Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311338 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#286943 Feb 26, 2013
My ex is a CNA, and he can't assist in surgery in any way. He can't even be in the room during the procedure; his job is to help the patient before and after.
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that in order to assist in a medical procedure, one would have to be a licensed medical professional, in some capacity, in order to do so. For example, I work in a pharmacy and unless you have a Pharmacist or Pharmacy Technician license, you cannot even go past a certain point in the pharmacy much less assist me with my job. For example, a stock boy is allowed to come in to bring in totes of medication. A computer tech can come in to fix a computer HOWEVER, absolutely under NO circumstances are they allowed to do any part of a Pharmacist or Pharmacy Tech job. The pharmacy can be fined or lose their license if the state board got wind of that.
The only way I could think of Abby Johnson "assisting" is if the patient wanted someone in there to hold her hand during the procedure. If that was the case, ok, but as far as medically assisting during the procedure, unless she's a licensed medical professional, I doubt that happened.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#286944 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think pregnant women go to PP, to have their babies delivered?
Pregnant women go to the hospital to have their babies.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#286945 Feb 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And the Illuminati, lol.
There is more abuse at school.
Go to jail.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#286946 Feb 26, 2013
He should be more concerned about the pedophile priests instead of gay priests, since not one priest convicted of molestation has been found to be gay.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Like every one else I don't know if we have been given the real reason. I have heard that he is simply physically to incapacitated to carry on, travel etc. I have also heard that he is just too mentally worn down from the sex scandals. Especially with the reports of all the gay priests in Rome and now another homosexual cardinal has resigned. At first I didn't believe the stories about abuse, then I thought they were misguidedly protecting the Church and now I'm beginning to believe that they were protecting themselves and their abhorant lifestyles.
I don't blame the Pope for resigning no matter the reason and I can't imagine why anyone else would want the job.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#286947 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Like every one else I don't know if we have been given the real reason. I have heard that he is simply physically to incapacitated to carry on, travel etc. I have also heard that he is just too mentally worn down from the sex scandals. Especially with the reports of all the gay priests in Rome and now another homosexual cardinal has resigned. At first I didn't believe the stories about abuse, then I thought they were misguidedly protecting the Church and now I'm beginning to believe that they were protecting themselves and their abhorant lifestyles.
I don't blame the Pope for resigning no matter the reason and I can't imagine why anyone else would want the job.
Hey "Ink!"

It may--or may not--surprise you to learn that I've been thinking much along the same lines; that the reasons he's given for retiring are likely genuine.
If that's the case, I'd say it's a refreshing display of clarity from the "leader" of a faith I'd argue it too concerned/obsessed with "tradition."
As an outsider who has a history of Polish Catholicism in his familial background I can hardly claim to be an "objective" observer but, by that very statement, I also don't think anyone really can be "objective" when it comes to religion since religion, by its very nature, is inherently "subjective."
I'm currently reading Frank Schaeffer's memoir, "Crazy for God," and he wrote a passage that I felt was rather poignant; "Falling in faith and falling in love can be understood the same way. People fall in love with no evidence of how a relationship will work out and no real knowledge of who their partner is, let alone who they'll be in ten, twenty, or thirty years..."
It's probably the same way that many Catholics perceive their "relationship" with the Pope...it's an act of "faith."

Honestly, "Benedict" wasn't really welcomed with "open-arms" by either the Catholic community or the "Christian" world as a whole. I think there were several reasons for this; his papacy was bound to be eclipsed by that of his predecessor. Whatever may be said about John Paul II's shortcomings(and alleged "cover-ups" regarding the sex-scandals,) it can't be denied that he was a "towering" presence. As a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger has been implicated in the "cover-ups" of the sex-scandals--something which has certainly not "endeared" him to many.
I know several people love to point his membership in the Hitler Youth, but I hardly think that any of the blame for that can be laid at his feet.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#286949 Feb 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Witless? Some go to PP clinics for prenatal care, because some PP clinics offer prenatal care.
Few

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#286950 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Few
And? Your implication was that the only reason a pregnant woman would have for going to a PP clinic, is to have an abortion. The fact that there are PP clinics that provide prenatal care refutes your snarky innuendos, doesn't matter how many or few clinics do so.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#286951 Feb 26, 2013
Interesting. About time, I'd say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#286952 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
John, John, John, don't you think some of those charges are for assulting the mother?
My friend, I'm going by the wording of the article "Sue" provided which nowhere--explicitly--states that he was charged with assaulting his girlfriend, Janelle Fuller, though I'm sure we can agree that the charge of "simple assault," was directly related to her.
However, I doubt "Sue's" intent for posting this article was to express outrage at Mr. Stroud's treatment of his girlfriend, or "unborn child," but rather to display her incredulity that he would be charged with, "assaulting an unborn child," when the definition of "person-hood" hasn't been concretely established and that this has been one of the historical arguments made by the P-C side of the aisle for keeping abortion legal.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#286954 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Few
What a waste of money.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#286955 Feb 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Your implication was that the only reason a pregnant woman would have for going to a PP clinic, is to have an abortion. The fact that there are PP clinics that provide prenatal care refutes your snarky innuendos, doesn't matter how many or few clinics do so.
There are clinics that give doctor care and child care.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#286956 Feb 26, 2013
someoneuknow wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course biatch, you are such a freakshow. I'll remind you again how you lie here. You aborted your 27 week baby. I know you and you know me. You are pure evil and your friends here need to know the real you.
No, I don't know you. And you don't know me, you've more than proven that. I've never had an abortion, and you're the one lying.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#286957 Feb 26, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
What a waste of money.
You think prenatal care is a waste of money? That's an odd position for a fetus worshipper.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#286958 Feb 26, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
My friend, I'm going by the wording of the article "Sue" provided which nowhere--explicitly--states that he was charged with assaulting his girlfriend, Janelle Fuller, though I'm sure we can agree that the charge of "simple assault," was directly related to her.
However, I doubt "Sue's" intent for posting this article was to express outrage at Mr. Stroud's treatment of his girlfriend, or "unborn child," but rather to display her incredulity that he would be charged with, "assaulting an unborn child," when the definition of "person-hood" hasn't been concretely established and that this has been one of the historical arguments made by the P-C side of the aisle for keeping abortion legal.
Agreed. How are you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#286959 Feb 26, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
There are clinics that give doctor care and child care.
Do you even know what this particular discussion was about?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#286960 Feb 26, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey "Ink!"
It may--or may not--surprise you to learn that I've been thinking much along the same lines; that the reasons he's given for retiring are likely genuine.
If that's the case, I'd say it's a refreshing display of clarity from the "leader" of a faith I'd argue it too concerned/obsessed with "tradition."
As an outsider who has a history of Polish Catholicism in his familial background I can hardly claim to be an "objective" observer but, by that very statement, I also don't think anyone really can be "objective" when it comes to religion since religion, by its very nature, is inherently "subjective."
I'm currently reading Frank Schaeffer's memoir, "Crazy for God," and he wrote a passage that I felt was rather poignant; "Falling in faith and falling in love can be understood the same way. People fall in love with no evidence of how a relationship will work out and no real knowledge of who their partner is, let alone who they'll be in ten, twenty, or thirty years..."
It's probably the same way that many Catholics perceive their "relationship" with the Pope...it's an act of "faith."
Honestly, "Benedict" wasn't really welcomed with "open-arms" by either the Catholic community or the "Christian" world as a whole. I think there were several reasons for this; his papacy was bound to be eclipsed by that of his predecessor. Whatever may be said about John Paul II's shortcomings(and alleged "cover-ups" regarding the sex-scandals,) it can't be denied that he was a "towering" presence. As a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger has been implicated in the "cover-ups" of the sex-scandals--something which has certainly not "endeared" him to many.
I know several people love to point his membership in the Hitler Youth, but I hardly think that any of the blame for that can be laid at his feet.
My complements to you. It is so rare but refreshing to post to someone who isn't rude or snarky.

I'm sure that faith is perceive as you say but I don't think that non Catholics are aware of how little, vitually no relationhip Catholics have with the Pope. He might as well be on another planet.

John Paul seemed to be an ambassador of good will while things behind the scenes were bad. I don't know how much responsibility Benedict had as a Cardinal but I believe he tried tomake changes as Pope.
As far as being part of the Hitler Youth, the German boys had no choice.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#286961 Feb 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. How are you?
Ah, laid-up with a wretch of a "cold" this week.

Ironically, it gives me a chance to "catch-up" on Topix--go figure!
;P
Katie

Auburn, WA

#286963 Feb 26, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, laid-up with a wretch of a "cold" this week.
Ironically, it gives me a chance to "catch-up" on Topix--go figure!
;P
Feel better, John. There's a respiratory bug going around here, too, leaving a lot of us miserable this week.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#286964 Feb 26, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Based solely on its stage of development? Wrong again.
So you do not deny that you discriminate, only that you deny discriminating for only one reason. Comforting.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#286965 Feb 26, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, laid-up with a wretch of a "cold" this week.
Ironically, it gives me a chance to "catch-up" on Topix--go figure!
;P
I aws home in bed for almost two weeks with a cold or flu. Finally went to the doctor and I NEVER go to a doctor. Hope you feel better.

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
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 33 min Into The Night 60,091
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 2 hr GEORGIA 14,637
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 3 hr Hooplah 40,201
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 3 hr rainmaker2016 15,428
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 3 hr About Face 329,718
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 4 hr friend of shameless 10,956
Bernie Sanders et al. To 'Toe The Line' 4 hr Lena Dunham 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages