Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313920 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

Bensalem, PA

#321820 Feb 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Her husband would be in a better position to know what she would have wanted--especially since there was no chance in helll that the fetus could have been carried to term.
<quoted text>
We really only know what he wanted and it wasn't another child.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321821 Feb 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
She didn't NOT say she wanted her corpse plowed by every necrophiliac in the south, either. The law is supposed to go by what is said, not what is presumed by disinterested third parties.
<quoted text>
No in Texas the fetus is considered.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321822 Feb 13, 2014
There was no different scenario. Women don't become lesser beings if they get pregnant; her wishes don't change unless she said so--which she didn't.

BTW--You've called me every possible variant of "evil". Guess what? I am also an official donor; anything happens to me and I get harvested. Most pro-choicers are.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Her son being kept alive for the purpose of saving anothers life(a stranger mind you) is somehow commendable , but a woman kept alive , who is carrying her child, is barbaric. Playa said she was being "flogged".
A pregnant woman IS using her body to give her child life. That's a fact.
Making wishes known that you don't want to be hooked up to artificial life support after a serious situation is one thing. Being pregnant was a different scenerio all together. Unless she specified that, her child deserved a chance. Playas son thought strangers deserved a chance using his brain dead body. He sounds nothing like his mom (God rest his soul).
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321823 Feb 13, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, it's got NOTHING to do with MY feelings. I'm not the one who thinks the world revolves around what I want. That would be YOU.
Her fetus didn't have that chance. The physicians said so. The hospital and judge ignored that fact.
If you were in that situation it would revolve around your feelings. So would you want your unborn child to die with you or would you want them to give it a chance? Babies have been born in such circumstances with good outcomes.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321824 Feb 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
He was ALREADY a designated organ donor by choice. GodDAMN, would you fu**ing READ, idiot? The woman did not specify organ donation and had already stated her wishes.
<quoted text>
Boy you get cranky easily. I already said that I thought her son was a minor. My mistake. I can't be on here every minute to make sure I don't miss something.

How do you know that she wasn't an organ donor or that she wouldn't want her child to have a chance to live?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321825 Feb 13, 2014
She was also in her 22nd week of gestation, and hadn't declared her wishes concerning brain-death. Munoz could NOT have carried to term; even the born child here is a premie.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This family didn't see keeping mom alive as "cruel and obscene mutilation of a deceased body" as Erick Munoz did. It was a chance to save one life.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321826 Feb 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
There was no different scenario. Women don't become lesser beings if they get pregnant; her wishes don't change unless she said so--which she didn't.
BTW--You've called me every possible variant of "evil". Guess what? I am also an official donor; anything happens to me and I get harvested. Most pro-choicers are.
<quoted text>
When women get pregnant their are two lives to consider. If Mrs Munoz was pro choice then she was probably an organ donor too.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321827 Feb 13, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's merely YOUR belief.
Speculate all you like, it doesn't matter, because we can only go by what has been stated, not what might have been in a case such as this.
Again, even IF Mrs. Munoz had had a directive that stated she didn't want to be kept alive by a machine while pregnant, the hospital still would have ignored that, due to them trying to cover their asses when they misinterpreted Texas law.
What? My beliefs? Umm, no. She was pregnant. What that means Bitler, is that her body was offering life support for her child for 9 months while he/she was developing in utero.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321828 Feb 13, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She expressed her wished to NEVER be kept alive by machine.
You STILL haven't answered my questions.....if pregnancy had changed how she felt about that subject, wouldn't she have said so? She did, after all, know she was pregnant, right?
It was not a "matter of a few weeks", you lying sack.
Her husband (and the rest of her family) wanted to honor her actual, expressed, wishes, and not to cater to the wants of perfect strangers who didn't know her.
Listen, if younasked anyone if theynwanted to be kept alive by artificial means when declared brain-dead, I am sure most would say "hell no"without thinking about being pregnant at the time. A pregnant woman doesn't think of dying, they think of their preparation for their child.
Yes, a "matter of a few weeks". Like I said, it's not like she would be kept alive forever against her wishes. It was to give her child life which SHE chose.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321829 Feb 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
There was no different scenario. Women don't become lesser beings if they get pregnant; her wishes don't change unless she said so--which she didn't.
BTW--You've called me every possible variant of "evil". Guess what? I am also an official donor; anything happens to me and I get harvested. Most pro-choicers are.
<quoted text>
So let me get this straight,you think that you're heroic for being kept alive to save a strangers life but it was barbaric for a woman who offered life support for her developing child, to be kept temporarily alive?

