Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326397 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.

Gtown71

United States

#274394 Jan 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --
-- Girls got much less education than boys did.
-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.
-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.
-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.
-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.
-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.
-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.
-- Women were not allowed to vote.
-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.
In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.
So, are you happy with where women /girls are today? I doubt it.

Life is not, nor ever will be fair.

People that are well suited for a job can't get one, becouse they must keep balance.
The more people try to make this world their home, and better for them, the worse it gets. You clearly think what has happened to women is horrible, and are Very passionate about it, just like many are crying inside for what is happening to babies.
I realize how eaay it is, to say that the unborn child don't count, but remember, that's the same kind of voice, that has been saying the same thing about women.
No matter what group it is wanting something, another group must give up, in order for them to get it.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274395 Jan 4, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Look Sassy,, obviously she doesn't have the "feelings" about what she did like you wish she did. She's in denial? Yeah,,, no, she's not, and you need to find peace with that. So really, the problem is yours, and not hers. Why don't you just get that and move on? Your obsession with her is bordering on embarrassing. And if you're not jealous of her, you sure as heck fooled me! I mean this 'success in her dreams' crap? Ya,, reads jealous, and obsessive.
K, maybe at one time she needed food stamps,, so what? She doesn't anymore, and she's doing just find, so don't worry your little head too much over it!
So stop attacking her for something she's obviously admitted to and is okay with. Deal with it, and move on OR you can keep proving me right,,, your call! But I'm hoping you don't.
Have an obsessive free night Sassy! lol
RC Honey: "So stop attacking her for something she's obviously admitted to and is okay with."

Weren't you studying to be a layer?

Here's the thing, Honey: The individual at issue not only presents herself as an abortion expert BECAUSE she killed her own daughter in utero, but she CONTINUES to promote killing more preborn babies.

Sassy is correct in pointing these facts out.

This is the Abortion Forum, after all.

Just sayin'....
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274396 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Do you think that the more times you or anyone else claims this, the more traction it gets or the more validity it
has ?
The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death.
If its sole purpose were what you claimed ..."to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term" then that could have been accomplished simply by increasing or enhancing the punishment for already existing laws involving assaults on women which result in pregnancy loss. There would be no need to establish the fetus as a separate victim.....NONE.
In addition, if its sole purpose was what you claim then why was it so universally and vociferously opposed (even with the abortion exception) by the PC brigade ? The protection of a woman's right to choice, including the right to carry a pregnancy to term, is precisely the goal the PC strives for. If the sole purpose was what you claim, they should have not only NOT opposed it, they should have embraced it !
And finally if its sole purpose is what you claim then someone who assaults a woman entering a clinic to obtain a desired abortion, resulting in the death of this unwanted fetus, could NOT be charged with fetal homicide.
Let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all.
Great post.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274397 Jan 4, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, they are not. Fetal homicide laws are based on the abrogation of the woman's right to carry to term if desired. Not one law gives fetuses rights or personhood
Really coward ?

"Ark. Stat. Ann. 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in 5-10-101 through 5-10-105, to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation"
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274398 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed he did. He's been running and hiding ever since.
Vladdy clearly contradicted himself.

By hiding, he's only demonstrating cowardess & intellectual laziness.

Thanks for showing him in real time how characterologically weak he is. You scraped away the veneer & showed us all that Vladdy is a skeleton of a man.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274399 Jan 4, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Human being is a religious/philosophical concept, not scientific.
Precisely. Which means anyone claiming a human being exists in the womb is just as right as you are in saying there isn't.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274400 Jan 4, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Paul Bunyan is an oral tradition. <quoted text>
cPeter: "Paul Bunyan is an oral tradition."

In your neck of the woods, you're an anal tradition.

Pervert.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274402 Jan 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly don't want some nosy religious cleric telling me what I can and cannot do, so you're correct on THAT point at least. I have confidence in my 0OWN ability to make personal decisions, especially those concerning sex, marriage, and reproduction, so I don't need a cleric trying to make those decisions FOR me.
That's exactly why I kicked the toxic baggage of gods, religions and churches to the curb over 20 years ago and haven't regretted that decision for a minute. As far as I'M concerned, secularism = FREEDOM, no slavery required.
^^ Typical EX-Catholic. It's always somebody else's fault...^^^
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274403 Jan 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh PLEASE. You can defend sASSy all you want, it makes no difference to me. As far as I'M concerned, she's an anti-choice, religious EXTREMIST, just like you.
It seems to me that extremists like YOU are the envious ones, but thankfully I don't have to join your misery loves company club.
You promote killing preborn babies. You've found "meaning" in life, by seeking death of innocents.

What were YOU sayinhg about "misery loves company"?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274404 Jan 4, 2013
Jeb Wilson wrote:
hell did any body ever wish me a happy new year man.
Sorry, buddy. Too late now. You're gonna have to wait until next year.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274405 Jan 4, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Human" is our species. Fetuses are not counted as members of a species; they must be born and alive. The more you try to inject science into this, the worse your argument becomes.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The fact is the more you inject science into it the worse YOUR argument becomes.
There is no doubt scientifically speaking that a human life exists in the womb. It is you and the PC brigade that have introduced subjective and philosophical terms like "human being" and "person" to establish man made points at which this life has value or is worthy of being protected.

