Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313372 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324892 May 12, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
Another "medical procedure" performed by doctors is breast augmenation. That is an elective surgery, not a life saving procedure. Abortion always causes at least one death, unless the baby is accidently born or as with Dr. Gosnell some of the mothers died also and he killed babies after they had been delivered.
Andrew Cuomo has pushed for non-doctors to perform abortions, tried to cram it in a "Women's Equality bill".
If you consider yourself 'pro-life', why are you so focused on the death of the UN born, when you could be focusing on the LIVES of the born?

See, that part always confuses me - you are all worried about ending potential, but you couldn't seem to give a tinker's damn about the actual children, who are already here, and for whom LIFE really sucks. You know - the abandoned, abused, degraded, exploited, ignored, malnourished, molested, and unloved ones. When are you going to worry about them?

The SCPL are far more interested in seeing that women have fewer options, than they are in 'saving the lives of children'. The SCPL want women to gestate for its conveience - children are extraneous to the agenda.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#324893 May 12, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>If you consider yourself 'pro-life', why are you so focused on the death of the UN born, when you could be focusing on the LIVES of the born?
See, that part always confuses me - you are all worried about ending potential, but you couldn't seem to give a tinker's damn about the actual children, who are already here, and for whom LIFE really sucks. You know - the abandoned, abused, degraded, exploited, ignored, malnourished, molested, and unloved ones. When are you going to worry about them?
The SCPL are far more interested in seeing that women have fewer options, than they are in 'saving the lives of children'. The SCPL want women to gestate for its conveience - children are extraneous to the agenda.
I suppose they find ratification in playing the proverbial "numbers game." Until now, I've been alluding to the more than 130,000 kids in foster care in the U.S. Well, while my statement isn't wrong, it's quite inaccurate as of 2012. There were over 399,500 kids in foster care int he U.S. as of the end of FY 2012, and an estimated 3.4 MILLION referrals of maltreatment of approximately 6.3 MILLION children, were made to child protective agencies.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/...

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/...

All I have is one question for all these, self-appointed, pro-lifers; why aren't they writing their elected officials; starting petitions; passing around bumper stickers; buying special license plates; marching for the adoption of these kids, including, but not limited to, lobbying for rehabilitation of their abusive parents, as much as they do for the unborn?????

These kids are, for all practical purposes, alive, but dead inside. Unlike the unborn, they're citizens WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS, and have more right to "life" than the unborn, because the unborn has no rights protected by the constitution.

I challenge ANY pro-lifer, to provide empirical proof of their involvement in making life for any of these kids better, to the same extent they campaign to stop abortion.

And please, do notice the qualifying phrase, empirical proof. That does not mean "I do this; I do that." Prove it; don't just say it.

TIA

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324894 May 12, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose they find ratification in playing the proverbial "numbers game." Until now, I've been alluding to the more than 130,000 kids in foster care in the U.S. Well, while my statement isn't wrong, it's quite inaccurate as of 2012. There were over 399,500 kids in foster care int he U.S. as of the end of FY 2012, and an estimated 3.4 MILLION referrals of maltreatment of approximately 6.3 MILLION children, were made to child protective agencies.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/...
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/...
All I have is one question for all these, self-appointed, pro-lifers; why aren't they writing their elected officials; starting petitions; passing around bumper stickers; buying special license plates; marching for the adoption of these kids, including, but not limited to, lobbying for rehabilitation of their abusive parents, as much as they do for the unborn?????
These kids are, for all practical purposes, alive, but dead inside. Unlike the unborn, they're citizens WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS, and have more right to "life" than the unborn, because the unborn has no rights protected by the constitution.
I challenge ANY pro-lifer, to provide empirical proof of their involvement in making life for any of these kids better, to the same extent they campaign to stop abortion.
And please, do notice the qualifying phrase, empirical proof. That does not mean "I do this; I do that." Prove it; don't just say it.
TIA
They're way more interested in the 'numbers' of women who decline gestation via abortion... presumably because we take our pursuit of happiness out of their purview.

They're not even remotely interested in the numbers of women who DO gestate - willingly - because we don't flip the script, I suppose......but our numbers are MUCH higher than the numbers of women who abort for reasons of which the SCPL disapprove.

They never EVER mention the women for whom gestation turned out to be a mistake, either.

