Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311489 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.

No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321526 Feb 3, 2014
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>There is "NO" distinct human being from a clump of cells. That's like calling a chicken egg a unique, distinctive chicken. It's a proto-chicken.
I said both mom and in utero baby are unique, distinct human beings.

YOU responded "Of course they are."

Now you say, "NO distinct human being from a clump of cells."

You're a mess.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321527 Feb 3, 2014
From liberal Washington Post: "Study: Abortion rate (in 2011) at lowest point since 1973"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health...
_________

"The study did not examine the reasons for the drop," but boy did they yap on about contraception.

“If the abortion rate continues to drop, we can’t assume it’s all due to positive factors”... Um, there are "negative" factors for NOT killing innocent, defenseless babies in utero?

“This is a post-sonogram generation. There is increased awareness throughout our culture of the moral weight of the unborn baby. And that’s a good thing.”- Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life

Planned Parenthood's quasi-research arm conducted the study. Surely they were aware that Planned Parenthood executed a record number of abortions in 2011 ["Banner Year For Abortion At Planned Parenthoood" http://www.bing.com/search... ]

So, as national abortion rate decreases, the number of abortions at Planned Parenthood INCREASES. I guess PP has a better business model for increasing abortion biz ("safe sex" ... "contraception" ... Recall yesterday's Texas study where number of pregnant teens decreased directly w/ the number of Planned Parenthood clinics closing).
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321528 Feb 3, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean what? Because there is no "who" in a uterus.
NR: "When a DNA sample from the in utero human is sent off to a DNA lab, WHOSE DNA does the sample belong to?"

bHitler: "There is no 'who' in a uterus."
________

Anyone reading the DNA lab result from the human in utero would know that a "who" must exist.

If you held the results and said that they indicat the sample does not belong to a "who," you'd be laughed out of the lab. And, they'd...

1. Recommend that you attend a remedial biology course.

2. Receive a psych consult.

3. Ask if you'd ever considered being a standup comedian.

4. Advise you to lose weight.
soman00971566759 201

Fujairah, UAE

#321529 Feb 3, 2014
koi indian ho hindi bat krny wall tho phon kro

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321530 Feb 3, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I said both mom and in utero baby are unique, distinct human beings.
YOU responded "Of course they are."
Now you say, "NO distinct human being from a clump of cells."
You're a mess.
We're still talking about a clump of cells and not a baby, idiot. You are a psycho! No wonder you're not registered.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321531 Feb 3, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
NR: "When a DNA sample from the in utero human is sent off to a DNA lab, WHOSE DNA does the sample belong to?"
bHitler: "There is no 'who' in a uterus."
________
Anyone reading the DNA lab result from the human in utero would know that a "who" must exist.
If you held the results and said that they indicat the sample does not belong to a "who," you'd be laughed out of the lab. And, they'd...
1. Recommend that you attend a remedial biology course.
2. Receive a psych consult.
3. Ask if you'd ever considered being a standup comedian.
4. Advise you to lose weight.
Nonsense. You're babbling.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321532 Feb 3, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. You're babbling.
He/she/it is just babbling crap and almost sounds like ole' zeffy.
grumpy

