Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311019 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.

Katie

Auburn, WA

#283533 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Naturally. YOU tell ME that I'm mixing up viable and viability and then when asked to explain something that YOU raised, you cowardly beg off.
I figured as much. You're nothing if not predictable.
You have no idea yourself what the difference is.....other than one is a noun and one is an adjective.
What do you care? You've not been interested in a serious discussion with me for years. And if you were, you'd know how to pull old posts and find serious answers from me among these.

FWIW, I believe you do want the courts to determine the benchmarks of when ALS is used rather than the physicians. I think you want it to be as early as possible, even if only one newborn survives. And I think you want this regardless of the costs and expenses involved for all parties (including the newborn) whether financial, physical, and/or emotional.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#283534 Feb 11, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what you're asking, but no matter where or what anyone is raised in we all have different views about Jesus Christ.
I was raised as a child to believe in Jesus, but after things happening in my life, I decided that All I was taught was wrong.
I still remember the night I decided there was No God, and all I was taught was a lie.
I remained this way untill age 29, when I was woken up, by God and after I yeiled to Him, He saved my soul and changed my view on life forever.
A few months later I found out what happened to me.
The bible described exactly what happened to me.
I have since then realized that many go to church or claim a certain God will be their God.
Usualy this is what they were taught, or becouse that certain god fit their life.
Many are atheist, becouse they cannot find a god, that is ok with the life they wish to live.
I became an atheist, after finding my father dead, and the woman who carried me to church for years, begain to live a life that was the opposite of what a christian should be.
The way our parents live and raise us has a huge impact on our lives.
I now know that God is real, becouse only God could do what He did in my life.
Only God can make a man, like the ex guitar player of korn, to walk away from all the women, drugs, money, power that comes with it,and become a dad and a person who is a child of God.
I simply tell how I was saved. Many hate my story, and wish I would go away.
I could easily go away, but just don't feel lead to do so yet.
So whether they are catholic, baptist, morman, or atheist, if they don't know Jesus Christ as the Only way to Heaven, then they have a twisted view on Jesus Christ.
They should kill this view and look again.
If someone is serious about finding God, then they can find Him.
Most that don't want their life to change, or concern theirself with eternity will not look for God.
A person must be at a point in their life, where they are "willing " to let anything go, for the truth.
With sooo many voices screaming truth, they cannot all be.
The reason for my question, which you failed to answer, is the Christianity gets painted with many strokes, all claiming to have anchor in truth. If you are going to Evangelize your faith, let be clear as to what faith you are evanglizing! There are great differences in those of who believe in Jesus Christ, so for the sake of further discussions, I need to understand under what umbrella your preaching from.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283535 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
New York, Washington, California, and a few others had legal abortion prior to Roe. How could you forget this? Gonna take lotsa work to set yourself straight there, Doc.
California did NOT have legal elective abortion prior to 1973 genius. Who needs lotsa work ?

In any case the fact that 4 states out of 50 had legal unrestricted abortion prior to 1973 was NOT the point. The point was that in the overwhelming majority of states elective abortion was ILLEGAl. And my question to Wrong (not) Right Loon was would she have been OK with that ? Would she have been OK with saying she defended the rights of woman to choose "within the law"....meaning would she have been OK with the fact that her defense of a woman's choice WITHIN THE LAW would have meant that she was defending the restriction of a woman's abortion rights in 46 of 50 states.

THAT was the point genius.
Do you EVER....I mean EVER ....get anything right ?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#283536 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Who believes that ? Not me. All things and rights being equal I believe the born woman should ALWAYS take precedence. You just make stuff up.
<quoted text>
About what ? You don't even know what you're talking about.
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.

So you want me to believe you do not do the same?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#283537 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That's a good question. I wonder if it's American Jews that tend to be progressive. I mean, look at Netanyahu; he's quite the Conservative.
Exactly my point. And in my travels across Europe, I have met many conservative Jewish people, but here, very progressive. Is it the water?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#283538 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.
So you want me to believe you do not do the same?
NOt to interfere with the conversation you were having, but when you say takes precedence, under what circumstances would that even come up?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#283539 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
California did NOT have legal elective abortion prior to 1973 genius. Who needs lotsa work ?
In any case the fact that 4 states out of 50 had legal unrestricted abortion prior to 1973 was NOT the point. The point was that in the overwhelming majority of states elective abortion was ILLEGAl. And my question to Wrong (not) Right Loon was would she have been OK with that ? Would she have been OK with saying she defended the rights of woman to choose "within the law"....meaning would she have been OK with the fact that her defense of a woman's choice WITHIN THE LAW would have meant that she was defending the restriction of a woman's abortion rights in 46 of 50 states.
THAT was the point genius.
Do you EVER....I mean EVER ....get anything right ?
Yes, all the time. It's not my problem it flies right over your head. Btw, seventeen is more than four.

