Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313195 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.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#322052 Feb 16, 2014
Order Drivers License, passport and many other of different countries at a very low prices and from a genuine company via www.immigrationexpt.com
Contact us for details
only serious client will be responded to
thanks
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322053 Feb 16, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ink," my friend, you are totally, completely, way off--base here!
As much as you, and the crowd you're aligning yourself with, wish to sanctimoniously beat your collective breast's to, you cannot make an objectively viable argument that holds up to a litmus test regarding Terri Schiavo, and Mrs. Munoz.
You people have been going on, and on trying to paint her husband in the worst possible light, as though he was interested in nothing more than obtaining an abortion, and trying to exclaim that all they( Mr. Schiavo, Mr, Munoz,) were interested in was "shirking" their perceived duty as "caregivers" and being utterly selfish, thoroughly loathesome creatures.
And you folks have the audacity to call yourselves Christians....
I find it hard to see good motives when someone else is demanding the death of another especially when it does amount to making their own life easier. Nobody wants added burdens in their lives but sometimes we get them anyway. As a Christian, I do believe that we are asked to carry crosses we should accept those responsibilities with a good heart.

In all the writings and interviews I have seen and read, I don't find Michael Shiavo to be an honorable person. JMO. I hope I am wrong.
In Mr Munoz's situation, I have emense sympathy and can fully understand his reluctance to wait for the baby to be born. He had ligitimate concerns. I can also se the hospital's point of view in trying to follow the law as they read it. I think the family got caught in no man's land.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322054 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it hard to see good motives when someone else is demanding the death of another especially when it does amount to making their own life easier. Nobody wants added burdens in their lives but sometimes we get them anyway. As a Christian, I do believe that we are asked to carry crosses we should accept those responsibilities with a good heart.
In all the writings and interviews I have seen and read, I don't find Michael Shiavo to be an honorable person. JMO. I hope I am wrong.
In Mr Munoz's situation, I have emense sympathy and can fully understand his reluctance to wait for the baby to be born. He had ligitimate concerns. I can also se the hospital's point of view in trying to follow the law as they read it. I think the family got caught in no man's land.
Do you seriously believe that woman's corpse could have gestated for another 25 weeks, past the date of her death, Ink?

Even the hospital admits that wasn't possible....
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322055 Feb 16, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you seriously believe that woman's corpse could have gestated for another 25 weeks, past the date of her death, Ink?
Even the hospital admits that wasn't possible....
What I said from the beginning was that I understood both sides and I think the family was caught in a catch 22. I think the hospital was hoping for 14 weeks to deliver. I don't think she was far enough along for good results and I believe that the hospital didn't fight the court order because they believed that too.

Recently a "corpse" as you say was kept alive long enough to deliver a baby boy with good results so I think the hospital did have to follow the law. The law needs redefining.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322056 Feb 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't what who said? ANY woman in the world?
LOL, you're so stupid, it sits on you like a second skin.
"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. "

I answered this post. I guess you missed it. Now you are caught up. You're welcome.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322057 Feb 16, 2014
Ink 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. "
I answered this post. I guess you missed it. Now you are caught up. You're welcome.
The post of yours that I replied was not your reply to THIS question, was it, Witless?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322058 Feb 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The post of yours that I replied was not your reply to THIS question, was it, Witless?
That was the original question. It isn't my fault if you guys can't stay on track. Souless.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322059 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That was the original question. It isn't my fault if you guys can't stay on track. Souless.
In other words, no, that wasn't the question you responded to, that I then responded to you about.

I was on track just fine. I was, after all, responding to your post.

Yes, you being souless probably IS to blame for your dishonesty there. IS that why you lie so much?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322060 Feb 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, no, that wasn't the question you responded to, that I then responded to you about.
I was on track just fine. I was, after all, responding to your post.
Yes, you being souless probably IS to blame for your dishonesty there. IS that why you lie so much?
LOL You can respond to anything you want, brainless wonder but I will continue to respond to the questions asked of me.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322061 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You wern't talking about Sassy?
This exemplifies why you're always being told to *read* what is written. No, I gave up and asked you a generic question to purposely get around your technique of trying to stall. It didn't matter if the woman in the example had been SJM or any woman anywhere in the world.

To reiterate your answer, though, you believe it is not loving for a mother (next of kin for her incapacitated pregnant daughter) to decide her pro-life daughter would forego a life-saving abortion based on everything she knows about her unmarried daughter. Correct?

If so, we differ here as well. If anyone made this decision based on their loved one's wishes, it would be a loving gesture to follow through when they no longer can. Even when it means death. Most Americans have the civil right to refuse medical treatment even when death is the end result.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322062 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't the woman in question speak for herself?
If yor question is, would I want to see two dead persons, the answer is no. I think it is logical to save the one you can. In this case the mother and in the case of Munoz, the baby.
The woman in question was incapacitated.

My question had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you wanted to see two dead persons.

The question put forth to you, based upon your answer it is not loving for the next of kin to refuse a life-saving abortion for her dying pregnant pro-life daughter, had extended to the dying pregnant daughter now being married. Her husband claims she told him several times she would want everything possible to be done to save her life if necessary. Including terminating a toxic pregnancy.

But the dying pregnant woman's mother is insisting her pro-life daughter would *not* want a life-saving abortion no matter what.

