Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318367 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

#322317 Feb 20, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What gave Terri's parents a tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny leg to stand on was the fact that there was not an absence of eye movement or eye opening. As far as the rest of the requirements to declare someone legally brain dead, all were met. An accurate comparison would be a wooden match to a Sequoia tree. Hence the reason the matter ended up in the Supreme Court and why the Supreme Court ruled as it did.
Terri's parents were wrong. Period. It's understandable why they felt that way; I'm a parent, as are many others. But, they were selfish and selfishness is wrong in most cases. This was one of those cases.
Do you mean to tell me that you believe that Terri didn't meet all the requirements of being "legally brain dead"?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#322318 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think I have to agree with Sassy? I am pro life, everybody's life.
You're not allowed to have an opinion, remember? It's not "Christian like"..
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#322319 Feb 20, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I really understand Teri's parents having a hard time letting go, and wanting to be sure, but at some point it's just about nature taking it's course.
These fundies believe in some wonderful afterlife in Heaven, so why are they so against letting someone like Teri go? Allegedly she's in some better place, right?
She was being fed. Period. Withholding food and fluids is not "nature taking its course". If a woman does it to her baby, is that "nature taking its course"? No.

Being hooked up to total life support isma whole different animal. Which btw, she wasn't.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#322320 Feb 20, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice to know. Perhaps you may succeed in persuading the others from your side of the fence to see it as such.
<quoted text>
Not as long as you acknowledge that such is only the woman's choice and no one else's opinion factors in the matter. Do you?
<quoted text>
I'm pro-choice. I use pregnancy instead of "baby" in your sentence above. Asides from that, of course I would.
<quoted text>
Again, I'm pro-choice; there is no "unborn baby." Asides from that and the other above, if I knew, unequivocally, that these are her wishes, of course I would.
OTOH, I would have to be 1000% certain those are her wishes. If the choice was mine and the doc suggested that only one could be saved, and there was no living will or utter most certainty of her choice, I would choose to save the woman. Hands down.
Why does anyone have to "persuade" anyone on anything? Do you understand what being PROABORTION means? You support the choice of a woman or you to abort. I am ANTIABORTION because I don't.

Question...wile pregnant, did you ever refer to your pregnancy as your baby? Did you find out the sex of your baby? Did you wonder whether you were carrying a boy or girl?

Bet ya did ;)

What are you so afraid of?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322321 Feb 20, 2014
WTF do you think "pro-choice" means? If it's HER choice, then it's fine.
Pupskate wrote:
<quoted text>
I am no more anti-choice than you would be pro-abortion .. That is just an assinine way to tick the other side off !!
It is never dumb to want to try your best to bring an unborn baby's life to term ..
Would you feel the same if she wanted to be on artificial life support to bring the baby to term and such was stated in a living will ??
If a womans WANTS ALL MEASURES to save her unborn baby would you be in favor of that ?? EVEN if it meant putting HER life on the line ??
gidget

Scottsdale, AZ

#322322 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you getting excited about the expansion of euthanasia in Belgium for people of any age including children?
Why would you think I would care, dolt? I live in the US. What's wrong with you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322323 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a link from the autopsy that backs you up. Otherwise drop the 80%#.
There was testamony on both sides differing on whether or not Teri ever said she would rather die.
The judge made a decision and sided with Michael against most of the rest of the world. Nobody can undue it and we have to accept it and I do.
I read it on the timeline, and read the autopsy report which states that in place of normal brain tissue, there was mostly just connective tissue and spinal fluid also indicated by a 2002 CT scan. So no, I won't drop it.

Yes, there was testimony, but as I said, the court found sufficient evidence to back what her husband said. Her family admitted that they would have ignored that wish anyway, so of COURSE they would attempt to convince a judge otherwise.

Against "most of the rest of the world"? Nonsense, you arrogant thing.

No one has to give one sh*t what you "accept".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322324 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If she did. Maybe they did. Wouldn't it be morally right to do away with them anyway because who would want to live like that?
And you are STILL stupidly missing the point. WE are not the ones trying to determine what happens. That would be YOUR side. There is no medical "one size fits all" solution. None. Nada. Zip. Each case is different, and will be determined differently, depending upon whether or not there are patient filed directives, or what the next of kin determines in consultation with the patient's physicians where there is a LACK of written directives.

I don't know how else to put this so that you can understand, stupid as you are.
katie

Auburn, WA

#322325 Feb 20, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Katie, Bitler made a claim that needing a feeding tube made one "terminal".
Do you agree?
I agree with BitNer. See?
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying she wasn't terminal. She was terminal because she wasn't capable of providing herself with nourishment by mouth. An artificial device was surgically installed into her stomach to do for her what she no longer could. Removing that artificial device showed exactly how terminal Terri Schiavo was; hence your outrage.
Where's your outrage for that hospital in San Francisco who allowed a patient ordered by her doctor NEVER to be left alone to wander into a locked stairwell and die of dehydration? She wasn't found for over two weeks and so died in a hospital's locked stairwell fully conscious of her ordeal and "experiencing her own death through dehydration." Even though everything I've read claims this is a peaceful death, where is your outrage over this being allowed to happen anywhere ever?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

