Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,557
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. Full Story
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319782 Dec 30, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me break this down for you since you don't understand what I mean by pro-abortion rights.
Pro means being in favor of. Abortion rights means right to have an abortion. If you say you are not pro-abortion rights that means you are not in favor of the right for people to have abortions. I would welcome the news but I'm sure you understand now that there is nothing inaccurate or unfair about the term. Also there are no sane 100% pro-choice people. If you are fully pro-choice that means you are an anarchist. That you believe in no laws whatsoever. That people should be abler to "choose" to do whatever they want to do. The whole pro-choice label is a way of the pro-abortion rights community trying to avoid using the word abortion. You see it all the time with pro-abortion rights politicians. They always use some euphemism which usually is scientifically inaccurate. They say reproductive rights or some other nonsense. When we are talking about abortion rights or restrictions we should be honest and not try and hide from what is really at issue. Most liberals including myself believe in gun control. The people who oppose gun control don't go around saying they are pro-choice (choice to own whatever weapons they want to.)
Proabortion is a word that popped up right after Roe v Wade was decided. It literally means to agree abortion should be legal. That's it.

Abortion is medically defined as pregnancy ending prior to term regardless if spontaneous or induced. That's it.

The PLM has created propaganda surrounding these two words so that people like you buy into the notion that female humans do not deserve civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy equal to the male portion of the human species. The PLM is manipulating men and women alike in order to steal women's civil rights out from under them. The money to finance this comes from the Religious Right.

You need to ask yourself if that's something you want to support while being spoon fed lies about strangers' developing embryos and fetuses.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319784 Dec 30, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Stop humanizing wads of goo"
Show some respect for Katie's son Aaron.
_______
"It's A Boy!"
www.TellMePinkOrBlue.com
She does. Unlike you.

When you've been asked repeatedly not to refer to me as van der sloot, yet you continue, you're disrespecting me. When you've been asked more than a few times to stop referring to my dead fetus named Aaron, yet you don't, you're disrespecting me.

When are you going to choose not to be such a hypocrite? When are you going to choose to practice what you preach?

Until that happens, you've got nothing worthwhile, only ad hominem attacks, to contribute to this conversation.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#319786 Dec 30, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Proabortion is a word that popped up right after Roe v Wade was decided. It literally means to agree abortion should be legal. That's it.
Abortion is medically defined as pregnancy ending prior to term regardless if spontaneous or induced. That's it.
The PLM has created propaganda surrounding these two words so that people like you buy into the notion that female humans do not deserve civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy equal to the male portion of the human species. The PLM is manipulating men and women alike in order to steal women's civil rights out from under them. The money to finance this comes from the Religious Right.
You need to ask yourself if that's something you want to support while being spoon fed lies about strangers' developing embryos and fetuses.
If spontaneous abortion & induced abortion were the same thing, there would be no need to name them spontaneous abortion or induced abortion. Doing so would be considered redundant. But, it's not redundant.

With induced abortion, mom "chooses" to have her baby killed & delivered dead...in pieces.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#319787 Dec 30, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
She does. Unlike you.
When you've been asked repeatedly not to refer to me as van der sloot, yet you continue, you're disrespecting me. When you've been asked more than a few times to stop referring to my dead fetus named Aaron, yet you don't, you're disrespecting me.
When are you going to choose not to be such a hypocrite? When are you going to choose to practice what you preach?
Until that happens, you've got nothing worthwhile, only ad hominem attacks, to contribute to this conversation.
"I called mine Aaron. And still do." http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

You specifically said that you continue to refer to your son as Aaron.

So..........
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#319788 Dec 30, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Proabortion is a word that popped up right after Roe v Wade was decided. It literally means to agree abortion should be legal. That's it.
Abortion is medically defined as pregnancy ending prior to term regardless if spontaneous or induced. That's it.
The PLM has created propaganda surrounding these two words so that people like you buy into the notion that female humans do not deserve civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy equal to the male portion of the human species. The PLM is manipulating men and women alike in order to steal women's civil rights out from under them. The money to finance this comes from the Religious Right.
You need to ask yourself if that's something you want to support while being spoon fed lies about strangers' developing embryos and fetuses.
Katie Van der Sloot: "Abortion is medically defined as pregnancy ending prior to term regardless if spontaneous or induced. That's it."

