Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311488 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.

STO

Vallejo, CA

#326412 Sep 1, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
See Pearl Jams post above and the reference "natural rights"
But in any case I'd like to see it in your words. Why does any innocent human life deserve
protection ?
<quoted text>
We're starting to repeat ourselves. Well, you are anyway.
<quoted text>
Sure they do. Humans exercise their free will and make decisions that violate the human, constitutional, civil, etc rights of other humans all the time. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it moral, nor does it mean we should make it legal. In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection.
"In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection."

Yet, here you are, a human, arguing that pregnant women are not worthy of protecting themselves from body damaging pregnancy that carries the possibility of death.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#326413 Sep 1, 2014
STO wrote:
Would you mind explaining exactly what your issue is with polygamy and same sex marriage?
You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?

Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?

.
STO wrote:
Neither affects you, so it's odd that's it is some kind of hand-wringing concern for you.
We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#326414 Sep 2, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?
Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?
.
<quoted text>We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.
You know, Brian, some of your earlier posts weren't bad.

This one is utter crap!
Okay, sentence one.
Can you please give evidence of exactly where there has been an increase in governmental spending for, "new entitlements for sex-segregated dependent beneficiaries?(I don't even know that the hell you mean by that!)
Sentence two, increased governmental debt, higher taxes, and "wasteful" spending occur no matter who's in office--it's simply a matter of perception as to where those tax dollars are spent.
Sentence three...okay, we'll leave it at that...
Sentence four, there is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
Are you able to provide a series of examples that have, with out a shadow of a doubt, shown a harmful side-effect(s) of children who're raised in same-sex households as opposed to their counterparts raised in opposite-sex households?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326415 Sep 2, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like the increased government spending new entitlements for sex segregated dependent beneficiaries will mean for every taxpayer? Like the effects of increased government debt, higher taxes and more wasteful spending brings to the economy?
I don't see how same sex marriage could cost a nickle more than traditional marriage.

If what you say is true, then dammit, nobody should get married.

I call bullshit
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Or the social consequences like "Free the baker!"? Or the effects on our children of changing curriculum so children of husband and wife couples are taught their relationship with their mother and father is no different from having to mothers or two fathers?
.
We've already defeated polygamy; now we'll defeat sex segregation in marriage because segregation is based on discrimination, prejudice and bigotry.
Discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry is what I'm hearing from you.

You think it's better to stigmatize a family that doesn't meet your moral standard. Better to make sure that kid feels less than his/her peers. Made to feel his/her parents are evil. Somehow I doubt that is a benefit to the child. Not sure what you're aiming at, here. You want little Johnny to suck it up and take the bullying because he has two moms? You don't think the school should step in to explain it's not right to pick on kids because they don't have a mom and dad at home? Just let'em get teased and tormented and give the bigots a pat on the back -- "Good job! That kid's parents are evil incarnate. Better make that kid's life hell on earth. Keep it up! Let's go get this brat an ice cream cone!."

Real Christian of you.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326417 Sep 2, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be drunk as well.
No I said the Court system protects children from unsafe environments and removes children from unsafe situations.
Yes, these situations involve people. The Court is worried about children suffering.
SevenTee wrote:
I said the Court should also protect the unborn from murder by abortionists.
In the vast majority of abortions, no child suffers because until late stages of pregnancy (when abortion is extremely rare, and often illegal), the fetus has no ability to experience anything.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326418 Sep 2, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be drunk as well.
No I said the Court system protects children from unsafe environments and removes children from unsafe situations.
I said the Court should also protect the unborn from murder by abortionists.
Yeah, that's whatcha said.

It's right here:
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
The law protects children from unfit parents. The court system can remove the child from the home.

Why don't you favor the same protection for an unborn child?

Your pro Death obsession is disturbing
The "same protection". And what protection is that? Why, according to you it's removing the child from "unfit parents", "the home". Obviously, the "same protection" is removing the fetus from the woman gestating it. Duh.

You must have tossed back a few. Kinda early to be gettin' shitfaced, doncha think? Lay off the sauce next time you post, dopey.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326420 Sep 2, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
And you embody stupidity, you steaming pit of nothingness.
My, something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. Was it the fact that I pointed out your idiotic statement that if abortion were outlawed women, once pregnant, would have no rights ?
If so I apologize, stupid.

Women have the ESTABLISHED right of making their own medical decisions without government interference. They are not obligated to sustain a fetus against their will.
Everyone knows that. That's what pro lifers seek to change. That's one of the reasons this forum exists.
Damn, you ARE stupid.
If you remove a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, damned right there will be a lot more abandoned newborns.
<quoted text>
Which, as I said, would be perfectly fine with you, stupid, as it would demonstrate that women are exercising their right not to be parents. Just doing it a few seconds later than what you would consider to be perfectly acceptable. God you are disgusting.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326421 Sep 2, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
BORN humans have rights, idiot.
I'm sorry, stupid. Did I say they didn't ?