Who should make this call, Ink, in your opinion? The mother or the husband? The mother will forego the life-saving abortion so as not to chance her daughter's soul being separated from God. The husband would allow the procedure to save his wife's life so she can continue raising their children already born and meet her life's goals.

Ink, should the husband make the decision or the mother?
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322063 Feb 16, 2014
Ink 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. "
I answered this post. I guess you missed it. Now you are caught up. You're welcome.
Your "answer" was an evasive nonanswer in that you were going to wait for SJM to clarify because you didn't remember the scenario in this manner.

And that wasn't the point of the question at all. The scenario could have had SJM as the mother or any woman anywhere in the world. To get around your stall tactic, I changed it to be generic. Nobody needed to play the waiting game except the one who didn't want to answer. That was you, Ink.

Thank goodness we are now past that point and you answered you didn't think it was loving to withhold a life-saving abortion on a daughter dying of a toxic pregnancy.

PS Bitner has more soul, generosity, and kindness in her pinky toe than the whole lot of ACers/PLers posting here.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#322064 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What I said from the beginning was that I understood both sides and I think the family was caught in a catch 22. I think the hospital was hoping for 14 weeks to deliver. I don't think she was far enough along for good results and I believe that the hospital didn't fight the court order because they believed that too.
Recently a "corpse" as you say was kept alive long enough to deliver a baby boy with good results so I think the hospital did have to follow the law. The law needs redefining.
The law is defined well enough in that the states have no authority what so ever until the point viability is likely to occur (which is legally defined as 24wks because that's when a fetus has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside the womb). There is no guarantee in pregnancy. That's why induced terminations need to remain safe, legal, and free of obstructing restrictions that have no benefit to the pregnant woman, but pretend to benefit the nonsentient fetus.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322065 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL You can respond to anything you want, brainless wonder but I will continue to respond to the questions asked of me.
See if you can follow along, Witless.

THIS is the question I was talking about, Moron

"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?"

It was asked and you responded, "No but that isn't what she said."

My response was "What who said? ANY woman in the world?"

I was on track, you stupid cabbage. Feel free to go back and re-read, Idiot.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322066 Feb 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
See if you can follow along, Witless.
THIS is the question I was talking about, Moron
"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?"
It was asked and you responded, "No but that isn't what she said."
My response was "What who said? ANY woman in the world?"
I was on track, you stupid cabbage. Feel free to go back and re-read, Idiot.
Originally she asked about Sassy as I showed you. When I said that wasn'ty Sassy's position, she changed it to include all the world. I answered in both contexts.

You are the moron because you can't follow from the beginning.

Let me answer again for the dropout. No.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322067 Feb 16, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This exemplifies why you're always being told to *read* what is written. No, I gave up and asked you a generic question to purposely get around your technique of trying to stall. It didn't matter if the woman in the example had been SJM or any woman anywhere in the world.
To reiterate your answer, though, you believe it is not loving for a mother (next of kin for her incapacitated pregnant daughter) to decide her pro-life daughter would forego a life-saving abortion based on everything she knows about her unmarried daughter. Correct?
If so, we differ here as well. If anyone made this decision based on their loved one's wishes, it would be a loving gesture to follow through when they no longer can. Even when it means death. Most Americans have the civil right to refuse medical treatment even when death is the end result.
I read it as changed but it was still the same question about the same person.

I wouldn't help anyone commit suicide.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322068 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Originally she asked about Sassy as I showed you. When I said that wasn'ty Sassy's position, she changed it to include all the world. I answered in both contexts.
You are the moron because you can't follow from the beginning.
Let me answer again for the dropout. No.
"No"? That's your answer to my question of "who"?

LOL, and I'M the "dropout"? Right, you stupid cabbage.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322069 Feb 16, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The woman in question was incapacitated.
My question had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you wanted to see two dead persons.
The question put forth to you, based upon your answer it is not loving for the next of kin to refuse a life-saving abortion for her dying pregnant pro-life daughter, had extended to the dying pregnant daughter now being married. Her husband claims she told him several times she would want everything possible to be done to save her life if necessary. Including terminating a toxic pregnancy.
But the dying pregnant woman's mother is insisting her pro-life daughter would *not* want a life-saving abortion no matter what.
Who should make this call, Ink, in your opinion? The mother or the husband? The mother will forego the life-saving abortion so as not to chance her daughter's soul being separated from God. The husband would allow the procedure to save his wife's life so she can continue raising their children already born and meet her life's goals.
Ink, should the husband make the decision or the mother?
That is why we have courts. In most cases I would expect the husband to make the decision. I only object in the Shiavo case because he had ceased being her husband years ago and had a GF and children and a potential inheritance which presented a conflict of interests. Plus she had to be killed through starvation and dehydration.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322070 Feb 16, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"No"? That's your answer to my question of "who"?
LOL, and I'M the "dropout"? Right, you stupid cabbage.
I already answered Sassy and you are still arguing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322071 Feb 16, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I already answered Sassy and you are still arguing.
But Katie wasn't asking about Sassy in that question. Do try to pay attention, Cabbage.

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 min TeaRumpster 1,479,376
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 23 min Rudolpho Laspari 10,675
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 32,714
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 10 hr Go Blue Forever 75
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) 12 hr louis 19
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jan 15 RiccardoFire 201,892
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Jan 15 Rosa_Winkel 258,461
More from around the web