Do they?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324895 May 12, 2014
Anita Mandelay wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a tad different advice than saying keep it in your pants if the woman says she's not ready to carry a pregnancy. You change advice at the drop of a hat.
<quoted text>
Might be alright for you frigid geezer but I want the real thing. I want the ol' sauseeg. And I want it long, hard and often.
<quoted text>
It was to men. And it sucked. Your latest advice I can live with however. Fluck away boys !
<quoted text>
Hey it's the internet, you can be 39 if you want granny. Even 29. Go for it.
Alright, I can see someone perhaps lying about their age, but don't you think you're going a bit overboard in trying to convey yourself on the 'young' side? I mean, it is the internet, you can be 29, 39, 49, 59, heck... 69, 79...

But to try and pass yourself of as 9? You could be. Your Mommy must of helped you out with the spelling, and the sexual context of your comment. You want the "ol' sauseeg, and you want it long, hard and often? Chip off the ole block, eh? If that doesn't scream desperate, I don't know what does. Probably a family trait.

I can guess why you're so desperate. Well.... not really a guess, more like a fer sure. You should seek counselling for your low self-esteem. Often people that think about something a lot, are the ones that don't have a lot of what they're thinking about.(your case never, unless you run out of crack, and only then, a fellow crack head may help you out if they're that desperate)

Good luck to you. God bless, and stay strong, you adorable cutie you.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324896 May 12, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>If you consider yourself 'pro-life', why are you so focused on the death of the UN born, when you could be focusing on the LIVES of the born?
See, that part always confuses me - you are all worried about ending potential, but you couldn't seem to give a tinker's damn about the actual children, who are already here, and for whom LIFE really sucks. You know - the abandoned, abused, degraded, exploited, ignored, malnourished, molested, and unloved ones. When are you going to worry about them?
.
Well, most know about my opinion on that. I think that they're fighting for the rights of ones that don't have it yet. Once a baby is born, they have the same rights as everyone else. If they're assaulted, abused, neglected, etc. then the people responsible should face the consequences of their actions. I get that a baby can't tell, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be secure in their surroundings, and have their basic needs met, and people that are witness to that happening, should go to the authorities. They have rights after they're born.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324897 May 12, 2014
They don't have rights before they're born, and that's what the PL are fighting for.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324898 May 12, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
They don't have rights before they're born, and that's what the PL are fighting for.
They don't have rights before they're born, because those rights would necessarily come at the expense of the women carrying them....so in REALITY the SCPL are fighting for the other things that I mentioned in that post - whether they care to realize, and/ or admit it, or not.

They may not LIKE it that they're fighting for horrible circumstances to continue, or occur - but they're doing it anyway.

Rights for fetuses are counter-productive.
Common Sense

New York, NY

#324900 May 12, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just clarified what my motivation was and is. I'm glad we agree.
<quoted text>
I don't but the government does. And they already do protect post-viability fetuses.
<quoted text>
No they don't dumbbell. So stop citing personal autonomy rights as something that cannot be restricted.
<quoted text>
That's not motivation, dumbbell. That's an action. What motivated them to take such action ?
<quoted text>
The state is only allowed to REGULATE not proscribe abortion after the first trimester in the interest of the woman's health, dumbbell. That is, they can dictate the "requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like."
On the other hand, dumbbell, the right to PROSCRIBE abortion post-viability stems from the state's interest in protecting fetal life.
"If the State is interested in PROTECTING FETAL LIFE after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother"
It's right there in RvW. Look it up.
So it seems that the government is already controlling their choices, and thus as you said, controlling them.
<APPLAUSE!!> Great post.

I note for the record that cpeter chose not to respond. Any wonder ?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#324901 May 12, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical people is to help people who are sick get better.
The word you are looking for is infanticide
No matter how you may want to redefine the meaning of words and terms, abortion is a medical treatment, being a medical procedure. That's a fact. Abortion isn't infanticide, also a fact, since fetuses aren't infants. Infants are born. You are allowed to your histrionics, but they have no bearing on reality.
Common Sense

New York, NY

#324902 May 12, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nice try pinhead. Not going to work.
Go crawl back to mommy's basement.
Not going to work ? Work for what ? There's nothing to "work". You said it. It's a matter of Topix record.
Sex for procreation is "not pleasurable" you said. Not only just not pleasurable, but not pleasurable AT ALL. Do you think we need to see you admit it?

