Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314012 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325488 Jun 18, 2014
Science doesn't know when "human life" begins because that's a philosophical question. At what point does the fetus become a human being?

Where is the legal basis for forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will? The uterus is HERS; she decides if it will be used for gestation or not.

Abortion is not murder; even when it was illegal it wasn't considered murder.
Barry wrote:
The ruling in Roe vs. Wade​ was set on a pretty shaky foundation, the false assumption that science and medicine "don't know" when human life begins so that makes it OK to do the opposite of erring on the side of caution and just say "Ah fuck it, go ahead and kill off the fetus or embryo since we don't know if it meets our definition of being alive or not." I cannot think of another instance in jurisprudence or everyday life in which it's anywhere near responsible to answer the question "Can I kill it?" before you first answer the question "What is it?" In any case there has long been a scientific and medical consensus that life begins at conception as any embryology textbook will tell you and that the embryo and then fetus are in no way a mere "part" of the woman's body like her hair or arms (thus "bodily autonomy" is irrelevant since we're talking about a second human being), thus Roe vs. Wade is based on about as solid a foundation as the Dred Scott case, in other words it rests on a pile of crap.
​
​What is murder? Deliberate homicide without an exculpatory factor such as self defense or the defense of the lives of those around us. In other words it's morally acceptable to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you but it's not OK to go and shoot an unarmed person walking down the street. Accidentally killing someone isn't murder since it is accidental, thus it is manslaughter. What is abortion? Unless the woman's very life is at stake (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy) it is deliberate homicide without an exculpatory factor such as self defense or the defense of the lives of those around us. Legally speaking abortion is legal, albeit something that was made legal by judicial fiat based on a misreading of science and medicine. Morally speaking abortion is murder.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#325490 Jun 18, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
The value of life in dollars. How much would you be willing to bribe a woman not to follow through with an abortion?
Years ago, I asked another poster who happened to be Catholic and based her AC position on her religion if the Catholic church should offer every woman who wanted an abortion one million dollars not to. She said, "NO! Then everyone would be having babies!"
lol -- wouldn't want that!
No woman wants an abortion.
No woman wants to b bothr .
Ask for hr han in marriag if
you lik hr & tak kar of hr.

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#325491 Jun 18, 2014
"SevenTee" brayed like ass
Your hatred of women is disgusting.

I believe being anti choice shows a bigger a hatred of women.....esad

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325492 Jun 19, 2014
The same people advocating mother's murder their innocent unborn babies are the people advocating the radical redefinition of marriage without the consent of the governed.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325493 Jun 19, 2014
Barry wrote:
The ruling in Roe vs. Wade&#8203; was set on a pretty shaky foundation, the false assumption that science and medicine "don't know" when human life begins so that makes it OK to do the opposite of erring on the side of caution and just say "Ah fuck it, go ahead and kill off the fetus or embryo since we don't know if it meets our definition of being alive or not." I cannot think of another instance in jurisprudence or everyday life in which it's anywhere near responsible to answer the question "Can I kill it?" before you first answer the question "What is it?" In any case there has long been a scientific and medical consensus that life begins at conception as any embryology textbook will tell you and that the embryo and then fetus are in no way a mere "part" of the woman's body like her hair or arms (thus "bodily autonomy" is irrelevant since we're talking about a second human being), thus Roe vs. Wade is based on about as solid a foundation as the Dred Scott case, in other words it rests on a pile of crap.
Baloney. The Court's job was not to decide when life begins, since that was not the issue before the Court. Further, with regard to the question of when life begins, it was documented in the opinion that "those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology [were] unable to arrive at any consensus[.]" Unless you're suggesting the Court needed to consider the possibility that in some uncertain future some unknown, and perhaps unborn physician would be able to precisely demarcate the precise moment of conception, so as to validate the contention that life begins at conception, the Court did its job, and did it on SOLID foundation. There was, and there still is, no need to define what it is before the decision of killing it is made. The 14th Amendment is clear an unambiguous. The unborn IS NOT a person. Your argument fails.
Barry wrote:
&#8203;
&#8203;What is murder? Deliberate homicide without an exculpatory factor such as self defense or the defense of the lives of those around us. In other words it's morally acceptable to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you but it's not OK to go and shoot an unarmed person walking down the street. Accidentally killing someone isn't murder since it is accidental, thus it is manslaughter. What is abortion? Unless the woman's very life is at stake (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy) it is deliberate homicide without an exculpatory factor such as self defense or the defense of the lives of those around us. Legally speaking abortion is legal, albeit something that was made legal by judicial fiat based on a misreading of science and medicine. Morally speaking abortion is murder.
There needs to be no exculpatory factor, such as "self-defense" (although it could be argued that a woman whose pregnancy threatens her life, without limitation to her physiological ability to exist, is acting in "self-defense), or any other for that matter. A woman, in her fertile life, has an inherent right to decide whether she will bear children, whether it is via prevention of pregnancy, or abortion. A woman has the same right as a man to not be a parent. Only she has one additional choice in the matter, which the man does not have, because men don't gestate.

