Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326808 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.

Spinning

Beverly, MA

#325025 May 15, 2014
The bottom line, if you do not like the idea of abortion, then don't get one.

The nice thing about choice is that you do not have to have an abortion for any reason.

Since this seems to be a rather divided controversy, liberal/conservative, here is something to think about:

If only liberals are evil enough to have an abortion, why are conservatives so freaked out about it?

If it all pans out as conservatives think, then only liberals will be reducing their numbers and conservatives can keep on breeding. Next thing you know and overwhelming majority of folks will be conservatives and everyone can be happy, right?

There, conservatives, just saved you a lot of time protesting at the abortion clinics.

You Are Welcome!
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325026 May 15, 2014
Spinning wrote:
The bottom line, if you do not like the idea of abortion, then don't get one.
The nice thing about choice is that you do not have to have an abortion for any reason.
Since this seems to be a rather divided controversy, liberal/conservative, here is something to think about:
If only liberals are evil enough to have an abortion, why are conservatives so freaked out about it?
If it all pans out as conservatives think, then only liberals will be reducing their numbers and conservatives can keep on breeding. Next thing you know and overwhelming majority of folks will be conservatives and everyone can be happy, right?
There, conservatives, just saved you a lot of time protesting at the abortion clinics.
You Are Welcome!
Born to Breed: An Interview With Quiverfull Walkaway Vyckie Garrison
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/06/27/...
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325027 May 15, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed Katie. In fact, in some states is also legal for abortion, past the point of viability, to be performed if the fetus is so horribly deformed that the mother believes it will not have a fruitful and enjoyable life.
Nice to see you again ;-)
Yes, you're right, there's that, too. Sometimes tests are very late in pregnancy and horribly malformed fetus may not be realized until past viability.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325028 May 15, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text> If I scare you, it's probably because ALL women, who don't ask your opinion before making reproductive decisions, scare you.
This should get your hackles ALL the way up......
"Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe campaigned promising to be a “brick wall” against the erosion of women’s reproductive rights – rights that were openly attacked by his opponent, attorney general and Christian crusader, Ken Cuccinelli. Monday, Governor McAuliffe announced he has taken the first step toward fulfilling that campaign promise, and restoring women’s rights in Virginia."
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/virginia...
Who said YOU scare me ?
Who are you ???

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#325029 May 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said YOU scare me ?
All women scare you. Our control over our own fertility terrifies you - and you want to do away with it accordingly.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>Who are you ???
A fertile, pro-choice woman, who disregards your opinion when making reproductive decisions, and relies on my own.

Who the hell are YOU to try and obligate women to gestate for your own ends?
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325030 May 15, 2014
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, IF what the op said was true. Therefore what the op said was NOT true.
What other poster ? What did he say ? What are you talking about ? What has any of this got to do with the fact that he said sex for procreation is not pleasurable AT ALL ?
Women are NOT expected to remain pregnant against their own best interests; including their very own lives.
That's fantastic. What does it have to do with what he said about sex being NOT PLEASURABLE when it is for procreation ?
But keep bringing it up and pointing out what the op said was not true. Thanks!
What other poster ? What did he say that was not true ? What are you talking about ?
Post again when you're sober.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325031 May 15, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text> All women scare you. Our control over our own fertility terrifies you - and you want to do away with it accordingly.
<quoted text> A fertile, pro-choice woman, who disregards your opinion when making reproductive decisions, and relies on my own.
Who the hell are YOU to try and obligate women to gestate for your own ends?
Never mind all that nonsensical bunk. I meant who are you and why did you respond for playa ?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325032 May 15, 2014
C.D., thanks for your arguments for euthanasia; I guess death is your thing.

I advocate adoption as the moral choice; abortion is immoral because it kills a human being.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325033 May 15, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Would it be fair to say you believe abortion in the case of rape or incest, or in the even the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, would not be an abortion for convenience, hence not "premeditated murder[?]" Would that be a fair statement?
No, those are also the murder of an innocent human being, but there are circumstances. It doesn't change the fact, at the end we're still dealing with a dead human being.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
If so, then please answer these questions:
1- Aren't all of the aforementioned examples of situations where a physician kills the fetus, with the consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian?
2- Aren't all of the aforementioned examples of legal medical procedures, performed with the consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian?
3- Is elective abortion, up to the point of viability, legal in the United States, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)?
4- Isn't it true that murder is defined as the "unlawful [emphasis added] and intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought[?]"
Murder doesn't just exist in the US, or where there are written laws.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
If my contention that you believe abortion in the case of rape, or incest, or in the even the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, isn't an abortion for convenience, hence not "premeditated murder[,]" is not a fair statement, please explain with specificity how do you define convenience and how does that definition apply when the end result of either is an abortion performed by a licensed physician, who is operating with the expressed consent of the mother or her duly appointed attorney in fact, or legal guardian.
Some abortions are more inconvenient than others; none are pretty.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Anyone who is successful in committing suicide, has not consented to life. Anyone who executes a living will that does not provide for life support when no hope of recovery from an adverse medical condition exists, or has executed a DNR, has not consented to life. Any human being who commits a capital crime, punishable by death, and pleads guilty to said crime, has not consented to life. Need I go on?
Please do, I'm waiting to get to the part about the very young unborn baby...

