Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311610 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323904 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Many were changed in the actual courtroom.
You've missed yet another point, you moronic thing. So pitiful, how stupid you really are.

Again, since you're so stupid......EITHER no one has every changed their opinion, OR, the same numbers of people are switching sides. Because the numbers have been consistent FOR DECADES.

In fact, on this microcosm of Topix, I've never seen anyone switch from pro-choice to anti-choice. I HAVE, however, seen several who started out saying they were pro-life, who, after witnessing the nonsense from your side, decide they are pro-choice after all. But even that is not enough to say there has been a change over all the population. If some are becoming anti-choice, then just as many are becoming pro-choice. Deal with it.

There is no swing to anti-choice, no matter how much you wish to lie and pretend there is.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323905 Apr 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> Well, there's lie number one.
Please show one post, on any thread on which I've posted to you, which claims that abortion should be the choice every pregnant woman makes. Your projection is at least consistent.
<quoted text>And there's the second. There's no sanctity, or morality, involved in a medical procedure, and abortion is not 'killing children'. Children are born....that's why it's illegal to kill them.
<quoted text> Thanks for your honesty in this regard.
Next....
You know that every mother and father that see a sonogram of mom's uterus sees their child. You are trying to convince people that it isn't a child. Should they believe you or their own eyes? Each one would say that you are lying. And yes, I have read pro choice posters say that it is morally right to have an abortion. It isn't.

Pro choice, which you are means that you find it acceptable for a woman to choose abortion and you do try to convert others with you arguments that it is an acceptable option.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323906 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You bet and it is time.
Minds are changing already. Be afraid, be very afraid.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/...
The stats in that article didn't even prove your claims.

As I said, the country is still split. If people are changing their views, it's going both ways, whether you want to admit it or not.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323907 Apr 20, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've missed yet another point, you moronic thing. So pitiful, how stupid you really are.
Again, since you're so stupid......EITHER no one has every changed their opinion, OR, the same numbers of people are switching sides. Because the numbers have been consistent FOR DECADES.
In fact, on this microcosm of Topix, I've never seen anyone switch from pro-choice to anti-choice. I HAVE, however, seen several who started out saying they were pro-life, who, after witnessing the nonsense from your side, decide they are pro-choice after all. But even that is not enough to say there has been a change over all the population. If some are becoming anti-choice, then just as many are becoming pro-choice. Deal with it.
There is no swing to anti-choice, no matter how much you wish to lie and pretend there is.
Maybe you should get off the microcosom of topix and check out the real world.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228386/why-a...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323908 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that every mother and father that see a sonogram of mom's uterus sees their child. You are trying to convince people that it isn't a child. Should they believe you or their own eyes? Each one would say that you are lying. And yes, I have read pro choice posters say that it is morally right to have an abortion. It isn't.
Pro choice, which you are means that you find it acceptable for a woman to choose abortion and you do try to convert others with you arguments that it is an acceptable option.
Sorry, but you are the one trying to speak for everyone. And you don't have that authority.

Again, call it what you want, but no one must pretend that your mentally disturbed, emotional attachment to a perfect stranger's fetus is in any way binding on the conversation.

We find it acceptable that a woman be allowed to make her own choice. That's what you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge, pretending it's about abortion. It's not. It's about rights.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323909 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should get off the microcosom of topix and check out the real world.
http://theweek.com/article/index/228386/why-a...
Maybe YOU should grow a brain, and look at the dates of your so-called evidence before posting it.

Sorry, but a poll just a month shy of two years old, is NOT evidence of your claims, Moron.

The numbers are still split, just as they always have been. Again, if changes are occurring, they are going BOTH ways.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323910 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No what I saw was the op completely giving a pass to the parents and opining that the children should have been aborted to solve the problem.
It seems that easy access to abortion hasn't helped the problem of neglected and abused children. And yes we do care for the children of irresponsible parents.
...yeah....by insisting that those "irresponsible" folks become parents in the first place.

You care for your own comfort. You care for your own peace of mind. You're all about women giving birth at YOUR convenience, and you don't give a tinker's damn about children.

(Unless they're infants, who could potentially benefit the oh-so-choosy infertile willing to adopt them.)

Nice try though.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323911 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that every mother and father that see a sonogram of mom's uterus sees their child.
I know that women and men are not 'mothers' or 'fathers' until birth occurs. And, unlike you, I do NOT "know" what opinions the men and women viewing sonograms hold.
Thanks for your attempt to convince me otherwise......but I believe I'll pass.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to convince people that it isn't a child.
The only thing I'm trying to "convince" anyone of, is that women have the right to make our own choices concerning pregnancy, and to choose for ourselves whether or not we will gestate one. Period.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Should they believe you or their own eyes?
Again, unlike YOU, I'm not 'should-ing' on anyone. What they believe or don't believe concerning ultrasound images, is their own business, and I'm content to leave it strictly up to them.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Each one would say that you are lying..
Even the majority of women seeking abortions, who DON'T change their minds, as a result of the mandatory instrumental rape the State insists on?

(You do know that the effectiveness of this tactic is almost nil, since the State-mandated rape in no way changes the circumstances under which she decided she needed an abortion in the first place, right? Most of the women against whom this is perpetrated, abort their pregnancies anyway.)

In other words, this deliberate coercion doesn't work, in the vast majority of cases.
You're the only liar here, sweets.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text> And yes, I have read pro choice posters say that it is morally right to have an abortion. It isn't.
Well, since I'm content to leave that choice up to the individual woman, it's clear that I'm willing to let HER be the judge of whether or not it's morally right to have an abortion. As I've stated, ad nauseum, if it's not my pregnancy, it's not my call.

(Of course, you already know that.)
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Pro choice, which you are means that you find it acceptable for a woman to choose abortion and you do try to convert others with you arguments that it is an acceptable option.
Of course I find it acceptable, for a woman to make the choice to gestate....or the choice to abort....or the choice to be celibate....or the choice to be sterile....or the choice to keep her born child....or the choice to relinquish it.

That's what pro-choice (which I am) means.

I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm out to make sure women retain the right to make our own reproductive choices. Including the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy, in a sterile environment, utilizing qualified medical personnel... Period.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323912 Apr 20, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are the one trying to speak for everyone. And you don't have that authority.
Again, call it what you want, but no one must pretend that your mentally disturbed, emotional attachment to a perfect stranger's fetus is in any way binding on the conversation.
We find it acceptable that a woman be allowed to make her own choice. That's what you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge, pretending it's about abortion. It's not. It's about rights.
It is about abortion. The right to abort. Plain and simple. Call a spade a spade and see the truth.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323913 Apr 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I know that women and men are not 'mothers' or 'fathers' until birth occurs. And, unlike you, I do NOT "know" what opinions the men and women viewing sonograms hold.
Thanks for your attempt to convince me otherwise......but I believe I'll pass.
<quoted text> The only thing I'm trying to "convince" anyone of, is that women have the right to make our own choices concerning pregnancy, and to choose for ourselves whether or not we will gestate one. Period.
<quoted text> Again, unlike YOU, I'm not 'should-ing' on anyone. What they believe or don't believe concerning ultrasound images, is their own business, and I'm content to leave it strictly up to them.
<quoted text> Even the majority of women seeking abortions, who DON'T change their minds, as a result of the mandatory instrumental rape the State insists on?
(You do know that the effectiveness of this tactic is almost nil, since the State-mandated rape in no way changes the circumstances under which she decided she needed an abortion in the first place, right? Most of the women against whom this is perpetrated, abort their pregnancies anyway.)
In other words, this deliberate coercion doesn't work, in the vast majority of cases.
You're the only liar here, sweets.
<quoted text> Well, since I'm content to leave that choice up to the individual woman, it's clear that I'm willing to let HER be the judge of whether or not it's morally right to have an abortion. As I've stated, ad nauseum, if it's not my pregnancy, it's not my call.
(Of course, you already know that.)
<quoted text>Of course I find it acceptable, for a woman to make the choice to gestate....or the choice to abort....or the choice to be celibate....or the choice to be sterile....or the choice to keep her born child....or the choice to relinquish it.
That's what pro-choice (which I am) means.
I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm out to make sure women retain the right to make our own reproductive choices. Including the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy, in a sterile environment, utilizing qualified medical personnel... Period.
It is killing one's own baby and I see that you approve. Bully.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323914 Apr 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>...yeah....by insisting that those "irresponsible" folks become parents in the first place.
You care for your own comfort. You care for your own peace of mind. You're all about women giving birth at YOUR convenience, and you don't give a tinker's damn about children.
(Unless they're infants, who could potentially benefit the oh-so-choosy infertile willing to adopt them.)
Nice try though.
That's a stupid remark. Who would approve of irresponsible parents having children but they do even with easy access to abortion. So abortion isn't lowering the number of children neglected and abused. You are touting a solution that doesn't work.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323915 Apr 20, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe YOU should grow a brain, and look at the dates of your so-called evidence before posting it.
Sorry, but a poll just a month shy of two years old, is NOT evidence of your claims, Moron.
The numbers are still split, just as they always have been. Again, if changes are occurring, they are going BOTH ways.
I have a brain and so do you but your's won't accept the truth if it doesn't agree with what you believe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-mo...

