Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311875 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.

Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325771 Jul 10, 2014
godless by choice wrote:
"Common Sense"
It's not easy at all. In fact it would be the ultimate in selfish, self absorbed arrogance to believe that it would be acceptable to simply not have an abortion yourself while human lives around you are still subject to legal termination.
During the period of slavery it would have been selfish louts like you who would have said " Slavery is wrong? Well then don't own one. See how easy that is ?"
Are you also a moron by choice ?

i"m not a moron,not to sure about you,why do all the anti choicers confuse slavery with abortion?
I'm not comparing or confusing slavery with abortion at all. Merely the idiotic and selfish mindset that says even if you think something is wrong and it is legally occurring all around you, you should not attempt to do anything about it, but simply be satisfied and content in the knowledge that you are not doing it yourself.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325772 Jul 10, 2014
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Non-sense. I also think stealing is wrong. With your logic I would also have to agree that it should be legal to steal.
Exactly. Better yet, why have ANY laws at all ??? Don't make anything illegal. Just live by the creed of the mindless --if you think something is wrong, just don't do it yourself. Simple as that.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#325773 Jul 10, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Even if we accept your idea, nobody is required to be selfless,
Of course they're not. Just as if the murder of the born was legal, or slavery was legal or human trafficking was legal, no one would be required to do anything about it. Your behavior would simply be driven by your own moral compass. There are those who would not accept the status quo such as that but who would try to right it. Others, like you, would be snug as a self absorbed bug in a rug.
And it's still arrogant to presume women should all act selflessly by your definition.
<quoted text>
MY definition ? I never defined it. I just gave an example of something that was the epitome of selflessness. And I was going by Webster's definition.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#325774 Jul 10, 2014
Your concern over a fetus does not override the woman's RIGHT not to gestate it. You can think it's selfish, who cares?

Slaves aren't living in other peoples' bodies; there's no comparison.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they're not. Just as if the murder of the born was legal, or slavery was legal or human trafficking was legal, no one would be required to do anything about it. Your behavior would simply be driven by your own moral compass. There are those who would not accept the status quo such as that but who would try to right it. Others, like you, would be snug as a self absorbed bug in a rug.
<quoted text>
MY definition ? I never defined it. I just gave an example of something that was the epitome of selflessness. And I was going by Webster's definition.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#325775 Jul 10, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Your concern over a fetus does not override the woman's RIGHT not to gestate it. You can think it's selfish, who cares?
Slaves aren't living in other peoples' bodies; there's no comparison.
<quoted text>
All animals kar for thr young.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#325776 Jul 10, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Better yet, why have ANY laws at all ??? Don't make anything illegal. Just live by the creed of the mindless --if you think something is wrong, just don't do it yourself. Simple as that.
Qu bonito Jsus
katie

Kent, WA

#325777 Jul 11, 2014
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
All animals kar for thr young.
You think all animals care for their young?

"Filial cannibalism occurs when an adult individual of a species consumes all or part of the young of its own species or immediate offspring. Filial cannibalism occurs in many animal species ranging from mammals to insects, and is especially prevalent in various species of fish. Although not much is known regarding the exact purposes of filial cannibalism, it is understood that it may have important evolutionary and ecological implications for some species, and is an important source of mortality for various species."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibali...

"First-time parents don't plan to kill their chicks. Instead they panic when the conditions inside the nest change (i.e. eggs hatch). I've watched some first time parents peck at and toss around the newly hatch chicks. They appear to be unsure of what they are supposed to do with the chick but they know something needs to be done. Some peck at the chicks and accidentally kill them, and then toss them or sit on them. Others will throw the chicks from the nest as if they were already dead. Other parents brood their young but never feed them even after several days."
http://www.finchniche.com/features_abandoned....

