Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309876 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

West Lafayette, IN

#321656 Feb 6, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
The only time YOU would be in favor of life is if you had a personal interest in that life. In other words, you had something personal to gain from that life.

For example, if an organ or tissue could be harvested later on in utero that would help you with a medical condition, you'd be in favor of allowing the in utero baby to live longer.

It would all depend on what YOU could get from the other.(If no personal advantage to you from the other life, then "KILL IT!"...I call this attitude 'The Katie Phenomenon')

Heck, you'd suddenly be interested in allowing the preborn baby to live longer even if you wouldn't get a medical advantage. For example, if tissue from the little human would make your bulbous, flabby, dangling ass more firm you'd suddenly be for life.

You're a self-interested dweeb that way.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#321657 Feb 6, 2014
:sigh"

I hope Foo's Bacterial Vaginosis is finally under control. It often exudes a foul fish odor. I'm worried about him.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321658 Feb 6, 2014
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!
My son's organs were oxygenated for roughly 56 hours, before his organs were harvested. He was not 'kept alive', because he was DEAD before he got to the hospital. So was this woman, whose fetus was not viable at fourteen weeks, and whose family communicated her, and their, wishes for the disposition of her final remains, and were ignored.

Of course I was disgusted. Her body was flogged for two futile months, in service to a ridiculous political agenda, and her fetus didn't HAVE a 'chance at life'. The woman carrying it was DEAD - a corpse. Non-living. Her organs were not sustainable for the length of time her fetus would have needed to BECOME viable. Even the hospital admits this.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321659 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.
Romance at short notice is your specialty...

in other words, you're completely full of bovine feces, but you tell a pretty story....

I give it a three.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321660 Feb 6, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Yes. Yes it would. This business of having to justify our choices concerning our biology and reproduction, is getting completely out of hand. It's high time the courts unequivocally state that women have the right to safe sterile medical procedures, regardless of how the public feels about a given medical treatment.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#321661 Feb 7, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
DAVID27: "And an infant is not the same as an adult. Different stages of life for the very same entity."
Amazing that you have to educate proaborts about the different stages of each human beings' life.
Heck, Long Night Moon is a post-menopausal female and thinks she's worthy of life, but females at the front ends of their lives (in mom's womb) aren't worthy of life. Her stage of human life is okay, those at front end of their human life spectrum aren't.
She's a mess.
I'm not post-menopausal. I'm younger than you think I guess...so that blew your comment to hell.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#321662 Feb 7, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
The only time YOU would be in favor of life is if you had a personal interest in that life. In other words, you had something personal to gain from that life.
For example, if an organ or tissue could be harvested later on in utero that would help you with a medical condition, you'd be in favor of allowing the in utero baby to live longer.
It would all depend on what YOU could get from the other.(If no personal advantage to you from the other life, then "KILL IT!"...I call this attitude 'The Katie Phenomenon')
Heck, you'd suddenly be interested in allowing the preborn baby to live longer even if you wouldn't get a medical advantage. For example, if tissue from the little human would make your bulbous, flabby, dangling ass more firm you'd suddenly be for life.
You're a self-interested dweeb that way.
So now brain dead women are supposed to be kept on life-support so their tissue and organs can be harvested?

I guess women were just put on this Earth to be used, huh? Used in life and also in death.

You are one sickfuck.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321663 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Romance at short notice is your specialty...
in other words, you're completely full of bovine feces, but you tell a pretty story....
I give it a three.
That's our Stupid Sassy, a lie for every occasion, lol.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321664 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
:)
Four days or four hours, you're still keeping the brain dead person alive against her express wishes. I guess it's not ALL about the person stated wishes, is it ?

Friggin hypocrite.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321665 Feb 7, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Four days or four hours, you're still keeping the brain dead person alive against her express wishes. I guess it's not ALL about the person stated wishes, is it ?
Friggin hypocrite.
Texas kept that women on a vent - not 'alive', but oxygenated - in the first place, "I" was bitterly opposed but had nothing to do with it, in the second, and thirdly, if you're referring to my son, he was an organ donor anyway.