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Brian, I know you're operating on morality. But, whether you are utterly incapable, unwilling, or overburdened with pain, to admit, morality is not legislated.
Morality is the basis of law; Thou shalt not murder predates our civil code. Is brother/sister incest marriage legal in your state? In what way do you think morality and legislation have nothing in common? Don't our representatives represent our values?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325034 May 15, 2014
.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Civil rights are, and the unborn does not have any.
'The unborn has no civil rights' that's not liberal view, is it? Don't liberals believe in the civil right to live? What's up with that?

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Whether you believe civil rights are morality based or the unborn has, or should have them, is irrelevant. Civil rights are based on the overall good of society.
Civil rights are based on the good of the individual.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Many people hold homosexual sex to be immoral.
I don't, I've never written anything remotely like that. I condemn C.D. for writing: "people hold homosexual sex to be immoral", your love isn't immoral and tell them when they say that, that's untrue.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Yet, SCOTUS has held that when sex in any form and between consenting adults, including, but not limited to homosexual sex, is performed within the context of a reasonable expectation of privacy, such is legal, whether many may see any form of sex, other than vaginal intercourse (in the missionary position) as immoral. See, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
I don't hold such faith in our Supreme Court.

.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
It's far more immoral for you, or anyone, to validate morality by suggesting that anyone who thinks as you do, is more moral than anyone who disagrees with you. The undisputed facts are:
1- United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the protections it guarantees, are also an example of morality.
2- Abortion is legal, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
3- Roe v. Wade has been affirmed. See, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
4- Abortion, oral sex, anal sex, sodomy, homosexual sex, a woman taking oral contraceptives, are all protected under our constitutionally protected right to privacy, when a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. See, Roe; see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese and any person with a reasonable mind, can shoot more holes in it. I hope you have the dignity and integrity to respond to all points on my post, without cherry picking, backpedaling, or word twisting.
You're entitled to your morals; I'm entitled to defend mine.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#325035 May 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
What other poster ? What did he say ? What are you talking about ? What has any of this got to do with the fact that he said sex for procreation is not pleasurable AT ALL ?
<quoted text>
That's fantastic. What does it have to do with what he said about sex being NOT PLEASURABLE when it is for procreation ?
<quoted text>
What other poster ? What did he say that was not true ? What are you talking about ?
Post again when you're sober.
CD provided the link to that specific conversation more than once. You can find it if you're that interested in it. Do your own work. Have a nice day!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325037 May 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
C.D., thanks for your arguments for euthanasia; I guess death is your thing.
I advocate adoption as the moral choice; abortion is immoral because it kills a human being.
Brian, are you really this much of a p*ssy in real life?

I believe adoption is a choice as much as carrying a pregnancy to term is a choice and both are moral. I also believe that a woman's choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or abort, is hers to make and I have no room to judge her as immoral for exercising a choice not even G-d precludes her from exercising.

“Crybaby men are such a bore”

Since: Mar 14

The wild wild north

#325038 May 15, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Women will no choice but to put their lives in the hands of incompetent butchers ? They will be dragged their against their will ? Shocking.
Women will do what they must do. Women that can afford it will go to another state/country to have it done safely. The only women you will stop are the poor...happy? Now what do you intend to do about the wealthier?
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous. Are you a proponent of government control of people because they've made laws that restrict your ability to electively kill innocent human life ?
.
You are advocating that the government restrict women/girls right to free will, liberty, best interests, self assessment and freedom as you demand they be an incubator and a life support system against their will. What can the government do to you ya little coward that would be equal? You are real brave in the face of women because you enjoy riding skirt tails, typical of a coward.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. At least not where it involves the government doing what they're supposed to be doing, protecting life and liberty. In fact in those cases I welcome their interference.
You welcome it because it only effects women and you are a coward. A flaming coward that wants women/girls controlled and reduced to brainless incubators/life support systems against their will. Coward.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325039 May 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, those are also the murder of an innocent human being, but there are circumstances. It doesn't change the fact, at the end we're still dealing with a dead human being.
.

Baloney. There's killing and there's murder. Abortion, in any form, isn't murder, no matter how much you say it is. The sky isn't falling, chicken little.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Murder doesn't just exist in the US, or where there are written laws.
Really? Name one place where there are no written laws, yet someone can be convicted of murder.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Some abortions are more inconvenient than others; none are pretty.
Abortion isn't an inconvenience, except, perhaps, in Mississippi, and not for long.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please do, I'm waiting to get to the part about the very young unborn baby...
Then you're going to wait for a long time, because there are as many unborn babies as there are born fetuses.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Morality is the basis of law; Thou shalt not murder predates our civil code.
G-d murdered all male first born in Egypt. That also predates the 6th Commandment.
Brian_G wrote:
Is brother/sister incest marriage legal in your state?
Nope. But, not because it's immoral. Because of the potential for birth defects and leaches of society.
Brian_G wrote:
In what way do you think morality and legislation have nothing in common? Don't our representatives represent our values?
Our representatives represent every value, but for those of their constituents, unless there is a sizable $$ contribution, or the presumption of votes. Morality and legislation serve a parallel interest, but they are two different roads. Morality cannot be legislated. Lawrence v. Texas is a prime example of that.

When the legislature enacts laws that violate the constitution, at the behest of some group's definition of morality, especially when such definition isn't shared by everyone, it's usually as a result of some form of discrimination that creates a second class of citizen. And it's almost always deemed unconstitutional. Just like Proposition 8 in California. Just like in Loving v. Virginia, when the State of Virginia ruled illegal, based on their morality, for a white man to marry a black woman.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325040 May 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>'The unborn has no civil rights' that's not liberal view, is it? Don't liberals believe in the civil right to live? What's up with that?
What right to live? We have a right to not be deprived of life without due process. The unborn isn't a person in the eyes of the law and the constitution. That's not just the liberal view; that's also a conservative view, lest you forget who comprised the majority in SCOTUS, when Roe was decided.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Civil rights are based on the good of the individual.
This is the epitome of stupidity. The law is subjective in nature, but it serves an objective purpose. Don't be such an idiot.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't, I've never written anything remotely like that. I condemn C.D. for writing: "people hold homosexual sex to be immoral", your love isn't immoral and tell them when they say that, that's untrue.
Are you now going to stoop down to the same level of others and twist my words? I said MANY people hold homosexual sex to be immoral. Your quote is a gross misstatement. I didn't say you hold homosexual sex immoral. Unless, of course, you consider yourself one of the MANY, who do.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't hold such faith in our Supreme Court.
It's not a question of faith. It's a question of fact.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You're entitled to your morals; I'm entitled to defend mine.
Fortunately for me, my morals are in line with the law. Yours challenge the law. As Nixon said, "we are a nation of laws. No one is above the law.." Granted he was the first offender, but at least he didn't say "we are a nation of [morals]."

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325041 May 15, 2014
Of COURSE people with drug problems would be better off with a system where the drugs are monitored, sterile, and professionally dispensed.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. So you're saying that just because in the past some women made the misguided decision to put their lives in the hands of incompetent butchers, that women are therefore condemned to repeat the same mistake in perpetuity ? I happen to have a higher opinion of a woman's ability to make reasoned, logical decisions. Why do YOU think so little of women ?
<quoted text>
The reasons that some people turn to drugs will always exist regardless of whether or not it is legal or not. Does that mean we should make all drugs legal and provide safe, healthy, sterile venues and licensed physicians to administer such drugs upon request ? After all, it will result in far fewer deaths from overdoses and the use of unsafe equipment ?
You probably dance in the streets every time a drug addict overdoses or dies as a result of an infection caused by using non sterile equipment. Shameful.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325042 May 15, 2014
Fetuses have no legal identity, and yu cannot protect a woman from her own medical choices.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor should it be. But it SHOULD be the government's. That is their function, to protect life and liberty.
Are you also an idiot by choice ?
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#325043 May 15, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a motivation. That is an outcome.
<quoted text>
Wrong. I believe fetuses should be protected, PERIOD. Unless they pose a verified life threat.
Just as you believe human lives YOU believe are worthy of protection should be protected.
<quoted text>
Ridiculous. Pregnant women would be as free as anyone else. And cops would ONLY get involved to address someone caught performing an illegal medical procedure.
<quoted text>
As are you since you support RvW and have cited it as an acceptable compromise.
R you joking? It is jugmnt now...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325044 May 16, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Brian, are you really this much of a p*ssy in real life? I believe adoption is a choice as much as carrying a pregnancy to term is a choice and both are moral. I also believe that a woman's choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or abort, is hers to make and I have no room to judge her as immoral for exercising a choice not even G-d precludes her from exercising.
How do you justify a mother murdering her own unborn child for convenience?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#325045 May 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How do you justify a mother murdering her own unborn child for convenience?
How do YOU justify obligating her to gestate, for YOUR convenience?

Unless you're the one pregnant, you don't get to be the one 'justifying' anybody's abortion, fool. Women need to justify abortion like you'd need to justify cancer surgery, or the removal of a tapeworm - only to themselves.

Get the hell over yourself, you mewling hypocrite.

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) 45 min VetnorsGate 1,685,732
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 5 hr Mothra 12,085
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Long Dongluv 35,377
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jan 17 Sweet 293
News Horsechief commits to Pacific (Mar '06) Jan 4 NicePhartts 8
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Dec 24 Randy from Wooster 201,884
News Girl Charged After Sending Explicit Selfie: 'I'... Dec '17 Ink Pharted 4
More from around the web