Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 346492 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.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325839 Jul 14, 2014
Junket wrote:
No ice cream for David today. Sorry pal.
No harm. It was imaginary anyway.
Limiting discretionary abortion to 24 weeks has nothing to do with personal autonomy.
Of course it does. As long as that fetus resides in and is feeding off it's mother, whether it's viable or not, then it is ALL about that mother's personal autonomy. You may think restrictions after 24 weeks makes "common sense" sense, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that those restrictions are placed on a woman's autonomy.
As skin crawlingly despicable as she is, not a playa is the only one of you who is consistent in the support of a woman's full personal autonomy, at ANY time during pregnancy.
Why don't you ask her why she doesn't see the difference at viability, since as you said, any reasonable intelligent person would ?
It has plenty to do with common sense.
You can certainly pluck an example of a time limit from your intelligent head.
US citizens have more freedom than most, but there are still laws in place to protect us and protect us from others. A post-vi abortion might just as well be considered delivery of a premature neonate. The risks of that procedure far outweigh personal autonomy unless there are compelling factors.(Strictly my opinion.)
Restrictions after viability protect no one. The fetus is a non person with no rights remember ? A woman is still free to assess the risks and choose not to abort.

Your position in support of post viability restrictions recognizes that it is no longer where the fetus resides, but WHAT the fetus is that matters.
On that much we agree.

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#325840 Jul 14, 2014
David, I'm about to surrender. Label me a pro-abort, anti-choice, or whatever label you deem applicable.

But it may have crossed your mind that where the fetus resides, is indeed the crux of the matter. There is simply no way to ignore that fact and if she (whoever she is), wants to terminate her pregnancy, she will find a way. Legal and safe. Illegal and likely very unsafe.

(The imaginary ice cream was delicious, just sayin...)
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325841 Jul 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why the gay slur? What do you have against homosexuals?
Who do you think you are writing to? I've never posted on the threads you cited above.
Here : Find this. Listen to it. Then come back.

City Arts & Lectures

Science & Scripture: Inside the Vatican Observatory

George V. Coyne, SJ is director emeritus of the Vatican Observatory and currently holds the McDevitt chair in religious philosophy at Le Moyne College where he is teaching astronomy and developing a lecture series regarding the science and religion dialogue. He is an observational astronomer of international stature and has been widely recognized for promoting the dialogue between science and religion. He pioneered the series of conferences on "Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action" which bring together scientists and theologians from around the world. He has also been active in the continuing debate about the religious implications of scientific evolution. As a priest and an astronomer, Father Coyne bridges the worlds of faith and science. He appeared in conversation with Ryan Wyatt, director of the Morrison Planetarium and Science Visualization studio at the California Academy of Sciences on June 9, 2014.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325842 Jul 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, science can't disprove God. Religion is about morality and science can't help us judge morality.
Meant to reply to this ^^^ post.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325843 Jul 14, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
sASS claims to be paying $1000 a month for her insurance through her employer. I call BS. Why bother talking with someone so stupid and full of crap?
Killin' time. Also highlights the incredible ignorance out there. Sjm is a reminder of just how extreme the Regressives I wonder is she's related to Michelle Bachmann?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325844 Jul 14, 2014
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> My comment wasn't regarding two consenting adults having sex,it was regarding your statement that the pedophile gets off while terrorising his victim and that women who go through abortion don't get off. OBVIOUSLY the fate of her existing,developing child is in her hands if she has casual sex without caring if she gets pregnant or not. Which,btw would lead to her killing her child. Her orgasm is more important than anything to her. Sounds like a control freak.
If a woman doesn't want to create a child during sex,she would do EVERYTHING possible to avoid having sex while fertile. And like I pointed out,many today use birth control of all sorts so that leads to me the conclusion(after looking at our abortion stats)that she is selfish. There have been times that I had to abstain for the better good of not getting pregnant( like when I had upcoming surgery for instance). Todays proaborts don't care about self-control.
" OBVIOUSLY the fate of her existing,developing child is in her hands if she has casual sex without caring if she gets pregnant or not."

Well, if "existing developing child" means pregnancy, then she's pregnant, and any casual sex wouldn't change it whether she cares or not. Do you ever read your words before posting?

