Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 308,906
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

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321459 Feb 1, 2014
The woman. The pregnant woman. The woman whose body is being used by the fetus. SHE decides. It's pretty goddamned obvious, Skippy.;
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321460 Feb 1, 2014
Depends on what the woman's wishes would be, as determined by her guardian.

BTW--bodies deteriorate steadily when they are on life support. Unless it's a brief period of time--a week or two--chances are a transplant will fail.
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 ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321461 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, I said based on the principle YOU live by ( Better before than after ). There are countless examples of children who were born "wanted" and who ended up living short, tortured lives. Since we also know that conversely there are countless babies born supposedly "unwanted" who lived happy, long fulfilled lives then the probability therefore exists that thousands upon thousands of "unwanted" children have been aborted who would have likely lived long, happy fulfilled lives. The principle you espouse obviously isn't working.
In fact I'd say it sucks.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321462 Feb 1, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The woman. The pregnant woman. The woman whose body is being used by the fetus. SHE decides. It's pretty goddamned obvious, Skippy.;
<quoted text>
No, sorry. That's not working, Skippy.
The principle she espoused assumes there is someone/something who can make the decision regarding which babies will or will not live horribly short and tortured lives. Since history has shown that both unwanted AND wanted babies have fallen into that category, there is obviously NO ONE capable of making that prediction and therefore no one capable of making that decision.
The question was a rhetorical one.
Go crawl back in your idiot hole.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321463 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. But you apparently think we should also be out fighting for laws that already exist.
You're not inebriated, are you ?
No. I'm not inebriated. And I think you should STOP fighting for laws which remove or infringe on a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, before you end up with laws which remove or infringe on your own.

You folks never take that possibility into consideration...but it nonetheless is inevitable, once you've stripped women of our rights to bodily autonomy, personal risk-assessment, and self defense. You'll have set that precedent, and I doubt seriously you'll appreciate the results.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>I wasnt planning on going out and interfering with any woman's attempts to get an abortion, at least not until early March.
Figures.

Abortion is only murder when the weather is congenial.

Friggin' hypocrite.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321464 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I said based on the principle YOU live by ( Better before than after ). There are countless examples of children who were born "wanted" and who ended up living short, tortured lives. Since we also know that conversely there are countless babies born supposedly "unwanted" who lived happy, long fulfilled lives then the probability therefore exists that thousands upon thousands of "unwanted" children have been aborted who would have likely lived long, happy fulfilled lives. The principle you espouse obviously isn't working.
In fact I'd say it sucks.
Quit trying to frame my responses to fit your script.

I meant what I said, and if you think it sucks, you're entitled to your opinion.

You're also entitled never to contemplate, seek, or obtain an abortion.
Otherwise, abortion is none of your business, unless you are the woman who is pregnant, or the qualified physician providing her with reproductive medical care.

And you can shove your sanctimonious blather about what kind of lives are led by 'unwanted' kids, since your stance consistently indicates that you couldn't possibly care less, about anything other than whether or not they are gestated.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321465 Feb 1, 2014
Scarlett wrote:
I read your presented question. It's brilliance will leave much to be desired by these PC. I can't wait till they answer. They will avoid it. Thanks for this.<quoted text>
No problem. My pleasure.
Surprisingly some of them did "attempt" to answer. Did you see the poster katie's response ? According to her we shouldn't be so quick to save the 10 year old girl's life. After all, there's a chance she may grow up to be a killer. WTF ?
It's not even possible to make up insanity like this.

The other jerk's answer was to limit the life support to 4 days. Life support that would be in direct opposition to the woman's expressed wishes. So I guess in this case, at least in her mind, it's NOT about the woman's wishes at all. Is it ?
katie

Auburn, WA

#321468 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. My pleasure.
Surprisingly some of them did "attempt" to answer. Did you see the poster katie's response ? According to her we shouldn't be so quick to save the 10 year old girl's life. After all, there's a chance she may grow up to be a killer. WTF ?
It's not even possible to make up insanity like this.
The other jerk's answer was to limit the life support to 4 days. Life support that would be in direct opposition to the woman's expressed wishes. So I guess in this case, at least in her mind, it's NOT about the woman's wishes at all. Is it ?
You made up the very insanity you're faking about decrying. Totally misrepresented what I wrote. And twisted the obvious meaning that what mattered was the woman's end of life wishes being followed.

Boring. And as predictable as rain in the PNW.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321469 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>No. I'm not inebriated. And I think you should STOP fighting for laws which remove or infringe on a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, before you end up with laws which remove or infringe on your own.
You folks never take that possibility into consideration.
..but it nonetheless is inevitable, once you've stripped women of our rights to bodily autonomy, personal risk-assessment, and self defense. You'll have set that precedent, and I doubt seriously you'll appreciate the results.
I always take it into consideration. And there is no slippery slope when you remain consistent with your objective to protect all human life.
I'd like you to offer an example of the worst case scenario whereby protecting human life leads to the infringement of any right OTHER than the right to electively kill.
Let your imagination run wild.
<quoted text>Figures.
Abortion is only murder when the weather is congenial.
Friggin' hypocrite.
Number one I never said abortion was murder.
Number two I never said my plans not to go out and interfere with any woman's right to obtain an abortion until early March had anything whatsoever to do with the weather. In fact where I am March comes in "like a lion".

Friggin dope.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321470 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
The other jerk's answer was to limit the life support to 4 days. Life support that would be in direct opposition to the woman's expressed wishes. So I guess in this case, at least in her mind, it's NOT about the woman's wishes at all. Is it ?
A ventilator is not 'life support' in and of itself...it is RESPIRATORY support. That's it.

After four days on a vent, the body begins to rot - if they gave my ten year old daughter my rotten organs, or putrefying blood, I would come back and haunt them.

