Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 316315 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: Nov 10

Location hidden

#326444 Sep 3, 2014
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more gruesome (in my mind), is keeping a deceased woman on life support long enough to deliver. Or is that urban legend?
Interesting report. I never considered the fact that even up to a year after birth could be considered a "maternal death" so it makes sense that it would be underreported and mischaracterized.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326447 Sep 4, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that a Child does not suffer when he or she is butchered into pieces by an abortionist?
The ZEF lacks the brain functionality to feel pain or experience suffering. It's like asking how do we know your tire doesn't suffer if you kick it. It simply doesn't have the parts.
SevenTee wrote:
How do you know that the Mother does not suffer from guilt and shame and a wounded body after she is butchered by an abortionist?
Some women may feel guilt or shame. They may also have feelings of regret for maintaining a pregnancy and having a child they do not want.

Why would they have a wounded body, unless a medical mistake were made?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#326449 Sep 4, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you go to Medical School? or should I ask What Pro Abortion website did you cut and paste that misinformation from?
What misinformation? This is the scientific consensus. They don't have the brain development to feel pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_percept...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326450 Sep 4, 2014
Science. It is impossible to perceive pain without a conscious mind, and the fetal upper brain doesn't even begin to develop until well into the 6th month of gestation--long after 95% of all abortions are performed.

Most women who abort TELL US they don't suffer psychological problems, and their doctors confirm they don't suffer physical damage. Abortion is a very safe, easy procedure in the first trimester.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that a Child does not suffer when he or she is butchered into pieces by an abortionist?
How do you know that the Mother does not suffer from guilt and shame and a wounded body after she is butchered by an abortionist?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326451 Sep 4, 2014
It's basic biology, twit.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you go to Medical School? or should I ask What Pro Abortion website did you cut and paste that misinformation from?
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

#326453 Sep 5, 2014
I can't wait for the day when the Roe v Wade Supreme Court justices are seen for what they were, criminals who used the Constitution of the United States to legalize the greatest crime against humanity.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326456 Sep 5, 2014
You're going to be waiting a very long time. You may need to be immortal, in fact.
Ravianna wrote:
I can't wait for the day when the Roe v Wade Supreme Court justices are seen for what they were, criminals who used the Constitution of the United States to legalize the greatest crime against humanity.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326458 Sep 6, 2014
Pearl Jam wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Well that's what you said....

"Constitutional, human or natural, they are all rights and ALL would be being violated."

Not too many different ways to interpret that. But I'll give you benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that's not what you intended.

At least you're not contending that once pregnant she would have no rights at all like that other dumbbell.
Elective abortions are legal in the first 3 months. No law, no court can intervene.[QUOTE]

Thank you, genius.

[QUOTE]The fetus is not viable at that stage and it's no ones business what she discusses with her doctor.
But post-viability it can be their business, is that right ?

That is when 90+ percent of them are done.
It doesn't matter if 99.9 % were done then....or even 100%. There is legal basis for restricting her right to privacy and personal autonomy in the interest of protecting the fetus, unlike what the dumbbell claimed.
At some point there should be a time when the fetus should be protected. I don't argue against that.
So you agree at some point the woman's right to personal autonomy should be restricted in the interest of protecting the fetus. Now we're getting somewhere.

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.
Probably not. And not because it shouldn't be.
But that wasn't the issue.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326459 Sep 6, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
So, after removing the most basic of all rights, autonomy, women have all their legal rights?
Never said that. And it wasn't what you claimed.
I didn't say they would have no rights; your illiteracy isn't my problem.
Yes you did ( "Right, because women, once pregnant, NO LONGER HAVE RIGHTS.")
And your inability to convey what you really mean is not my problem.
Anti-choicers seek to obligate women to gestate against their will.
Anti-choicers seek to protect the most innocent and most vulnerable of all human life.
They--and you--are scum. Women aren't going to be subjugated to the whims of nature.
The dumbbell on a white horse is coming to the rescue of all women. How noble.
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.
<quoted text>
Do you support laws that criminalize the killing of unwanted born children because it makes you feel better about yourself ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326460 Sep 6, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
RvW only allows states a certain level of interference after viability--
I already said that.
when virtually no women abort electively.
Another genius trying to claim that the small number of post viable elective abortions somehow means there is no legal basis for the restriction of the right to personal autonomy.
Even in those circumstances, it's based on state's interest not fetal rights.[QUOTE]

Yep, State's interest in protecting fetal life. You don't need to assign rights to be able to protect.