"My comment wasn't regarding two consenting adults having sex,it was regarding your statement that the pedophile gets off while terrorising his victim and that women who go through abortion don't get off."

They don't...unless they got pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. Ya know, abortion on the bucket list -- check it! Done!
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325845 Jul 14, 2014
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Uh no. I said that abortion was evil. YOU said that a child rapist was worse. I responded that BOTH were evil after YOU added in a question to me regarding if a Pedophile was in that group. I said ABSOLUTELY as in they are just as evil. I own what I write but let's not take things out of context.
A woman saying that she supports killing as choice (abortion) is a premeditated killer. When she ends up with a crisis pregnancy or one where she just can't be bothered,she ends up aborting. MANY of them are moms and they teach their children that abortion is acceptable as a choice.
""""" ""You think child rapists suffer? You think they are misled and scared and deceived and if they just had some help they'd stop?"""" """
I have no clue if a child rapist suffers. Maybe sometime after the rape he might. I don't know. I am sure his or her conscience kills them with guilt. No,I don't think that they are misled and scared and deived and if they had help they'd stop. I NEVER said that. I don't know the mind of a rapist. Sorry.
I do however,know the mind of MANY women who have aborted(friends,strangers alike who have shared their stories with ME and others). There was guilt from the very beginning. In an attempt to cover up ,they killed their conscience-temporarily and it came back to bite them.
There is no comparison. Women who have terminated a pregnancy are not evil. Child rapists are evil. No comparison. None. Zilch. Zero.

That you think there is a comparison is in no small part why I think you are nutty.

Terrorizing a toddler is the lowest of the low. Pure evil. And you think abortion ranks right up there with child rape. I just don't get it. Never will.

You seem to think you can separate the act from the actor. If that's the case, then 1. you'd have to believe women who have had abortions should be locked up right next to child rapists OR 2. child rapists deserve to walk freely in your community so they can share their stories with you and you can guilt them into changing their ways. Which is it?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325846 Jul 14, 2014
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't deliberately leave out "based on religious beliefs". I think that it works either way-with or without personal beliefs. Either way,the insurance companies cover what THEY want to. THAT was my point.
I don't know if I am not covered because of religious beliefs. What difference does it make as to the reason.
Pregnancy means "with child". It means that a woman has conceived her offspring whether in a dish or in her body. A woman going through IVF will wait for CONCEPTION and then,the process of carrying and nurturing her child once the new life enters her OR anothers body(surrogate).
Do me a favor and don't declare something a *fact* if it isn't. It's deceptive.
You want to force others to go against their religious beliefs and principles. You are discriminating and being intolerant.
"Pregnancy means "with child". It means that a woman has conceived her offspring whether in a dish or in her body."

It's not a pregnancy if the fertilized egg is in a dish. That's a fact. But you don't deal in facts. You deal in religion. Have your religious beliefs and principles. So long as those beliefs do not extend into other people's health care.

Answer this question -- just for fun: If a lab has successfully fertilized 10 eggs, would you tell the woman from whom those eggs were harvested that she had 10 pregnancies? Even though, in the biological sense of the word, she is not pregnant with any of them -- cuz they're , ya know, in a lab and not in her body?

lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325847 Jul 14, 2014
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Without fertilization there is no implantation. Fertilization in man only occurs when male and female gametes fuse, making it the first process resulting into birth. It is already alive before it is implanted. This has nothing to do with religion,nor pregnancy. It has to do with the beginning of a human life,as we know it. An ectopic pregnancy grows outside the uterus,it doesn't implant,is that a pregnancy?
Before the 70's conception was always considered when life begins. Now,"conception" no longer mean"fertilization.” It was redefined to mean implantation of a blastocyst on the uterine wall, typically occurring 1-2 weeks after fertilization. Now you tell me why was it changed,was it a scientific break through? There was no scientific evidence to validate the change,that I know of. Me thinks it was political.
"It is already alive before it is implanted."

And when it's frozen? What would you call that? Alive? Not alive? On "pause"?

"An ectopic pregnancy grows outside the uterus,it doesn't implant,is that a pregnancy?"