How rude and disrespectful and unchristian of you to continually, erroneously refer to her otherwise. Even those who refer to you as ASSY always manage to include the s in your screen name.:-|

Nobody responded to this post. Nobody has outrage over what happened in San Francisco last Sept/Oct?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/california-b...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322326 Feb 20, 2014
Judges arent supposed to make popular decisions; they re supposed to make legal ones. "Most of the rest of the world" didnt give a damn. What ultimately won out, besides the fact that her husband was presumed tohave an inrimate understanding of his spouse's desires, is that the parents had nothing that contradicted what he said.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a link from the autopsy that backs you up. Otherwise drop the 80%#.
There was testamony on both sides differing on whether or not Teri ever said she would rather die.
The judge made a decision and sided with Michael against most of the rest of the world. Nobody can undue it and we have to accept it and I do.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322327 Feb 20, 2014
You really have a problem with case-by-case determination, dontcha?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If she did. Maybe they did. Wouldn't it be morally right to do away with them anyway because who would want to live like that?
gidget

Scottsdale, AZ

#322328 Feb 20, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it on the timeline, and read the autopsy report which states that in place of normal brain tissue, there was mostly just connective tissue and spinal fluid also indicated by a 2002 CT scan. So no, I won't drop it.
Yes, there was testimony, but as I said, the court found sufficient evidence to back what her husband said. Her family admitted that they would have ignored that wish anyway, so of COURSE they would attempt to convince a judge otherwise.
Against "most of the rest of the world"? Nonsense, you arrogant thing.
No one has to give one sh*t what you "accept".
Most of the "rest" of that one's world is filled with freaks and thugs like the juggler for jesus, tax cheat Frank Pavone or domestic terrorist Randy Terry. She doesn't get out into the real world very often.
katie

Auburn, WA

#322329 Feb 20, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
WTF do you think "pro-choice" means? If it's HER choice, then it's fine.
<quoted text>
Even after all this time and hand-holding, it's pretty clear none of the ACers/PLers understand what being pro-choice is really about.

Switching gears, how long was the video of Mrs. Schiavo, do you remember? Some 6hrs or 16hrs... something like that? And mostly just her staring upward, right? But now we know she had cortical blindness and wasn't capable of seeing anything...
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322330 Feb 20, 2014
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"I just never though someone else should decide that for her."
That is why we give someone we trust the authority to make our wishes known when we can't speak for ourselves.
Imagine yourself in the exact same situation as Teri Shiavo...how long would you want to be kept in a PVS? Months? Years? Decades?
I don't have a any idea when or how my life will end. Because someone is brain damaged it doesn't mean they are dying. I have a problem with intentionally withholding food and water to a person who is not in pain and not dying.

Let me ask you do you think a person like Teri, if she is an organ donor should have her organs removed before she is starved and dehydrated?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322331 Feb 20, 2014
gidget wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the "rest" of that one's world is filled with freaks and thugs like the juggler for jesus, tax cheat Frank Pavone or domestic terrorist Randy Terry. She doesn't get out into the real world very often.
That's very true.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322332 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the point of praying and then refusing to have the children treated? Prayer wont help if you refuse the assistance. That doesn't make sense.
You just don't want to acknowledge that their prayers resulted in nothing. You were the one blabbing about prayer yesterday. Try to keep up with what you say. End result here, they let their 18 month old die. No prAyers and no jesus to te rescue.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322333 Feb 20, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Even after all this time and hand-holding, it's pretty clear none of the ACers/PLers understand what being pro-choice is really about.
Switching gears, how long was the video of Mrs. Schiavo, do you remember? Some 6hrs or 16hrs... something like that? And mostly just her staring upward, right? But now we know she had cortical blindness and wasn't capable of seeing anything...
Let's see Pro choice def.

Respecting the right of a woman to choose whether or not to kill her unborn baby. Do I have it right?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322334 Feb 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a any idea when or how my life will end. Because someone is brain damaged it doesn't mean they are dying. I have a problem with intentionally withholding food and water to a person who is not in pain and not dying.
Let me ask you do you think a person like Teri, if she is an organ donor should have her organs removed before she is starved and dehydrated?
She did not die of starvation. If you want to debate, perhaps you should know the facts first.

She was dying, would have died long before without a tube surgically inserted. She could not take food and water by mouth. She could see, couldn't think, wasn't aware despite her parents wanting to believe she was. The autopsy proved that. I'd suggest you read it, but it's way beyond you.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322335 Feb 20, 2014
gidget wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you think I would care, dolt? I live in the US. What's wrong with you?
With a little luck the progressives could bring it here. What do you think?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322336 Feb 20, 2014
<Sigh> that should have read "she couldN'T see," Sorry, I didn't proofread before posting that one.

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 Realtime 1,620,498
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 27 min Not who you think 34,453
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Fri Wisdom of Ages 11,652
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 30 Frankie Rizzo 201,871
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 29 Alice Meng 13
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep '17 The pope 258,482
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web