Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310229 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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70771 Jun 22, 2010
tomten wrote:
<quoted text>Aww, here we go again, your anti Catholicism is showing, she said they were from my parish, NO ONE in my parish were raped by the priest as ladi said.
...That's come out so far....

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#70772 Jun 22, 2010
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not kidding. Ironic huh?
Steal These Books
By MARGO RABB NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/books/revie...
One of the first shoplifters I stopped was a woman in her late 50's, stuffing a big purse with bibles. While waiting for the police, she proceeded to berate me saying "You can't sell the word of the lord", to which I said, The Bible publishers think differently, and in the real world, its called theft. We prosecuted, and found out she had a history of stealing bibles from stores and libraries. The police found hundreds of them in her apartment. She was in her own words: "A devout and good christian".@@
Did she live in Nebraska, perchance?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#70773 Jun 22, 2010
marysaidyes2life wrote:
<quoted text>She didn't have to die like that, but you would see women die like that, because you can't show them a better way. If its not dying like that, you want to see their children ripped apart by brutal and savage means. You show them no dignity and you sure has hell aren't showing her any dignity by posting her picture over and over again. Not suprising though, you are the one here that doesn't give a damn about women.
There are millions upon millions of pictures of the result of abortion on the children in the womb. One picture of a woman who needed help to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, not help ending it and dying from that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70774 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
It was his belief and would not include infants, if taken as written.
@@ Only if one is determined to twist his words to their own agenda.

If read in CONTEXT, then yes, it would include infants or anyone born.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#70775 Jun 22, 2010
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
SHe cares a heck of a lot more about women than YOU do. It's because of people like you that women die like that. Because you want to force them to hide, to do it secretly and unsafely, because YOU don't want them to do it at all, and will call them a child murderer if they do.
Putting her picture up there is a graphic reminder of what YOU are responsible for, by humiliating women and demanding that they don't use contraception (even though YOU DO).
!!
No, putting her picture up disgraces her memory, it doesn't honor her at all. It shows a woman who no one cared enough about in those days, to help her deal with an unwanted pregnancy and whatever issues in her life made her feel that way; to where she'd risk something like this and die.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70776 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ending the pregnancy is what you likely consider the "primary intent". The intent for the doctors to do that would be to kill the fetus. The doctors know exactly what they have to do, and that is the intent they have going into "the procedure". Death is exactly the intent to achieve the result of ending the pregnancy.
Uh huh. And that is the intent of catholic doctors when ending ectopic pregnancies, despite their pretty words to the contrary.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#70777 Jun 22, 2010
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Distraction. It certainly does NOT mean fetuses.
It wouldn't mean infants either.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#70778 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
It wouldn't mean infants either.
Sure it does. Clearly, from the context, it means anyone born. Context is important, though your side likes to ignore it, and cherry pick out one fragment of the whole to further your agenda.

But thank you, for admitting that it doesn't mean fetuses. Also, for proving, once again, that you are not ignoring my posts, like you claimed.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70779 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
There are millions upon millions of pictures of the result of abortion on the children in the womb. One picture of a woman who needed help to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, not help ending it and dying from that.
Oh there's more then just one picture. Would you like to see the others?

When women are THAT desperate to end a pregnancy, do you REALLY want to force them to KEEP it? Or is it OKAY with you that they die that way?

Again, you are trying to force this issue into your narrow black and white world, and the REAL world isn't that way.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70780 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
It wouldn't mean infants either.
Yes actually it would, in fact, the SC has decided a NUMBER of cased in favor of an infant, so clearly, it DOES cover them.

CONTEXT. Try it. Read what's said, stop reading INTO what's said. You wont make a fool of yourself so often.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#70781 Jun 22, 2010
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. Clearly, from the context, it means anyone born. Context is important, though your side likes to ignore it, and cherry pick out one fragment of the whole to further your agenda.
But thank you, for admitting that it doesn't mean fetuses. Also, for proving, once again, that you are not ignoring my posts, like you claimed.
I only noticed who you were when I read your last sentence.
When I'm busy I don't always notice who's post it is. Fact is, yours, Moncie's and ladilulu's pics are all shaded similarly when not loooking directly at the photo, and you all sound alike. I began posting to Moncie about this, and only assumed that dumbass response you gave was from her.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#70782 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
No, putting her picture up disgraces her memory, it doesn't honor her at all.
Her FAMILY, you know, the ones that actually MATTER? THEY think differently.
It shows a woman who no one cared enough about in those days, to help her deal with an unwanted pregnancy and whatever issues in her life made her feel that way; to where she'd risk something like this and die.
No, it shows that your ilk made a medical procedure illegal, and women like her CHOSE to try to induce their own abortion rather than gestate an unwanted child.