[QUOTE]Prior to 24 weeks, the government has no standing to impede a woman's choice to abort,
We know that. That's what we'd like to see changed. That's the reason this forum exists. This must be a very difficult concept for you to grasp. You just keep repeating the same stupid thing.

and you fascists aren't going to change that.
<quoted text>
Probably not. But definitely not because it shouldn't be.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326461 Sep 6, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Didn't you just agree zef's have no rights? And yet here you are, saying they do.
A hypothetical, genius. You are even dumber than I gave you credit for.
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.
A burst appendix is no longer an imminent threat. And I have no problem with a choice to legally abort a pregnancy that is MD determined to be an actual life risk. That is actual life risk.....not potential. Every person walking down the street toward you is a potential life risk for you, but you don't get to legally use lethal force against him unless and until he actually threatens your life.
Sentience has been the standard for decades....ever heard of brain-death?
<quoted text>
Only in the context of declarations of brain death and no chance of regaining sentience. Not in this context where sentience is anticipated in the subsequent stages of development.
Ever heard of dumbbell ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326462 Sep 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your *opinion* is noted.
Thanks. Is it your opinion that the right to life of born humans is worthy of protection ?
My definition of personhood is no more subjective nor man-made than the definitions you are using.
It most certainly is. The definition of a human life is an indisputable and non subjective scientific one.
How, precisely, do they work?
You brought them up so you look it up.
I'll give you a head start. They are inalienable.
Why is "individual developing human life" the benchmark to use?
Why are there laws against the murder of "human" life as opposed to insect life....or feline life ? Why is "human" the benchmark ? Infants and adolescents are still developing but if it's the "developing" adjective that bothers you I'll take it out.
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?
No more so than the rights that are "magically" generated seconds after a human life has passed through the birth canal, eh ? And arguably in that instance there is a lot more magic involved since the entity with no rights that is passing through the birth canal is virtually identical to the entity with rights that has completed passage through the canal.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326463 Sep 6, 2014
If there's no mind, nothing CAN go on in it. Is there any aspect of biology you PLM zombies won't completely ignore? Reality stopped being completely unfathomable decades ago.
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know what goes on in the mind of an unborn child?
You have no facts, you have anti Life feelings and hatred of humanity in your heart.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326464 Sep 6, 2014
Rights--not "all rights".

You don't get to "protect" someone else's fetus. You don't even have the right to KNOW about someone else's fetus. And since yuou aren't taking on any of the risks of pregnancy, your feeble squeamishness is totally irrelevant.

Is that as bad as the dumbbell on the white horse trying to rescue all fetuses? I don't have to save women...they can do that on their own. Unlike you, I believe women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. If anything, I'd prefer to knock arrogant buttinski's like you off their horses.

Once born, rights accrue.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said that. And it wasn't what you claimed.
<quoted text>
Yes you did ( "Right, because women, once pregnant, NO LONGER HAVE RIGHTS.")
And your inability to convey what you really mean is not my problem.
<quoted text>
Anti-choicers seek to protect the most innocent and most vulnerable of all human life.
<quoted text>
The dumbbell on a white horse is coming to the rescue of all women. How noble.
<quoted text>
Do you support laws that criminalize the killing of unwanted born children because it makes you feel better about yourself ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326465 Sep 6, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, YEAH. It sure is one of 'em.
I said THE determining factor. Critical distinction. But changing people's arguments and then arguing against an argument they never made is your forte.

In any case, in the context of abortion rights, viability is the determining factor regarding when a fetus may be protected. Sentience is not even "one of 'em". Well YEAH.
And you seem to agree, given your first sentence. Do tell -- for what other reasons should the woman's rights take precedence?


The right to the protection of life. When the fetus's existence threatens the life of the woman, her right to life would take precedence over the fetus's.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#326466 Sep 6, 2014
This is all hypothetical, idiot.

Doctors don't want to wait until something becomes an "actual life risk" because that that point, the patient's systems are already in danger. You aren't qualified to tell a physician what levels of risk are acceptable--that's between them and their patient. Women don't have to take on even potential health risks if they choose not to.

It's either sentient or not. In a fetus's case, there are no rights inherent to keeping it alive due to a presumption of future sentience--which may not happen anyway. The only rights are those of the woman, and that's not going to change.

I've heard of "dumbbell" but until now regarded it as the kind of childish epithet one hears in a pre-school argument. And it evidently still is.
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
A hypothetical, genius. You are even dumber than I gave you credit for.
<quoted text>
A burst appendix is no longer an imminent threat. And I have no problem with a choice to legally abort a pregnancy that is MD determined to be an actual life risk. That is actual life risk.....not potential. Every person walking down the street toward you is a potential life risk for you, but you don't get to legally use lethal force against him unless and until he actually threatens your life.
<quoted text>
Only in the context of declarations of brain death and no chance of regaining sentience. Not in this context where sentience is anticipated in the subsequent stages of development.
Ever heard of dumbbell ?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326467 Sep 6, 2014
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on what state you live in. And of course what color you happen to be. If you're black, then yeah, you're right. But if you're white..well, you can kill a kid for wearing a hoodie.
Really ? You can legally kill a kid for just wearing a hoodie ? Show me the legal precedent whereby someone was ever acquitted of murder solely on the basis of the fact that the victim was wearing a hoodie.

There are plenty of other forums where you can vent your white guilt.
Yes. It is. In and of itself. Heck. There's a whole medical profession out there that focuses entirely on it.
No it isn't. Heck. If pregnancy in and of itself were an actual life threat, the human race likely would have died out long ago. And the human race has sustained itself for ages before there was ever any "medical profession" focused on it.
It is a potential life threat. And if an MD certifies at some point that it becomes an ACTUAL threat, then abortion should be a legal option.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326468 Sep 6, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
I said THE determining factor. Critical distinction. But changing people's arguments and then arguing against an argument they never made is your forte.{/QUOTE]

Who said there is only one determining factor? You?

I didn't change your argument. I don't accept your opinion as fact. No reason I should.

QUOTE who="DAVID27"]<qu oted text>In any case, in the context of abortion rights, viability is the determining factor regarding when a fetus may be protected. Sentience is not even "one of 'em". Well YEAH.
You just changed the context of our exchange! Hey! That's not fair! lol

The woman was the subject regarding sentience. You know that. Tryin' to be sneaky, huh!
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>The right to the protection of life. When the fetus's existence threatens the life of the woman, her right to life would take precedence over the fetus's.
She also has the right to protect herself from bodily injury. The longer the pregnancy, the more damage it does. Surely, she has the right to assess that risk and decide she doesn't want to take it.

You have the same right. It's not legal for someone to come along and hook you up to another person against your will or take your kidney, etc.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326469 Sep 6, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really ? You can legally kill a kid for just wearing a hoodie ? Show me the legal precedent whereby someone was ever acquitted of murder solely on the basis of the fact that the victim was wearing a hoodie.
There are plenty of other forums where you can vent your white guilt.
<quoted text>
That obviously went right over your head. Whoosh!
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>No it isn't. Heck. If pregnancy in and of itself were an actual life threat, the human race likely would have died out long ago.
Of course, pregnancy is a life threat. And the human race is not extinct....
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>And the human race has sustained itself for ages before there was ever any "medical profession" focused on it.
....even though abortion is as natural as giving birth. How on earth has the human race sustained itself when millions of women over hundreds of years have chosen not to stay pregnant? It's a farkin' riddle!
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>It is a potential life threat. And if an MD certifies at some point that it becomes an ACTUAL threat, then abortion should be a legal option.
Abortion is an option because pregnancy is a risk. The individual can take it or leave it. Even if the pregnancy were guaranteed to kill the woman, she still has the right to take that risk. The state cannot come in and force her to terminate.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#326470 Sep 6, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Infants and adolescents are still developing but if it's the "developing" adjective that bothers you I'll take it out.
<quoted text>
No more so than the rights that are "magically" generated seconds after a human life has passed through the birth canal, eh ? And arguably in that instance there is a lot more magic involved since the entity with no rights that is passing through the birth canal is virtually identical to the entity with rights that has completed passage through the canal.
Infants and adolescents are not inside a person . If that were possible, there would be no difference between them and a zef = no rights.

When the entity is no longer INSIDE the body of a person, rights attach, as you know. Do you know why that is?

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) 2 min Realtime 1,580,808
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 hr TranslationPhart 33,669
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Aug 14 Into The Night 11,335
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Jul 27 Aerobatty 258,484
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul '17 New boy 201,878
News Johnny Brown Added To Coaching Staff (Oct '07) Jul '17 Brown Pharts 3
News Tragedy strikes family members of Leasure (Jul '08) Jun '17 Evidence phart 9
More from around the web