Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309954 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: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287326 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
We're discussing regulations. Maybe you've missed the news recently, but there are a bunch of people who are FOR regulating abortion beyond necessary means while they're NOT FOR guns being regulated at all. You see a double standard there? You were just talking double standards, remember?
You are comparing apples to oranges, I was comparing child to child and fetus to fetus.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287327 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, because you're bright enough to know the same stats I do. Four million live births annually compared to eight hundred thousand annual abortions. Which means woman's rights trumping fetus' do not necessarily equate to disrespect or nonprotection of fetus.
Come on, Sue, this is getting ridiculous.
It does to the ones that are aborted.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287328 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
It's either a fetus, or unborn child, both times or neither time.
Yes, I'm glad you have an awareness of this now. You might want to direct this to those on your side, Sue. It's the PLM who uses emotional terms rather than clinical ones. It's the PLM who mixes the terms. They do it to be emotionally manipulative.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287329 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
You are comparing apples to oranges, I was comparing child to child and fetus to fetus.
We are also discussing your claim that abortion is not regulated enough. The discussion of fetus to unborn child is separate, in separate posts. So go peel your orange and juice up your apple while trying to keep it straight. Thanks.

(oh and stop trying to blame me for your own mistakes)

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287330 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I'm glad you have an awareness of this now. You might want to direct this to those on your side, Sue. It's the PLM who uses emotional terms rather than clinical ones. It's the PLM who mixes the terms. They do it to be emotionally manipulative.
So then you finally agree that there it is wrong to charge someone with assult of an unborn child.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#287331 Feb 27, 2013
Well, let's be fair here. There are two sides to every story. In this case there is the side of Pro-Life and the side of Pro-Baby Murder. People have a right to their opinions.4871

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287332 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
So if a woman has an abortion is she kiling her unborn child or is she aborting a fetus?
What difference does it make except for the pretense? When a woman miscarries she aborts. You need abortion to sound sinister and evil.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287333 Feb 27, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What difference does it make except for the pretense? When a woman miscarries she aborts. You need abortion to sound sinister and evil.
"When a woman miscarries she aborts."

There is a difference between the fetus, or unborn child, dying and killing them.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287334 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you finally agree that there it is wrong to charge someone with assult of an unborn child.
Unbelievable. This is beyond ridiculous now.

(why did i think i was having a real conversation with a real interested person with a real brain?)

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287335 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always discussed born infants "reaching viability" and in the same manner you've said, "...eventually be able to survive without ALS..." which makes the quoted phrases synonymous.
And after all is said and done you STILL do not get it. Reaching viability is NOT the same as reaching the point of being able to survive without ALS. If an infant has the ability to survive ( with the assistance of ALS ) to the point it no longer needs ALS then it is viable NOW.....not at the point at which it reaches ALS independence. I'm thoroughly convinced that you are hopeless.
I have given examples of a physician deeming a fetus viable, birthing it, attaching it to ALs, only for the infant to die. Which means it didn't reach viability.
So what ? So you've described a fetus/infant that, although a physician deemed it viable, was in reality never viable to begin with.

Now describe for me the circumstances under which an infant can currently "reach" viability with medical assistance ?
There is no difference here, regardless of how willing you are to split hairs.
Please be done with misunderstanding what others post and then criticizing them ad infinitum even when you've been shown your mistake. It's a new day, a new year even. Let's move on.
There's no splitting hairs here. The misunderstanding is all on your part. You are wrong.
I'll move on when you acknowledge that.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287336 Feb 27, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What difference does it make except for the pretense? When a woman miscarries she aborts. You need abortion to sound sinister and evil.
"What difference does it make except for the pretense?"

Because people are being charged with killing something that pro"choicers" say don't exist. If a woman was being charged with assulting her unborn child, the pro"choicers" would be out fighting, using the arguement that there is no unborn child, yet they are strangely quiet when it comes to anyone else being so charged. Heck, they won't even acknowledge their own hypocricy.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287337 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Unbelievable. This is beyond ridiculous now.
(why did i think i was having a real conversation with a real interested person with a real brain?)
I agree, your hypocricy is beyond ridiculous.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287338 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"What difference does it make except for the pretense?"
Because people are being charged with killing something that pro"choicers" say don't exist. If a woman was being charged with assulting her unborn child, the pro"choicers" would be out fighting, using the arguement that there is no unborn child, yet they are strangely quiet when it comes to anyone else being so charged. Heck, they won't even acknowledge their own hypocricy.
Oops, should have been "doesn't exist".

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287339 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Gtown, while I'm out, do me a favor and add up those numbers. Then tell me where all these people would live had they grown into adults. Tell me the stats of who would be criminals and who would be responsible tax payers and who would be somewhere in the middle. Then tell me how many would actually live to adulthood.
Thanks in advance!
Unless you're going to use this same logic to justify killing unwanted born children then stop trying to use it to justify killing human life in utero. It's not logical justification in either case.
Can you imagine the SC, instead of arguing for the right to kill human life on the basis of the the right to personal autonomy, they argued using your asinine logic ?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287340 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, your hypocricy is beyond ridiculous.
WTF?

