Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317482 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: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255824 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I hadn't seen her say that specifically. I am asking for clarification on statements she made.
OMG Chicklette, since when is clarification ever needed on here??!!!! It is cause whoever says it is... Dammit, get with the program...

I remember a post you made once about how sorry you were about slitting the throat of this "minding his own business goat". That was pretty heartless Chicky! Seriously.....

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255825 Aug 31, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
Do you really care this much what the feck I think?
Right on Sister, you're fitting right in, and in a few days, you'll be one of us. Whole heartedly

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255826 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Tuesday.
Oh, RC, thats no way to treat your loyal boot licker.
But she did complain that her daughter didn't get a grant for college because of all the gays and minorities. She is an equal opportunity hater.
As long as it's equal! lololol

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255827 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that a person expressing their personal opinion to her private best friend, or sister, that a woman who has 19 kids is too many, an opinion of which Mrs. Duggar has no inkling, is exactly the same as standing outside a clinic FORCING a woman to HEAR YOUR OPINION IN HER FACE IN ORDER TO TRY AND STOP HER FROM DOING WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE whether she wants to or not?
Do you really think that?
The latter is definitely more obnoxious than the former, but, other than that it's just opinions being voiced. Just like those Westboro lunatics at funerals. I feel like socking them in the faces, but they have a right to do what they do.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#255828 Aug 31, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparatively speaking - yes. That's just worst case scenario (death), but there are other permanent side effects.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-...
I agree junket, but I would argue that all risks should be put in proper perspective when deciding terminating a healthy, viable, human fetus. Yes, the woman's legitimate health concerns have to be a priority, but regard for a living, healthy, viable human fetus must be considered as well, especially above her "emotional" whims. My arguement is that the law is too vauge as to when protection of the healthy, viable fetus supersedes a woman's mere implied right to privacy.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255829 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Tuesday.
Oh, RC, thats no way to treat your loyal boot licker.
But she did complain that her daughter didn't get a grant for college because of all the gays and minorities. She is an equal opportunity hater.
lol! Susan said that? Lmao, that's hilarious!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255831 Aug 31, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I agree junket, but I would argue that all risks should be put in proper perspective when deciding terminating a healthy, viable, human fetus. Yes, the woman's legitimate health concerns have to be a priority, but regard for a living, healthy, viable human fetus must be considered as well, especially above her "emotional" whims. My arguement is that the law is too vauge as to when protection of the healthy, viable fetus supersedes a woman's mere implied right to privacy.
Great point, but anyone can fake emotional problems if they're determined. Revenge maybe against the man who really wants it for doing 'something'? Stuff like that

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255833 Aug 31, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah,now see, this is the typical bullsh.t here, you made a comment on one of my relies to Katie, now when I call you on it you ask "why are you directing that at me". Come on Elise, I respect your opinion, you should too, when you say something be ready toThe thread defend it, dont act like you're innocent. Oh yeah, I forgot, you're not here for intellectual conversation, and in your opinion, anyone who is, is strange, lol!
You're going to have to remind me what the hell you are ranting about. This thread moves along pretty quickly. Whenever I have taken a couple of days off from Topix, I don't bother to try to pick up where I've left off. It's like going out for popcorn and a pee in the middle of a movie and expecting your date to explain what you missed. You may not agree (gasp!) but there you go.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255835 Aug 31, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text> And you responded that hers was not the same as yours, so I asked you to show me where she has ever posted something that contradicts your beliefs that abortion is strictly about a woman's personal autonomy, without regard for a fetus at any stage.So...? Where was I wrong?
You want to be right? Fine, you're right. It doesn't sound important enough to argue about, whatever it was.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255837 Aug 31, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Wow everybody, we have a real life Psychiatrist on the thread.
How much you charge for the hour? And do you take into consideration that typing out our problems takes a lot more time than telling you them?
I'd like to talk to you about my Daddy...
Forget Dad. It's always Mommy's fault.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255839 Aug 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Forget Dad. It's always Mommy's fault.
That's what Dad always said, but I don't get how mom accidently shoved his penis into his secretary's mouth, and have it her fault when I walked into my room. He said she pushed him. My being only 34, believed him!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255841 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they do not have the right to harass private persons going about their private business. They have a right to protest against the government or public corporations. Free speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten to shoot the president. Its just at this point no one has the guts to apply the law to harassment disquised as "protest". Eventually this will be clarified. Like how congress just made it illegal to protest two hours before or after a funeral. When the nuts are no longer in charge of the asylum, individual rights will be restored.
I didn't know about that law. I'm not sure that I agree with it, as much as I abhor the practice.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255842 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do you have to be told this? A fetus has no rights at all until after birth. Zero. Viable or not. A woman's right to privacy is a real right. It is not an "implied" right. Her right to equal protection and bodily autonomy and pursuit of happiness and religious freedom are all equal to yours and not up for discussion. A woman does not have "emotional whims" and does not have to remain pregnant against her will just because you disapprove of abortion and refuse to see a woman as an equal human being under the law and in control of her own destiny. No. Matter. What.
Welcome to America.
I agree but I don't think Badaxe is as hardnosed as some other PLs on this thread.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255844 Aug 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I agree but I don't think Badaxe is as hardnosed as some other PLs on this thread.
Got a temper though. Not afraid to express it either....

