death because the woman previously had indicated she did desire to be kept alive artificially ?
katie

Auburn, WA

#321445 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're going through what any other relative or friend is going through who has lost a loved one. As you said, the woman is already dead.
You people make me laugh. Many of you have gone out of your way to point out that you don't care, nor should anyone else care what happens to their mortal remains once they are gone. Even going so far as to make little of and joking about the rituals others go through as a means of showing respect to such remains. Now your sympathy and concern over the treatment of a woman who is already dead rings oh so hollow.
<quoted text>
In this case the baby was determined to be severely brain damaged and not viable so the decision to not keep the woman alive was rightfully the correct one.
But let me ask you this...if this woman had a 10 year old daughter who needed a life saving transplant and due to some medical anomaly her comatose, brain dead mother was her only compatible donor, but her daughter was not yet physically capable of enduring the transplant operation, but was projected to be in a period of time, would you support keeping this brain dead woman artificially alive until such time that her daughter was strong enough to endure the operation ? Or would you oppose keeping this woman alive and thus condemning her daughter to death because the woman previously had indicated she did desire to be kept alive artificially ?
After reading your question, I have one for you. Did the "comatose, brain dead mother" stipulate verbally or written to be kept on life support if such a thing ever were to occur? If not, then follow the "comatose, brain dead mother's" wishes; whatever these were. If that meant no stipulation, then unhook her and let her go.

It's all about the affected person's wishes. Only. But this is glaringly lacking from your paragraph when you're asking what others would oppose or not.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#321446 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're going through what any other relative or friend is going through who has lost a loved one. As you said, the woman is already dead.
You people make me laugh. Many of you have gone out of your way to point out that you don't care, nor should anyone else care what happens to their mortal remains once they are gone. Even going so far as to make little of and joking about the rituals others go through as a means of showing respect to such remains. Now your sympathy and concern over the treatment of a woman who is already dead rings oh so hollow.
<quoted text>
In this case the baby was determined to be severely brain damaged and not viable so the decision to not keep the woman alive was rightfully the correct one.
But let me ask you this...if this woman had a 10 year old daughter who needed a life saving transplant and due to some medical anomaly her comatose, brain dead mother was her only compatible donor, but her daughter was not yet physically capable of enduring the transplant operation, but was projected to be in a period of time, would you support keeping this brain dead woman artificially alive until such time that her daughter was strong enough to endure the operation ? Or would you oppose keeping this woman alive and thus condemning her daughter to death because the woman previously had indicated she did desire to be kept alive artificially ?
I got a far better one for YOU....a divorced couple had a son who needed a bone marrow transplant. The father was a match and declined, the son died. Should the father have been FORCED BY LAW to be the bone marrow donor? YES or NO?

How about you put your hairy ass in the position of being forced...how about it DAVID??
Jeezis

United States

#321447 Feb 1, 2014
Hey Davy Boy go fork yourself and gestate your own bASStard whelp.
Jeezis

United States

#321448 Feb 1, 2014
Mutharforkin men need to STFU!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321449 Feb 1, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
After reading your question, I have one for you. Did the "comatose, brain dead mother" stipulate verbally or written to be kept on life support if such a thing ever were to occur?
No. She merely stipulated she did not want to be kept alive artificially. There were no conditions nor were any exceptions noted. Moreover, her stipulation was made with no knowledge of what the current circumstances of her and her daughter would be.
If not, then follow the "comatose, brain dead mother's" wishes; whatever these were. If that meant no stipulation, then unhook her and let her go.
It's all about the affected person's wishes. Only. But this is glaringly lacking from your paragraph when you're asking what others would oppose or not.
So you would condemn to certain death, a little girl who could otherwise be saved, for the want of the wishes of a woman who was already dead and whose desire to not be kept artificially alive was made with no recognition that it would one day cost her own flesh and blood her very life.

That is just sick.

Don't you ever dare to ever call yourself pro life again.....in any manner shape or form.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321450 Feb 1, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I got a far better one for YOU ...a divorced couple had a son who needed a bone marrow transplant. The father was a match and declined, the son died. Should the father have been FORCED BY LAW to be the bone marrow donor? YES or NO?
How about you put your hairy ass in the position of being forced...how about it DAVID??
That's far better ? Yours sucks compared to mine.
You're talking about someone who is still very much alive and who would need to agree to a medical procedure which carries with it some inherent risks. You're also talking about someone who would be making a conscious decision with FULL knowledge of the circumstances involved, including the knowledge that his decision will either save his son's life or condemn him to die.

