Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313367 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.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#321636 Feb 6, 2014
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>It is an interesting article, but it's just a few cases and out of the few cases the patients still died. Yes, there have been cases of misdiagnosis, which are very few.
Would you be okay with a loved one of your's being prematurely harvested? From what I read, it isn't all that rare.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321637 Feb 6, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you be okay with a loved one of your's being prematurely harvested? From what I read, it isn't all that rare.
First, define prematurely!?!?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321638 Feb 6, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking about her specifically.
And specifically deviating from your usual stance. Because this particular circumstance, and the way it's being resolved, doesn't fit your usual script.

Your usual stance, and script, being that we shouldn't be able to interfere with the natural progression of pregnancy....but in this case, it's interference of which you approve....apparently you like the idea of flogging a corpse to gestate.

Friggin' hypocrite.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321639 Feb 6, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you be okay with a loved one of your's being prematurely harvested? From what I read, it isn't all that rare.
Second, define the patient case!?!?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321640 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>It's the explanation the doctor who presided over my son's case gave us, when my son was pronounced brain dead, the day after he collapsed from a brain aneurysm. We elected to let him stay on the vent until recipients were found for his organs - a process that took approximately 48 hours - and we were also told that if the harvest team couldn't start in 72 hours, his organs wouldn't be viable enough to transplant.
Why would anyone allow a loved one to remain attached to a ventilator for fourteen years - and why did they then 'pull the plug'?
Tired of waiting? Got a bit pricey? Or was the poor corpse just too pathetic to keep flogging at that point?
Your son was kept alive while brain dead amd you were *okay* with that? Yet, you were digusted that the courts wanted to keep the woman alive so that her child could have a chance at her life?!?!

Interesting!
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321641 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I can see both sides too, you know...I just think your side is nuts.
The woman made her end of life wishes clear, and the State ignored them . Treated her in a manner she specifically said she didn't want, even against the wishes of her next of kin, and the next of kin of the fetus she carried.
You do realize the law the hospital says it was "...trying to follow...", applies to VIABLE fetuses....right? No human fetus is viable at fourteen weeks of pregnancy. The hospital is in for a massive lawsuit, which will cost the State millions to defend, and continue to show Texas Legislators as puritanical narcissists, who are bent on taking women's reproductive health care access, not to mention our legal status, back to the middle ages.
This was nothing more than a political stunt. An attempt to force the views of the hospital's administration on a bereaved family, and to advance the careers of the politicians who backed them.
Like most of the actions of the so-called 'pro-life' cabal, it was never about 'life'.
Wendy Davis for Governor of Texas!!!
"""the woman made her end of life clear"""" "

The case a few years back where a similar situation happened, involved a husband who claimed the same. He said he loved his wife and fought the courts to abort the child claiming it was what SHE would have n wanted. He won eventually. His wife was brain dead and comatose. Well, she unexpectedly awoke. Short story long,he left her amd she said that she would NEVER have aborted.

Secondly, the woman may have said that but it didn't include while pregnant. Think about it, who WOULDN'T say that. Who would want to be in that state forever? Yet, being pregnant changes everything. That husband from day ONE was quick to pull the plug. Many people have been hopeless and yet awake and live normal lives. He didn't even give her a chance and facts were inconclusive at that point. A similar situation happened to another pregnant woman(I forget how far along she was) and the baby was born healthy.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321642 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And specifically deviating from your usual stance. Because this particular circumstance, and the way it's being resolved, doesn't fit your usual script.
Your usual stance, and script, being that we shouldn't be able to interfere with the natural progression of pregnancy....but in this case, it's interference of which you approve....apparently you like the idea of flogging a corpse to gestate.
Friggin' hypocrite.
Didn't you *flog* your sons corpse to help another?a total stranger even?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321643 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Women have IVF procedures, PLANNING on destroying several human embryos....THEIR OWN OFFSPRING, which just don't happen to be in a uterus....
Our little inkubator gives those women a pass, because they WANT to be pregnant. They WANT to 'fulfill their God-given purpose'. So their willingness to kill the many, in favor of the few, is forgiven.
Ink isn't sure embryos absent a uterus to occupy, are REALLY human anyway.
That is called abortion. Who gave you the idea that it wasn't?@@
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321644 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>She KNEW she was pregnant. She knew she was fourteen weeks along....and as paramedic, she knew what happens to brain-dead bodies on a ventilator .
Even Ink should be able to see that she did NOT amend her will / final document / whatever you want to call it, to reflect a desire to BE on a ventilator, should she die while pregnant.
If she had, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
She didn't. The State did it for her.
That's unconscionable.
Again, many patients that were considered "hopeless* cases, brain dead, on life support with no chance of recovery, etc...beat all odds. Drs witness it as well as nurses. I am sure she had too. Of course she most likely made a statement that she didn't want to live like that (hooked upnto extra-ordinary means of life support). Who hasn't? Being pregnant would change that scenerio. Another life is at risk. If shenwas brain dead anyway, she wouldn't know either way. It's not like it was in vain to keep her alive, anymore than your son was (in your opinion).
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321645 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>To whom was it "worth the chance," Ink?
You?
The hospital, covering its own ass?
The father of that 'child' and their OTHER child, who may now be the subject of ridicule about his rotting mom, didn't think it was 'worth the chance'.....but your opinion should trump HIS?
Was it worth the chance to her? She didn't say so before she died, knowing she was pregnant....
"""She didn't say so before she died"""" """

So why assume that she would?

Why assume her childs life(whom she clearly wanted),wasn't worth it?

""""Rottin g mom"""" "

Oh good grief. What a drama queen.