A list of animals that eat their young includes wolves and polar bears... pics are included on Bing, but not posted here.
http://voices.yahoo.com/animals-eat-their-own...
katie

Kent, WA

#325778 Jul 11, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not comparing or confusing slavery with abortion at all. Merely the idiotic and selfish mindset that says even if you think something is wrong and it is legally occurring all around you, you should not attempt to do anything about it, but simply be satisfied and content in the knowledge that you are not doing it yourself.
Even if you're not "comparing or confusing slavery with abortion at all," your attempts to "right the wrongs of abortion" would effectively enslave women to their reproductive systems for a good 30-40yrs of their lives month after month after month. My moral compass says that's the worst (most selfish) option because I would not ever know what drove a girl/woman to terminate her unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy.

Your perspective is not the only one, but when it is being legislated as such, everyone is affected. The effects (if you go by other countries who've recently criminalized abortion) would be disastrous on families first, society second. Mothers in those countries have died or been imprisoned for illegally terminating pregnancy or died for lack of legal, monitored terminations.

“Clever words”

Since: Sep 09

constellate

#325779 Jul 11, 2014
Go get'em Katie! GF, you rock.

I want to revisit the question that is always on JM's alleged mind. Do PC'ers limit choice by advocating a cut-off time frame (viability).

This has been asked, answered by a few, and yet continues to come up.

When viability has been reached and there is no danger to the gestating woman or some horrible fetal abnormality - the momma ship has sailed.

I fail to see how anyone with a lick of common sense can not understand the difference between viable and a cluster of forming cells that may or may not come to term.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#325782 Jul 11, 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...
You arguing semantics. Technically your right the government can't "force" someone to not blow up a building, kill someone, or jay walk. So yes your right they can't "force" you. Your definition of forcing someone to do something is very limited, next to impossible. I guess you only think people are forced to do things when they are physically moved by another person against their will. If someone tells me the government forces you to pay taxes I understand what they mean. I'm not going to sit there and argue with them over how they define force. Many words are subjective and you are going to slow down every conversation you ever have if you don't try and understand what is really meant by someone your talking to. Deadbeat dad's are encouraged to pay child support otherwise they can face jail time. Now not every state has the same laws but you can be severely punished for not taking care of your kids.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#325783 Jul 11, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's certainly okay for a woman to terminate a pregnancy or any other unwanted medical condition; there is no obligation to gestate an unwanted fetus.
The DOI doesn't have a face. Recognizing it for what it is, a political screed meant to inform England of our intentions as well as gain support from other European countries, is not defaming it. It was never meant to be a ruling document. BTW--At the time the DOI was approved, "equality" extended to white men--not slaves, women, native americans, etc. Or fetuses, since abortion was legal.
<quoted text>
In other words you don't believe in equality, fairness, social justice, and non-discrimination. You think it's ok to kill homo sapiens based on the fact that they are seen as inconvenient. Your small government pro-discrimnation assault on equality is quite evil.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325784 Jul 11, 2014
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Deadbeat dad's are encouraged to pay child support otherwise they can face jail time. Now not every state has the same laws but you can be severely punished for not taking care of your kids.
Incarceration for failure to pay child support would violate the 6th Amendment, if paying child support would be an encouragement.

Incarceration is a sanction for contempt of a court order. A court order is NOT an encouragement. Otherwise it would be called a "Court Encouragement."

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#325785 Jul 11, 2014
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words you don't believe in equality, fairness, social justice, and non-discrimination. You think it's ok to kill homo sapiens based on the fact that they are seen as inconvenient. Your small government pro-discrimnation assault on equality is quite evil.
Look who's talking about arguing semantics!!

Abortion is not an assault on equality, Mike. Abortion is merely a tool by which equality is achieved. Women have choices regarding their ability to reproduce, in all aspects. They can use birth control, of any kind, as much as they can carry a pregnancy to term. Or they cannot.

The equality is not in whether a woman uses birth control, or aborts. The equality is in that women can choose what best suits them. That's not only fair, just, and convenient, but it is also the law.