The numbers are changing. Why is it so important to you that abortion stay popular? What difference does it make to you if women become more aware of the child they are carrying as less accepting of 'the blob of cells' propaganda?

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323916 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are wrong. Your statistics don't reflect the people everyday who have a change of heart. Did you know that many of the people who where on the Gosnell jury decided that they are not really prochoice after all? I think when the movie comes out, it will change many minds.
Who's child do you think is being killed in an abortion? You can call it whatever you want but the sonogram shows women what it really is.
There are NO children killed in abortion. YOU can call it whatever you want but the sonogram shows women what it really is and then many choose to abort.

You are just making up more fake statistics. Just like the one where a single woman's boyfriend is ALWAYS the one abusing the kids. Remember that? Oh wait, you were WRONG about that too. Apparently YOUR AZZ is not the most reliable source. smh.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323917 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is about abortion. The right to abort. Plain and simple. Call a spade a spade and see the truth.
No, it is not about abortion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323918 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a brain and so do you but your's won't accept the truth if it doesn't agree with what you believe.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-mo...
The numbers are changing. Why is it so important to you that abortion stay popular? What difference does it make to you if women become more aware of the child they are carrying as less accepting of 'the blob of cells' propaganda?
Again, an older poll, which still proves my point. The numbers are the same Evenly split.

I don't care about "popularity". Popularity doesn't dictate our personal civil rights. I'm simply telling you that what you want to pretend is true, is not really.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323919 Apr 20, 2014
KatieKatieKatie wrote:
<quoted text>
So all those lienewsdotcom articles that are posted in full here get a magical pass? Something sure stinks here and it's not you, Chicky.
Seems to me the PLM and its followers have no issue whatsoever smearing the good work of Margaret Sanger and lying about it as easy as can be.
<smh>
Especially since there is no where in the TOS that say that!:

Topix TOS on the subject.

"You understand that no "spamming" is permitted anywhere on Topix at any time. You will not post or transmit links, identical content, or snippets of identical content ***to multiple threads**** in the discussion forums. You will not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple threads for a single topic. Transmitting any such identical messages indiscriminately to multiple threads and/or creating multiple threads constitutes an unauthorized use, is in violation of these Terms of Service and is prohibited. You understand Topix may, at any time, in its sole discretion, determine what user activity constitutes "spamming." and that Topix reserves the right to employ any means and methods of technology, including, but not limited to rate limiting, content filters, and captchas to prevent automated posting of duplicate content. Any attempt to reverse engineer, bypass, or publicize these systems is similarly prohibited."

So yeah, something stinks and I think I will report THAT. Oh dear, I might get banned. ROFLMAO.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323920 Apr 20, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stupid remark. Who would approve of irresponsible parents having children
YOU DO. That's your whole gig

You insist on it - it's part and parcel of a so-called 'pro-life' stance, that pregnant women should gestate regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Doesn't matter to you WHY she doesn't want to be a mother.....even if she hates kids. Even if she's married with ten kids already. Even if she's raped. She better have that kid, or she's a heartless, immoral, murdering bitch, and you'll worry about what happens after she by-god gives birth, when you see it on the 6 o' clock News.

And you'll wail about the fact that she could have given it away for the convenience of some heterosexual inferts.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
but they do, even with easy access to abortion. So abortion isn't lowering the number of children neglected and abused.
OF COURSE NOT, you ignorant pile. Abortion only lowers the POTENTIAL for abuse, neglect, exploitation, molestation, and malnutrition of children.

Much like contraception lowers the POTENTIAL for unwanted pregnancy.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are touting a solution that doesn't work.
I'm not touting a solution AT ALL.

I'm advocating for the retention of a legal right to choose the disposition of a medical condition, known as pregnancy. I don't care which choice the woman makes.

And if you don't KNOW that about me by now, My having told you what my personal feelings are, literally dozens of times, I challenge you to believe you're not carrying around a skull-full of tapioca.

Geez louise.

It's perfectly obvious you don't give a popcorn fart whether she WANTS to be a mother or not - all you care about is that she becomes one. For YOUR convenience, YOUR peace of mind, and the warm fuzzies YOU get, when you think you've contributed to, or helped to control, the outcome of a stranger's pregnancy.

It's glaringly clear that you'd love to think you got her to 'change her mind' about becoming a mother, regardless of why she wanted to avoid that situation. Which is why I say that you advocate for people you'd consider irresponsible, to become parents.

YOU DO.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323922 Apr 20, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
There are NO children killed in abortion. YOU can call it whatever you want but the sonogram shows women what it really is and then many choose to abort.
You are just making up more fake statistics. Just like the one where a single woman's boyfriend is ALWAYS the one abusing the kids. Remember that? Oh wait, you were WRONG about that too. Apparently YOUR AZZ is not the most reliable source. smh.
You can say that there are no children in the womb if that makes it more comfortable for you. I can see why it would be difficult for you to admit that expectant mom's are awaiting the birth of their child who already exists and is real.

No I don't remember saying that the single woman's boyfriend ALWAYS abuses the children because I didn't say that. If you want me to provide the statistics on abused children again, I will.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323924 Apr 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> YOU DO. That's your whole gig
You insist on it - it's part and parcel of a so-called 'pro-life' stance, that pregnant women should gestate regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Doesn't matter to you WHY she doesn't want to be a mother.....even if she hates kids. Even if she's married with ten kids already. Even if she's raped. She better have that kid, or she's a heartless, immoral, murdering bitch, and you'll worry about what happens after she by-god gives birth, when you see it on the 6 o' clock News.
And you'll wail about the fact that she could have given it away for the convenience of some heterosexual inferts.
<quoted text>OF COURSE NOT, you ignorant pile. Abortion only lowers the POTENTIAL for abuse, neglect, exploitation, molestation, and malnutrition of children.
Much like contraception lowers the POTENTIAL for unwanted pregnancy.
<quoted text>
I'm not touting a solution AT ALL.
I'm advocating for the retention of a legal right to choose the disposition of a medical condition, known as pregnancy. I don't care which choice the woman makes.
And if you don't KNOW that about me by now, My having told you what my personal feelings are, literally dozens of times, I challenge you to believe you're not carrying around a skull-full of tapioca.
Geez louise.
It's perfectly obvious you don't give a popcorn fart whether she WANTS to be a mother or not - all you care about is that she becomes one. For YOUR convenience, YOUR peace of mind, and the warm fuzzies YOU get, when you think you've contributed to, or helped to control, the outcome of a stranger's pregnancy.
It's glaringly clear that you'd love to think you got her to 'change her mind' about becoming a mother, regardless of why she wanted to avoid that situation. Which is why I say that you advocate for people you'd consider irresponsible, to become parents.
YOU DO.
So why are people still having children that they don't want? Abortion is legal.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#323925 Apr 20, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> YOU DO. That's your whole gig
You insist on it - it's part and parcel of a so-called 'pro-life' stance, that pregnant women should gestate regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Doesn't matter to you WHY she doesn't want to be a mother.....even if she hates kids. Even if she's married with ten kids already. Even if she's raped. She better have that kid, or she's a heartless, immoral, murdering bitch, and you'll worry about what happens after she by-god gives birth, when you see it on the 6 o' clock News.
And you'll wail about the fact that she could have given it away for the convenience of some heterosexual inferts.
<quoted text>OF COURSE NOT, you ignorant pile. Abortion only lowers the POTENTIAL for abuse, neglect, exploitation, molestation, and malnutrition of children.
Much like contraception lowers the POTENTIAL for unwanted pregnancy.
<quoted text>
I'm not touting a solution AT ALL.
I'm advocating for the retention of a legal right to choose the disposition of a medical condition, known as pregnancy. I don't care which choice the woman makes.
And if you don't KNOW that about me by now, My having told you what my personal feelings are, literally dozens of times, I challenge you to believe you're not carrying around a skull-full of tapioca.
Geez louise.
It's perfectly obvious you don't give a popcorn fart whether she WANTS to be a mother or not - all you care about is that she becomes one. For YOUR convenience, YOUR peace of mind, and the warm fuzzies YOU get, when you think you've contributed to, or helped to control, the outcome of a stranger's pregnancy.
It's glaringly clear that you'd love to think you got her to 'change her mind' about becoming a mother, regardless of why she wanted to avoid that situation. Which is why I say that you advocate for people you'd consider irresponsible, to become parents.
YOU DO.
Well said. Unfortunately, she'll ignore it (if, and that's a big IF, she even understands it), because she's dishonest.

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 Grey Ghostmoron 1,418,207
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr BFL 32,327
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 hr Eagle 12 256,555
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Thu OzRitz 10,064
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web