:)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321471 Feb 1, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You made up the very insanity you're faking about decrying. Totally misrepresented what I wrote.
"Besides, you don't know if saving the little girl's life led to her growing up and becoming a killer or curing cancer"

With insanity like this there is no need for me to make up anything.
And twisted the obvious meaning that what mattered was the woman's end of life wishes being followed.
Boring. And as predictable as rain in the PNW.
I twisted nothing. What you said is a matter of record. And I know....what matters most, in your mind, was the woman's end of life wishes. Wishes that were no doubt made without any knowledge that they might cost the daughter she loves her life. But hey, those were her wishes. Follow them. Even if it costs the little girl her life.

You are sick.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321472 Feb 1, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Quit trying to frame my responses to fit your script.
I meant what I said, and if you think it sucks, you're entitled to your opinion.
You're also entitled never to contemplate, seek, or obtain an abortion.
Otherwise, abortion is none of your business, unless you are the woman who is pregnant, or the qualified physician providing her with reproductive medical care.
And you can shove your sanctimonious blather about what kind of lives are led by 'unwanted' kids, since your stance consistently indicates that you couldn't possibly care less, about anything other than whether or not they are gestated.
:-)
Stick a fork in you. You're done.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321473 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always take it into consideration. And there is no slippery slope when you remain consistent with your objective to protect all human life.
.
That's not your objective, though.

If you were advocating the protection of all human life, why wouldn't you be more interested in the fact that the United States has the third most abysmal maternal death rates of all the industrialized nations, than in making sure they rise, with laws against safe sterile abortions?

Why aren't you advocating for unraveling the mysteries of miscarriage, and working for an end to poverty?

Or how about advocating that men take a little more personal responsibility for unwanted pregnancy, and that they make sure the woman with whom they plan to have potentially procreative sex, wants him to get her pregnant, and wants to keep and raise their offspring...?

(I realize you're not interested in examining that part of the equation...it's so much easier to blame women for the behavior of men, and its results, innit? Boys will be boys...)

Your objective is to control whether or not women gestate, by making abortion as difficult and dangerous to obtain as possible.

Period.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321474 Feb 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
:-)
Stick a fork in you. You're done.
A response chock full of.....nothing in the way of rebuttal...

...I haven't even started yet, Dave.

Not going to take a position on IVF embryos, eh?

Next...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#321477 Feb 2, 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 ?
"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."

I stopped reading after this because, since you're addressing me then you should show where I have ever done this...then we can continue this conversation.

I take people's funereal rituals seriously so show anywhere that I have joked about this.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321478 Feb 2, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Can she wake up a little faster? We're supposed to get more snow next week...:)
<quoted text>
Well, I could ask, but I'm not the one expecting snow :)

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#321479 Feb 2, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If SHE stipulated NO artificial life support and if SHE was not an organ donor then the answer is NO! That is your answer. AND that would correlate with her wishes all the way around don't ya think?

So your answer to my question is "NO"? Good to know.

“Women are people, not objects.”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#321480 Feb 2, 2014
I'm still amazed that hardened killers, rapists and child molesters still retain complete bodily autonomy even while in prison and/or on death row, yet women are expected to share their bodies against their will if they wind up pregnant by accident. You can't even legally harvest the organs of a corpse to save lives if they aren't a donor, but living, breathing females have to fight for the right not to share their organs. People argue for the father's right to have a say, but the one that sires the pregnancy suffers no risk in gestation and he can (and often does) walk away after ejaculation.

A fetus should not have greater rights than the born. No born person has the right to use someone else's body--not even a corpse--against their wishes; not even to save their own life. How can anyone logically argue that women (and ONLY women) should be compelled by law to share their bodies and labor for another against their wishes.

That is tantamount to slavery. There is no escaping that fact.

The unborn should have the same rights as the born, and that means if the woman doesn't want them inside of her, they're SOL. I find a lot of prolife arguments to be like rape apologist arguments: She asked for it. Their goal seems more attuned to punishing women and keeping them in their place than any sincere concern for so-called "morality".
Southern Reaper

New Port Richey, FL

#321481 Feb 2, 2014
My, this thread keeps going on and on, doesn't it? I've been away for a while thanks to an argument with a mouthy, insane fetus in here. Funny how they ban without warning and don't even let you know you're banned. I hope I haven't missed too much.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321482 Feb 2, 2014
Leonine wrote:
I'm still amazed that hardened killers, rapists and child molesters still retain complete bodily autonomy even while in prison and/or on death row, yet women are expected to share their bodies against their will if they wind up pregnant by accident. You can't even legally harvest the organs of a corpse to save lives if they aren't a donor, but living, breathing females have to fight for the right not to share their organs. People argue for the father's right to have a say, but the one that sires the pregnancy suffers no risk in gestation and he can (and often does) walk away after ejaculation.
A fetus should not have greater rights than the born. No born person has the right to use someone else's body--not even a corpse--against their wishes; not even to save their own life. How can anyone logically argue that women (and ONLY women) should be compelled by law to share their bodies and labor for another against their wishes.
That is tantamount to slavery. There is no escaping that fact.
The unborn should have the same rights as the born, and that means if the woman doesn't want them inside of her, they're SOL. I find a lot of prolife arguments to be like rape apologist arguments: She asked for it. Their goal seems more attuned to punishing women and keeping them in their place than any sincere concern for so-called "morality".
Well said. Very well said.

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) 7 min shinningelectr0n 1,189,812
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min NoahLovesU 235,556
Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) 32 min KHS Alumni 69
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr IBdaMann 4,099
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 29,057
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Big D 201,361
Patsos tries to steam, not boil over (Nov '08) Thu stewart scott 4
More from around the web