There's no discrimination involved either.
katie

Kent, WA

#325786 Jul 11, 2014
Junket wrote:
Go get'em Katie! GF, you rock.
I want to revisit the question that is always on JM's alleged mind. Do PC'ers limit choice by advocating a cut-off time frame (viability).
This has been asked, answered by a few, and yet continues to come up.
When viability has been reached and there is no danger to the gestating woman or some horrible fetal abnormality - the momma ship has sailed.
I fail to see how anyone with a lick of common sense can not understand the difference between viable and a cluster of forming cells that may or may not come to term.
Hi AJ :)

For some reason, my first response isn't showing. PCers don't limit choice by advocating restrictions at viability, imo.

Miss you! xoxo

“Clever words”

Since: Sep 09

constellate

#325787 Jul 11, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AJ :)
For some reason, my first response isn't showing. PCers don't limit choice by advocating restrictions at viability, imo.
Miss you! xoxo
Katie! I guess I'm not a bona-fide PC'er. What does that make me? Anti-choice? Oh my god, I'm morphing into JM. I thought we were friends!{runs away crying with the horror of it all.}

xoxoxo
katie

Kent, WA

#325788 Jul 11, 2014
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie! I guess I'm not a bona-fide PC'er. What does that make me? Anti-choice? Oh my god, I'm morphing into JM. I thought we were friends!{runs away crying with the horror of it all.}
xoxoxo
LOL!

That's what JM wants you to believe. Imo, you're not AC either. JM seems to think agreeing with the restrictions at viability in Roe v Wade makes PC as AC as she is. That's hogwash far as I'm concerned. She thinks we're inconsistent, I think she lacks ability to think things through. My other post said basically the same, but better. Have nfi why it didn't show, though.

<pats bench, scoots over>
Here... want some ice cream?

“Clever words”

Since: Sep 09

constellate

#325789 Jul 11, 2014
Ice cream would be good, Katie! May I have vanilla with a little caramel sauce, no nuts? Or just plain vanilla. Actually a hot fudge sundae would be nice. Who is paying? Am I paying? If you are paying I want a banana split with all the toppings.

Later can we go to a movie? Are you paying? If that is the case, I want popcorn (you bet, buttered and assaulted) and a super duper sized soda. Action films are nice, but I like romantic comedies the best - just sayin...

**********
Whatever you posted earlier is caught in the "twilight zone". I dislike when that happens, but I've learned it was not meant to be.

Dr. Spin (JM) when she shows up (which she will eventually), will pick ferociously at our (or at least my) posts. Sometimes I just speed read past her "blather". I'm the self-proclaimed something or an other - I forget - it was JM's post and not noteworthy.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#325790 Jul 11, 2014
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but physians & sintists kannot mak a baby.
Th y li.
Nvr trust anyon.
Nvr put objkts in yourself. Anything kan hurt you.
Okay buddy? I have no idea what side you're even on, IF you're even on one. Now I don't usually 'correct' people when they make mistakes, as it is usually pretty easy to decipher the intent, heck, even I do if I'm not paying too much attention, but dude/dudette, you really need to go away. Your posts are really frustrating, and they don't make any sense.

Go 'text' talk with people that can understand you.

Whatever side you're on, you're not doing 'that' side any justice. If anything, you're giving the other side ammo.

Idiot

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#325792 Jul 11, 2014
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
It bgins whn th gg is frtiliz by th sprm.
Two humans unit to mak a baby.
Problms lik topic prgnanis r probably from taking th pill.
Jsus knw you bfor you wr born.
dumb f*ck

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#325793 Jul 11, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Learn to spell, moron. You're not texting.
<quoted text>
I know, right? Did I not call that or what??!!!

I pride myself on usually being able to put it together, and see the whole picture. I don't knit pick what I think is the obvious, but OMG,...... OMG!

I wish that person would just go away, they're like an accident you can't help but slow down, and look at. AHHHHHH

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) 8 min Grey Ghost 1,432,296
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 257,124
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr donaldtrump 10,099
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 22 hr Les Miles 32,402
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Sep 18 Go Blue Forever 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 10 yess 201,881
News UCLA Basketball: Grad Transfer Octeus to Bruins (Jun '14) Aug 31 Trojan 2
More from around the web