Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311594 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

#321567 Feb 4, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>The cancer cell doesn't differentiate like DNA of the mother. It's human with a difference in DNA
The cell sample from mom's cancer tissue would show mom's DNA - w/ a mutation. It would not indicate a tissue sample from a different unique, distinct human being.

If your arm mutates, it's still your arm. Your arm doesn't become somebody else.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321568 Feb 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention, that what 'care' she received was not "Keeping her alive," anyway....she was on a vent, not full-on life support....and she was DECOMPOSING around that political football of a fetus.
One wonders how this will all affect her living child, 16 month old Mateo, as his mom's story made national news: Her corpse deteriorated for public consumption, and advancement in the career of some politician in Texas. How will this be beneficial to HIM?
(Well, that only matters, if one concerns oneself with something other than FETUSES.)
http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-...

It was worth the chance. Matteo may have been proud of his mother and dad for trying to save his sister.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321569 Feb 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it was a wanted pregnancy, we may assume she wanted it to continue under normal circumstances. But, would she have if something had gone wrong and she was conscious to make a decision for herself? You don't know. Neither do I. She ALSO wanted to live. She ALSO stated that she NEVER wanted to be kept alive on a machine. As a paramedic, she ALSO would have known that there was little chance, given the exact circumstances, the fetus would be viable no matter what. And it wasn't, not even two months later.
My point stands, her husband knew her better than the hospital administration or the judge in the case. He should have been allowed to make that decision as her next of kin. And that was the determination after all was said an done, that the hospital had no right to act as it had.
I guess that will all be decided in court.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321570 Feb 4, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>The cancer cell doesn't differentiate like DNA of the mother. It's human with a difference in DNA
grumpy: "The cancer cell doesn't differentiate like DNA of the mother. It's human with a difference in DNA"
_______

grumpy: How can this DNA result say it's the mother's DNA. It was from her malignant tumor.

Molecular genetic patholigist: Even though she's experienced abnormal gene mutations, it's clearly still her DNA.

grumpy: But it has to say that the DNA sample from her tumor indicates the tissue is from a different human - or I'll look like an ass on Topix.

Patholigist: From what you've already said, I'd have to agree that you're an ass.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321571 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
EarthOneDeadChild: "A child who also had severe brain damage from lack of oxygen...that baby is going to be a severly brain damaged adult."
You're speculating and assuming the worst in order to 'justify' your knee-jerk response: Killing.
Your post isn't about abortion. Your post supports euthenasia.
It's about abortion, quality of life and looking at the big picture, but you're too narrow minded to think ahead because you're a self centered narcissist.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321572 Feb 4, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-...
It was worth the chance. Matteo may have been proud of his mother and dad for trying to save his sister.
Is it Matteo's responsibility to stay home and take care of his sister when his grandparents and father are gone???
katie

Seattle, WA

#321573 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
From 2008 to 2011, the U.S. experienced a 13% reduction in the number of annual abortions.
Keep up the good work, prolifers!
You can stop patting yourself on the back and taking credit where it's undeserved. You and all the other followers of the cult of the PLM believe nothing but false premises, half-truths, bad science, pseudo-science, and ultrasound images that don't tell the whole story. Your cult of the PLM is NOT the reason for the decline in abortion rates (which have been dropping since 1990 -- probably before you were even born or out of diapers).

Learn some reality and then parrot the reality back instead of your nonsense from the cult working to steal women's civil rights out from under them. Jump on the bandwagon believing that in reality, nobody is classified as a human being until they are born and breathing. Jump on the bandwagon knowing of all the annual pregnancies in the United States over 4 million result in a live birth compared to about one million being terminated because these pregnancies were unwanted/unhealthy. And for crying out loud, get on the bandwagon with actions showing all women deserve your respect because without them, there is no population explosions anywhere ever. Unfortunately, I know you will continue with your misogyny, false premises, and outright deceit because you fear thinking for yourself. However, in the hopes I am wrong about even one you spoon fed cult followers, I will post these facts, in good faith the light bulb shines bright for just one of you, published during 2012.

"Women between 40 and 44 had a dramatic increase in pregnancy rates of nearly 65 percent from 1990 to 2008, the report said. There were 18.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women in that age group in 2008, compared with 11.4 per 1,000 in 1990.

Women in their 20s are "postponing pregnancy," Ventura said.

Another reason for the decrease in pregnancies among younger women is more effective birth control methods, including the combined use of condoms and other methods such as contraceptive patches that release hormones, she said.

"If the pregnancy rates are down, including both births and abortion rates, that would show more efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies," Ventura said.

