Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 320302 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.

worships reality

AOL

#276267 Jan 12, 2013
Tondaleyo lives wrote:
<quoted text>I read one of her posts , she said her hand had a bad rash and for some reason it spread into her eyes. Oh yeah, she also posted to Chicky that she had a lot of *gnats* down *there*.
yes, i saw both of those posts too. the woman always seems to have some kind of physical ailment. most likely related to poor hygeine habits.
worships reality

AOL

#276268 Jan 12, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be right. Many hyave said he/sher is a lesbian. I thought he was a woman for a while. The tone of his posts are very hystecial and femmine in nature.
He keeps saying he is a "heterosexual" man. Yet, you couldn;t tell by his posts. He does have a crush on cd, so...
Whatever it is, it is a mess.
i've seen her so there's no question. it's a woman.
very nasty to look at but a female nevertheless.
bman

Commack, NY

#276269 Jan 12, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Children do have a right to live their lives. We are talking about abortion. Sometimes children get pregnant (9, 10, 11, 12yr olds). Do you think they should be denied abortion since it appears you are one of those who'd like it completely criminalized. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
But to keep on your original point, you said:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Do you ever consider the pregnant woman, and by extension, the result of an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy brought forth to live an unwanted/unhealthy life?
Life of the mother, I believe should be allowed for abortion. Although I would personally perfer adoption for rape and incest, we'll let the Supreme Court and government decide that. I'm on the fence with exceptions for rape and incest. But every other reason should be illegal. If it is illegal, the PERSON PERFORMING IT should be charged, NOT THE WOMAN. In this country you can have an abortion for an adreniline rush. Would you let a woman have an abortion just for fun? Because you can do that here. Now for women who can't afford the child, just give up the child for adoption. It wouldn't hurt to give the child to someone who wants to care for it. Right? It's better to be in a foster home and live life instead of not being the chance to live at all. Some people will have a hard life. Just accept it. Abortion won't make anything better or solve the problem.
worships reality

AOL

#276270 Jan 12, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>The encroach-ee is the pregnant woman. What wiould be her remedy? Abortion!
you didn't answer my question. why would the encroach-or need a remedy if he wasn't the one being harmed?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#276271 Jan 12, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Life of the mother, I believe should be allowed for abortion. Although I would personally perfer adoption for rape and incest, we'll let the Supreme Court and government decide that. I'm on the fence with exceptions for rape and incest. But every other reason should be illegal. If it is illegal, the PERSON PERFORMING IT should be charged, NOT THE WOMAN. In this country you can have an abortion for an adreniline rush. Would you let a woman have an abortion just for fun? Because you can do that here. Now for women who can't afford the child, just give up the child for adoption. It wouldn't hurt to give the child to someone who wants to care for it. Right? It's better to be in a foster home and live life instead of not being the chance to live at all. Some people will have a hard life. Just accept it. Abortion won't make anything better or solve the problem.
Regarding the last two sentences: Who's call should it be, though? The gov't's? The clergy's? Yours?

As it stands now, it is the pregnant woman's call.

Why should this change?
bman

Commack, NY

#276272 Jan 12, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding the last two sentences: Who's call should it be, though? The gov't's? The clergy's? Yours?
As it stands now, it is the pregnant woman's call.
Why should this change?
So my guess is that if a 30 year old married woman who is wealthy and has 2 kids just wants an abortion because she "feels like experiencing it", that would be okay with you? Because that's how the law currently stands. The government can also force a woman to pay taxes. Does the government regulate murder? Yes. Is it a moral reason? Yes. So yes, I believe that the government can regulate abortion IF they do it right. But the way the government is working now, I cannot give you a definite "everything will work out" speech, because it won't. If abortion is regulated, yes there will be illegal abortions performed and people will break the law. But murder is still performed even though it is illegal. It's ironic how you say "it's the pregnant woman's call" because most of the people who are members of Plannned Parenthood and NARAL have never experienced abortions. And yet there are many women who are coming out, saying that they were pressured to have one by someone, whether it be a boyfriend, family member, Planned Parenthood worker, etc. and they regreted it. There are alot of strong women out there who are smart enough not to buy your "Woman's Right" nonsense. Because, unlike you, they're smart enough to know that there is a BEATING HEART in that womb.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276273 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your right to bodily autonomy ends where another's body begins.
Factually and medically - no it doesn't. And thank G-d that your kind's f'd up views have no basis in reality.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276274 Jan 12, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You say motherhood is an option, so IF the laws were extended for a woman to take her child to the doc, and have them aborted, up to age 12 would you be ok, if a woman took her 11 year old, and legaly had them aborted?
Are you TRYING to make yourself look stupid? Seriously?

You DO know that abortion is the ending of a PREGNANCY right? So your moronic question is not only moot, but REALLY REALLY stupid.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276275 Jan 12, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the Constitution PROTECTED the state's right to have slavery. They were considered property and therefore the right for an owner of that slave to do whatever he wanted with that slave as long as it wasn't torture or murder. Slave owner's right, woman's right? See any relation here?
ROFLMAO

Of course there's NO relation there. Slaves in the 1800's were not IN another person's body.