It's not going to work he says.
What a buffoon.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324903 May 12, 2014
Infanticide is the killing of born babies. So, once again, your ignorance fails you.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical people is to help people who are sick get better.
The word you are looking for is infanticide

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#324905 May 12, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Infanticide is the killing of born babies. So, once again, your ignorance fails you.
<quoted text>
That person can't argue his point using facts. How's it going, cpeter?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324906 May 12, 2014
There's a freaking HUGE difference between the two; immense physiological and biochemical changes occur during birth. There's also that little matter of the fetus leeching off the woman--and needing her permission to do so.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between a born and unborn human being except for the environment in which the baby lives
Murder is murder

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324907 May 12, 2014
If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, he don't know it...:)

Everything's fine here. How's by you?
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That person can't argue his point using facts. How's it going, cpeter?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#324908 May 12, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between a born and unborn human being except for the environment in which the baby lives
Murder is murder
No matter how many times you repeated it, you're just plain wrong. As you have been informed, words have meanings. Learn them, friend. Anyway, you have a right to your opinion and no right to force any woman to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't wish to do so. Poor little you :'(

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#324909 May 12, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, he don't know it...:)
Everything's fine here. How's by you?
<quoted text>
Doing well. Just getting tired of the daily dust storm out here. Ha.
Anita Mandelay

AOL

#324910 May 13, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Alright, I can see someone perhaps lying about their age, but don't you think you're going a bit overboard in trying to convey yourself on the 'young' side? I mean, it is the internet, you can be 29, 39, 49, 59, heck... 69, 79...
But to try and pass yourself of as 9? You could be. Your Mommy must of helped you out with the spelling, and the sexual context of your comment. You want the "ol' sauseeg, and you want it long, hard and often? Chip off the ole block, eh? If that doesn't scream desperate, I don't know what does. Probably a family trait.
I can guess why you're so desperate. Well.... not really a guess, more like a fer sure. You should seek counselling for your low self-esteem. Often people that think about something a lot, are the ones that don't have a lot of what they're thinking about.(your case never, unless you run out of crack, and only then, a fellow crack head may help you out if they're that desperate)
Good luck to you. God bless, and stay strong, you adorable cutie you.
So, I see that a liberated, fun loving, sexually active woman makes you uncomfortable, is that it ? Not unusual. Did you see that other old lady poster who was so uncomfortable with what I was saying that she couldn't even accept the fact that I was a woman at all ? If I thought that way I had to be a man, according to her. And did you see her lamebrain advice to men ? Keep it in your pants unless a woman says she is ready to carry a pregnancy to term ? Can you imagine that ? Relegating all woman to going to bed frustrated or using a power tool unless they were willing to carry a pregnancy to term. She finally saw the stupidity of her advice and changed it to "as long as you tell the man up front that you you will abort if you become pregnant then he can make an informed decision regarding whether or not he wants to dip his noodle." Much better. That old crow needs to think before dispensing such stupid advice.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324911 May 13, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This is downright skrewy but I understand that is what you hang on to.
"Downright skrewy"? That only the morality held by a pregnant woman, concerning her pregnancy, is relevant to her pregnancy, and what she decides to do about it?

Ain't NOTHIN' screwy about that.

If you're 'hanging on' to the idea that YOUR conscience and YOUR convenience are more important to her pregnancy than her own?

Now that's freakin' screwy, hon.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324912 May 13, 2014
Anita Mandelay wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I see that a liberated, fun loving, sexually active woman makes you uncomfortable, is that it ? Not unusual. Did you see that other old lady poster who was so uncomfortable with what I was saying that she couldn't even accept the fact that I was a woman at all ? If I thought that way I had to be a man, according to her. And did you see her lamebrain advice to men ? Keep it in your pants unless a woman says she is ready to carry a pregnancy to term ? Can you imagine that ? Relegating all woman to going to bed frustrated or using a power tool unless they were willing to carry a pregnancy to term. She finally saw the stupidity of her advice and changed it to "as long as you tell the man up front that you you will abort if you become pregnant then he can make an informed decision regarding whether or not he wants to dip his noodle." Much better. That old crow needs to think before dispensing such stupid advice.
Good morning, fella.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#324913 May 13, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
There is no difference between a born and unborn human being except for the environment in which the baby lives
And the environment in which it lives IS the ultimate difference. The unborn can't pee for itself; can't take a crap for itself; can't breathe for itself.

Yes, of course; there is no difference between a "born and unborn human being." There's also no difference between a tadpole and a frog.
SevenTee wrote:
Murder is murder
"The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"

Go on with your whine chicken little.

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) 2 min RoxLo 1,497,349
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 53 min Science Needs Logic 10,950
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite 2 hr LongPhartz 95
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr DownPharrts 32,749
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Hedonist Heretic 258,481
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Feb 15 Jhuerta 287
How my search of $450000 dollars became real. Feb 14 Kesby Karen 1
More from around the web