Natural death and intentional killing are not the same. Both result in "death," but nobody in their right mind would consider the manner of death similar. Except for maybe a malignant sociopath.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#319789 Dec 30, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what I said.
Why must you lie so much?
You most certainly DID say that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb. You were forced to in order to be intellectually honest regarding DNA BIOLOGICAL facts.

After I pointed out what you said, you went off on a subjective "philosophy" tangent.....as far away from bioligical facts as you could.

Katie openly agrees that referring to a preborn baby as a "useless wad of cells" is just fine....BUT asterisks her statement that she's aware the wad of cells has a sex (male/female). Why does she feeled compelled to have to add this fact? Because science makes her.

"It's A Boy!"

"It's A Girl!"

www.TellMePinkOrBlue.com
________

You see, you morons are all about "biology and science"...... until you're not. When science proves you wrong, you lean on the subjectivity of philosophy. You are willing to chase your tails in dizzying & intellectually dishonest fashion in order to hold tight to the culture of death.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319790 Dec 30, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
If spontaneous abortion & induced abortion were the same thing, there would be no need to name them spontaneous abortion or induced abortion. Doing so would be considered redundant. But, it's not redundant.
With induced abortion, mom "chooses" to have her baby killed & delivered dead...in pieces.
Perhaps you, Doctor NR, should take it upon yourself to inform the AMA and the OB/GYNs of their "redundancy".

<rolling eyes at the med school drop out>

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319791 Dec 30, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly DID say that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb. You were forced to in order to be intellectually honest regarding DNA BIOLOGICAL facts.
After I pointed out what you said, you went off on a subjective "philosophy" tangent.....as far away from bioligical facts as you could.
Katie openly agrees that referring to a preborn baby as a "useless wad of cells" is just fine....BUT asterisks her statement that she's aware the wad of cells has a sex (male/female). Why does she feeled compelled to have to add this fact? Because science makes her.
"It's A Boy!"
"It's A Girl!"
www.TellMePinkOrBlue.com
________
You see, you morons are all about "biology and science"...... until you're not. When science proves you wrong, you lean on the subjectivity of philosophy. You are willing to chase your tails in dizzying & intellectually dishonest fashion in order to hold tight to the culture of death.
You Idiot, I was talking about your first sentence. Your second one is irrelevant to the discussion, as always.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319792 Dec 30, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"I called mine Aaron. And still do." http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
You specifically said that you continue to refer to your son as Aaron.
So..........
So? Like I told Ink, I named dead puppies and kittens, too.
What are you going to do about it? Refer to them constantly as well?

One was Jesse. One was Pepper. One was Callie. Shall I go on? And can I look forward to more redundant posts from you regarding their names along with Aaron's? He'd probably be older than you are now, had he survived development. Funny thing when one doesn't grow kidneys. Not able to survive. However, his donated corpse probably allowed science to understand a little more than they had prior to receiving his remains. At least I hope so.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319793 Dec 30, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly DID say that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb. You were forced to in order to be intellectually honest regarding DNA BIOLOGICAL facts.
After I pointed out what you said, you went off on a subjective "philosophy" tangent.....as far away from bioligical facts as you could.
Katie openly agrees that referring to a preborn baby as a "useless wad of cells" is just fine....BUT asterisks her statement that she's aware the wad of cells has a sex (male/female). Why does she feeled compelled to have to add this fact? Because science makes her.
"It's A Boy!"
"It's A Girl!"
www.TellMePinkOrBlue.com
________
You see, you morons are all about "biology and science"...... until you're not. When science proves you wrong, you lean on the subjectivity of philosophy. You are willing to chase your tails in dizzying & intellectually dishonest fashion in order to hold tight to the culture of death.
What a twister you are. I do not agree "referring to a preborn baby as a "useless wad of cells" is just fine..." I said I don't control how others choose to express themselves. You want to choose to be a hypocrite and use ad hominem attacks instead of actually debating, go ahead. You just have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the conversation while you do so.

See how that works, oh disrespectful one?

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#319794 Dec 30, 2013
Mike"
I consider it my business when any Homo Sapiens dies.