Whether abortion is deliberate killing is irrelevant. Morality is subjective and not one person can dictate whether any given subject is, or should be, some moral blanket under which everyone is covered. Catholics don't eat meat during lent. We Jews don't eat yeast during passover. Hasidic Jews believe Deuteronomy affords them the right to have a stubborn and rebellious child stoned to death. Are you going to say that the practice of religion is immoral because you disagree with some portions of such?

Morality is a question of common law, not a question of statutory and case law. The latter two define common law. Not the other way around.

Again, your argument fails.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325495 Jun 19, 2014
Kinda like the way they didn't ask the Klan before creating the 14th amendment.

You don't get to give permission concerning peoples' rights, nor is this a direct democracy.
Brian_G wrote:
The same people advocating mother's murder their innocent unborn babies are the people advocating the radical redefinition of marriage without the consent of the governed.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#325497 Jun 19, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Baloney. The Court's job was not to decide when life begins, since that was not the issue before the Court. Further, with regard to the question of when life begins, it was documented in the opinion that "those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology [were] unable to arrive at any consensus[.]" Unless you're suggesting the Court needed to consider the possibility that in some uncertain future some unknown, and perhaps unborn physician would be able to precisely demarcate the precise moment of conception, so as to validate the contention that life begins at conception, the Court did its job, and did it on SOLID foundation. There was, and there still is, no need to define what it is before the decision of killing it is made. The 14th Amendment is clear an unambiguous. The unborn IS NOT a person. Your argument fails.
<quoted text>
There needs to be no exculpatory factor, such as "self-defense" (although it could be argued that a woman whose pregnancy threatens her life, without limitation to her physiological ability to exist, is acting in "self-defense), or any other for that matter. A woman, in her fertile life, has an inherent right to decide whether she will bear children, whether it is via prevention of pregnancy, or abortion. A woman has the same right as a man to not be a parent. Only she has one additional choice in the matter, which the man does not have, because men don't gestate.
Whether abortion is deliberate killing is irrelevant. Morality is subjective and not one person can dictate whether any given subject is, or should be, some moral blanket under which everyone is covered. Catholics don't eat meat during lent. We Jews don't eat yeast during passover. Hasidic Jews believe Deuteronomy affords them the right to have a stubborn and rebellious child stoned to death. Are you going to say that the practice of religion is immoral because you disagree with some portions of such?
Morality is a question of common law, not a question of statutory and case law. The latter two define common law. Not the other way around.
Again, your argument fails.
You r ithr goo or you r ba .
In hvn or in hll. Your wish.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325498 Jun 19, 2014
F u cn red ths u can b a scrtry nd gt a gd jb!
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
You r ithr goo or you r ba .
In hvn or in hll. Your wish.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325499 Jun 20, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Kinda like the way they didn't ask the Klan before creating the 14th amendment. You don't get to give permission concerning peoples' rights, nor is this a direct democracy.
Nothing like creating the 14th Amendment which was voted by Congress and ratified by the states. Are you saying we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325500 Jun 20, 2014
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
You r ithr goo or you r ba .
In hvn or in hll. Your wish.
English, Spanish, or Hebrew. No gibberish please.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325501 Jun 20, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing like creating the 14th Amendment which was voted by Congress and ratified by the states. Are you saying we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage?
The only adversity to marriage is divorce and there is no need for a constitutional amendment to prevent divorce, because it's an inherent right we have to get the f*ck out of a relationship, in which we don't want to be. The Torah is clear that a man can write his wife a certificate of divorce if she becomes displeasing to him and send her from his house.

And that goes for women as well. In addition, even your Jeebus stated that divorce is appropriate in cases of marital unfaithfulness, although he berated the remaining of the law, given to us by G-d.

Jeebus was a fraud. He deserved the death he got for being a blaspheming ben zona.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#325502 Jun 20, 2014
Divorce isn't an adversity to the partner that keeps his vows, it maintains consent. When one partner doesn't honor a contract, that contract becomes void. Think things through, there's no evidence sex segregating marriage will help divorce, it could only cause more harm.

Don't let the kind of people who object to consent radically change marriage. Please.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325503 Jun 20, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Divorce isn't an adversity to the partner that keeps his vows
Are you then suggesting that forgiving an adulterer is an adversity?
Brian_G wrote:
it maintains consent.
How, exactly?
Brian_G wrote:
When one partner doesn't honor a contract, that contract becomes void.[/QUOTE
Bullshit. When a party to a contract does not honor the terms of that contract, the contract is breached, not void. A contract is void if it's entered under duress, or it's entered under fraud, or it's entered for an illegal enterprise, or it's entered outside the parameters of what we refer in my profession as the "Statute of Frauds." And there are remedies to force the non-honoring partner to "honor" the terms of the contract, or make the other party whole by paying damages in restitution. Quit pretending you know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Think things through, there's no evidence sex segregating marriage will help divorce, it could only cause more harm.
No one is saying sex segregating marriage will help divorce. I said advocating ONLY for marriage between one man and one woman IS sex segregation. It is also gender biased marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't let the kind of people who object to consent radically change marriage. Please.
Preaching to yourself Brian? You're the first who objects to consent, when the consenting parties are of the same sex. If you're going to advocate against marriage radically changing by "the kind of people who object to consent[,]" then go shoot yourself, because that's EXACTLY what you're advocating FOR, not against.
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#325504 Jun 20, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
The only adversity to marriage is divorce and there is no need for a constitutional amendment to prevent divorce, because it's an inherent right we have to get the f*ck out of a relationship, in which we don't want to be. The Torah is clear that a man can write his wife a certificate of divorce if she becomes displeasing to him and send her from his house.
And that goes for women as well. In addition, even your Jeebus stated that divorce is appropriate in cases of marital unfaithfulness, although he berated the remaining of the law, given to us by G-d.
Jeebus was a fraud. He deserved the death he got for being a blaspheming ben zona.
The Torah says that a woman can give a "get" to her husband???

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#325505 Jun 20, 2014
"SevenTee" brayed
Standing up for the most innocent babies (including female babies) is love for humanity.

nope,you are wannabe control freak,nothing more than a busybody.

You seem to be the hater here, why do you hate babies?

while I don't hate babies,i do hate delusional forced birthers who can't mind their own business....esad

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325506 Jun 20, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>The Torah says that a woman can give a "get" to her husband???
No grumps. I apologize for the lack of clarity on my post. Then again, you know better.

Be that as it may, I should have written it as Now-a-days that goes for the woman as well.

I'm sure you know there are a bunch of J.A.P.s filing for divorce in today's world.

Shabbat Shalom my friend.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325507 Jun 20, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
The only adversity to marriage is divorce and there is no need for a constitutional amendment to prevent divorce, because it's an inherent right we have to get the f*ck out of a relationship, in which we don't want to be. The Torah is clear that a man can write his wife a certificate of divorce if she becomes displeasing to him and send her from his house.
And that goes for women as well. In addition, even your Jeebus stated that divorce is appropriate in cases of marital unfaithfulness, although he berated the remaining of the law, given to us by G-d.
Jeebus was a fraud. He deserved the death he got for being a blaspheming ben zona.
Oh hey Porkchop! Um..can you cite your source regarding "Jesus stating that divorce is appropriate in cases of marital unfaithfulness" and also how he "berated the remaining of the law,given to us by G-d".

TIA
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325508 Jun 20, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
The value of life in dollars. How much would you be willing to bribe a woman not to follow through with an abortion?
Years ago, I asked another poster who happened to be Catholic and based her AC position on her religion if the Catholic church should offer every woman who wanted an abortion one million dollars not to. She said, "NO! Then everyone would be having babies!"
lol -- wouldn't want that!
STO,you come up with the silliest questions. Unrealistic and plain out dumb. You are a man lacking substance and it shows in your posts.

Question; How much are you willing to bride a mother or father not to follow thru with abusing or killing their newborn or 3 year old? How much are you willing to bribe a man not to rape and murder an innocent woman? Have you put out an ad in the newspaper or online advertising such? Why? Why not? You MUST be pro-that act if you don't.

FYNI(for you naive info),prolifers offer women help EVERYDAY to help her keep her child,which FYNI,is a huge reason why women and young girl feel forced to abort(no help from anyone or absentee father of the child or family),and yet,you do NOTHING to help her. You don't care about women or human life nor do your proabort friends who REFUSE financial or emotional help for women in need during their vunerable time of being faced with an unexpected pregnancy(most likely being left alone to fend for herself).
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325510 Jun 20, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
No grumps. I apologize for the lack of clarity on my post. Then again, you know better.
Be that as it may, I should have written it as Now-a-days that goes for the woman as well.
I'm sure you know there are a bunch of J.A.P.s filing for divorce in today's world.
Shabbat Shalom my friend.
LOL are you still Jewish? You haven't moved onto a new one recently,have you? I mean,no Jewish person pissed you off enough to reject it yet,have they?

Well,keep me posted when that happens,flow-boy.

Kthanks.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325511 Jun 20, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, aren't you selfish?
I was my mother's 7th delivery, back in the good old days where they made sure women felt comparatively little. In point of fact, mom was so exhausted that she slept through my delivery. She was always quite happy about that.
I'm sure she did have discomfort, but she accepted it because he wanted kids.
<quoted text>
You are in your 50's,correct? Back in those "good old days" they did NOTHING to make sure women felt "comparatively little".

Your mom "slept through her delivery"?

LMAO!!!!

You must have been small and slid out. Most women don't sleep through delivery sweetie.

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) 6 min VetnorsGate 1,524,032
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 11 hr MidPhartz 32,924
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 20 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr 20 DelucaKoehn 11
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 18 RNC 11,137
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Apr 8 Allycat1999 290
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar '17 BuzzerPhartss 2
More from around the web