Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336918 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.

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#252873 Aug 16, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Now that's a good question. Personally, I understand , and even agree with that sentiment, however, there is the arguement that any life is better than no life at all. I believe that in the early stages of pregnancy, when the chance of natural miscarriage is relatively high, there are many considerations that be left solely to the woman/parents of the potentail child. But as the pregnancy progresses, and there is a very probably chance that the fetus would survive the pregnancy, then those considerations become fewer, and only the most legitimate reason to end a potential life should be considered.
<quoted text>Not true, when you consider it's a life, potentail life, worthy of saving, that is not gender exclusive. "Forcing" a woman to gestate is not the same as "forcing" a woman to get pregnant. Decisions were made which lead to her pregnancy, and now her decision to abort involves another life. It's no longer about her, just as abusing her born children would not be all about her. Tell me, would "forcing" a woman to carry a viable fetus to term, without risk of her health or life, be any different than forcing a young man into battle to defend the continuation of our society?
For whatever reason - probable chance of a fetus surviving the pregnancy caught my eye. I've never viewed it that way - but yes, it's just as dangerous for a fetus as it is for the woman gestating. No guarantees whatsoever that all will go well for either, or in worse case scenarios, both. Hmmm.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252874 Aug 16, 2012
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess your way of living is
when in doubt, lash out.
Very christ-like.
Go align yourself with child rapists.
I bet ole Knitty knitted a big Nazi flag to hang on one wall of her trailer and has hung several framed photos, that she printed off the internet, of the Pope smiling and posing with Adolf all around it.
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#252876 Aug 16, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry pagan, you still live in darkness. THe Bible tells us of eternal damnation, being witout God. Then there is the "firey Pit." Of course as a pagan you want to make this all about you, so the word Hell, is claimed by pagans. So what?
Hell, or whatever you want to call it opagan, is not about language or semantics, it is about being without God for all eternity, as you are.
Pagans lived and live in darkness. God is the Light that bannished the darkness. Of course that angers all you pagans. You are the mouthpiece of Satan and you don't even know it.
Go back to your tree worshipping and Druid rituals. The world of Light needed to simnplify things to help the early pagans understand the word of God. Since most of your ancestors sat around bonfires naked, occasionaly throwing a virgin in the fire to please the flame goddess, flame was used to explain Hell. You aren't a bright bunch, you know.
Do you have a better understanding of Chritianity now pagan. M guess is, no you don't.
Yes, I was making a point about the phrase Hell. You can have fun with your eternal damnation BS all you want; just stop calling it hell.

Hel has nothing to do with flames, but you wouldn't know a damn thing about the religious history of any culture, would you?

You have a miserable day, you hateful christard.
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#252878 Aug 16, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Protecting life, even potentail, is, and should be, one of the utmost considerations of our laws.
You walk a thin line with this "all life should be protected". idea. That sounds great, in theory, but I'd love to know if you want to protect of the lives of bugs that might dare to violate the sanctity of your home or your car. And how many hamburgers have you eaten this year? How about plants? How about a virus? When you get sick, you take meds to kill a virus. Sounds to me like you only want to save the lives of those things you deem important. I guess you want to play God and choose what life is more valuable than others.
grumpy

Garnerville, NY

#252879 Aug 16, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know I'd consider Romney at all? How do you know I'd consider Obama? I'm neither republican nor democrat. I was hoping someone would run independent,that was a peoples president. I've even considered not voting,I'm discussed with both parties.
Are you in favor of the Romney-Ryan position on birth control for women's use?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252880 Aug 16, 2012
In this case, it is virtually impossible to pass laws that don't violate the woman's established rights.

BTW--the supreme court gets the final say, not legislation.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>You keep suggesting that it's impossible to pass laws with exceptions, or room for common sense. Your agenda seems clear, no restriction on abortion, period. Written laws with criteria would be the final say, as it has been for more than a couple hundred years here.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252881 Aug 16, 2012
How is a woman who terminates her own pregnancy a threat to society? Why is this worth the ever-growing expenses, time, and resources people keep pushing into this?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>As you know counselor, a written law also includes penalties for violating them. All you said is that there are legal reasons for late term abortion, which I haven't necessarily disagreed with, and that once the law to protect a viable fetus is broken then it's too late to prevent that abortion, duh. A theft must be committed before someone is charged with larceny, it's the penalties for violating laws that are meant as a deterrent. By the way, no State post guards at banks to prevent bank robbery, but WTF does that have to do with it?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252882 Aug 16, 2012
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 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.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Now that's a good question. Personally, I understand , and even agree with that sentiment, however, there is the arguement that any life is better than no life at all. I believe that in the early stages of pregnancy, when the chance of natural miscarriage is relatively high, there are many considerations that be left solely to the woman/parents of the potentail child. But as the pregnancy progresses, and there is a very probably chance that the fetus would survive the pregnancy, then those considerations become fewer, and only the most legitimate reason to end a potential life should be considered.
<quoted text>Not true, when you consider it's a life, potentail life, worthy of saving, that is not gender exclusive. "Forcing" a woman to gestate is not the same as "forcing" a woman to get pregnant. Decisions were made which lead to her pregnancy, and now her decision to abort involves another life. It's no longer about her, just as abusing her born children would not be all about her. Tell me, would "forcing" a woman to carry a viable fetus to term, without risk of her health or life, be any different than forcing a young man into battle to defend the continuation of our society?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252883 Aug 16, 2012
So what would the legal and medical difference be between mental health and emotional health?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>...
<quoted text>Really? I've yet to see anyone challange the fact that Roe V Wade didn't include mental health, nor have I seen anyone argue against the fact that Doe V Bolton went beyond R v W in it's definition of Mental health. D v B does not work with R v W it contradicts it's recognition of the State's important and compelling interest to protect potentail life.
<quoted text>Wow, I am just restating your arguments and you are denying them. You either need to forget your need for appearance here and own up to your extremist, liberal stance, or rethink your opinion here Katie, it's just that simple.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

