Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311139 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.

sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321994 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU have to lie about me, because you've lost the argument.
I see the humanity in all humans. I hold all life to be sacred.
That does not preclude acknowledging the facts of medical decisions.
Hey souless, empty body shell, you support starving, with-holding water and slaughtering innocenta humans in the womb as choice. That's"holding all life to be sacred"?!?!?!
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321995 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU have to lie about me, because you've lost the argument.
I see the humanity in all humans. I hold all life to be sacred.
That does not preclude acknowledging the facts of medical decisions.
Did you see humanity in Teri Schiavo? Wasn't she human with the right not to be killed?

Do you see humanity in unborn children with the right to continue their lives? I don't think you do, unfortunately for you.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#321996 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What she can't grasp is the fact that her recovery wasn't neccessary for her to be considered a person with the right not to be starved.
I met a wonderful woman who had an extremely disabled child. He was badly brain damaged, 5 years old and about the size of a three year old. He could do nothing for himself. She was a saint for the way she took care of him and the family adored him. Talk about a workload but she never complained and seemed to enjoy him. I never heard her say he should be starved to death. She was truly one of God's special people with a special purpose.
She and those like her, scare me. Ink, she is souless. Walking dead. A pod.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#321997 Feb 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> She and those like her, scare me. Ink, she is souless. Walking dead. A pod.
She always sees and defends the needs of the strong who can exert power over the weak.

And I am always surprised by that attitude. Thank God these are not people I know and deal with in the real world.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321998 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
When you don't see the humanity in other humans, you lose your own humanity and I think that is where a lot of people are now.
God will wake us all up at some point.
...apparently, he's not in any hurry....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321999 Feb 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> ((shakes head)))
Sometimes I lose my hope in mankind and hope for a decent future for my children(and generations to come) when you speak. You make me remember to never become complacent when it comes to my prayer life.
Whatever.

This is nothing more, or less, your typical response when you can't refute what's been said.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322000 Feb 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> You do realize that you look like a fool, right? Reread what I wrote cabbagebreath.
LOL
I read it right the first time, Stupid Sassy.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322001 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What she can't grasp is the fact that her recovery wasn't neccessary for her to be considered a person with the right not to be starved.
I met a wonderful woman who had an extremely disabled child. He was badly brain damaged, 5 years old and about the size of a three year old. He could do nothing for himself. She was a saint for the way she took care of him and the family adored him. Talk about a workload but she never complained and seemed to enjoy him. I never heard her say he should be starved to death. She was truly one of God's special people with a special purpose.
Your story is in no way the same situation as Terri Schiavo, or the other women we've been discussing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322002 Feb 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Hey souless, empty body shell, you support starving, with-holding water and slaughtering innocenta humans in the womb as choice. That's"holding all life to be sacred"?!?!?!
No, that's just your desperate twist.

What I DO support is in no way inconsistent with holding all life to be sacred.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322003 Feb 15, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>...apparently, he's not in any hurry....
He is very patient.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322005 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see humanity in Teri Schiavo? Wasn't she human with the right not to be killed?
Do you see humanity in unborn children with the right to continue their lives? I don't think you do, unfortunately for you.
Well, you would be wrong. As usual.

One doesn't have to ignore facts in order to see Terri's humanity.

There are no unborn children. There are embryos and fetuses being gestated. If they are being gestated inside a human, then they are human embryos and fetuses.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322006 Feb 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> She and those like her, scare me. Ink, she is souless. Walking dead. A pod.
A stupid position, given the fact that I would argue just as hard for your wishes being granted in the same situation, no matter what you said you'd want done.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322007 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She always sees and defends the needs of the strong who can exert power over the weak.
And I am always surprised by that attitude. Thank God these are not people I know and deal with in the real world.
LOL, what complete and utter bull.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322008 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A stupid position, given the fact that I would argue just as hard for your wishes being granted in the same situation, no matter what you said you'd want done.
Who's wishes are you defending? Oh yeah, the guy who doesn't want to use up his inheritance on long term care for the wife he won't divorce even though he has a longtime girlfriend and children.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322009 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you would be wrong. As usual.
One doesn't have to ignore facts in order to see Terri's humanity..
I think you called her an empty shell.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322010 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's wishes are you defending? Oh yeah, the guy who doesn't want to use up his inheritance on long term care for the wife he won't divorce even though he has a longtime girlfriend and children.
We weren't just talking about the Schiavo case, remember?

You DO understand that the court found enough evidence that Terri had expressed the wishes her husband said she had, right? That that her parents admitted that they wouldn't have acted according to them anyway, right?