It speaks VOLUMES that you'd rather demean this woman, whom you know nothing about, AND her family, than look at the REAL picture as its been presented by the people that knew her AND knew the situation. ALL in your efforts to save a zef that nobody wanted.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#70783 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
There are millions upon millions of pictures of the result of abortion on the children in the womb. One picture of a woman who needed help to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, not help ending it and dying from that.
How much more dignity she could have had, had her child been allowed to be born, and been around to see his or her mother through old age and a natural death.?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#70784 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
There are millions upon millions of pictures of the result of abortion on the children in the womb. One picture of a woman who needed help to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, not help ending it and dying from that.
Wrong. There are not millions of pics of aborted fetuses and embryos. There are only the same hundred pics that every anti-choice site shows. Many of them are not of abortions but of miscarriages or stillbirths. Many of them are likely to be fakes; it's amazing what can be done with photoshop. Of those that are genuine, they were likely taken decades ago, because no one would be allowed to invade a woman's privacy that way, and I can't see many giving permission for pics to be taken.

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#70785 Jun 22, 2010
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do many NOT?
Imnotsorry.net
<quoted text>You're a moron as well as a racist.
Because the pro-aborts want them to surpress their feelings, thier natural biological workings and their children.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#70786 Jun 22, 2010
Persevere wrote:
<quoted text>
I only noticed who you were when I read your last sentence.
When I'm busy I don't always notice who's post it is. Fact is, yours, Moncie's and ladilulu's pics are all shaded similarly when not loooking directly at the photo, and you all sound alike. I began posting to Moncie about this, and only assumed that dumbass response you gave was from her.
OH, SUUURRE, Lynne @@ That's what you always say. LOL!

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#70787 Jun 22, 2010
State the Obvious wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU would see them die like that because you want to illegalize the better way -- a safe medical procedure.
It's not a better way if it results in the death of her child. Seems to me the better way would be to avoid that situation all together. But hey responbility and logic aren't part of your solution are they?

“A person is a person no matter”

Since: Sep 07

how small.

#70789 Jun 22, 2010
State the Obvious wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as many women, probably more, do not regret having an abortion.
If these countries where abortion is highly restricted are any indicator of what the US could expect with the same restrictions, we will not see a drop in abortion rates. It may rise.
If you knew abortion rates would rise, if it were illegal, would you still advocate banning it?
Yes I would advocate banning it, because if it's wrong it's wrong. Just as I would not allow murder to be legalized, just because some still do it, I would not allow the murder of unborn to be legalized, because it is not right, ethical or moral to make legal such a law that infringes on the inalienable right to life.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#70790 Jun 22, 2010
Interesting, but not in the least bit surprising:

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blo...
Lux et Veritas

Minneapolis, MN

#70791 Jun 22, 2010
The Weatherman wrote:
<quoted text>
Pro-deathers love the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Look it up.
Oh, wait. They only like M-W when looking up "baby", "child", "murder", etc...
Admit it. The vast majority of abortions stopped a perfectly healthy pregnancy from producing a "baby" that otherwise would have had a good chance at a fairly normal life, regardless of what the "mother" thought at the time of the abortion.
One of my best friend's mother (19 at the time, in college, no money, living with her mother) had the father run off before his birth, and my friend is pretty normal.
She was "inconvenienced" and dealt with it.
I am glad she did, and so is she and MANY others.
The majority of abortions are performed for similar reasons, yet pro-death overlooks it.
Abortion is a medical decision? Bullsh*t.
Guttmacher data says at least 93% of the time, it is NOT.
Minnesota statistics indicate much the same.

“Induced Abortions in Minnesota, 2008, Report to the Legislature,” released July 1, 2009, by the Minnesota Department of Health:

"A total of 12,948 abortions were performed in the state in 2008, compared to 13,843 the previous year. The 2008 total is the lowest number on record since 1975 and is also the lowest abortion rate (11.2 per 1,000 females age 15-44) since 1975.

"The 6.5% decline in abortions was the third largest annual percentage drop since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion on demand. Abortions dropped 7.7% in 1993; abortions dropped 7.5% in 1983

"40% of women who received an abortion in 2008 had at least one prior abortion. A total of 923 women reported they had had 3 or more prior abortions. 22 of the women reported that they had nine or more previous abortions.

Reasons women gave for their abortions (more than one reason could be given):
• Less than 1% for rape, incest,“impairment of major bodily function”
• 72%“does not want child at this time”
• 33% economic reasons

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 Planned Parenthood seeks fed study of fetal tis... 5 hr Chicagoan by Birth 727
News Pro-Life Group Head: Women Seeking Abortions Af... 7 hr cpeter1313 1
News Pastors target museum bust of Planned Parenthoo... 7 hr cpeter1313 1
News Starkehaus: Chicago's Archbishop equals abortio... 7 hr cpeter1313 1
News Abortion foes find new ways to get details abou... 10 hr cpeter1313 8
News Anti-abortion group releases video snippet afte... 10 hr cpeter1313 3
News Planned Parenthood alleges 'smear' in letter to... 14 hr Cat74 48
More from around the web