Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310231 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.

Anonymous

Jefferson, GA

#279792 Jan 25, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, he wasn't a mass murderer; in fact, most of the charges made about him were foreign propaganda. He is regarded as a hero in his own country.
You follow a deity who supposedly killed everyone on earth (except a handful of his pets). that IS MASS MURDER.
<quoted text>
your proof of this is WHERE? in biased Romanian fairy tales??

i have "proof" that the Holocaust didnt happen.....a clansman next door told me......and the dear leader of Iran!
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#279793 Jan 25, 2013
Tondaleyo wrote:
<quoted text>Why was a he called Vlad the Impaler? BECAUSE HE ORDERED THE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS BY IMPALING THEM.
Tondaleyo: "cPeter, why was he called Vlad the Impaler? BECAUSE HE ORDERED THE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS BY IMPALING THEM."

Vladdy can related to Vlad the Impaler through his baby-killing mission.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#279794 Jan 25, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
There's a Pro-Life march in Washington D.C. today.
As I said in a previous post, I believe God is speaking to our nation about abortion through the people in the Pro-Life movement. We are his modern-day prophets.
We Pro-Lifers believe that we have God on our side and His will is going to be accomplished through us, even though it may take a while to convince all you hardcore PCers that abortion is murder.
Roe vs Wade was a victory for the Devil, but this victory is only temporary. Eventually people around the world will see abortion for what it is and will outlaw it again...and I believe it won't be men who will have it outlawed, but women.
After 40 years as law, and 4 presidents trying to have it overturned, it's a permanent "temporary" victory.

A woman's constitutionally protected right to have an abortion will always be superior to you "modern day [idolaters]."
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#279795 Jan 25, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Do I irritate you? Good. Morons like you should be irritated; it's karma.
What's the deal? You'll never know.
<quoted text>
^^^ Vladdy The Impaler ^^^
Gtown71

United States

#279796 Jan 25, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that dosent happen, your point is both moot AND stupid.
If you don't want to answer any questions just tell me.

So late term /partial birth abortion has never took place?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#279797 Jan 25, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
I write the way I do to get the attention of you PCers and make you consider the abortion issue from new perspectives.
You have been so indoctrinated with Pro-Choice propaganda from the time of your birth that you are blind followers of it.
Perhaps by throwing new perspectives of the issue at you, you may start to consider whether your hardened PC position/viewpoints truly make sense and that they are truly just.
There isn't any more hardened position than the United States' Constitution, especially in light of biblical scriptures and religious teachings not being expressly against abortion, but in fact, for it. Hosea 13:16 and Hosea 9:14 and 16 are prime examples.
Gtown71

United States

#279798 Jan 25, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I'm saying it doesn't take faith to look at the evidence concerning geology or biology. That you can't understand it I
ls another matter.
Biblical input can be taught in contextx like literature or comparative religions; it cannot be taught in a manner that suggests it is true.
Your little girl's school is in blatant violation of the law.
<quoted text>
What law?

Most schools are afaid to have in them, what they had for years becouse they may get carried to court "which cost money ".

You like science? Just look at schools 50 years ago compared to today.
Anonymous

Jefferson, GA

#279799 Jan 25, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Tondaleyo: "cPeter, why was he called Vlad the Impaler? BECAUSE HE ORDERED THE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS BY IMPALING THEM."
Vladdy can related to Vlad the Impaler through his baby-killing mission.
I think Vlad Jr. gets off on the idea of Romanias enemies having steaks slowly shoved inside them as they die slowly...

sick
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#279800 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion -bill_n_2541894.html
Completely outrageous.
One, what are they going to do with the child, keep it in the evidence locker until the trial? These people say WE objectify a fetus, well what the f*ck do they think THIS proposal does?
Two, do they even have ANY concept of WHY incest is really illegal?
Wouldn't saving the cord and taking a DNA sample be just as acceptable for evidence?

Do these people really believe they are "helping" women with these ridiculous ideas?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#279801 Jan 25, 2013
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Vlad Jr. gets off on the idea of Romanias enemies having steaks slowly shoved inside them as they die slowly...
sick
T-bone? Porterhouse? Sirloin? And was the beef cooked, or raw when it was "shoved inside them"?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#279802 Jan 25, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The woman would've been defiled if she "CHEATED " not if she was "PREGNANT ".
Clearly, the ingestion of the "bitter water" and the woman's body's reaction to it is the test to find out if she cheated. I'm not sure how you're missing those passagees.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>Plus the only way to come to your version, is by using the last verse, that states the clean woman "the woman who did not cheat " "the woman IN YOUR VIEW that was not pregnant" was the woman who had an abortion, and is now cleared to get pregnant.
Not at all. Again, clearly the passages outline a comparison between what the "bitter water" will do to the woman who is defiled and how it will not affect the woman who has not cheated.

Again, you're either not reading the bulk of the passages or you are ignoring them.

Clearly, the "bitter water" evidences the adultery in a physical way. That physical way is specific to the woman's womb, loins, procreational organs. Clearly, the evidence is outward for the whole community to see. Clearly, the woman who did not commit adultery can conceive seed with her husband. The guilty woman, by contrast, could not.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#279803 Jan 25, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
You better change your ways or you may end up a slave of Satan's in the after-life.
OH NO BE AFFRAID OF A MADE UP MYTH BAD GUY,.,.,.,.,.SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE,,,,,,LOL......I live in real world.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#279804 Jan 25, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>

the pro choice folks show degrading pics of adult women who died frim their choices.