The report said that overall for all age groups in 2008, 65 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth in 2008, 18 percent in an abortion and 17 percent in fetal loss. In 1990, 61 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth and 24 percent were aborted, with 15 percent resulting in fetal loss."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321574 Feb 4, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stop patting yourself on the back and taking credit where it's undeserved. You and all the other followers of the cult of the PLM believe nothing but false premises, half-truths, bad science, pseudo-science, and ultrasound images that don't tell the whole story. Your cult of the PLM is NOT the reason for the decline in abortion rates (which have been dropping since 1990 -- probably before you were even born or out of diapers).
Learn some reality and then parrot the reality back instead of your nonsense from the cult working to steal women's civil rights out from under them. Jump on the bandwagon believing that in reality, nobody is classified as a human being until they are born and breathing. Jump on the bandwagon knowing of all the annual pregnancies in the United States over 4 million result in a live birth compared to about one million being terminated because these pregnancies were unwanted/unhealthy. And for crying out loud, get on the bandwagon with actions showing all women deserve your respect because without them, there is no population explosions anywhere ever. Unfortunately, I know you will continue with your misogyny, false premises, and outright deceit because you fear thinking for yourself. However, in the hopes I am wrong about even one you spoon fed cult followers, I will post these facts, in good faith the light bulb shines bright for just one of you, published during 2012.
"Women between 40 and 44 had a dramatic increase in pregnancy rates of nearly 65 percent from 1990 to 2008, the report said. There were 18.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women in that age group in 2008, compared with 11.4 per 1,000 in 1990.
Women in their 20s are "postponing pregnancy," Ventura said.
Another reason for the decrease in pregnancies among younger women is more effective birth control methods, including the combined use of condoms and other methods such as contraceptive patches that release hormones, she said.
"If the pregnancy rates are down, including both births and abortion rates, that would show more efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies," Ventura said.
The report said that overall for all age groups in 2008, 65 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth in 2008, 18 percent in an abortion and 17 percent in fetal loss. In 1990, 61 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth and 24 percent were aborted, with 15 percent resulting in fetal loss."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-...
Katie V.,

Remember the time you said teen pregnancy rates drop when all local Planned Parenthood clinics close because the teens then go out of state for "care"?

Remember that?

That was funny.

You were saying that local Planned Parenthood clinics increase teen pregnancies, and are somehow more effective from afar.

You should be a comedian.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321575 Feb 4, 2014
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>It's about abortion, quality of life and looking at the big picture, but you're too narrow minded to think ahead because you're a self centered narcissist.
Dear EarthOneDeadBaby,

Remember this exchange? We do, too.==>

__________

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."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833 ...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#321576 Feb 4, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stop patting yourself on the back and taking credit where it's undeserved. You and all the other followers of the cult of the PLM believe nothing but false premises, half-truths, bad science, pseudo-science, and ultrasound images that don't tell the whole story. Your cult of the PLM is NOT the reason for the decline in abortion rates (which have been dropping since 1990 -- probably before you were even born or out of diapers).
Learn some reality and then parrot the reality back instead of your nonsense from the cult working to steal women's civil rights out from under them. Jump on the bandwagon believing that in reality, nobody is classified as a human being until they are born and breathing. Jump on the bandwagon knowing of all the annual pregnancies in the United States over 4 million result in a live birth compared to about one million being terminated because these pregnancies were unwanted/unhealthy. And for crying out loud, get on the bandwagon with actions showing all women deserve your respect because without them, there is no population explosions anywhere ever. Unfortunately, I know you will continue with your misogyny, false premises, and outright deceit because you fear thinking for yourself. However, in the hopes I am wrong about even one you spoon fed cult followers, I will post these facts, in good faith the light bulb shines bright for just one of you, published during 2012.
"Women between 40 and 44 had a dramatic increase in pregnancy rates of nearly 65 percent from 1990 to 2008, the report said. There were 18.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women in that age group in 2008, compared with 11.4 per 1,000 in 1990.
Women in their 20s are "postponing pregnancy," Ventura said.
Another reason for the decrease in pregnancies among younger women is more effective birth control methods, including the combined use of condoms and other methods such as contraceptive patches that release hormones, she said.
"If the pregnancy rates are down, including both births and abortion rates, that would show more efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies," Ventura said.
The report said that overall for all age groups in 2008, 65 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth in 2008, 18 percent in an abortion and 17 percent in fetal loss. In 1990, 61 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth and 24 percent were aborted, with 15 percent resulting in fetal loss."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-...
Katie V.: The report said that overall in 2008, 65 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth in 2008, 18 percent in an abortion and 17 percent in fetal loss. In 1990, 61 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth and 24 percent were aborted.

__________

1990 24% of pregnancies ended in abortion
2008 17% of pregnancies ended in abortion

Study by Guttmacher released this week showed 13% reduction in abortions when comparing 2008 to 2011.
__________

You better get busy, dear. Fewer babies are being aborted each year. Just wait until the various state restrictions show their effects in the 2012, 2013, etc. abortion statistics. Your kind call such restrictions "negative reasons" for fewer in utero babies being killed. Only your kind consider innocents a "negative."
katie

Seattle, WA

#321577 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie V.,
Remember the time you said teen pregnancy rates drop when all local Planned Parenthood clinics close because the teens then go out of state for "care"?
Remember that?
That was funny.
You were saying that local Planned Parenthood clinics increase teen pregnancies, and are somehow more effective from afar.
You should be a comedian.
What a fibber you are NR. I didn't make any claim of the sort. And I certainly never said, "...teen pregnancy rates drop when all local Planned Parenthood clinics close because the teens then go out of state for "care"?"

What I said was the report you or another cult follower cited was flawed because it didn't include the numbers of those teens going out of state (or out of town) for medical care. And that point still stands.

But thanks for proving me right in my prior post. Your use of outright deceit in trying to make a point is highlighted for all to see. You're definitely on the wrong bandwagon, NR. But that's jmo and you are free to be a cult follower all you like. You're just not free to legislate your cultish views on the rest of the nation.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321578 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear EarthOneDeadBaby,
Remember this exchange? We do, too.==>
__________
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."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833 ...
They are seperate you deranged idiot! The DNA shows they share the same traits. Also, where do you think that embryo got its X chromosomes from?
grumpy

Bridgeport, CT

#321580 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
The cell sample from mom's cancer tissue would show mom's DNA - w/ a mutation. It would not indicate a tissue sample from a different unique, distinct human being.
If your arm mutates, it's still your arm. Your arm doesn't become somebody else.
How would show mom's DNA if it doesn't differentiate like mom's DNA?
If your arm develops skin cancer from the sun, the arm is still your arm but the cancerous mole has different genetic makeup.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321581 Feb 4, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She was fourteen weeks pregnant when her husband found her. At fourteen weeks she hadn't had an abortion so she obviously wanted her child to be born and live.
How in the natural fuck, is that obvious to you? For all you know, she was PLANNING to have an abortion, and was making the appointment when she collapsed on the kitchen floor.

She was found by the phone...maybe her doctor had just informed her that her fetus was horribly compromised, and she stroked out hearing the news....you don't know.

You don't know a damn thing about this woman, or her circumstances...all you 'know' is that she didn't want to be kept on artificial 'life support'...that's all ANYONE knows about her last wishes, because THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. While she was, you know, ALIVE.

If you're still fertile, and there's any chance at all that you may become pregnant, I strongly suggest you write a codicil for your will RIGHT NOW, stating if you are pregnant and die, you want the opportunity to rot around your fetus.

Blerf.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321582 Feb 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>How in the natural fuck, is that obvious to you? For all you know, she was PLANNING to have an abortion, and was making the appointment when she collapsed on the kitchen floor.
She was found by the phone...maybe her doctor had just informed her that her fetus was horribly compromised, and she stroked out hearing the news....you don't know.
You don't know a damn thing about this woman, or her circumstances...all you 'know' is that she didn't want to be kept on artificial 'life support'...that's all ANYONE knows about her last wishes, because THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. While she was, you know, ALIVE.
If you're still fertile, and there's any chance at all that you may become pregnant, I strongly suggest you write a codicil for your will RIGHT NOW, stating if you are pregnant and die, you want the opportunity to rot around your fetus.
Blerf.
Exactly! The other question people are not asking is whether she would have kept the fetus knowing it had severe brain damage? It's obvious her husband knew her and her wishes better than anybody.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321583 Feb 4, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that will all be decided in court.
It already has been. Do try to pay attention, Witless.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#321584 Feb 4, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect LIFE.
Every post you make contradicts yourself.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
EarthOneDeadChild:.....
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
EarthOneDeadBaby:

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321585 Feb 4, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Every post you make contradicts yourself.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Ain't that the truth....

He only respects womb-encased life. Once yer outta there, yer outta luck.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321586 Feb 4, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>How in the natural fuck, is that obvious to you? For all you know, she was PLANNING to have an abortion, and was making the appointment when she collapsed on the kitchen floor.
She was found by the phone...maybe her doctor had just informed her that her fetus was horribly compromised, and she stroked out hearing the news....you don't know.
You don't know a damn thing about this woman, or her circumstances...all you 'know' is that she didn't want to be kept on artificial 'life support'...that's all ANYONE knows about her last wishes, because THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. While she was, you know, ALIVE.
If you're still fertile, and there's any chance at all that you may become pregnant, I strongly suggest you write a codicil for your will RIGHT NOW, stating if you are pregnant and die, you want the opportunity to rot around your fetus.
Blerf.
You pro aborts take any situation and lovingly imagine that the woman who had plenty of time to abort and didn't ---probably wanted to and just didn't get around to it. You think all woman can't wait to get pregnant so they can abort.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321587 Feb 4, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It already has been. Do try to pay attention, Witless.
Are you so dumb that you think the lawsuit by Mr Munoz has been settled as to whether the hospital was right in following state law or not?

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) 3 min VetnorsGate 1,417,026
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 21 min Patriot AKA Bozo 10,052
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 39 min Trojan 32,323
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 hr Rosa_Winkel 256,538
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web