"In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box)."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060...

(the box is at the bottom of the page and CA is one of those states, just like i mentioned)

The point's been made more often than I count, that within those laws, pregnant women were free to leave their home states, go to those states with legal abortion, and obtain the same. So your question to LNM is moot.

Why don't you start showing some respect and using people's actual SNs? You want me to begin referring to you as bawkbawkdoc?'Cause you seem chicken to actually use your brain for anything aside from ad homs.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283540 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you care? You've not been interested in a serious discussion with me for years. And if you were, you'd know how to pull old posts and find serious answers from me among these.
You brought it up. You said I was confusing the two. I asked you to set me straight. So far you've had two chances to answer....two chances to engage in a so called serious discussion....and you turn tail and run. You're a phony.
FWIW, I believe you do want the courts to determine the benchmarks of when ALS is used rather than the physicians. I think you want it to be as early as possible, even if only one newborn survives. And I think you want this regardless of the costs and expenses involved for all parties (including the newborn) whether financial, physical, and/or emotional.
Wrong. I do not want the courts to determine the benchmarks of when ALS is used. Need to hear it again ? Or are you going to come back again and recite the same inaccurate bullshit all over again ?
What I believe brainless one ( now pay attention I'm gonna go
slow )......is that MD's will ALWAYS make the determination of when ALS is used. However, legally, and in accordance with RvW's precedent setting definition, they CANNOT declare an infant non-viable if it needs ALS. Once THEY make the determination that ALS should be used, then they have already made the determination that that infant is viable. Get the distinction ?
Or are you still as dense as a rock ?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283541 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly my point. And in my travels across Europe, I have met many conservative Jewish people, but here, very progressive. Is it the water?
That would be nice, lol.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#283542 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>NOt to interfere with the conversation you were having, but when you say takes precedence, under what circumstances would that even come up?
Doc and I are discussing elective abortion.

Of all annual abortions, 98% are performed between 7-8wks gestation. This is on an embryo the size of a Tic Tac.

When people claim they want elective abortion criminalized because the "teeny tiny baby with a heart beat is being maliciously killed," imo, they're putting precedence of the embryo over the girl/woman gestating it.
Anonymous

United States

#283543 Feb 11, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an excellent post.
Thank feces, I try to write things that are true, even though they are not always welcome.

Do you like it when people tell you what you want to hear, or do you prefer them telling you what you need to hear?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283544 Feb 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very often when I take the time to write posts for the purpose of discussion or answering questions those posts get ignored. Most recently I wrote a detailed response to a question Gtown asked and there was no response.
As you recall, you once accused me of not answering a question you asked, I told you that I had taken the time to write an in depth answer and you didn't believe it, so I hunted down the post to show you. This happens a lot. I can only conclude that the questioner can't refute my responses so they just skip them.
Your conclusion is incorrect, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for Gtown. If I said you didn't respond and you did, then it was because I legitimately missed it....certainly not because I couldn't refute what you said.

Regardless, let's not focus on the past. Right now I asked you a serious question about RvW because I sincerely want to get your feedback.

You're up.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#283545 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You brought it up. You said I was confusing the two. I asked you to set me straight. So far you've had two chances to answer....two chances to engage in a so called serious discussion....and you turn tail and run. You're a phony.
<quoted text>
Wrong. I do not want the courts to determine the benchmarks of when ALS is used. Need to hear it again ? Or are you going to come back again and recite the same inaccurate bullshit all over again ?
What I believe brainless one ( now pay attention I'm gonna go
slow )......is that MD's will ALWAYS make the determination of when ALS is used. However, legally, and in accordance with RvW's precedent setting definition, they CANNOT declare an infant non-viable if it needs ALS. Once THEY make the determination that ALS should be used, then they have already made the determination that that infant is viable. Get the distinction ?
Or are you still as dense as a rock ?
Remember the talk of the 50% gas exchange? That's already a protocol in determining viability. If physicians think the fetus has not reached the 50% mark, it will be determined nonviable.

With that said, you do know scientists are tweaking artificial surfactant, yes? So in that sense, all that you say above *could* open the door for the courts to determine when viability is rather than the physicians. Fifty percent won't matter because they can use this new-fangled ALS and inject artificial surfactant to bring the newborn to viability.

I brought this up to you before, but you and glossed (misunderstood, ignored, poked fun of, or myriad other options) right over it.