They then say pro life folks do the same thing, by showing pics of dead "tissue " "wads " or whatever the call the child.

It is another double standard to say the unborn is NOT a baby, yet pics of an unborn child "IS " a baby.
"It is another double standard to say the unborn is NOT a baby, yet pics of an unborn child "IS " a baby."

No one I've seen post here has made that claim. Here's my post, again:

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
You have mentioned double standards several times.

This example illustrates a valid double standard.

A few AC posters here have said circulating the photo of Gerri Santoro's dead body is degrading. However, they do not apply the same standard to the photos that AC folks put on posters for public view - photos AC claim are dead children. Why would these ACers not consider a photo of an aborted fetus equally degrading?

**********

Clearly, I stated that it is AC folks who claim the photos are of dead children. Clearly, I did not state PC folks have made that claim.

You didn't address my point.

Do you have a learning disability? Not asking to be insulting. It's just that you misunderstand a lot of posts. I noticed Cpeter posted to you that you draw false inferences, and you do. However, you do it so often, I tend to believe it's not deliberate, and that you're simply having a hard time deciphering the text of others.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#279805 Jan 25, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't saving the cord and taking a DNA sample be just as acceptable for evidence?
Do these people really believe they are "helping" women with these ridiculous ideas?
No, they believe that they are making it hard for a woman to have an abortion. That's it. They're PRETENDING it's "helping women". I just read where the one who introduced the bill is now trying to backpedal, and say that the intent is to punish the rapist for "tampering with the evidence", and that she'll be rewording the bill.

HOW do you suppose that would work, exactly? A man rapes a woman, she gets pregnant, she chooses to have an abortion, and they arrest HIM with "tampering with the evidence"?

These people just don't think things through.

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#279806 Jan 25, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't saving the cord and taking a DNA sample be just as acceptable for evidence?
Do these people really believe they are "helping" women with these ridiculous ideas?
What's even more horrifying in my mind is that a rapist could skate unless validated by dna from offspring. Since when do all rapes end in conception? Further what if the woman has relations with others - does that mean she "asked" to be raped. Sickening on all levels.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#279807 Jan 25, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is!!! A pregnant woman can choose to be a mother of a alive child or a dead one, but either way she is a mother.
Why do you suppose, then, most women do not oonsider themselves to be mothers when they miscarry (and have no children)? They "keep trying" to conceive and carry to term so that they can be mothers. Would you tell such a woman she is the mother of a dead child(ren)?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#279808 Jan 25, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
KluelessKatie: "Stating it's a process changing from fetus to newborn is not worth verifying."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha!!
It's "not worth verifying" b/c you're talking out your arse.
Again.
__________
KluelessKatie: "There is no magical moment when fetus becomes baby -- which was the PL claim."
The transition between theses stages of human life are well established. It's not a prolife claim, dear.
__________
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Again.
Mental midget.
Your personal attacks, ad homs, are weak. These only highlight your inability to go beyond dissecting into analyzing basic concepts and principles.

You asked a hypothetical. I answered it. I based my answer on the medical fact a stillborn is technically considered a fetus because it didn't take its first breath.

That's it. All the other info presented was to help others understand. You've chosen to go over this again and again. But you've added nothing. You still can't claim I am wrong, no matter how often or how loud or how rude your posts when you try.

Yes, medically, fetus adjusting to life outside the womb is a process. It encompasses the newborn's ability to sustain itself outside the womb.

Legally, that magical moment of fetus becoming newborn is upon a complete birth (when baby's breathing and the cord is cut).

It is that simple.
Anonymous

Jefferson, GA

#279809 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
T-bone? Porterhouse? Sirloin? And was the beef cooked, or raw when it was "shoved inside them"?
thank you, at least you see how sick this SOB is
STO

Vallejo, CA

#279810 Jan 25, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Because fetuses didn't CHOOSE to risk dying, they were killed. They didn't CHOOSE to kill their child in utero out of FEAR, they were the ones killed. We're not the side that keeps using "right to privacy" as its mantra, yet that woman's privacy couldn't be more violated than that, and done by PCers. LOTS of reasons why the double standards are from PCers and not PLers.
Because a fetus isn't capable of making a choice and Gerri Santoro made a choice, you're postulating Gerri Santoro has a "right to privacy" after death, while the fetus does not.

Even tho neither are the least bit aware.

Sorry, lilLynne, but your opinion does not speak to the point. When you claim a fetus should be viewed no differently than a woman, then logically, you would apply the same standard to both. And in this case, you are not. That is why we are pointing out your double standard.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#279811 Jan 25, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
What's even more horrifying in my mind is that a rapist could skate unless validated by dna from offspring. Since when do all rapes end in conception? Further what if the woman has relations with others - does that mean she "asked" to be raped. Sickening on all levels.
It is, AJ. I can barely wrap my mind around the implications of it all.

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 4 min FuMan Chu Yanks 320,648
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 8 min Trunketeer 10,913
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 11 min NEMO the RINO 6,413
al notso sharpton off the air 12 min Guinness Drinker 9
Reasons to cheer For President Obama One, Two..... (Apr '12) 20 min Guinness Drinker 1,018
Time to go? 48 min sans sousi 3,272
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 49 min Nassau 3 12,452
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 1 hr Trunketeer 12,405
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 2 hr Joe Friday 36,892
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages