Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313657 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.

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.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322988 Mar 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is a fetus if not a living unborn baby?
A fetus is a fetus although you ignore that fact and insist on calling it a baby. It's ok, you can do as you please. It doesn't make you right.
ChickBrilliance

New Fairfield, CT

#322992 Mar 14, 2014
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/21/pope-...

Especially for Knutter and CrazyJm. I know how much you've missed me so as soon as I saw this I thought of how much you would enjoy hearing from me!!

Your new Pope (notice I didn't say poop) agrees with what I've been saying all along. You fundies are mentally ill. So, now, take it up with your non-atheist religious leader while he tells you to seek help..:)
ChickBrilliance

New Fairfield, CT

#322993 Mar 14, 2014
3, 2, 1.......

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322994 Mar 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it was Bitner that said gay marriage has been around forever. It hasn't. It's new.
No, it's not. And you've been shown that, but you ignore it.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322995 Mar 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dumbass. IVF as an alternative way of reproduction, in relation to your comment about reproduction only between marriage between a man and a woman..
We were talking about a particular era and why marriage was important to society. Today it doesn't matter other than it is going to make for some very interesting contentios arguments and court cases surrounding the parentage of children produced by alternative methods.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322996 Mar 14, 2014
contentious
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322997 Mar 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Did you ever hear of States Rights? Read the 10th Amendment.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322998 Mar 14, 2014
How about the 28th?

"The rights of all born persons, irrespective of gender, to choose medical treatment for unwanted medical conditions, shall not be infringed."

I think all pro-choice advocates, should be advocating THAT one.
Noisily, and insistently, until it's achieved.
ChickBrilliance

New Fairfield, CT

#322999 Mar 14, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Did you ever hear of States Rights? Read the 10th Amendment.
1. A states rights are secondary to federal law. 2. Roe v wade told states they can NOT interfere in a WOMANS RIGHT to an abortion until after viability which they suggested could be around 28 weeks, the third trimester. 3. They said at that point the state MAY have an INTEREST in protecting the potential life. It did NOT make stopping abortion at that time mandatory. It just said they could. 4. They made that interference still LIMITED TO the womans ability to maintain her good health and welfare meaning her needs still supercede the existence of the fetus. 5. At no point did Roe grant any rights to a fetus. They had an entire section discussing how rights are meant to commence at birth.
A state may choose to regulate abortion upon viability. NO state may do so before that point.
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#323000 Mar 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
How about the 28th?
"The rights of all born persons, irrespective of gender, to choose medical treatment for unwanted medical conditions, shall not be infringed."
I think all pro-choice advocates, should be advocating THAT one.
Noisily, and insistently, until it's achieved.
Obviously the courts have ruled that normal pregnancy is not a medical condition, as do I.
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#323003 Mar 14, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text> 1. A states rights are secondary to federal law. 2. Roe v wade told states they can NOT interfere in a WOMANS RIGHT to an abortion until after viability which they suggested could be around 28 weeks, the third trimester. 3. They said at that point the state MAY have an INTEREST in protecting the potential life. It did NOT make stopping abortion at that time mandatory. It just said they could. 4. They made that interference still LIMITED TO the womans ability to maintain her good health and welfare meaning her needs still supercede the existence of the fetus. 5. At no point did Roe grant any rights to a fetus. They had an entire section discussing how rights are meant to commence at birth.
A state may choose to regulate abortion upon viability. NO state may do so before that point.
That's why I posted that Roe v Wade straddles the 10th and 14th amendments.
Why else did the courts bother to write about trimesters and viability? They must have considered the fetus.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323004 Mar 14, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
A fetus is a fetus although you ignore that fact and insist on calling it a baby. It's ok, you can do as you please. It doesn't make you right.
Can you describe a fetus or give the meaning of?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323005 Mar 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Still a bunch of bullshit Inky. Adam and Eve were not married. To believe they were, simply because Genesis 1:28 says that G-d blessed them, is a stretch. Yet, their commandment was to be "fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."
There's simply no tie to marriage being the pillar for the survival of the human race.
What does any of this have to do with gay marriage being a new concept?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323006 Mar 14, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text> 1. A states rights are secondary to federal law. 2. Roe v wade told states they can NOT interfere in a WOMANS RIGHT to an abortion until after viability which they suggested could be around 28 weeks, the third trimester. 3. They said at that point the state MAY have an INTEREST in protecting the potential life. It did NOT make stopping abortion at that time mandatory. It just said they could. 4. They made that interference still LIMITED TO the womans ability to maintain her good health and welfare meaning her needs still supercede the existence of the fetus. 5. At no point did Roe grant any rights to a fetus. They had an entire section discussing how rights are meant to commence at birth.
A state may choose to regulate abortion upon viability. NO state may do so before that point.
So why would a state restrict abortion after viability?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323007 Mar 14, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously the courts have ruled that normal pregnancy is not a medical condition, as do I.
The courts have ruled no such thing, and who is to define 'normal pregnancy' anyway?

Every pregnancy faces unique challenges. Some minor, some less so. Pregnancy is without any doubt a condition. One in which the medical needs of women change from our 'not -pregnant' medical needs.

What would you call it? Spiritual?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323008 Mar 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So why would a state restrict abortion after viability?
Mainly because politicians want to court the votes of nosey-parkers like you.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323009 Mar 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>The courts have ruled no such thing, and who is to define 'normal pregnancy' anyway?
Every pregnancy faces unique challenges. Some minor, some less so. Pregnancy is without any doubt a condition. One in which the medical needs of women change from our 'not -pregnant' medical needs.
What would you call it? Spiritual?
So you don't think it is possible to be pregnant and have no medical needs? Women have children everyday without Medical needs. If you believe evolution, women have been getting pregnant for 200,000 years without medical assistance.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323010 Mar 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Mainly because politicians want to court the votes of nosey-parkers like you.
How are they going to get votes since the majority of people want abortion to be part of the American landscape?
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#323011 Mar 14, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you describe a fetus or give the meaning of?
Sure, I could. Can you apply some intellectual honesty to your various irratiional and unfounded claims?

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) 28 min VetnorsGate 1,508,805
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... 2 hr BuzzerPhartss 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri AllPhartx 32,818
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,490
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web