An ectopic pregnancy does implant. In the fallopian tube. Correct?

Don't know about the politics, but biology class taught me that fertilization is not a pregnancy. That pregnancy occurs at implantation. Otherwise the fertilized egg goes out with the monthly period. Never causing a pregnancy. And I've been told by posters on this thread, completely unbeknownst to the woman.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325848 Jul 14, 2014
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep,Biology is biology. Ethics is ethics. And politics is politics. Each is its separate issue.
The Defining “human” is easy based on the organism cellular genetic makeup. The argument can be made that at the moment of conception, the process is in place for the actualization of a human life. This is biology. An ectopic pregnancy,is still a pregnancy,outside the uterus. It grows,that's why it's so dangerous. I'm not arguing if abortion is right or wrong(ethics),or a women has a right to an abortion(politics).I'm arguing the process of pregnancy.
Always a pleasure to talk to you C.P.,have a good day.
" the process is in place for the actualization of a human life."

Agreed. But there are no guarantees that that human life will be actualized. It is indeed potential. But it sure as hell is not an infant.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#325849 Jul 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Advocating a mother kill her own unborn baby is always wrong unless her life is at stake or it was non consensual, even if your motives are good and you only want individuals to make their own private reproductive decisions. Abortion isn't contraception.
"Advocating a mother kill her own unborn baby is always wrong unless her life is at stake or it was non consensual..."

I'm guessing you mean "non consensual" as in the pregnancy was due to rape.

Why do you make an exception for rape?
katie

Kent, WA

#325850 Jul 14, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
No harm. It was imaginary anyway.
<quoted text>
Of course it does. As long as that fetus resides in and is feeding off it's mother, whether it's viable or not, then it is ALL about that mother's personal autonomy. You may think restrictions after 24 weeks makes "common sense" sense, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that those restrictions are placed on a woman's autonomy.
As skin crawlingly despicable as she is, not a playa is the only one of you who is consistent in the support of a woman's full personal autonomy, at ANY time during pregnancy.
Why don't you ask her why she doesn't see the difference at viability, since as you said, any reasonable intelligent person would ?
<quoted text>
Restrictions after viability protect no one. The fetus is a non person with no rights remember ? A woman is still free to assess the risks and choose not to abort.
Your position in support of post viability restrictions recognizes that it is no longer where the fetus resides, but WHAT the fetus is that matters.
On that much we agree.
It is logical to support women's bodily autonomy during her entire pregnancy, just as NAP and others have stated. Agreeing with restrictions after viability - per Roe v Wade - does not diminish the woman's full bodily autonomy. Because, as Roe v Wade states in plain English, states may limit induced abortion post viability if it chooses to do so, but pregnant woman retains her bodily autonomy and can induce abortion/labor post viability if her health/life is affected.

This is exactly where you, JM, and others fail to see nuance. It continues to be pointed out to you, court cases get dragged into postings, and still you want to insist agreeing with restrictions post viability is somehow on par with you despicable ACers doing anything and everything within your power to criminalize abortion while diminishing access to contraception.

I suggest you study up on those South American countries where abortion has recently been criminalized and see how well their women, families, and society is faring now.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325852 Jul 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Preventing suffering through abortion is different from killing a born human; for one thing, born humans have rights. But you and your ilk don't give a damn if a child suffers, or fights off death for a few years. The PLM motto is, "Once it's born, f**k it."
<quoted text>
A human loses his/her life in that abortion Peter,let us not forget this tiny little tibit okay? You don't get to decide WHO is worthy of living their life NOR who is *better off dead than suffering".

""""" But you and your ilk don't give a damn if a child suffers, or fights off death for a few years"""" "

So,again I ask you -Am I to assume that you are pro-euthansia? You seem to think that *I* don't give a damn if a child suffers or fights off death for a few years so can I assume that YOU *do* give a damn enough to end their misery? Mercy killing?