My hypothetical contains NONE of those circumstances or conditions. We are talking about someone who is already dead and as such would be assuming no risk. In addition, we're talking about someone who made her stipulation to NOT be kept alive artificially without ANY knowledge of how that stipulation would ultimately affect her own daughter's life.

Regardless of your totally stupid analogy, I will nevertheless answer your question. But not before you answer mine.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321451 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should it be ? Born "babies" already have laws protecting their life.
You got a problem with that?
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a trip.
Thanks, pallie. You're a bore.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
You spend every waking hour of your empty life on this site taunting the PL, mocking their supposed impotence in preventing any woman from exercising her right to legally kill unborn human life,
It's not 'supposed' impotence, pard....not a single post on this thread has deterred, much less prevented, a single solitary pregnant woman, from making her own decision about whether or not to gestate her pregnancy.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
and outright daring them to try and stop them....
It's illegal to "try and stop them", but some of the SCPL have gone as far as offering a ride to the clinic, and taking the unsuspecting pregnant woman to a church to be prayed over instead.

That's kidnapping. Federal. Capital offense.
Happens all the time...but as long as these folks are spewing their judgment, their lies, their opprobrium, and their disapproval HERE, they're not interfering in other women's medical decisions THERE.

You damn right I spend a lot of time here. I'm doing a public service, assisting pregnant women by lessening the number of assholes they might have to contend with when EXCERCISING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

You, however, are not.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
and then when they take you up on that dare and are somewhat successful,
Pfft. Give one example of a successful attempt to "stop" a woman from getting an abortion, with a post on a Topix forum....
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
you get your oversized grandma panties in a major snit.
You are pathetic. Useful only to be laughed at.
Laughter is the best medicine. More power to ya.

Next...

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321452 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
just who is going to be the one to decide which lives should be aborted and which should be allowed to be born based on that wonderful principle you live by ?
The woman who risks her life if she decides to gestate them....of course.
I know that bugs you, but hey - take it up with God.

Next.
katie

Auburn, WA

#321453 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. She merely stipulated she did not want to be kept alive artificially. There were no conditions nor were any exceptions noted. Moreover, her stipulation was made with no knowledge of what the current circumstances of her and her daughter would be.
<quoted text>
So you would condemn to certain death, a little girl who could otherwise be saved, for the want of the wishes of a woman who was already dead and whose desire to not be kept artificially alive was made with no recognition that it would one day cost her own flesh and blood her very life.
That is just sick.
Don't you ever dare to ever call yourself pro life again.....in any manner shape or form.
No, what's sick is your willingness to force somebody to go against their end of life wishes. If it's stipulated she did not want to be kept alive artificially, then have and show her the respect and dignity she is allowed. Besides, you don't know if saving the little girl's life led to her growing up and becoming a killer or curing cancer. And in the long run it doesn't matter. What matters is that you followed the dying woman's end of life wishes not to be hooked up to ALS.

Oh and a bit of reality for you.*I* wouldn't be condemning to certain death, a little girl who could otherwise be saved, for the want of the wishes of a woman who was already dead and whose desire to not be kept artificially alive was made with no recognition that it would one day cost her own flesh and blood her very life. That's not my call. You saw the outcome of the court case in Texas, yes? The judge said unhook her. The hospital was not in the right (ethically or legally) to keep her hooked up to machines against her will -- even if you approved of her detachment because the fetus was most likely compromised.

Again, all you're doing is highlighting when you find following others' wishes acceptable to you or not whether you're involved or not. That makes you a nosy parker.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min Patrick 254,884
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 9,531
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr Papi Chulo 32,247
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Thu Ela 39
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Apr 27 Jesse 201,845
News Kenny Drummond's Prep School Thingy (Jan '08) Apr 23 Bret Link 21
News LA Tech's Tyler Summitt resigns because of inap... Apr 9 binaries 1
More from around the web