Friggin dope.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321666 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>That's not your objective, though.
Yes it is. Prove otherwise.
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?
No. If I was not advocating for laws against safe sterile abortions then I wouldn't be advocating for the protection of ALL human life, now would I ? Or maybe just the human life that YOU consider worthy of being protected.
And you give women in general very little credit when you conclude that in the absence of legal, safe and sterile abortions they would have no choice but to choose to go to some back alley butcher for an ILLEGAL abortion.
Shame on you.
Why aren't you advocating for unraveling the mysteries of miscarriage, and working for an end to poverty?
How do you know I'm not ?( rhetorical)
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'm all for that !
(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.
Innit ?
Men should definitely take more responsibility. They get off way too easy.

My objective is to protect human life. Period.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321667 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Texas kept that women on a vent - not 'alive', but oxygenated - in the first place, "I" was bitterly opposed but had nothing to do with it, in the second, and thirdly, if you're referring to my son, he was an organ donor anyway.
Friggin dope.
Your four day stipulation was in reference to my hypothetical ( brain dead woman with 10 year old daughter ). It had nothing to do with the Texas case OR your son.
Do you have the ability to follow anything more complex than 'See Spot Run'?

Friggin moron.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321668 Feb 7, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes it was. Under my hypothetical, I made it YOUR CALL. And you said you would accede to that woman's last wishes, regardless of the current circumstances. Even though it would condemn that little girl to certain death. And that IS sick.

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.
Nosy parker ? I never even said what I would do. I just said YOU were sick to condemn that girl to certain death 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.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321669 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
Rebuttal to what ? Once you abandon any attempt at substantial debate and resort to your tired old and overworked standby, "You're also entitled never to contemplate, seek, or obtain an abortion"( a standby which BTW, you would never use if you truly understood the basis for opposition to legal abortion ), it is clear your tank is empty.
Like I said....stick a fork in you, you're done.
soman00971566759 201

UAE

#321670 Feb 7, 2014
hlooo

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321671 Feb 7, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your four day stipulation was in reference to my hypothetical ( brain dead woman with 10 year old daughter ). It had nothing to do with the Texas case OR your son.
Do you have the ability to follow anything more complex than 'See Spot Run'?
Friggin moron.
Do you have the ability to offer anything but "See Jack Backpedal?"

The whole point of my response was that your hypothetical's organs wouldn't have been viable enough to save the kid anyway, any more than the corpse in Texas would have been able to gestate for another five and a half months.

Friggin asshole.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#321672 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have the ability to offer anything but "See Jack Backpedal?"
The whole point of my response was that your hypothetical's organs wouldn't have been viable enough to save the kid anyway, any more than the corpse in Texas would have been able to gestate for another five and a half months.
They would have if it were done within four days, at least according to you. And my hypothetical stipulated NO time frame. You said "if her 10 year old daughter would be 'strong enough' in that time period, my wish, as the mother, would be to give her the chance."
Friggin asshole.
Friggin jag off
gidget

Scottsdale, AZ

#321673 Feb 7, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Romance at short notice is your specialty...
in other words, you're completely full of bovine feces, but you tell a pretty story....
I give it a three.
Saki!
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#321674 Feb 7, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Four days or four hours, you're still keeping the brain dead person alive against her express wishes. I guess it's not ALL about the person stated wishes, is it ?
Friggin hypocrite.
Hey look, christard Dave is back.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321675 Feb 7, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
They would have if it were done within four days, at least according to you. And my hypothetical stipulated NO time frame. You said "if her 10 year old daughter would be 'strong enough' in that time period, my wish, as the mother, would be to give her the chance."
<quoted text>
Friggin jag off
Keep your daydreams to yourself, fella...

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) 20 min MaceohatesWM 1,232,974
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 29 min I Am No One_ 239,124
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 5,585
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 13 hr tom wingo 29,765
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 23 hr Pietro Armando 201,809
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... Mon Timotion 7
Jayhawks dance team #1 Sun Jeff 1
More from around the web