I wouldn't want to think that YOUR motto is what you claim mine is-"Once it's born, f**k it"

A newborn for instance,can't make a decision to end their life if they" are suffering or fighting off death" so should Mom step in and put them out of their misery ? You proaborts think that a child in the womb is better off aborted then to be unloved or unwanted by mom instead of adopting out,so it would seem rational to end a suffering childs life(in your sick world anyway).
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325853 Jul 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, drunkie, for admitting that without that birth certificate, you don't officially EXIST.
(next....)
:)
LOL what? You "don't exist" if you don't have a birth certificate? Then what dies in an abortion or miscarriage? Why do they offer a death certificate to a stillborn or aborted baby? Why do Doctors go in an operate on the unborn child if it doesn't even exist? Why do Dr's tell us the sex of our unborn child(who has a beating heart) if we don't exist in utero?
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325854 Jul 14, 2014
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you changing your tune again, dweebiekins? Aren't you one of the many anti-choicers whose favorite argument against abortion and birth control is that "life begins at conception?"
Keep this flippy flopping up, and we'll have to call you Sarah Palin.
Yes,life begins at conception. What does BIRTH have to do with conception?

Our due date is a guestimate. Many women give birth earlier and some past their due date.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325855 Jul 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
What's arrogant is deciding that pregnant women lose all rights to their own bodies because they happen to get pregnant.
<quoted text>
What's arrogant is deciding that pregnant women lose all rights to their own bodies after viability because RvW says so and MOST proaborts agree with it.

Which,like I pointed out a million times over,makes them as anti-choice as me.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325856 Jul 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It must be frigging sad to be illiterate.
YOU can define your pregnancy as you choose, but no one else's.
Thanks to IVF and sperm donation, two people no longer need to unite.
Ectopic pregnancies are the result of damage or malformation of the fallopian tubes. The only contraceptive even tangentially involved with EP's are IUD's, due to their physical function.
Jesus is a myth.
<quoted text>
"""Thanks to IVF and sperm donation, two people no longer need to unite"""" "

Oh yes they do sweetie. The woman and man will ALWAYS need to unite whether they make love or donate eggs or sperm in order to achieve it.
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325857 Jul 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Tell it to my ex-husband, who STILL has not paid but $68 of the $70,000 he STILL owes in child support, and has YET to spend a day in jail, or be denied the opportunity to work for UNREPORTED cash.........Force?
HAAAA
HAAAAAAHAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Nice try though.
""ex-husband" "

Why am I not surprised?

Question; Why do you try and force a man to become a father if he chooses not to? He had sex with you. Sex doesn't equate to fathering a child. He CLEARLY doesn't want to be a parent and in the proabort world,sex doesn't equate to having a child.

Are we being a tad bit hypocritical here? Smells like it to me.

(let's watch playa wiggle her way out of this one. Let's see her change the rules to suit her agenda).
Sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#325858 Jul 14, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, gee I guess that means that every deadbeat parent on earth is FORCED to pay child support........eh?
Face it, hon,'force' is not a factor in whether or not men pay their adjudicated child support, OR whether or not a woman gets a legal abortion.
You cannot force morality on people, regardless of the furgin law..........I wish you so-called 'pro-life' folks would FINALLY figure that out.
Next...
So what are you whinning about then? Leave your poor little ex-husband alone if you cannot "force morality on people". He doesn't want his children. He doesn't want to pay to support them. In fact, ALL women should stop harrassing their ex-husbands who are late with child support or don't pay at all OR don't show up for their allotted weekends with their children.

Oh wellllllllll!!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325859 Jul 14, 2014
Leeching off the woman's systems is exactly what a fetus does; pretending otherwise is about as constructive as presuming santa's going to hand you a million bucks and a happy ending. Pregnancy impacts the woman's body negatively; she and only she gets to decide if the risks and issues are worth the possible result.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a whole lot of hate for human life in that statement about leeching of a woman's body.
But that is what you Anti-Life, Pro Abortion haters are all about......death and destruction of humanity.
Do you by chance take medication for clinical depression?

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) 4 min Joy 1,786,245
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 23 hr Chosen Traveler 36,123
News Racers' Stark opting for NBA opportunity Jun 20 Opting phartse 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jun 10 hojo 12,419
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 5 Public Accommodation 201,480
do you need a loan (Sep '13) May 30 zan 5
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May '18 Go phartse 4