Not his wishes, hers. As expressed by her husband.

You don't like what he did, but that is no reason to suspect he was wrong.

Remember that link you posted, about the other man who kept his wife on life support? I argue for HIS right to do so as well. I know, you'd like to forget that, because it doesn't support your lies. Tough.

His only "inheritence" was the settlement for the lawsuit in 1992. How much do you imagine was left of the $750,000 after paying off her medical bills for the time period between 1990 and 2005? And yes, I'm aware the settlement was granted in 1992. There were bills to be paid for the entire time, though, yes? Apparenlty you're unaware of just how much such medical care costs.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322011 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you called her an empty shell.
And so she was. Did I say a non-human empty shell? No.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322012 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Love is feeding someone while they are alive not starve and dehydrate them for two weeks until you have effectively killed them.
Is love allowing your daughter to die by refusing a life-saving abortion because your daughter is "pro-life"? Because she wouldn't choose to terminate an unhealthy pregnancy, so the surrogate (next of kin), in this case SassyJM, makes the decision to refuse the treatment of a life-saving abortion. Isn't that also an example of what love is, Ink?

Cheering on SassyJM's decision while criticizing Michael Schiavo's decision is illogical. Say SassyJM's hypothetical pregnant daughter was married. Say she told her husband several times that if pregnancy goes wrong, she'd want everything done to save her life so she can finish raising the children she already has, so she can meet her life's goals. She tells her husband she wants everything done to try to save her life, including a life-saving abortion. But say SassyJM is positive her daughter *wouldn't* want one because she *knows* her daughter is "pro-life" and begins fighting her son-in-law's decision.

Say SJM talks with the physician without the husband present. It is *her* daughter, shouldn't she have the legal right to butt in and take control of this medical issue? After all, she's the one who's known and loved her all her life. That her daughter will die without the termination of pregnancy is a given. No exceptions. Shouldn't SassyJM have the right to make this determination for her daughter?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322013 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
We weren't just talking about the Schiavo case, remember?
You DO understand that the court found enough evidence that Terri had expressed the wishes her husband said she had, right? That that her parents admitted that they wouldn't have acted according to them anyway, right?
Not his wishes, hers. As expressed by her husband.
You don't like what he did, but that is no reason to suspect he was wrong.
Remember that link you posted, about the other man who kept his wife on life support? I argue for HIS right to do so as well. I know, you'd like to forget that, because it doesn't support your lies. Tough.
His only "inheritence" was the settlement for the lawsuit in 1992. How much do you imagine was left of the $750,000 after paying off her medical bills for the time period between 1990 and 2005? And yes, I'm aware the settlement was granted in 1992. There were bills to be paid for the entire time, though, yes? Apparenlty you're unaware of just how much such medical care costs.
There was only his say so.

There is plenty of reason to be suspicious of his motives.
There was money and there was vengence towards the parents for not agreeing to remove the tube in '98'.

Teri's guardian ad litem reported his motives were influenced by his potential for financial gain. The guardian ad litem was independant and unbiased.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322014 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is love allowing your daughter to die by refusing a life-saving abortion because your daughter is "pro-life"? Because she wouldn't choose to terminate an unhealthy pregnancy, so the surrogate (next of kin), in this case SassyJM, makes the decision to refuse the treatment of a life-saving abortion. Isn't that also an example of what love is, Ink?
Cheering on SassyJM's decision while criticizing Michael Schiavo's decision is illogical. Say SassyJM's hypothetical pregnant daughter was married. Say she told her husband several times that if pregnancy goes wrong, she'd want everything done to save her life so she can finish raising the children she already has, so she can meet her life's goals. She tells her husband she wants everything done to try to save her life, including a life-saving abortion. But say SassyJM is positive her daughter *wouldn't* want one because she *knows* her daughter is "pro-life" and begins fighting her son-in-law's decision.
Say SJM talks with the physician without the husband present. It is *her* daughter, shouldn't she have the legal right to butt in and take control of this medical issue? After all, she's the one who's known and loved her all her life. That her daughter will die without the termination of pregnancy is a given. No exceptions. Shouldn't SassyJM have the right to make this determination for her daughter?
I will let Sassy speak for herself but I don't believe that is what she said within the correct context.

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) 1 hr OzRitz 1,382,550
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Thinking 255,235
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Evan 32,266
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue IB DaMann 9,635
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Mon Ceren 39
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sun 01niner 201,860
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) May 15 Idiots 285
More from around the web