Do you see this Doc? Or are you going to start flinging ad homs like monkeys fling sh*t?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283546 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.
So you want me to believe you do not do the same?
Pay attention genius...it's something you demonstrate you have a REAL problem doing.
I said all things being equal including rights, then the woman takes precedence. And I meant it. If a pregnancy is threatening a woman's life then the LIFE of the woman takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Right to life vs the Right to life.
Saying that a woman's right to privacy takes precedence over the fetus's right to life is NOT a case of the same or equal rights being considered for each.
Anonymous

United States

#283547 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text> The reason for my question, which you failed to answer, is the Christianity gets painted with many strokes, all claiming to have anchor in truth. If you are going to Evangelize your faith, let be clear as to what faith you are evanglizing! There are great differences in those of who believe in Jesus Christ, so for the sake of further discussions, I need to understand under what umbrella your preaching from.
I'm a guy who truly didn't believe in God, who was saved by God, as decribed in the bible. So I am a biblical christian who has no problem attending any christian church for growth as a christian. You're correct when you say that there are many many different secs of "christians ",and all claim to be the true christians. I met God at home and was saved at home, which I am very thankful for. I line up who I am, by prayer, Gods Word, and common sense about it all.

So I geuss I cannot give you an answer, other then I was a sinner on my way to Hell, and now I'm a sinner on my way to Heaven.

I give All credit for any good I do or have had done to me to Jesus Christ, for He alone is worthy.

I believe that if anyone is truly serious about knowing God, instead of knowing about God, that they can call on Him, and He will reveal Himself to that person.
They don't have to know anything at all about Him, and they can be as sinful as they come.
He died once and for all.
He rose again once and for all.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#283548 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc and I are discussing elective abortion.
Of all annual abortions, 98% are performed between 7-8wks gestation. This is on an embryo the size of a Tic Tac.
When people claim they want elective abortion criminalized because the "teeny tiny baby with a heart beat is being maliciously killed," imo, they're putting precedence of the embryo over the girl/woman gestating it.
My response will probably not enamour me to you, however, In my world, life begins at conception, not a popular viewpoint here, but mine, so, the taking of that life, anywhere in the process, other than to save the life of the mother, due to complications, etc. is an issue for me! Now, and I again don't agree with the law of the land, but it is what it is, in your senario, it maybe, again under current law, accepable, however, the partial birth abortions permitted, and you would know the percentages better than I, I truely have big problems with. Thanks for the explanation!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283549 Feb 11, 2013
Huskerlicious wrote:
<quoted text> I really don't think there are any *liberal* bishops, Mahoney can't participate, thank God anymore. Most if not all the Bishops are more orthodox. I sure hope Dolan is the new Pope, but I doubt he will, he would make a great one, but i think there will be one from South America. Benedict did his job by appointing Bishops that would agree with him and with Blessed John Paul II.
You mean THIS Mahony?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02...

Apparently you're wrong. He will be participating.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283550 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
Eating pork during lent to "stick" it to you puts grave doubts upon Jewishness of your friends.
I find much of our liberalism comes from our belief that our entrance into heaven depends on what we leave behind. Our law says that when we die, our soul is in pergatory and our entry into heaven is based on the effect we had on our survivors.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283551 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
Yes, all the time. It's not my problem it flies right over your head.
Your idiocy flies over my head a lot.
Btw, seventeen is more than four.
"In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box)."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060...
(the box is at the bottom of the page and CA is one of those states, just like i mentioned)
Read brainiac.....READ ! Elective abortion ! Without restriction.
Only 4 states had legal unrestricted abortion before 1973......FOUR. Not 17 !
And no.....4 is NOT more than 17.
The point's been made more often than I count, that within those laws, pregnant women were free to leave their home states, go to those states with legal abortion, and obtain the same. So your question to LNM is moot.
The point is not moot genius. If it were then you'd be OK with going back to pre RvW days and have the States individually set their own abortion laws. I'm sure there would be at least a few that would keep it legal so any woman who lived in a State where it was illegal would be free to jet right over there and kill that little nuisance legally.
In any case you've had your say on this....as stupid and idiotic as it is. Why don't we let the person to whom the question was asked.....answer. Whaddya say huh ? Ya nosy parker ya.
Why don't you start showing some respect and using people's actual SNs? You want me to begin referring to you as bawkbawkdoc?
Oh button it you old crank. All you PC do here is make clever little take-off names on PL posters.....knutter, Dic, skank, etc. Now all of sudden you demand respect ? Get lost you hypocritical phony.
'Cause you seem chicken to actually use your brain for anything aside from ad homs.
Yeah right....that's all my posts are....just a litany of ad homs.
You're a complete joke.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283552 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
I've asked this question and the only answer I got was that Jesus only cared about our soul.(?)
Here's the question: If Jesus was alive today, "Would he be against taxing the rich to help the needy?"

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) 5 min Sheriff Joe 327,578
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 20 min jimi-yank 38,771
Preet Bharara the Jews Filthy Hindu lapdog 51 min Plottmaster 1
News Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive' (Oct '08) 1 hr Bruser 8,244
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 58,884
Time to go? (Jun '15) 1 hr southern at heart 10,395
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 2 hr GEORGIA 13,767
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 12 hr Jack Coan The Badger 13,303
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 13 hr jimi-yank 10,621
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages