Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311496 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

#252993 Aug 16, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking NPR, do you listen to Snap Judgment?
Every chance I get! NPR is about all I listen to in my car daily!

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252994 Aug 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yes, the pregnancy IS about her. She takes the risks, she deals with all the changes, and SHE owns her body. Where the hell does it say that the woman no longer matters once she gets pregnant?
She does matter and all laws protect her life. But where the hell does it say that those responsible for creating life have an absolute right to terminate such life? Susan Smith carried all her children to term, did that give her more of a right to terminate her children since she endured all the suffering of pregnancy? Did you argue to protect her rights?
cpeter1313 wrote:
She has no obligation whatsoever to a fetus she chooses not to gestate, just as she has no obligation to sustain a born person whose care she does not accept responsibility for.
<quoted text>
So your arguments are that for lack of accountability? I got news for you little man, your generation of laziness and responsibility has dragged the rest of us down from once being the greatest nation to a bunch of sniveling, excuse filled cowards. The reality is, if you have sex you may create a child, except in your case,(so why the f' are you here?)and if you create a child you have responsibilities to raise that child. Abortion should be the last resort, in cases of extreme circumstances, not an option to erase your irresponsible behavior, terminating a living fetus is far more than birth control.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252996 Aug 16, 2012
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Rumor has it that your Moncie.
You listen to a lot that's bullshit Skanky.
feces for jesus
#252997 Aug 16, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
She thinks Mary Magdalene was a prostitute because she saw it in a movie.
No kidding. She actually posted that. I had to set her straight with actual Bible verses, but...I think she still believes the movie.
thats crazy sASSy for ya.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252998 Aug 16, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
My sister-in-law and my two nephews are black. Err, if you asked the boys they'd tell you they are "mixed". Handsome little buggers. Did I mention all three are people? Got a neice who is part Filipino. She's a person, too. Pretty girl. Is it just me, or do mixed backgrounds seem to beget the best lookin' kids?
Hey guys, I think I made Lynne's list of racist posters!
LOL! I love you STO!

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252999 Aug 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So what would the legal and medical difference be between mental health and emotional health?
<quoted text>
A psychiatric evaluation of permanent or reversible mental health conditions.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#253000 Aug 16, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
It has pagan. All the gay pedopohiles are being rooted out. The Church will no longer protect gays by allowing them to be priests.
@@ You're not even a homophobe. You're not afraid, you're just plain stupid.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#253001 Aug 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww forget it, BA. You've convinced yourself you're right and nothing I post will even make a dent. You are so off regarding me and my stance (not just on abortion, but with politics). It is sorta amusing reading your insistence I own what you claim about me. So tell me, BA, how am I feeling today? What is it I believe?
Well, you believe that I've called you on what you've posted here, and you can no longer deny it. How was that?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253002 Aug 16, 2012
Actually, it's been answered on numerous occasions; you;re just thick.

For some PC'ers, the idea of an abortion doesn't fit their personal beliefs. What you can't comprehend, however, is that they do not think their personal beliefs should rule what OTHER people do. It's a very simple concept unless you are a control freak.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that is the one question that won't be answered. They can't bring themselves to be truthful.
It amounts to,'I wouldn't kill my own child but I respect another's right to kill their's.'

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#253003 Aug 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So, you didn't get the memo about born humans having rights independently of their parents?
Most americans can't find their own frigging country on a map; we don't dumb down constitutional rights to make the great unwashed happy. The question is, where does the constitution revoke women's rights due to a biological condition? Where does it invest the fetus with rights, and how does that work with the 14th amendment?
<quoted text>
Well, where in the constitution does it give explicit or implied rights to terminate a living fetus? We have to look at the SCOTUS who decided that an implied right to privacy extended to terminating a living, developing fetus. The constitution required states to protect life and R v W acknowledged that this extended to protecting even "potential life". Yet they extended an implied right to medical privacy to have precedence over the States constitutional required demand to protect life? Show me anything in the constitution that even considered a woman's right to elective abort her fetus. Show me anything in the constitution that even addresses the unborn.
Don't argue "constituional" protected rights and undermine the thinking of the greatest minds this country has ever known for the sake of this selfish generation.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253004 Aug 16, 2012
In that court case, the most salient point here is probably:
"Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed. Measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated if their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744....

