Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310940 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

#322015 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And so she was. Did I say a non-human empty shell? No.
You are certifiably nuts.
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

#322016 Feb 15, 2014
I guess this is relevant to this thread. Does it bother any of you "pro-choicers" that Democrats are using abortion to try to turn women into mind slaves of the Democrat party?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322017 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I will let Sassy speak for herself but I don't believe that is what she said within the correct context.
No, I asked you about an old hypothetical situation. I want to see your answer. SJM has had plenty of opportunity to respond. She has chosen not to do so. Are you going to make the same choice she did? Your non-answer will be answer enough and confirm everything Bitner, Morgana, LNM, NAP, and others have been telling you.

Your illogical position of cheering on a mother who would let her daughter die by refusing a life-saving abortion while criticizing a husband's decision to have his wife's PEG surgically removed and allowing her to die is hypocritical. The PEG was surgically installed and surgically removed. It was an artificial life support system compensating for a woman's permanent inability to take in nourishment on her own. It did not cure her of continually aspirating her own saliva. That her husband went to school to become a respiratory therapist in order to better help her is too often overlooked by your MS haters.

Neither of you will answer because you can't defend your position.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322018 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
"There was only his say so."

Which should be good enough. It was good enough for you in the other case, apparently. We both know why, the other husband was making the choice YOU wanted to be made. I'm sorry your husband is not trustworthy enough to state the truth about your wishes, but that doesn't invalidate all "say so" of the next of kin in these situations. If you're that worried about it, have your wishes written down.

"There is plenty of reason to be suspicious of his motives."

I disagree.

"There was money and there was vengence towards the parents for not agreeing to remove the tube in '98'."

The money from the settlement was granted in Jan. of 93. The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was made a year and a half later. Michael didn't ask for the feeding tube to be removed until four years AFTER that. Terri's parents had started trying to have his guardianship removed long before, right after the settlement of the lawsuit, in fact.

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

That was the second guardian ad litem, and no, Liar, that is not what he said. He said it was POSSIBLE that Michael's motives MAY have been so influenced. He also reported that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no possibility of improvement, but you continue to ignore that part. How typically dishonest of you. The FIRST guardian ad litem said that Michael acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri.

On a side note, it doesn't say, but I'm guessing the reason for two guardian ad litems is a result of one being appointed for the lawsuit, the other when the Schindlers started trying to get Michael removed as legal guardian. That's just speculation, though.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322019 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are certifiably nuts.
Not even close.

You're witless, however, and that's a fact.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322020 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I asked you about an old hypothetical situation. I want to see your answer. SJM has had plenty of opportunity to respond. She has chosen not to do so. Are you going to make the same choice she did? Your non-answer will be answer enough and confirm everything Bitner, Morgana, LNM, NAP, and others have been telling you.
Your illogical position of cheering on a mother who would let her daughter die by refusing a life-saving abortion while criticizing a husband's decision to have his wife's PEG surgically removed and allowing her to die is hypocritical. The PEG was surgically installed and surgically removed. It was an artificial life support system compensating for a woman's permanent inability to take in nourishment on her own. It did not cure her of continually aspirating her own saliva. That her husband went to school to become a respiratory therapist in order to better help her is too often overlooked by your MS haters.
Neither of you will answer because you can't defend your position.
As I already said, I didn't understand her to say what you are claiming. When we get the story straight one way or the other, I will be glad to respond.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322021 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
As I already said, I didn't understand her to say what you are claiming. When we get the story straight one way or the other, I will be glad to respond.
Your failure to address the rest of Katie's post is noted.

We all know why you didn't, because you couldn't.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#322022 Feb 15, 2014
Ravianna wrote:
I guess this is relevant to this thread. Does it bother any of you "pro-choicers" that Democrats are using abortion to try to turn women into mind slaves of the Democrat party?
I might ask the same...Does it bother any of you "pro-lifers" that Rapebulicans are using abortion to try to turn women into mind slaves of the Rapebulican party?

1.“Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that’s been raped? We need to protect innocent life. Period.”
-Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, declaring that raped women must be additionally forced to carry and give birth to their rapist’s baby against their will in front of an all male crowd at the National Catholic Men’s Conference, June 2007.

2.“Nobody plans to have an accident in a car accident, nobody plans to have their homes flooded. You have to buy extra insurance for those two.”
-Barbara Listing, leader of Right To Life, comparing rape to a car accident, May 2013.

3.“In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”
-Texas State Senator Jodie Laubenberg, absurdly claiming that rape kits are used to abort a pregnancy, June 2013.

4.“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”
-New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown, HB 206 language stating that rape victims would be charged and arrested for getting an abortion, January 2013.

5.“Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it’s an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don’t know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don’t know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act.”
-California GOP assembly President Celeste Greig, saying rape victims don’t get pregnant because it’s a traumatic act, March 2013.

6.“Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.”
-Rick Santorum, stating that God sanctions rape to give women the “gift” of pregnancy, January 2012.

That is just 6 quotes out of the 40 listed

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16/the-p...
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322023 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
As I already said, I didn't understand her to say what you are claiming. When we get the story straight one way or the other, I will be glad to respond.
SJM claimed she would "preserve her daughter's soul" by refusing a life-saving abortion for her if her hypothetical pregnant daughter were incapacitated and dying from a toxic pregnancy. This is fact. Everybody's seen it C&Ped over and over again through the years. There is no reason to question this, except your willingness NOT to answer the question posed to you.

Again, what is the difference between SJM refusing a life-saving abortion for her incapacitated daughter and a husband refusing artificial life support for his incapacitated wife?