----------
thats a pretty big boast....but i seriously doubt it....you are just another control freak wannabe

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319795 Dec 30, 2013
You're an idiot, but surely someone has explained how medical science works, right?
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "Do you think women should be constrained by the whims of biological happenstance?"
You're gay, but surely somebody has explained to you what causes pregnancy. Right?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#319796 Dec 30, 2013
We weren't created, and no woman has to pout up with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "No organism, homo sapien, or future farmer of america has a right to be gestated without her permission."
Pregnancy is exactly how mankind was created to procreate. The new human being does not require permission to be exactly where he was created to be. Stop dehumanizing humans. Again.
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#319797 Dec 30, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh! This is where I'm forced to accept the double-edged nature of that invaluable tool, the internet. It affords one the practically limitless availability of a treasure trove of encyclopedic knowledge, but has the unfortunate tendency to make users mistake Googling for "researching," or "studying."
I'll make this as brief as I'm able. To determine the age of any given sample of rock, you measure the amount of radioactive material it contains. As a rock ages, the radioactive atoms it contains decay into what are called "daughter atoms." Uranium decays into lead, radioactive potassium decays into argon. The more "daughter atoms" a rock contains, relative to its original radioactive atoms, the older the rock is. Studies thus far have shown that the average age of 3.6 billion years yet, many geologists are of the opinion that the earth is even older because samples taken from other sources if the solar system--the Moon for example--have been aged at approximately 4.5 billion years.
Now, the way scientists have calculated the age of the Universe they've set forth an equation.
The universe's age is represented by "t." Two representative galaxies are then used to measure distance "D," with a velocity "V." To make this easier, it's assumed that "V" is a constant. The equation that follows is D=Vt, or distance equals velocity multiplied by time. To find out how long ago the galaxies began to move away from one another you divide distance by velocity, or t=D/V.
Is it exact? Of course not. But it's a close as one can come to "objectively" measuring the available data and so far, the data presented has held up quite well.
Then you have the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd from the "Discovery Institute" who, would not have engendered the scorn of the majority of the scientific community mainly for being thoroughly dishonest about their aims.
But you're not accounting for Higgs' Bosons.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#319798 Dec 30, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the pro-"life" fundies will sigh contently thinking this is such a beautiful story. Mother and baby die together and fly off to rainbow heaven to romp forever on glitter clouds just as their god intended. And they all lived happily ever after...
I'm not a "fundie" as you so ignorantly label all who oppose abortion, but as a non-religious pro-lifer I've got a couple of questions/comments regarding this story.

Three years after it ended, the story of Angela Carder remains heartrending. She was 27 years old, 26 weeks pregnant, a cancer patient at George Washington University Medical Center and close to death. The issue arose, should she undergo a Caesarean procedure? Her doctors doubted the fetus was viable yet; Mrs. Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear, and her family believed that she would not want surgery that would probably shorten her life.
But the hospital, saying that it feared potential legal liability if it made no effort to save the fetus, sought a judicial ruling. The judge, saying he was obliged to balance Mrs. Carder's interests against the Government's "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," ordered the surgery. The baby, a girl, lived for only two hours. Mrs. Carder, who regained consciousness, cried on being told her daughter was dead. Two days later so was she.
In April the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals wisely overturned the lower court's order, saying that the only factor to be considered was what Mrs. Carder wanted, determined from all available evidence. "The right of bodily integrity," Judge John A. Perry said, "is not extinguished simply because someone is ill, or even at death's door." Meanwhile Angela Carder's parents, Nettie and Dan Stoner, sued the Medical Center for malpractice and civil rights violations."

It doesn't add up. First off it says she was "close to death" yet her family believed she would not want a procedure that would "shorten her life". If she was close to death how much would the procedure have shortened her life......2 hours ?
At 26 weeks there was at least a 50/50 chance that her fetus was viable since 50% of all preemies born at 24 weeks survive. That is why RvW initially established 24 weeks as the limit of viability.

So with the procedure being done, one of these two lives could have potentially been saved.
So while you decry pro lifers for supporting a measure that may have saved one life, you support the position that would have sealed the death of BOTH lives.

Makes a lot of sense.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#319799 Dec 30, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a "fundie" as you so ignorantly label all who oppose abortion, but as a non-religious pro-lifer I've got a couple of questions/comments regarding this story.

one of these two lives could have potentially been saved.
So while you decry pro lifers for supporting a measure that may have saved one life, you support the position that would have sealed the death of BOTH lives.
Makes a lot of sense.
Welcome to the world of reality. So-called 'pro-life' positions, most often yield this same sort of conundrum, although their position usually discounts the life of the woman, rather than that of the fetus. For just one example, so-called 'pro-life' folks vehemently support restrictions of all kinds on this legal medical procedure, which often obligate women to wait longer and longer to have one, even if her health is threatened by her pregnancy. For another, so-called 'pro-life' folks are in favor of criminalizing abortion altogether, obligating women to seek needed abortions from unqualified, untrained, and unsanitary individuals, rather than physicians, and returning women to the back alleys and kitchen tables of yesteryear. Rather than see one life lost, the SCPL faction would prefer to kill both, in service to their views that abortion is 'wrong'.

How do you explain your own duplicitous thinking, in this regard?
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319800 Dec 30, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a "fundie" as you so ignorantly label all who oppose abortion, but as a non-religious pro-lifer I've got a couple of questions/comments regarding this story.
Three years after it ended, the story of Angela Carder remains heartrending. She was 27 years old, 26 weeks pregnant, a cancer patient at George Washington University Medical Center and close to death. The issue arose, should she undergo a Caesarean procedure? Her doctors doubted the fetus was viable yet; Mrs. Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear, and her family believed that she would not want surgery that would probably shorten her life.
But the hospital, saying that it feared potential legal liability if it made no effort to save the fetus, sought a judicial ruling. The judge, saying he was obliged to balance Mrs. Carder's interests against the Government's "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," ordered the surgery. The baby, a girl, lived for only two hours. Mrs. Carder, who regained consciousness, cried on being told her daughter was dead. Two days later so was she.
In April the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals wisely overturned the lower court's order, saying that the only factor to be considered was what Mrs. Carder wanted, determined from all available evidence. "The right of bodily integrity," Judge John A. Perry said, "is not extinguished simply because someone is ill, or even at death's door." Meanwhile Angela Carder's parents, Nettie and Dan Stoner, sued the Medical Center for malpractice and civil rights violations."
It doesn't add up. First off it says she was "close to death" yet her family believed she would not want a procedure that would "shorten her life". If she was close to death how much would the procedure have shortened her life......2 hours ?
At 26 weeks there was at least a 50/50 chance that her fetus was viable since 50% of all preemies born at 24 weeks survive. That is why RvW initially established 24 weeks as the limit of viability.
So with the procedure being done, one of these two lives could have potentially been saved.
So while you decry pro lifers for supporting a measure that may have saved one life, you support the position that would have sealed the death of BOTH lives.
Makes a lot of sense.
You have things backward. The C-Section was forced upon her against her wishes. She chose to treat the cancer, but the hospital wouldn't let her while pregnant. Her wishes were ignored even though, posthumously, the higher court determined her bodily autonomy was paramount over the fetus'.

"At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. Despite numerous doctors warning her of imminent death she survived. After years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy she was declared to be in remission. She got married and sought her doctor's advice on whether she could become pregnant with her health history. Since her cancer had been in remission for several years, her obstetrician said to go ahead and get pregnant, which she did.

In 1987, when Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant, her cancer was discovered to have recurred and metastasized to her lung. Her initial plan was to begin radiation and chemotherapy immediately as she had been through too much already not to at least try to prolong her life, regardless of risks to the fetus. The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. immediately gave Carder only days to live and disagreed with her choice to put her own life ahead of that of the fetus. Instead of treating the cancer, they ignored her protests and inserted an oral feeding tube into her and administered sedatives in an effort to delay her death and increase her fetus' chance of continued development."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C .
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#319801 Dec 30, 2013
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a "fundie" as you so ignorantly label all who oppose abortion, but as a non-religious pro-lifer I've got a couple of questions/comments regarding this story.
Three years after it ended, the story of Angela Carder remains heartrending. She was 27 years old, 26 weeks pregnant, a cancer patient at George Washington University Medical Center and close to death. The issue arose, should she undergo a Caesarean procedure? Her doctors doubted the fetus was viable yet; Mrs. Carder was too heavily medicated to make her own wishes clear, and her family believed that she would not want surgery that would probably shorten her life.
But the hospital, saying that it feared potential legal liability if it made no effort to save the fetus, sought a judicial ruling. The judge, saying he was obliged to balance Mrs. Carder's interests against the Government's "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," ordered the surgery. The baby, a girl, lived for only two hours. Mrs. Carder, who regained consciousness, cried on being told her daughter was dead. Two days later so was she.
In April the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals wisely overturned the lower court's order, saying that the only factor to be considered was what Mrs. Carder wanted, determined from all available evidence. "The right of bodily integrity," Judge John A. Perry said, "is not extinguished simply because someone is ill, or even at death's door." Meanwhile Angela Carder's parents, Nettie and Dan Stoner, sued the Medical Center for malpractice and civil rights violations."
It doesn't add up. First off it says she was "close to death" yet her family believed she would not want a procedure that would "shorten her life". If she was close to death how much would the procedure have shortened her life......2 hours ?
At 26 weeks there was at least a 50/50 chance that her fetus was viable since 50% of all preemies born at 24 weeks survive. That is why RvW initially established 24 weeks as the limit of viability.
So with the procedure being done, one of these two lives could have potentially been saved.
So while you decry pro lifers for supporting a measure that may have saved one life, you support the position that would have sealed the death of BOTH lives.
Makes a lot of sense.
You miss the whole point of what you posted.
The decision satisfied the anti-abortioners.
The decision supports pro-choicers given that the court case was about whose choice should have been considered.
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319802 Dec 30, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
So really...what actual purpose does worship serve? Worship can really only feed the ego of a deity who is so far advanced anyway that he really doesn't need an ego-boost.
A truly good person is altruistic and through feelings of compassion (and not faith through grace) does indeed help others when the need arises. Sometimes that help comes from a kind word or a display of understanding. Sometimes it's just keeping quiet and listening. Sometimes it's doing much bigger things...
I don't even understand what "faith through grace" means, to tell you the truth. It sounds like some sort of platitude. I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs, but I just don't get how spending one's time worshiping and singing praises can be better use of that time than just being a good person who does good things for other people...to make our own corner of the world a better place.
Prisons are filled with good folks. They simply made a bad choice and got caught. Our goodness varies. Most of us have hidden agendas. Even when we try not to. As I told John. All i know is most people never have a core chsnge. Mine was overnight. Not by me. No amount of science can explain that. Not to mention how many say the same thing happened to them. I dont make sense. Nothing about the whole God thing, worship, tithing, makes sense. Does a tiny dot the size of a period spinning do fast it explodes into all we see make sense?
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319803 Dec 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
We weren't created, and no woman has to pout up with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
<quoted text>
We were either created atleast the first ones or i geuss what they d teach in school is correct. Thats up to you.

Why would God not just appear and tell us all what to do?
One of many questions i once asked.

If you were God what swould you do?
If you won the biggest lottery what would you do?
If you owned wal mart what would you do?

What have humans did in the past?

How many people on their wedding day think "i wonder what my next spouse will look like?"

We have good intentions, but rarely ever get through life the way we hoped for.

Many have abortions, get divorced, etc hoping to make the bad situation go away. Only to find it never really does.
Or find thrmselves in another bad situation later in life.

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
last post wins! (Jun '10) 20 min Concerned_American 25,380
What's wrong with Tman, good ole Momma Chamberlin 25 min Paul Yanks 197
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 45 min NYStateOfMind 310,325
jets talk back (Dec '07) 49 min Paul Yanks 9,680
Black hispanic looking male looking for love an... 1 hr Ralph Jones 2
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 2 hr Pat-Med 88 11,567
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 2 hr Unbiased Chargers... 16,205

New York News Video

New York Dating
Find my Match

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:21 am PST

Bleacher Report 3:21AM
Sizing Up Final Six Weeks of NFC East Race
NBC Sports 3:34 AM
Ben McAdoo defends Giants play-calling down the stretch
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Cowboys vs. Giants: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More
NBC Sports 4:57 AM
Rex Ryan: Jets improved "in a zillion ways" in three weeks
NBC Sports10:44 AM
Justin Pugh ruled out for Giants