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#255847 Aug 31, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre both right AND wrong on this one Kev IMO. As you say, because of HIPAA laws, we can't "prove this doesn't happen", but in many was - due to anecdotal evidence, we can. People that have spoken out on websites like
imnotsorry.net
or
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/A...
Where women that HAVE had this done dissuss the reasons why (and the doctors and nurses discuss it as well) one CAN reasonablly conclude that women are NOT having LTA's becasue they dont want to be fat or go to a party. Not to mention that the vast majority of doctors are NOT Gosnell's, and wont jepordize their careers for such stupidity.
I can't show you physical evidence that men dont use their penis's to hammer nails either - but based on much LESS evidence than is available to show women dont have LTA's for such frivilous reasons - I can say unequivocally that its not likely MANY men ACTUALLY TRY to hammer nails that way either.
At some point, we HAVE to use common sense to move forward with a given argument. Just sayin'.
Foo, my friend, my arguement is that there has to be definitive lines pursuant to R v W's legal recognition of the State's compelling, important, and constitutional obligation to protect life, consistent with it's finding that a woman's right to privacy should prevail in the very early stages of pregnancy, when the rate of abortion does not exceed the natural rate of miscarriage. We simply can not allow women to abort healthy, viable fetuses without legitimate reasons, just as we can not allow women or men, to abuse children just because they endured the pregnancy for them.
What gets me here foo, is that many wish to argue with me,as if I'm an extremist, yet I'm arguing from the middle, yet they try to portray them self as one who could see a compromise. As I see it, most on the PC side, see it all about a woman's personal autonomy, while on the PL side they see it all about protection of a "potentail" life, without regard for the woman's individual rights.
Until both sides understand, and respect, each others arguments this battle will continue to be about politics rather than those personally concerned with such a decision, and I find that sad.
Those that are not personally in the situation have no right to make decisions for those that are, especially when the natural miscarriage rate is as high as 20%, however, a woman carrying a vaible fetus has no right to then decide, without legitimate cause, to terminate the healthy fetus.
Obviously, many dont agree with me on my stance, nor do some agree with your stance. So obviously, there has to be written, definitive laws, that separates when the interests to protect life, supersedes a woman's right to personal privacy. We simply can not have laws that are vauge, if the PC side cannot agree to R v W's recognition of the State's important interest to protect "all" life than perhaps we should revisit it, as the idiot "sister kathyrn lusts, but is lonely" suggests. Personally, I think that first, both sides should listen and learn from the justices that decided the very hard case of R v W, and understand the intellectual and legal compromise they reached.

Badaxe

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#255848 Aug 31, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Got a temper though. Not afraid to express it either....
Nea, I would rather be respected than loved, too many are wimps when it comes to that. Any questions honey? I didn't think so......lol

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255849 Aug 31, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Foo, my friend, my arguement is that there has to be definitive lines pursuant to R v W's legal recognition of the State's compelling, important, and constitutional obligation to protect life, consistent with it's finding that a woman's right to privacy should prevail in the very early stages of pregnancy, when the rate of abortion does not exceed the natural rate of miscarriage. We simply can not allow women to abort healthy, viable fetuses without legitimate reasons, just as we can not allow women or men, to abuse children just because they endured the pregnancy for them.
What gets me here foo, is that many wish to argue with me,as if I'm an extremist, yet I'm arguing from the middle, yet they try to portray them self as one who could see a compromise. As I see it, most on the PC side, see it all about a woman's personal autonomy, while on the PL side they see it all about protection of a "potentail" life, without regard for the woman's individual rights.
Until both sides understand, and respect, each others arguments this battle will continue to be about politics rather than those personally concerned with such a decision, and I find that sad.
Those that are not personally in the situation have no right to make decisions for those that are, especially when the natural miscarriage rate is as high as 20%, however, a woman carrying a vaible fetus has no right to then decide, without legitimate cause, to terminate the healthy fetus.
Obviously, many dont agree with me on my stance, nor do some agree with your stance. So obviously, there has to be written, definitive laws, that separates when the interests to protect life, supersedes a woman's right to personal privacy. We simply can not have laws that are vauge, if the PC side cannot agree to R v W's recognition of the State's important interest to protect "all" life than perhaps we should revisit it, as the idiot "sister kathyrn lusts, but is lonely" suggests. Personally, I think that first, both sides should listen and learn from the justices that decided the very hard case of R v W, and understand the intellectual and legal compromise they reached.
Wow, gonna be accused of kissing your ass, but you really are spot on! Nicely stated! I feel the exact same way

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255850 Aug 31, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Nea, I would rather be respected than loved, too many are wimps when it comes to that. Any questions honey? I didn't think so......lol
eyes looking down.... no sir

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#255851 Aug 31, 2012
no questions,,, eyes still looking down

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#255853 Aug 31, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah. She complained that her darling daughter didn't get a college grant because all of the gays and minorities got them. It's all a little ironic considering she also bragged that her husband is a union buster. I guess they didn't make enough money to save for her tuition.....
I guess their god couldn't protect them against their karma. Oopsy...

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 Kimmel calls Louisiana senator 'inbred' during ... 1 hr inbred Genius 1
News Women Open up About Abortion in a New HBO Docum... (Aug '16) 3 hr mahz 10
News Jimmy Kimmel blasts Sen. Bill Cassidy over 'Kim... 7 hr Sandra 16
News RNC: Spending on legal bills for Trump Jr. near... 14 hr Trump Curious 1
News Late-night TV show host Kimmel blasts senator o... 15 hr Pat Robertson s F... 9
News Kinew court record raises questions about 2004 ... 18 hr serenity 16
News Norris' co-star tells all Wed RellyHO 2
More from around the web