FTR, being an organ donor doesn't erase the fact that you discriminate against other humans while supporting killing them merely due to the fact that mom doesn't want them.

Suppose Susan Smith was an organ donor. Does that change her evilness? Dr Kermit Gosnell too. Was he not evil?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321830 Feb 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Listen, if younasked anyone if theynwanted to be kept alive by artificial means when declared brain-dead, I am sure most would say "hell no"without thinking about being pregnant at the time. A pregnant woman doesn't think of dying, they think of their preparation for their child.
Yes, a "matter of a few weeks". Like I said, it's not like she would be kept alive forever against her wishes. It was to give her child life which SHE chose.
They won't ever understand. I would venture to say that very few if any pregnant women would tell their family that they want to be taken off life support so that their unborn child can die too.
Clarino

United States

#321831 Feb 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
When women get pregnant their are two lives to consider. If Mrs Munoz was pro choice then she was probably an organ donor too.
When you sit at the table to gorge on beef there are two lives to consider; yours and the lovely animal you're giddily consuming. I'd like to see a wild animal feast on you for dinner.
Clarino

United States

#321832 Feb 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
They won't ever understand. I would venture to say that very few if any pregnant women would tell their family that they want to be taken off life support so that their unborn child can die too.
Why didn't you offer to be a surrogate?
Clarino

United States

#321833 Feb 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> So let me get this straight,you think that you're heroic for being kept alive to save a strangers life but it was barbaric for a woman who offered life support for her developing child, to be kept temporarily alive?
FTR, being an organ donor doesn't erase the fact that you discriminate against other humans while supporting killing them merely due to the fact that mom doesn't want them.
Suppose Susan Smith was an organ donor. Does that change her evilness? Dr Kermit Gosnell too. Was he not evil?
You eat the rotting corpse of your deity. Jesus must really stink something awful by now! You're a carrion eater.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321834 Feb 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The state is compelled to try and save lives and it does clash when a parent doesn't want his child's life to be saved. Finally the guy won out and his child perished.
No, the state is not. Don't be ridiculous.

Your spin on the husband's intent is also ridiculous. You're not in his head, stop pretending you know what he, or his wife do/would think, Arrogant One.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321835 Feb 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
We really only know what he wanted and it wasn't another child.
You know no such thing, you lying piece of shit.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321836 Feb 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were in that situation it would revolve around your feelings. So would you want your unborn child to die with you or would you want them to give it a chance? Babies have been born in such circumstances with good outcomes.
Again, my personal feelings are irrelevant, unless it IS me. As I'll never be in that situation, they remain irrelevant.

Unlike you, I KNOW the world doesn't revolve around what I want, or what I'd do.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321837 Feb 13, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, my personal feelings are irrelevant, unless it IS me. As I'll never be in that situation, they remain irrelevant.
Unlike you, I KNOW the world doesn't revolve around what I want, or what I'd do.
Honey you are irrelevant and you have no feelings to share. An empty shell.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321838 Feb 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> What? My beliefs? Umm, no. She was pregnant. What that means Bitler, is that her body was offering life support for her child for 9 months while he/she was developing in utero.
Yes, it is merely your belief that her willingly carrying to term can be extrapolated to changing her mind about NEVER being kept alive by a machine.

I know she was pregnant.

You're still avoiding my question. If being pregnant had changed her mind about NEVER being kept alive by a machine, wouldn't she have said so?

You'd also need to prove that she did NOT say again, after she knew she was pregnant, that she STILL didn't want to be kept alive by a machine.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321839 Feb 13, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You know no such thing, you lying piece of shit.
He fought for baby Nicole's demise for two months and he won. We most certainly do know that. Airhead.

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) 8 min Teaman 1,520,448
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 16 hr Stealing phartsx 32,908
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 20 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr 20 DelucaKoehn 11
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 18 RNC 11,137
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Apr 8 Allycat1999 290
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar 25 BuzzerPhartss 2
More from around the web