Bridgeport, CT

#321533 Feb 3, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
NR: "I'm glad you finally agree that a DNA analysis of mom and her in utero baby indicate that they are both unique, distinct human beings."
EarthOneDeadBaby: "Of course they are."
________
So when you say "I'm for women's rights to choose abortion if she wants it," you are saying that you support a mother's right to kill the uniuqe, distinct human being in her womb.
One more time.
Is a cancer a distinct human being? Its cells differentiate apart from the mother.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321534 Feb 3, 2014
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>He/she/it is just babbling crap and almost sounds like ole' zeffy.
He's almost as bad, really.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321535 Feb 3, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>One more time.
Is a cancer a distinct human being? Its cells differentiate apart from the mother.
He doesn't want to understand nor try. She/he/it is an embryo worshipper.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321536 Feb 3, 2014
Regardless of what you call it, the woman has no obligation to gestate it.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
NR: "I'm glad you finally agree that a DNA analysis of mom and her in utero baby indicate that they are both unique, distinct human beings."
EarthOneDeadBaby: "Of course they are."
________
So when you say "I'm for women's rights to choose abortion if she wants it," you are saying that you support a mother's right to kill the uniuqe, distinct human being in her womb.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321537 Feb 3, 2014
Nor does it mean she would have changed her mind. We all know how you disregard pregnant women....
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "her pregnancy in no way overrode her right to her own wishes"
She expressed her wishes when her preborn child was not involved. We all realize that you disregard innocents, but that doesn't mean she did.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321538 Feb 3, 2014
The fetus, just like a DNA sample from a corpse belongs to the corpse. When you take a sample, you note where it came from. DNA tests don't differentiate between origin sources or note if the source is living or dead.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
On a separate note, I have a question for you:
When a DNA sample from the in utero human is sent off to a DNA lab, WHOSE DNA does the sample belong to?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321539 Feb 3, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
He'd have a better understanding of her wishes than the state could. Not to mention that her pregnancy in no way overrode her right to her own wishes.
<quoted text>
It is unlikely that they would have had that discussion. Having had several children, I never mentioned to my husband that I would want to be taken off life support if my unborn child's life depended on it. I don't think that is a conversation spouses have even though in passing you might say you don't want to be kept alive if there is no hope for your recovery. Giving your child a chance to live is another story.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#321540 Feb 3, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>One more time.
Is a cancer a distinct human being? Its cells differentiate apart from the mother.
One more time.....no.
Cancer cells are mutated normal cells whose DNA is readily distinguishable from normal cells due to its unique characteristics. DNA samples are not taken blindly in a vacuum. Their origin is known, that is, it is known if they were taken from a tumor or from a living fetus. DNA taken from a living, developing human fetus would only confirm a unique genetic code different from its mother, thereby confirming it as a developing human individual distinct from its mother.
I hope this is the last time you ask this stupid question. It was stupid the first time you asked it and repetition has not diminished its stupidity.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321541 Feb 3, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Evening "Ink."
My apologies...I was thinking that since you replied that, "you can still have an abortion," you either didn't want to think about the accumulated restrictions that are being enacted, or didn't realize that this is what "N-A-P" and the others were referring to.
I was not trying to be dismissive, or diminish your position.
I'm not sure I agree with your assertion of "abortion on demand," but I know that that's become the "rallying cry" of those who oppose abortion for any reason whatsoever.
Truth be told, we don't really "know" why women choose to have an abortion because, thankfully, that's not a requirement for obtaining one.
I do, however, agree with your observation that "we'll probably end up in the middle somewhere."
Yes I do realize that there are restrictions and that may end up being the 'middle ground'.

Unrestricted abortion including sec and third trimester is becomming less palatable to even folks who call themselves pro choice.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#321542 Feb 3, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I answered, now what?
Here's one for you: What is your position on the disposal and / or consignment to cryogenic hell, of the human embryos not selected for implantation, during the process of In-vitro Fertilization?
Are those doctors and parents murderers too?
Mass murderers?
Premeditated murderers?
Or are petri dishes just not as much fun to control as wombs???
Don't bother answering that IVF question, Scarlett. I did. And because the hypocrisy she had hoped for and the "gotcha" moment she anticipated were not manifested in my response, she ignored. She hasn't an ounce of credibility.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321543 Feb 3, 2014
They don't have to discuss permutations or parameters; knowing she didn't want to be on life support was enough for the husband, as guardian, to protect her wishes. You're making presumptions without even knowing her.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unlikely that they would have had that discussion. Having had several children, I never mentioned to my husband that I would want to be taken off life support if my unborn child's life depended on it. I don't think that is a conversation spouses have even though in passing you might say you don't want to be kept alive if there is no hope for your recovery. Giving your child a chance to live is another story.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321544 Feb 3, 2014
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother answering that IVF question, Scarlett. I did. And because the hypocrisy she had hoped for and the "gotcha" moment she anticipated were not manifested in my response, she ignored. She hasn't an ounce of credibility.
Where did you answer that question?

The only person so far, who has had the gumption to give a response, was the IW RS/Lisa poster.

I take it you're in favor of criminalizing IVF, as well as abortion, and for the same reasons?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321545 Feb 3, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
I've been frustrated enough by conversations on the abortion threads, that I have several times been guilty of joking about mortal remains....but then again, having lost 6 pregnancies, and birthed / raised two children, I feel the need sometimes for a little black humor. And my fuse is short enough, occasionally, that I get it at someone else's expense. Hell, even numbnuts you're replying to up there, laughed about it.... ;-)

But I can definitely attest to the fact that I don't remember you doing the same....I suspect our friend, the IBS/Lisa poster, is obliquely referring to the fact that you didn't chastise me for it, or some similar thing she finds irritating.

Maybe she needs a good shagging...

As has been said before, laughter is the best medicine. And they certainly don't mind

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 The Donald_ 1,404,233
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min IB DaMann 255,971
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 16 hr litesong 9,989
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 21 hr NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 23 Trojan 32,307
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web