Are you not aware that we are all *rotting* as our days go on?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321646 Feb 6, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>She knew death during pregnancy was a possibility, though, Ink. She specifically did NOT provide for that outcome, with a stipulation that she be kept on a vent in the event she did die.....did she.
She was a paramedic, with empirical knowledge of what happens to a brain-dead body on a ventilator. Even a pregnant body. If she'd wanted to be kept on one, for the sake of her fetus, she'd have said so.
She said she didn't.
As far as ridiculing Mateo, of course >I< wouldn't - but I'm no longer a child, nor is Mateo going to grow up in a vacuum. He has a history now, thanks to the State of Texas, which used his mother as a political football in an effort to further political careers, and 'protect' the hospital from consequences it didn't care to risk. And his family may face financial ruin as a result of the hospital bills for "care" they didn't ask for, but were forced to endure anyway.
You might find that acceptable, but I don't.
""""she knew death during pregnancy was a possibility""" "

Oh? Really? Says who?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321647 Feb 6, 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 ...
Ut oh! Did she get chewed out by her proabort friends?

Tsk tsk! Imagine admiting that the womans child is not her? Oh, and his/her own "unique, distinct human beings"?

*sigh*
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#321648 Feb 6, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo!!! Well stated!
Agreed ! I especially like the part about "The unborn should have the same rights as the born".

Bravissimo !!!
<standing ovation>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321649 Feb 6, 2014
I think the state should be responsible for all costs past the moment the husband decided to stop life support. They made the law and their court enforced it, removing choice from the family and the hospital.
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Insured or not, he'll still have a massive amount in the way of hospital bills for that two month period. Are you so stupid you don't understand this? The hospital should have to eat that amount, don't you think?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321650 Feb 6, 2014
Yes, the GUARDIAN allowed life support to continue while suitable organ donees could be found; a matter of a few days. In the woman's case, her wishes and the authority of the guardian's authority were brushed aside in favor of a fetus that has no rights, in a period when RvW grants the state no authority to enforce state interest.

Hmmm...RvW originated in TX too; maybe we can get a similar ruling concerning state's interest prior to the 3rd trimester. Could invalidate a whole host of anti-choice laws in one fell swoop. Wouldn't that be grand?
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Your son was kept alive while brain dead amd you were *okay* with that? Yet, you were digusted that the courts wanted to keep the woman alive so that her child could have a chance at her life?!?!
Interesting!

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321651 Feb 6, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> """the woman made her end of life clear"""" "
The case a few years back where a similar situation happened, involved a husband who claimed the same. He said he loved his wife and fought the courts to abort the child claiming it was what SHE would have n wanted. He won eventually. His wife was brain dead and comatose. Well, she unexpectedly awoke. Short story long,he left her amd she said that she would NEVER have aborted.
Secondly, the woman may have said that but it didn't include while pregnant. Think about it, who WOULDN'T say that. Who would want to be in that state forever? Yet, being pregnant changes everything. That husband from day ONE was quick to pull the plug. Many people have been hopeless and yet awake and live normal lives. He didn't even give her a chance and facts were inconclusive at that point. A similar situation happened to another pregnant woman(I forget how far along she was) and the baby was born healthy.
A patient is either brain dead or comatose and not both. There's more to the story concerning the condition of the patient's brain. You can give a link to the article.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321652 Feb 6, 2014
You can't be brain-dead and comatose; comatose means repressed but exrant brain function.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> """the woman made her end of life clear"""" "
The case a few years back where a similar situation happened, involved a husband who claimed the same. He said he loved his wife and fought the courts to abort the child claiming it was what SHE would have n wanted. He won eventually. His wife was brain dead and comatose. Well, she unexpectedly awoke. Short story long,he left her amd she said that she would NEVER have aborted.
Secondly, the woman may have said that but it didn't include while pregnant. Think about it, who WOULDN'T say that. Who would want to be in that state forever? Yet, being pregnant changes everything. That husband from day ONE was quick to pull the plug. Many people have been hopeless and yet awake and live normal lives. He didn't even give her a chance and facts were inconclusive at that point. A similar situation happened to another pregnant woman(I forget how far along she was) and the baby was born healthy.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321653 Feb 6, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Again, many patients that were considered "hopeless* cases, brain dead, on life support with no chance of recovery, etc...beat all odds. Drs witness it as well as nurses. I am sure she had too. Of course she most likely made a statement that she didn't want to live like that (hooked upnto extra-ordinary means of life support). Who hasn't? Being pregnant would change that scenerio. Another life is at risk. If shenwas brain dead anyway, she wouldn't know either way. It's not like it was in vain to keep her alive, anymore than your son was (in your opinion).
You don't even know yourself what you're babbling about.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321654 Feb 6, 2014
Pregnancy does change the scenario; it drastically changes the rate at which the brain-dead body withers. There is no way in hell the fetus would have made it to viability.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Again, many patients that were considered "hopeless* cases, brain dead, on life support with no chance of recovery, etc...beat all odds. Drs witness it as well as nurses. I am sure she had too. Of course she most likely made a statement that she didn't want to live like that (hooked upnto extra-ordinary means of life support). Who hasn't? Being pregnant would change that scenerio. Another life is at risk. If shenwas brain dead anyway, she wouldn't know either way. It's not like it was in vain to keep her alive, anymore than your son was (in your opinion).
Husker

Falls City, NE

#321655 Feb 6, 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25525... Watch this, this is beautiful. this will make you cry .

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) 9 min Goober of Glovers... 1,496,788
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr LookPhartce 32,747
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr Patriot 10,943
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 hr Eagle 12 258,479
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 19 hr MostPhartss 93
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Feb 15 Jhuerta 287
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web