A fetus does not,
We know, stupid. Are you the self appointed stater of the obvious on this forum ?
and cannot be granted any that subvert the woman's rights to her own body.
They CAN be granted protection and are already granted a level of protection after viability in many states.
There is no legal basis for the government to restrict--temporarily or otherwise--a woman's rights just because she happens to get pregnant.
<quoted text>
Of course there is a legal basis, stupid. RvW permits restricting a pregnant woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy when they allow states to forbid her to choose to legally abort after viability in the absence of a maternal health or life risk.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326422 Sep 2, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Protection from bodily harm is something all people deserve. Such protection reduces suffering and respects autonomy.
<quoted text>
The right to life is a natural right that all human life deserves. Neither you or any man for that matter gets to select a subjective, man-made designation of "people/person" and decide that only a human life at that point is deserving of protection. Natural rights don't work that way.
I don't agree. I do not view zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses as people.
Your agreement is irrelevant to the existence of natural rights. As I said, "people" is a man made subjective term. The entities you mention are human lives in varying stages of development.

The principle is hardly more applicable to them than a sperm, or a tree.
Ridiculous. A sperm or a tree is not an individual, developing human life. And you make your yourself look foolish when you attempt to establish some type of equivalency.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326423 Sep 2, 2014
Pearl Jam wrote:
<quoted text>True he didn't specify.
First accurate thing you've said.
Constitutional, human or natural, they are all rights and all would be being violated.
ALL ? Really ? If abortion were outlawed she wouldn't still have the right to vote ? To freedom of speech ? The right to due process ? How so ? Please explain.

Now how do we make them stay pregnant without violating any of those? You can't marginalize women temporarily just because they are pregnant....genius. Rant on.
They already are . When the government makes post viability abortion in the absence of a health or life risk illegal, they are restricting a woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy, the very concept upon which the right to abortion pre viability is based..........genius.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326424 Sep 2, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"It can and would be temporarily restricted in cases where born human life is being threatened or is at imminent risk"
Pregnancy is a threat/risk to the woman. If she carries to term and delivers a healthy infant, her body is damaged. The pregnancy can kill her. That's a possibility.
Your arguments aren't new. I've heard them all from various posters. What I don't get is how you all can square restricting the woman's privacy, yet not applying the same logic to the zef. If it is a person, like you guys claim,[QUOTE]

I've never claimed it was a person. I don't involve myself in man-made designations as a basis for supporting or not supporting the right to abortion. It's the epitome of circular reasoning.
A zef is a human life.

[QUOTE] then it would only make sense that if the zef has protections, then the woman should have the same,
More actually. When it comes to equivalent rights for each I believe the woman's rights should always take precedence.
and if the woman has restrictions then the zef would have the same.
They would. The zef's right to life would be restricted as soon as it's existence is determined to be a real life threat to the woman. That's a legitimate, imminent MD established life threat.....not a "potential" threat.
In the end, whose rights really should be honored ? The woman's, of course. She is the only sentient party in the equation.
Sentience is now the determining factor in deciding whether human life is worthy of protection ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326426 Sep 2, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the absence of just cause, no human should ever be deciding what other innocent human is or is not worthy of protection."
Yet, here you are, a human, arguing that pregnant women are not worthy of protecting themselves from body damaging pregnancy that carries the possibility of death.
Nice try. But I'm not arguing that a woman is not worthy of protecting themselves from an established, real and imminent life threat and you know it. Just as a born human would have the right to use deadly force against another born human who poses an imminent life threat. You don't get to use deadly force against another because he MIGHT pose a POSSIBLE threat.
And pregnancy, the condition by which the human race has forever sustained itself, while it CAN be a threat in certain circumstances, is NOT a life threat in and of itself.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#326427 Sep 2, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
First accurate thing you've said.
<quoted text>
ALL ? Really ? If abortion were outlawed she wouldn't still have the right to vote ? To freedom of speech ? The right to due process ? How so ? Please explain.
<quoted text>
They already are . When the government makes post viability abortion in the absence of a health or life risk illegal, they are restricting a woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy, the very concept upon which the right to abortion pre viability is based..........genius.
Not all Constitutional rights David as in every one of them. Her Constitutional right to privacy, her natural right of liberty and her human right to bodily autonomy. Elective abortions are legal in the first 3 months. No law, no court can intervene. The fetus is not viable at that stage and it's no ones business what she discusses with her doctor. That is when 90+ percent of them are done. At some point there should be a time when the fetus should be protected. I don't argue against that. I think within the first 16 weeks she has plenty of time to decide. But then there may be a financial issue for which she had to wait longer, or a transportation issue for which she had to wait longer. There is also the fact that many abortion providers have been pressured to leave an area and she doesn't have access to a safe abortion. But within the first 3 months it's never going to be illegal for the reasons you have been given.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326428 Sep 2, 2014
Nope. Under the law, you can be unfit without killing anyone. Also, under the law, abortion isn't murder or illegal and thus the court has NO jurisdiction. AT ALL.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice legalistic try. By definition an unfit parent kills their baby. The Court needs to protect the babies.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326429 Sep 2, 2014
So, after removing the most basic of all rights, autonomy, women have all their legal rights? I didn't say they would have no rights; your illiteracy isn't my problem.

Anti-choicers seek to obligate women to gestate against their will. They--and you--are scum. Women aren't going to be subjugated to the whims of nature.

WTF do you expect if women are made to go through nine months of being a legal non-entity in service to a fetus they don't want, just because it makes a-holes like you feel better about themselves.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
My, something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. Was it the fact that I pointed out your idiotic statement that if abortion were outlawed women, once pregnant, would have no rights ?
If so I apologize, stupid.
<quoted text>
Everyone knows that. That's what pro lifers seek to change. That's one of the reasons this forum exists.
Damn, you ARE stupid.
<quoted text>
Which, as I said, would be perfectly fine with you, stupid, as it would demonstrate that women are exercising their right not to be parents. Just doing it a few seconds later than what you would consider to be perfectly acceptable. God you are disgusting.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326430 Sep 2, 2014
RvW only allows states a certain level of interference after viability--when virtually no women abort electively. Even in those circumstances, it's based on state's interest not fetal rights. Prior to 24 weeks, the government has no standing to impede a woman's choice to abort, and you fascists aren't going to change that.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, stupid. Did I say they didn't ?
<quoted text>
We know, stupid. Are you the self appointed stater of the obvious on this forum ?
<quoted text>
They CAN be granted protection and are already granted a level of protection after viability in many states.
<quoted text>
Of course there is a legal basis, stupid. RvW permits restricting a pregnant woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy when they allow states to forbid her to choose to legally abort after viability in the absence of a maternal health or life risk.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326431 Sep 2, 2014
Didn't you just agree zef's have no rights? And yet here you are, saying they do. And no, even in the last trimester, the pregnancy needn't be an imminent threat to be terminated; by that time the risks to the woman are far more acute. You don't have to wait for an appendix to burst to have it removed, and a potentially lethal pregnancy is no different.

Sentience has been the standard for decades....ever heard of brain-death?
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
More actually. When it comes to equivalent rights for each I believe the woman's rights should always take precedence.
<quoted text>
They would. The zef's right to life would be restricted as soon as it's existence is determined to be a real life threat to the woman. That's a legitimate, imminent MD established life threat.....not a "potential" threat.
<quoted text>
Sentience is now the determining factor in deciding whether human life is worthy of protection ?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326432 Sep 3, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to life is a natural right that all human life deserves.
Your *opinion* is noted.
DAVID27 wrote:
Neither you or any man for that matter gets to select a subjective, man-made designation of "people/person" and decide that only a human life at that point is deserving of protection.
My definition of personhood is no more subjective nor man-made than the definitions you are using.
DAVID27 wrote:
Natural rights don't work that way.
How, precisely, do they work?
DAVID27 wrote:
Ridiculous. A sperm or a tree is not an individual, developing human life. And you make your yourself look foolish when you attempt to establish some type of equivalency.
Why is "individual developing human life" the benchmark to use?

You'd view an individual sperm or ovum as having no rights and virtually no importance, but a second later when the sperm enters the ovum, rights are magically generated?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326433 Sep 3, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your *opinion* is noted.
<quoted text>
My definition of personhood is no more subjective nor man-made than the definitions you are using.
<quoted text>
How, precisely, do they work?
<quoted text>
Why is "individual developing human life" the benchmark to use?
You'd view an individual sperm or ovum as having no rights and virtually no importance, but a second later when the sperm enters the ovum, rights are magically generated?
Magic. Yes.



lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326434 Sep 3, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice legalistic try. By definition an unfit parent kills their baby. The Court needs to protect the babies.
No. It was a sh*tty try -- because it was your try. And that's what makes it crap.

The court protects the baybeeeez, doofus.

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) 3 min Yeah 1,403,936
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 41 min litesong 9,989
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 6 hr NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 hr ChristineM 255,959
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 23 Trojan 32,307
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web