All you've done tonight is claim the emotional phrases used by the PLM is wrong. And these are. I've never said otherwise. It's wrong to refer to a fetus as unborn baby/child. But you guys do it every f'n day and act all indignant and claim it is dehumanizing to refer to the fetus as a fetus.

But somehow this means I'm a hypocrite?

Your entire "argument" lacks logic. You came at me with an absurd question, didn't like my answer, then tried to fling crap and make it stick. It aint working, Sue.

Explain yourself.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#287341 Feb 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
One, no, PP clinics do NOT perform 3800 abortions per day. They perform 914 per day. That was established yesterday.
To recap; the number of abortions in this country per year ranges from 800,000 to 1.2 million. THAT number amounts to slightly over 3800 per day. The number of abortions performed by PP clinics for the latest recorded year was 333,964. And THAT number reduces to 914 per day, spread out among those of the 820 clinics that operate under Planned Parenthood. Feel free to do the math yourself. PP clinics are the single largest provider, at 28% of abortions done, ONLY because they are the only organization that has multiple clinics under it's name. The REST of the 72% of abortions are provided by privately owned clinics and hospitals.
Two, I have not denied that they perform abortions. YOU are in denial that they do not ONLY perform abortions. They are healthcare clinics, providing many medical services, and abortion is only a small fraction of what they provide.
Three, the deal was your erroneous implication that pregnant women only go to PP clinics to have abortions, which is disproven by the fact that there are PP clinics that also offer prenatal care.
1.2 million a year over 30 years. So you are proud to support the right to have killed over 30 million unobrn babies. You feminists are disgusting. Does your endorsement of the abomination of abortion ever weigh on your conscience? Do pagans even know what a conscience is?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287342 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?
All you've done tonight is claim the emotional phrases used by the PLM is wrong. And these are. I've never said otherwise. It's wrong to refer to a fetus as unborn baby/child. But you guys do it every f'n day and act all indignant and claim it is dehumanizing to refer to the fetus as a fetus.
But somehow this means I'm a hypocrite?
Your entire "argument" lacks logic. You came at me with an absurd question, didn't like my answer, then tried to fling crap and make it stick. It aint working, Sue.
Explain yourself.
Actually this all started because I said that it was wrong for the man in the article to be charged with assulting an unborn child.

"But somehow this means I'm a hypocrite?"

If I posted an article that stated that a woman was charged with assulting an unborn child, in relation to her having an abortion, I would have immediately been told that there are no unborn children. What is the difference?
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#287343 Feb 27, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think Peterson would've been charged with killing his "unborn child" if his wife was still in the first trimester?
If the Coroner finds that the mother is pregnanat, yes he would be charged with killing the unborn child. No, they would not have the pagan feminist argument about what week the child was in development. In the real world, that is not considered wehn one kills an unborn child.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287344 Feb 27, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That issue has been discussed and explained and clarified. If the woman has the intention of keeping the pregnancy, one can be indicted on charges against the fetus.
Wrong. One can also be indicted on charges against the fetus if a woman is assaulted in a clinic waiting room awaiting to abort an unwanted fetus.

The woman was almost full term and obviously had emotional and physical investment in her pregnancy. It is about the woman and her rights.
Under Fetal Homicide Laws the fetus has legal rights. Limited yes and only for the purpose of that law, but legal rights nonetheless.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287345 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually this all started because I said that it was wrong for the man in the article to be charged with assulting an unborn child.
"But somehow this means I'm a hypocrite?"
If I posted an article that stated that a woman was charged with assulting an unborn child, in relation to her having an abortion, I would have immediately been told that there are no unborn children. What is the difference?
What is the difference between what? The embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus whether pregnancy is accepted or rejected.

If pregnancy is accepted by the woman, the embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus even while pregnant woman thinks of it as her baby. Still, medically, it's an embryo/fetus.

If pregnancy is rejected by the woman, the embryo/fetus remains an embryo/fetus even while pregnant woman makes her appointment to terminate the pregnancy and thinks of it as a blob of cells. Still, medically, it's an embryo/fetus.

Now, where your question lies regarding fetal homicide laws, it's still an embryo/fetus. Regardless. If woman accepted pregnancy, began to refer to her embryo/fetus as a baby and planned for its delivery, but some 3rd party jerk came along out of the woodwork and caused fetal injury or death, the woman is allowed recourse for the loss or injury of her embryo/fetus. If woman dies, her family is allowed recourse.

Again, where is the hypocrisy? It's not with me or my side.

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 Cruz supports federal relief for Texas floods; ... 1 hr EL Chicano 79
News Why woo the Duggars? 4 hr Le Duped 5
News Who says Mormons aren't Christians? (Oct '11) 5 hr Protester 32,004
News Extreme Makeover: Home Edition Looks for Anothe... (Apr '11) 6 hr bianca cloete 73
News Duggar Scandal Should Prompt TLC To Help Fight ... 12 hr Mary 2
News Huckabee defends Josh Duggar molesting sisters:... 14 hr Tazo 56
News In embrace of 'Duck Dynasty' star, 2016 hopeful... (Dec '13) 22 hr Tazo 478
More from around the web