Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 316302 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

Chalfont, PA

#322965 Mar 13, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical fundie.... Still referring to a fetus as a baby. Intellectual honesty does not exist in your fundie world.
So what is a fetus if not a living unborn baby?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#322966 Mar 13, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Since there is no 'god', it's impossible to 'play God'.
Of course, if you DO believe in a 'god' and believe that god 'gives life, creates life, and takes life.........but you approve of flogging a corpse to gestate against the wishes of that formerly LIVING PERSON..... YOU'RE the one playing god.
Next....
Again,your lack of belief in God has led you to the advocate abortion as choice. You think that you are your own God. Atheist still believe in something bigger than them,...that created them,......started it all,......there is ALWAYS a beginning. SOMEONE or SOMETHING started it.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322967 Mar 13, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Relative to human existence, so is marriage of any description. Assuredly including yours.
If early homo sapiens (say, around 3500 BC) wanted to hook up, they did, and that's how it worked. Nobody was obligated to stay with one partner, or get pregnant, or stay celibate altogether, or gestate, or worship the gods of others. We just randomly copulated, and pregnant women were left to our own devices
Maybe we should go back, after all, eh?
We are back to pre civilization times. A true success story.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#322968 Mar 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> I think that Ink not having the need to defend herself makes you nuts. You accused her of being me. She's not. You know this. I know this. I,myself,have been accused of being others. Who cares? certainly not me.
Hmmm...so you think that my posts "display xtian tendenceis,not Christian tendencies". Okay,again,..who cares? Certainly not me. I am not interested in what you think of me. We are speaking about abortion. I WILL speak the truth. I WILL not sugarcoat the evil that it is. A human that is developing in the womb is killed by a Dr who is paid by Mom to kill him/her. Don't hate me because I tell it like it is Katie.
Let's get something straight here,I feel sorry for Pbfa,as I do you proaborts,because your empty shells. You're stone cold. I pray for you people. I don't have hate for you,mind you,I have pity because I feel deep down inside someone fed you lies when you were still an innocent child. MOST proaborts that I have encountered in my life,as well as those who are not proaborts,but have aborted during a very vulnerable time in their lives,had negative/unhealthy/abusive or neglectful relationships with parents. This seems to be the norm in my experiences with friends and/or those who have come to terms with their abortions or not.
That girl yesterday said it honestly. She said abortion empowers women. It allows women to become on a mans level(or something to that effect). That's dysfunctional thinking.
Your subjective reasoning applies only to you. No one else. Yet you want your subjective reasoning legislated for all to follow. Nobody cares you think induced abortion is evil. Nobody cares if someone else thinks induced abortion is morally wrong. These are your personal opinions and you're entitled to same. It is dysfunctional to think everyone else should believe the same as you do.

You are not entitled in forcing everybody else to live by your subjective reasoning by mandating these. Yet that is exactly what the PLM is trying to do. And you follow along blindly because you don't know how to think for yourself. And is why you'll never understand PC doesn't support abortion, PC supports people legally retaining their civil rights to exercise personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#322969 Mar 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
""""" """I wouldn't know, since I have many beliefs which have nothing to with anyone else's personal behavior. My preference is for keeping my beliefs to myself"""" """""
Bull! Your lack of belief/faith has led you to thinking that you have a right to play God-who GIVES life,CREATES life and takes life.
.
Y'know, there are some who believe that humans created god.

"No one here gets out alive."
katie

Federal Way, WA

#322970 Mar 13, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
And it's always laughable when posters like Katie, who agree with RvW and support the post viability restrictions that RvW allows, try to claim that they aren't supporting the right to infringe on a woman's personal autonomy.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY!
No, not "exactly!" Some of you PLers forget, too easily, there are life/health exceptions included in the restrictions. Meaning the op's claim against me is null and void. Usually the ones forgetting are the same ones who are trying to legally wipe these out of the law.
Jorja Fox

Staunton, VA

#322971 Mar 13, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Has Lenzi set up a fund for women who want to keep their baby but feel forced to abort because of their unfortunate circumstances (bf or booty call dumped her,no money,family abandoned her when she got pregnant,no where to go,needs help,etc...)???
What about a fund set up for physical,mental,emotional help for women who HAVE aborted and are suffering from what they did?
NOOOOOOO of COURSE not. Proaborts ONLY care about killing as choice. Needy women have NOTHING to do with their agenda.
It's a bit unfair to scream NOOOOOO--when you don't have a clue what else she does. Since those issues appear to be very important to you I would like to know what you have done to address them. Have you set up a fund of any kind to help?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#322972 Mar 13, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't do it AT ALL if it were against their living wishes.
In my son's case, it WAS his living wish that he be an organ donor.
Try again?
Try again ? Why ? To make an ass out of you again ? That takes little effort.
My hypothetical was clear.....her wish was not to be kept alive artificially at all. And you were clear on it. In fact I repeated the fact that it was her expressed wish in subsequent responses to you.
First you said you would keep her "alive" for 4 days in order to give the dying girl " a chance".
Then you switched gears and said that the whole point of your response was that the organs would be rotten and not suitable for transplant. NOW you're saying you wouldn't keep her alive AT ALL if it was against her expressed wishes. You're all over the place. You don't know what you believe.

Try again ? LOL !

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#322973 Mar 13, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, not "exactly!" Some of you PLers forget, too easily, there are life/health exceptions included in the restrictions. Meaning the op's claim against me is null and void. Usually the ones forgetting are the same ones who are trying to legally wipe these out of the law.
Yes, EXACTLY. You need to get a better set of reading glasses or practice reading comprehension. You've been told over and over and over again that we KNOW there are life/health exceptions post-viability. We acknowledge that so I hope this is the last time you lie by saying we've forgotten that fact.
The fact is that post-viability, and IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY HEALTH OR LIFE RISK ( is that better?) you support the restrictions on abortion that RvW allows.
My claim is NOT null and void. You support restrictions post viability ( and last time I checked, after viability the fetus was still inside the woman's body) and therefore do NOT support a woman's right to full personal autonomy.

Nosy parker.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322974 Mar 13, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again ? Why ? To make an ass out of you again ? That takes little effort.
My hypothetical was clear.....her wish was not to be kept alive artificially at all. And you were clear on it. In fact I repeated the fact that it was her expressed wish in subsequent responses to you.
First you said you would keep her "alive" for 4 days in order to give the dying girl " a chance".
Then you switched gears and said that the whole point of your response was that the organs would be rotten and not suitable for transplant. NOW you're saying you wouldn't keep her alive AT ALL if it was against her expressed wishes. You're all over the place. You don't know what you believe.
Try again ? LOL !
Go back and read my reply to your original post to me on this subject, dickless. I said "As the mother" of a grievously ill daughter, I would allow for her to use my corpse's organs until they started to decompose. Usually starts about four days into respiratory and cardiac support, when one is dealing with a brain-dead patient, who is essentially a corpse already. Hypothetically, I have a living will to that effect - if not, she's going to have to rely on her hypothetical dad for transplant material, because even a corpse has rights.

I'm NOT the mother, the woman in your hypothetical doesn't exist, except in your head, and you're the ass.

Next....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322975 Mar 13, 2014
Rights don't "accrue" from any source but the constitution. States' 3rd-trimester interest isn't absolute nor mandatory, nor can tit be administered equally in terms of the fetus because 3rd-trimester abortions are permitted due to a variety of reasons based on the WOMAN'S rights. A right would have to be administered across the board to all fetuses, and it clearly is not and cannot.
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>But once RvW includes states rights, it accrues to the fetus when states put restrictions on abortion.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322976 Mar 13, 2014
Regardless of how you view history, it's irrelevant. It's America in the 21st century, and the laws are governed by the constitution, not tradition or history. My rights as an American citizen count; tradition does not.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
One gay leaning opinion isn't 'evidence'. Find a real historian and I will listen. Every real historian will tell you that no culture has ever embraced 'gay marriage'. The Greeks and Romans flirted with homosexual acts but they 'married' women. Gay marriage is a 21st century happening.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322977 Mar 13, 2014
By the time anything akin to marriage came around, we had already progressed from simple hunter-gatherers and had built large cities and even nations. Outlawing SSM would make no difference to the population. And if you kill someone for not reproducing, you LOWER your population.

It's even more meaningless today, given our overpopulation.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Good reason was that it was important to produce children in order to continue the peoples and culture. It was also important to have enough population to protect the group, tribe or city.
Isn't that just common sense?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322978 Mar 13, 2014
It's unnatural to have a written language, much less use silicon, wire, and plastic to transmit it. So stop posting.

Being gay is not unhealthy any more than being straight is.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> It's unnatural. It's unhealthy.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322979 Mar 13, 2014
No, because the believers I know don't try to impose their beliefs on me.
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Why so emotional over my "superstitions"?. Do you act this way to friends or family or acquaintances who believe in the same "non-existent God?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322980 Mar 13, 2014
Being gay isn't just about sex or "behavior", and clearly you haven't a frigging clue what bisexuality is. There are plenty of gay couples who have lived together for decades, far longer than most hetero marriages. It's neither unnatural or unhealthy; those are just buzzwords homophobes like to use without understanding the entire concept.

Do you think denying gays marriage will cause them to go straight? Are you really so stupid?
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Homosexual behaviour has been practiced since forever but it's clear that it never led to anything but a fling. Future generations would cease to exist if those practicing stayed with their own sex. Like I said, it's not only unnatural but it is unhealthy. Today SS unions have become socially accepted by some but the consequences haven't really been seen on a big scale yet.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#322981 Mar 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Do you think denying gays marriage will cause them to go straight? Are you really so stupid?
<quoted text>
Ummm Cpete, if she has that opinion in the first place, let me take a guess as to what her answer should be.

YES! She is.
you're welcome

I know, I know, I'm so very missed! lol

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#322982 Mar 14, 2014
Being gay is not a choice, and I get really, really frustrated with people arguing that it is.

Here's a question I have posed several times to 'straight' people.

Change it up.

Ya, I thought so. If being gay were the norm.... I know, I know.....

A person with blue eyes can change their eye colour with contacts, but their eyes are still blue.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#322983 Mar 14, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Why,in your opinion,wouldn't a homosexual couple not be able to reproduce?
Anyone is free to address this. I know that nobody will but,what the heck...
Well a homosexual couple is not able to produce because you need sperm, and an egg. Two females can't naturally produce because of two eggs, and just the same, two males aren't able to reproduce naturally with just sperm.

I hope I cleared that up for you.

Being gay doesn't necessarily mean you can't have children naturally.

Now I could go philosophical on you, and state that a homosexual couple can reproduce, but not with each other, but that might be going over your head.

I noticed you had another 'incorrect' assumption in that you didn't think ANYBODY would reply.

You're welcome
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322986 Mar 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL That's not lashing out. It's just an observation.
Everyday well known facts don't need validation. You can swim upstream by yourself.
You've yet to prove that same sex marriage was a threat to the survival of our species or any civilization. You're talking out of your rear.

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) 3 min RoxLo 1,580,474
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 56 min Rob The Bruin Lov... 33,655
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Aug 14 Into The Night 11,335
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Jul 27 Aerobatty 258,484
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul '17 New boy 201,878
News Johnny Brown Added To Coaching Staff (Oct '07) Jul '17 Brown Pharts 3
News Tragedy strikes family members of Leasure (Jul '08) Jun '17 Evidence phart 9
More from around the web