#252884 Aug 16, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>It was more about your consistent contention that abortion should be strictly about the woman's bodily autonomy. To even suggest that a baby wasnt born until the cord was cut speaks volumes about your complete inconsideration that there are two lives involved when it comes to aborting a viable fetus. It's not that I didn't see your attempted justification of what you said, it's that, because it's consistent with your overall arguments, why do you make excuses for it and refuse to own it?
<quoted text>OK, so where did I misrepresent your stance on the issue?
<quoted text> You argued that the D&X procedure was a necessary option and misrepresented in the congress, you also argued that because the rate was so low that is was not a significant concern. As I said, I can link the forum we argued it in to clarify the discussion. BTW, dont compare me to JM just because I am calling you on your own arguments, and you dont want to be seen as the extremist that your arguments make you. JM lies, I dont.
<quoted text>Really? I've yet to see anyone challange the fact that Roe V Wade didn't include mental health, nor have I seen anyone argue against the fact that Doe V Bolton went beyond R v W in it's definition of Mental health. D v B does not work with R v W it contradicts it's recognition of the State's important and compelling interest to protect potentail life.
<quoted text>Wow, I am just restating your arguments and you are denying them. You either need to forget your need for appearance here and own up to your extremist, liberal stance, or rethink your opinion here Katie, it's just that simple.
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?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252885 Aug 16, 2012
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?
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>So did you defend Susan Smith and Yates in their decision to get rid of the kids they "dont want"? The question is, when should the government step in to protect life, most Americans believe it is at viability.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252886 Aug 16, 2012
Second-term abortions aren't up to the state, but a doctor has to okay the procedure, mostly because the risks are somewhat higher for complications (but still lower than childbirth). Of course, states are trying to get round that with these ridiculous "fetal pain" and "personhood" laws, but they keep getting smacked down.
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are.,and probably will continue doing so. To my understanding in Roe, during the first three months,states can't interfere at all. The second three moths states could regulate abortion,and the last three,states can bar abortion except to save the life of the Mom. If I'm mistaken let me know.,Pete.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

#252887 Aug 16, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>So did you defend Susan Smith and Yates in their decision to get rid of the kids they "dont want"? The question is, when should the government step in to protect life, most Americans believe it is at viability.
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? 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.

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.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#252888 Aug 16, 2012
Hey all! I see nothing has changed around here.
cpeter is ignorant

United States

#252889 Aug 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
And as soon as you can find a right to be gestated in the constitution, let us know. Until then, no fetus has a right to use the woman's body against her will.
<quoted text>
The Constitution doesn't include a specific right to breathe either. But it does include a right not to be killed. Breathing and gestating are both necessary, critical, and integral components of every human life that exists and neither you nor anyone else has the right to terminate them.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

#252890 Aug 16, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
Hey all! I see nothing has changed around here.
Hi LC :)

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#252892 Aug 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi LC :)
Hey Katie! How have you been?:)

"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."

I agree with this btw ^^^^

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#252893 Aug 16, 2012
Where's motor mouth Lynne today?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252894 Aug 16, 2012
You breathe on your own. Gestating involves the woman, and there is no constitutional principle that causes her to lose the right to make her own decisions once pregnant.
cpeter is ignorant wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution doesn't include a specific right to breathe either. But it does include a right not to be killed. Breathing and gestating are both necessary, critical, and integral components of every human life that exists and neither you nor anyone else has the right to terminate them.
elise lives in fairy tale

New York, NY

#252895 Aug 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshit. Civilized societies have always condoned the legalized killing of human life.
They may consider themselves to be civilized and call themselves civilized, but if they condone legalized elective killing of human life, they are not.
Watch your language.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Waxman 1,746,133
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 2 min ardith 1,476
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 3 min Dada 9,729
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min RachelsGonnaRach 72,245
News How Sean Hannity's Relationship With Michael Co... 5 min spam musubi 19
News Ted Nugent says Parkland survivors are 'mushy b... 11 min RachelsGonnaRach 620
Sexual Healing Tommorow *, 12 min 2Cent_King_Just 27
News Comey speculates Russians may have damaging inf... 16 min Retribution 574
News Rudy Giuliani to join Trump legal team in Russi... 26 min Retribution 77
News Clinton: Free press is under 'open assault' in ... 44 min Lawrence Wolf 39