Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310346 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.

King Edward II

Glastonbury, CT

#313455 Oct 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You really NEED to put something up my ass, dontcha?
Sorry, but I don`t date outside my species.
<quoted text>
You're receptive to having things put up your ass, and what happened to me will soon happen to you. Are you prepared?
King Edward II

Glastonbury, CT

#313456 Oct 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Deathbed? Been there, done that. Your god never came up. Perfectly at peace with my life.
Try again.
<quoted text>
This time there will be no bed. Just a red hot poker and you'll be screaming for god.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313457 Oct 16, 2013
A human toe is not a human being. A DNA test determines genetic origin, not whether it came from a viable entity.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
NR: Are "a human" (noun) and "a human being" synonyms?
bHitler: "It's not a yes or no question."
_______
As I've asked multiple times before, if the answer can be "no" please provide a legitimate site to support your contention.
Remember, you denied pulling your statement from your arse. So, show us your source that corroborates your claim that "a human" (noun) and "a human being" are not synonyms.
TIA.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313458 Oct 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't even read it.
There is no "lockstep" among pro-choicers.
LOL oh Bit does this sound familiar?

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote[3]. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes (I'll expand on this point later). Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313459 Oct 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you babbling about?
Oh, nevermind, you realize you said something stupid again.
You don't know any or you didn't choose to help?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313460 Oct 16, 2013
Since every pregnancy is potentially fatal, that would be 100%. Every woman gets to decide if the risk is worth the result--and if the result is worth the risk.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I also care for women who's lives are in danger, BUT out of all of the abortions performed, how many do you think are for that reason?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313461 Oct 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Makes the decision to end the pregnancy.
Get back to me when you can be honest enough to respond to what I'm really saying, instead of spinning it to suit, okay Witless?
Ends the fetuses life. That my dear, is honest.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313462 Oct 16, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>You are not using your reading comp skills. I do have two kids, and both were planned. What does that have to with UNWANTED kids? If anybody wants to have a family that's their right. I'm just saying that if a woman gets pregnant and does NOT want the child it would be more humane to abort it in the first month than "dump" it on child services where it may not get adopted.
You have to admit, the system if full of kids who will never be adopted.
Why would you dump it on 'child services'? There are plenty of people waiting to adopt. You're child would have a home in a minute, if not before it is even born.
Judge

Anonymous Proxy

#313463 Oct 16, 2013
Like it or not, the bottom line is, women can abort a pregnancy and it is perfectly legal, and that will never change. Deal with it. Live with it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313464 Oct 16, 2013
Spontaneous abortion IS the medical term for a miscarriage. Smarten up.
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, what you said is a complete non-sequitur based off of the statement you quoted.
-
Secondly, abortion is a willful act. One must choose to abort. If something is going to occurr without intervention, one must make a decision to abort that occurrence. One does not refer to a malfunction of a system as a spontaneous abort, it is referred to as a failure..

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#313465 Oct 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL oh Bit does this sound familiar?
Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote[3]. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes (I'll expand on this point later). Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.
As I said, I didn't read it.

Again, there is no "lockstep". I'm sure there are things in there I'd agree with, and things I'd disagree with. So? Common points of agreement don't spell "lockstep".

I know a group of Christians who believe that Christ is their Savior, that he is the son of their God, that he died on the cross, that his mother was Mary, that gays are trying to redefine the word "marriage", just like you do. They are the Westboro Baptist Church. Are YOU in "lockstep" with them?
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#313466 Oct 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked Bit what she would disagree with and I'll ask you too.
I would really need to read the site & think about it, but it certainly would not constitute it being "dogma".

I cant speak for others but I am open to honest, rational discussion and debate. I truly don't see others being open. Most here have their beliefs and that's that.

The website you gave appeared to doesn't mention anything about "killing", but you went to the extreme and decided to say that they support "killing".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#313467 Oct 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know any or you didn't choose to help?
Neither. Stop deflecting from your stupid statement that there aren't any children going hungry unless their mothers are trading their food stamps for drugs.

It was arrogant, and clueless.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#313468 Oct 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Ends the fetuses life. That my dear, is honest.
No, ending the pregnancy is right.

And don't flirt with me. I'm a happily married woman.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#313469 Oct 16, 2013
Those ARE the adoptable fosters; there are a helluva lot more than 130000 kids in the system. In some states, a foster parent Cannot adopt their charges.

It`s sad that you cannot understand that many women simply choose not to be pregnant; you are so fetally focused you can barely see the born woman.

Have a baby if you want one, or adopt one. But no one has any obligation to provide you with one and you have no basis to demand one.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Those foster kids, most of the time are not adoptable. Most have parents and families and haven't been taken away permanently. When and if they do become available many are adopted by their foster families. God bless the people.
Why should a child have to be either aborted or dumped? There are so many other options.
I assume you wanted to have your own babies and did, so I think it is disengenuious to berate other folks who want the same, a baby.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313470 Oct 16, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>You are not using your reading comp skills. I do have two kids, and both were planned. What does that have to with UNWANTED kids? If anybody wants to have a family that's their right. I'm just saying that if a woman gets pregnant and does NOT want the child it would be more humane to abort it in the first month than "dump" it on child services where it may not get adopted.
You have to admit, the system if full of kids who will never be adopted.
My reading skills are fine. What does unwanted kids have to do child services? If these children were unwanted they would have been aborted or put up for adoption. Abortion is cheap and legal. They ended up in child services because of some bad choices made by the parents.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#313471 Oct 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked Bit what she would disagree with and I'll ask you too.
Also, my opinion is own and i dont expect others to follow based on my opinion. Regardless of my opinion, abortion is legal and I am ok with that.

I am quoting that link, but i certainly dont catecfor their decision to label people as "anti choicers". How would you respond to this statement:

"Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses."

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#313472 Oct 16, 2013
The Abstruse Polymath wrote:
<quoted text>
"Spontaneous abortion" is a misnomer. Aborting anything requires conscious effort, therefore spontaneous abortion is an oxymoron.
natural miscarriage is an oxymoron.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313473 Oct 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither. Stop deflecting from your stupid statement that there aren't any children going hungry unless their mothers are trading their food stamps for drugs.
It was arrogant, and clueless.
You are clueless. There are programs all over the country, in every state to take care of and feed children.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#313474 Oct 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Those ARE the adoptable fosters; there are a helluva lot more than 130000 kids in the system. In some states, a foster parent Cannot adopt their charges.
It`s sad that you cannot understand that many women simply choose not to be pregnant; you are so fetally focused you can barely see the born woman.
Have a baby if you want one, or adopt one. But no one has any obligation to provide you with one and you have no basis to demand one.
<quoted text>
You are thinking that the foster kids are in the system because their mothers were forced to give birth to children they didn't want? I think you would find that isn't the reason they are there.

It's not an abortion issue. It's a breakdown of family and drug issue usually.

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 Indiana clears Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing... 2 min Cordwainer Trout 41
News Planned Parenthood seeks fed study of fetal tis... 6 min Tricky little mon... 107
News Judge: Anti-abortion group can't release video 9 hr Food for Thought 2
News Republican-led House panel seeks interview with... 13 hr cpeter1313 55
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 15 hr Ink 220,260
News Huckabee earned nearly $4M from speeches, publi... 15 hr Synque 7
News Slaying the Abortion Giant 15 hr truthverdad 2
More from around the web