That is the question boiled down to bare bones.

Your non-answer confirms what others and I have been telling you through the years regarding your hypocritical, illogical "pro-life" position.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322024 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
SJM claimed she would "preserve her daughter's soul" by refusing a life-saving abortion for her if her hypothetical pregnant daughter were incapacitated and dying from a toxic pregnancy. This is fact. Everybody's seen it C&Ped over and over again through the years. There is no reason to question this, except your willingness NOT to answer the question posed to you.
Again, what is the difference between SJM refusing a life-saving abortion for her incapacitated daughter and a husband refusing artificial life support for his incapacitated wife?
That is the question boiled down to bare bones.
Your non-answer confirms what others and I have been telling you through the years regarding your hypocritical, illogical "pro-life" position.
That isn't the way I remember it. This is what it morphed into. I'll wait to hear from the author.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322025 Feb 15, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your failure to address the rest of Katie's post is noted.
We all know why you didn't, because you couldn't.
No I can't until the original story is put forth in context.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322026 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I can't until the original story is put forth in context.
I said the REST of her post, Moron. The part about Michael Schiavo.

Damn, you're stupid.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322027 Feb 15, 2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/sout...

Brought to you by the same state that attempted to make it possible to be acquitted of the murder of an abortion provider if you claim "self-defense".

So much for being "pro-life".@@
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322028 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I can't until the original story is put forth in context.
You are stalling.

Answer this question. It is just for you. No stalling. No slipping out the back. No BS.

Is it love when a mother refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy? Is it love knowing her (pro-life) daughter will die from the refusal of medical treatment?

Yes or No?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322029 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You are stalling.
Answer this question. It is just for you. No stalling. No slipping out the back. No BS.
Is it love when a mother refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy? Is it love knowing her (pro-life) daughter will die from the refusal of medical treatment?
Yes or No?
No, but that isn't what she said.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322030 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but that isn't what she said.
You are stalling.

Answer this question. It is just for you. No stalling. No slipping out the back. No BS.

Is it love when any woman anywhere in the world refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy? Is it love knowing her (pro-life) daughter will die from the refusal of medical treatment?

Yes or No?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322032 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You are stalling.
Answer this question. It is just for you. No stalling. No slipping out the back. No BS.
Is it love when any woman anywhere in the world refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy? Is it love knowing her (pro-life) daughter will die from the refusal of medical treatment?
Yes or No?
No but that isn't what she said.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322033 Feb 15, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No but that isn't what she said.
You know what "any woman anywhere in the world" said or didn't say? Really? The question was generic on purpose.

So I take it you're answering with a definite NO. No, it isn't love when any woman anywhere in the world refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy?

That is what you're claiming, correct, Ink? Any woman anywhere in the world is not showing love when allowing her daughter to refuse the medical treatment of a life-saving abortion when she is dying of a toxic pregnancy.

=========

Let's move on. This woman's daughter was married and had told her husband she would want everything possible done to save her life if pregnancy were to go wrong, including a life-saving abortion. That scenario played out and the distraught husband told the physician of his knowledge that his wife would want a life-saving abortion when faced with a toxic pregnancy.

Just prior to the procedure, the woman's mother came in yelling and screaming that her pro-life daughter did *not* want an abortion under any circumstances, even life-threatening circumstances. She would rather martyr herself and die along with her fetus than chance separating herself/her soul from God by having an abortion. That was the mother's reasoning to the physician to refuse medical treatment.

The husband clearly is next of kin with legal say-so over his wife's medical treatment. Should his word be what the physician goes by or the mother's word? After all, the mother knew and loved her daughter her daughter's entire life. Shouldn't she be allowed to butt in and take control over this medical issue?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#322034 Feb 15, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what "any woman anywhere in the world" said or didn't say? Really? The question was generic on purpose.
So I take it you're answering with a definite NO. No, it isn't love when any woman anywhere in the world refuses a life-saving abortion for her pregnant (pro-life) daughter dying from a toxic pregnancy?
That is what you're claiming, correct, Ink? Any woman anywhere in the world is not showing love when allowing her daughter to refuse the medical treatment of a life-saving abortion when she is dying of a toxic pregnancy.
=========
Let's move on. This woman's daughter was married and had told her husband she would want everything possible done to save her life if pregnancy were to go wrong, including a life-saving abortion. That scenario played out and the distraught husband told the physician of his knowledge that his wife would want a life-saving abortion when faced with a toxic pregnancy.
Just prior to the procedure, the woman's mother came in yelling and screaming that her pro-life daughter did *not* want an abortion under any circumstances, even life-threatening circumstances. She would rather martyr herself and die along with her fetus than chance separating herself/her soul from God by having an abortion. That was the mother's reasoning to the physician to refuse medical treatment.
The husband clearly is next of kin with legal say-so over his wife's medical treatment. Should his word be what the physician goes by or the mother's word? After all, the mother knew and loved her daughter her daughter's entire life. Shouldn't she be allowed to butt in and take control over this medical issue?
Heya Katie. You still trying to talk sense to the Inkster? lol
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322035 Feb 15, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Heya Katie. You still trying to talk sense to the Inkster? lol
Hey there, StO :)

It's either that or get some sleep... G'night!

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min ChristineM 254,880
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr Earthling-1 9,519
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) 20 hr Ela 39
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Wed Jesse 201,845
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed Brew In 32,245
News Kenny Drummond's Prep School Thingy (Jan '08) Apr 23 Bret Link 21
News LA Tech's Tyler Summitt resigns because of inap... Apr 9 binaries 1
More from around the web