Good lord you poeple come up with some STUPID shit.

worships reality

AOL

#276276 Jan 12, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding the last two sentences: Who's call should it be, though? The gov't's? The clergy's? Yours?
As it stands now, it is the pregnant woman's call.
Why should this change?
it shouldn't change. the decision to raise or adopt out should always be the woman's.
good post.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276277 Jan 12, 2013
Forum Mod wrote:
<quoted text>
Please refrain from the gratuitous name calling.
We reserve the right to remove any post deemed inappropriate and in violation of Topix TOS.
ROFLMAO Seriously? Fk-off Stinky. You can't possibly think ANYONE is taking you seriously while you pretend to be a Topix Moderator. LOLOLOL!!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276279 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>

Dna analysis results of mom & preborn baby are conclusive: baby is NOT part of mom's body.
Pay attention.
Oh grow the hell up No Relevance.

DNA doesn't say SHIT about what is PART of something else. There are cancerous tumors that will test to not be part of the cancer victim too.

The embryo, the zyogte AND the fetus most certainly ARE part of the woman's body UNTIL that embryo, zyogte or fetus is REMOVED from the body, either by abortion or birth.

THey are JOINED PHYSICALLY, thus it IS part of her body for the period she's gestating.

No woman's body, no embryo, zyogte or fetus.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276280 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound promiscuous, cPeter.
You sound both jealous and like a eunich No Relevance.

Bet I'm more right than you are about him.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276281 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^ One of multiple stations along a long fudge packing factory line ^^^
One of multiple ad hom's from the meaninless eunich.
bman

Commack, NY

#276282 Jan 12, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO
Of course there's NO relation there. Slaves in the 1800's were not IN another person's body.
Good lord you poeple come up with some STUPID shit.
But can't the woman do what she wants to do with the embryo? Sounds kind of like it is her "propery". I'm not saying abortion is like slavery, I'm just saying that there are similar arguments in the pro-choice movement and pro-slavery movement. "It's legal", "It's our OWN", "We have a right to do with what we have"

"The bond of master and slave CANNOT be broken. NO law can take away the right of the master's property. Our founding government has NO RIGHT to take that right away."
-John Russell 1855, Slave Defender

"The government does not have a right to interfere with a what a woman can or cannot do with her fetus."
-Justice Henry Blackman 1973, Ruling in favor of Roe

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#276283 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Karma: "The fetus is part of the woman's body."
______
:sigh:
Dna analysis results of mom & preborn baby are conclusive: baby is NOT part of mom's body.
Pay attention.
This makes no sense. mtDNA says you're incorrect.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276284 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA analysis is clear: Preborn baby is NOT part of mom's body.
If this fact upsets you, go over in the corner with Kathy-boy & stomp your feet impotently.
Caring.
Again, BULLSHIT.

DNA doesn't say SHIT about what's "part" of her body, as in ATTACHED to her body.

ALL DNA says is that a woman is gestating what MIGHT become a human baby IF gestation is allowed to continue.

The Zyogte IMPLANTS INTO THE UTERUS and it REMAINS PHYSICALLY ATTACHED, thus it IS part of her body.

Difference is, SHE can survive just fine without the ZEF. Not so the other way around.

Oh and just for the record? LEGALLY a ZEF is ALSO "PART" of the woman's body, thus the legislation that stems regarding fetal homicide laws.

State of Connecticut v. Edwin Sandoval

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/06/02/p...

FURTHER, fetal cells cross the placenta and become effectively a PERMANANT part of the woman.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

You're argument is just a bunch of shit.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276285 Jan 12, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The baby has it's own blood and heart, before and after birth.
And from what do these things develop? Hmmm? Do they just magically appear?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276286 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Kold Katie: "No fetus asks to be born"
Even instincually your granddaughter was demonstrating she was meant to live.....as she moved away from the deadly weapon in the hand of the glorified hitman.
Oh what hystronic bullshit!

An embryo or fetus doesn't move away from ANYTHING. It doesn't have the capability to know anything of the kind.

You're so full of garbage No Relevance. But you're sick fantasies are duly noted.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#276288 Jan 12, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
grumpy: "If the encroach-or is harming the encroach-ee which one is entitled to a remedy"
Your mother must have been a very ignorant & heartless person to teach you that pregnancy was designed to have an encroach-or harm his/her mother (aka: encroah-ee).
You're grandmother clearly thought so. So much so, she couldn't be bothered to care for her spawn, instead getting rid of it as fast as she could. Poor thing likely was prevented from having the abortion she REALLY wanted.

A shame really. YOu're truly a waste of human DNA.
With that mentality, I bet she supported the Holocaust.
Just sayin'.....
With YOUR mentality, its no wonder you're doomed to a life as a bitter little boy.

Grumpy and his mother, as well of millions of us stand up to the likes of you ever day and have for eons.

He's got a wonderful wife, kids and grandkids, things you will never know.

Of course that's NOT a bad thing, you kind shouldn't be allowed to be around women OR children.

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.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News SCOTUS to Hear Case of CA Pregnancy Centers For... Nov 19 Choicerocks 2
News Planned Parenthood docs requested from Senate b... Nov 15 youll shoot your ... 14
News What is the GOP thinking? (Jan '15) Nov 15 anonz 5
News Shocking new study proves that the vaccine indu... Nov 7 cpeter1313 4
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) Nov 7 Got_Rope 6,113
News Kentucky Could Become The Only State Without A ... Nov 2 The Steven Deaks 209
News Republicans Seek Abortion Ban at 6 Weeks Oct 29 Choicerocks 2
More from around the web