The problem is that many changes in fact DO put an undue burden on the woman's rights.
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
I found this today .I copied it for you to see,Pete.
PP vs.Casey- The ruling has enabled states to pass more laws restricting access to abortion.
Although federal law grants a woman the constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy before foetal viability, individual states are permitted to impose restrictions on abortion throughout pregnancy if they do not unduly burden a womanÂ’s right to choose.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#253005 Aug 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should a woman you've never met be restricted even more than she is today from terminating an unhealthy or fatal pregnancy post-viability?
Where have I said that a woman shouldn't have the right to terminate a viable fetus with such extreme circumstances?
Katie wrote:
Regardless of anyone's personal feelings surrounding the issue, the fact is it is already heavily-monitored, is between the physicians involved and the woman, and laws have to be followed or said physicians will lose their licenses and/or face jail time.
Explain that to Thomas and CD, yet tell me, what were the reasons those sought post viability abortions with Gosnell. Were they all legitimate and legal reasons to seek such a hack, or does their "reasons" all fall protected by D v B?
Katie wrote:
Post-viability abortions DO NOT EQUAL killing your kids by drowning, beating, smothering, etc. It is a false-equivalency on your mind, but you judge others' by it. Strange. Weird. And not very reasonable, if you ask me.
Well, that spoken from someone who would endorse a woman's rights to abort until the cord is cut? I wonder, does that extend to when the "apron strings" are cut as well? Come on Katie, all you speak about is the woman's rights, even after viability, when do you not own your own children? I hope they understand that their life is not all about you.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#253006 Aug 16, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I've skimmed thru your conversation with Katie and La.
Just have one comment. If a woman wanted to abort a viable fetus because she didn't want to get fat, wouldn't that be a bit late? She'd already be "fat", wouldn't she. I mean, most pregnant women would be really showing by then, wouldn't they?
Anyway, doesn't really matter. Just thought it was a weird reason when the horse has already left the barn, so to speak.
The argument is that D v B would allow for that, under "emtional health" which in it's vauge definition of mental health includes almost any reason to abort a viable fetus.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#253007 Aug 16, 2012
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
To further expand on that, as some folks have tossed around the reason of wanting to go on vacation as an excuse for wanting an LTA, even if she was able to abort that late, she's still going to have some weight on her, as most women do not lose all of their pregnancy weight nor have hard flat stomachs right after delivery so it's not like she'll be in thong bikini shape right away. I would also think that due to the surgical process of this, it's not like she's going to have an LTA one day and be able to galavant around the next day. She's going to need time to physically recover from that. If there truly was a woman out there who is using these reasons in order to obtain an LTA, I would think that the doctors she's speaking to would explain this to her, because LTA's are legally permissible only when the health/life of the woman/fetus are at stake, but also in order to avoid a malpractice lawsuit.
The argument is that she "could" use this as an "emotional health" issue. and that being an extreme, yet acceptable, lawful reason, means that she could use any other issue under "emotional health" to abort a viable fetus.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253009 Aug 17, 2012
I think it has more to do with the celibacy required of them than an inherent pedophilia. Children are just easier targets for all that unhealthy, pent-up lust.
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>When is the RCC going to sincerely do something to find out what is going with their priesthood. Apparently, there is a significant number of sexual predators entering the priesthood. What does it take for the Church to pay attention?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253010 Aug 17, 2012
It's not implied; it's been defined by the SCOTUS.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text> No individual rights are absolute, especially implied rights. You do realize that you are arguing that any restrictive abortion law found constitutional should not be allowed to consider exceptions for rape or incest, right?
<quoted text>Thanks for the government lesson, but what I said was that written laws have governed our society for more than 200 years, obviously those laws are held to be constitutional.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253011 Aug 17, 2012
It's nothing at all like abusing a born child. The born child has rights; a fetus has none. The pregnancy involves the WOMAN'S system; the fetus is just collateral to the process.

A "moral" society? Whose morals?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Look, you only see one side of the arguement here. "Her own pregnancy" includes the potentail life of another human being. How is that so different than a woman, or man, abusing their own child, without a threat to abuse anyone else, being deemed a threat to society? Terminating life without justified reason is unacceptable to a moral society. Just because the viable fetus isn't born doesnt give the woman an absolute, or unquestionable right to terminate it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253012 Aug 17, 2012
Born woman = rights
Born child = rights
fetus = no rights

Gee, fucwit, what generation do you think I belong to?

Nobody who has a child is obligated to raise it--ever heard of adoption?

Why am I here? Because I believe that women are due their full civil rights.

You don't get to decide what someone else's last resort might be. Nice to see that you consider a baby to be proof of "irresponsible behavior"--and why do you want irresponsible people to raise kids?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>She does matter and all laws protect her life. But where the hell does it say that those responsible for creating life have an absolute right to terminate such life? Susan Smith carried all her children to term, did that give her more of a right to terminate her children since she endured all the suffering of pregnancy? Did you argue to protect her rights?
<quoted text> So your arguments are that for lack of accountability? I got news for you little man, your generation of laziness and responsibility has dragged the rest of us down from once being the greatest nation to a bunch of sniveling, excuse filled cowards. The reality is, if you have sex you may create a child, except in your case,(so why the f' are you here?)and if you create a child you have responsibilities to raise that child. Abortion should be the last resort, in cases of extreme circumstances, not an option to erase your irresponsible behavior, terminating a living fetus is far more than birth control.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253013 Aug 17, 2012
Which means you know absolutely fu*-*ing nothing about clinical psychology. You can't make a dx of an irreversible condition with an evaluation. The mind operates in the present; whether or not the woman's emotional/mental health is changeable has nothing to do with what she is going through at the time.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text> A psychiatric evaluation of permanent or reversible mental health conditions.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#253014 Aug 17, 2012
Wrong again.

The fetus is not a person under the law; only a person has rights. Further, the born woman does have established rights, and one of them is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The founders never even entertained the notion that a fetus is covered by the constitution.

RvW notes that states CAN give protection (not rights) to fetuses after viability, but they are not required to. A state is perfectly in line with the constitution by allowing abortion at any point in the pregnancy.

Chuckles, in this country, the constitution outweighs your opinion.

Since abortion has been around since at least babylonian times, which generation are you talking about?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Well, where in the constitution does it give explicit or implied rights to terminate a living fetus? We have to look at the SCOTUS who decided that an implied right to privacy extended to terminating a living, developing fetus. The constitution required states to protect life and R v W acknowledged that this extended to protecting even "potential life". Yet they extended an implied right to medical privacy to have precedence over the States constitutional required demand to protect life? Show me anything in the constitution that even considered a woman's right to elective abort her fetus. Show me anything in the constitution that even addresses the unborn.
Don't argue "constituional" protected rights and undermine the thinking of the greatest minds this country has ever known for the sake of this selfish generation.

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.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest: First lady calls out Trump, - hatefula 36 min Taletha 88 66
News Obama: Clinton More Qualified Than Me, Bill to ... 13 hr Cordwainer Trout 2
News Star Trek Discovery needs to push boundaries wi... 15 hr Thats Right 12
News Wabash Valley DNC delegates feeling 'energy' 16 hr Jack 7
News Baltimore's Presence Felt At Democratic Nationa... 17 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News After week of brutal GOP bashing. Clinton aims ... 18 hr Best Convention EVER 3
News Bryan Cranston leads celebs signing anti-Trump ... 18 hr Who GAF 1
More from around the web