Nope tinky.....when you leave it at a strictly scientific level......YOU LOSE.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274406 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think if you keep repeating the same lie over and over it will magically become true?
I do NOT support "killing as choice". I support the right of women to make their OWN choice. Period.
Stop lying already you freak.
FooManSpew: "I do NOT support 'killing as choice'. I support the right of women to make their OWN choice."

One of the choices you support the woman making is killing.

See for yourself:

NR: "Preborn baby is clearly affected by abortion...to death."

FooManSpew: "Yes dear, that IS the point of abortion."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______

Just in case ANYONE was unsure, lets make it even MORE clear, shall we? You're killing the zygote, embryo or non-viable fetus that you either dont want to begin with, or for WHATEVER reason - cannot have.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______

FooManSpew: "I dont give two shits about those ZEFS"

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______

FooManSpew: "To hell with the embryo or fetus....'rip him apart, crush his skull, squish his beating heart.'"

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274407 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed he did. He's been running and hiding ever since.
Did you see that Bhitler conceded that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb?

She realized she just admitted supporting the intentional killing of innocent humans, so she said "a human" isn't "a human being."

I dunno, maybe she should talk to Goddess Synonym.

~~ Shrug ~~
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274408 Jan 4, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, her religion forbids it for Jewish women.
Your religion forbids it for Catholic women.
This does not mean every f'n woman in America is Jewish or Catholic. Out of you and Foo, Foo understands this. That's another reason why she doesn't want to see abortion criminalized. She wants Jewish women to be able to obtain one if necessary and she wants other women able to determine their own lives without dictating what her religion forbids.
How come you haven't understood this the first gazillion times it's been explained, oh so ignorant one?
katie: "[foo] wants Jewish women to be able to obtain [an abortion] if necessary and she wants other women able to determine their own lives without dictating what her religion forbids."

But, but, but foo just said she does not support elective abortions. Elective abortions make up 98% of abortions. 0.1% of abortions are performed for the stated reason "life of mother".
_______

katie: "How come you haven't understood this the first gazillion times it's been explained, oh so ignorant one?"

You're serving a crap sandwich.
HuskerDu

United States

#274409 Jan 4, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
FooManSpew: "I do NOT support 'killing as choice'. I support the right of women to make their OWN choice."
One of the choices you support the woman making is killing.
See for yourself:
NR: "Preborn baby is clearly affected by abortion...to death."
FooManSpew: "Yes dear, that IS the point of abortion."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______
Just in case ANYONE was unsure, lets make it even MORE clear, shall we? You're killing the zygote, embryo or non-viable fetus that you either dont want to begin with, or for WHATEVER reason - cannot have.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______
FooManSpew: "I dont give two shits about those ZEFS"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
______
FooManSpew: "To hell with the embryo or fetus....'rip him apart, crush his skull, squish his beating heart.'"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Dang, foomanspew is pure evil.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#274410 Jan 4, 2013
I never lie. It's not my fault that reality doesn't always agree with me...:)
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>To say they don't, would be lying!
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274411 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
THank you for showing YOUR ignorance about the Jewish faith too No Relevance!
Actually, NO percent of Jews will "permit" anything of the kind. Its not up to them to forbid it, nor do they wish to try to tell others what to do.
That's YOUR kind's perview.
FooManSpew: "It's not up to Jews to try to tell others what to do."

But, the reason given for 0.1% of abortions is "life of mother".

99.9% of abortions violate Jewish law.

You've failed (again) to square that circle, dear.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#274412 Jan 4, 2013
No, you're just really, really stupid. Viability has to do with the level of development in which the fetus can use its own systems to survive if removed from the woman. One lynchpin of determination is development of the lungs. If the lungs are not to the point where they can oxygenate the blood, nothing you do will allow it to survive. IF it is developed to the point where that function is weak BUT PRESENT, it may survive; there is no guarantee. It is therefore viable but not in perfect health.

Legislation cannot supplant the doctor's own judgment.
No Relativism wrote:
Doc: "Did you see [Tinker Bell] comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance."
Wow.
First cPeter defines viability as the ability to survive WITHOT medical assistance.
THEN, he says the fetus must be viable in order for artifical life support to be meaningful.
What a mess......

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274413 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think if you keep repeating the same lie over and over it will magically become true?
I do NOT support "killing as choice". I support the right of women to make their OWN choice. Period.
Stop lying already you freak.
You fools believe that it makes any sense to claim you support the right of a woman to choose abortion,[knowing abortion stops a beating human heart in utero aka "killing" that human life]; and then also claim that you don't support "killing" as a choice.

Are you so stupid that you don't know there's a human life in utero being "killed" during abortion and that you support a woman's right to that "choice"? Or is it that you're so deluded in thought that you believe there isn't a human life with a heartbeat being killed when a woman chooses abortion?

The lengths you wackadoos go to to try to distance yourselves from the fact that you support "killing as a choice" is ridiculous.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274414 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
For Christ's sake, stop lying about what I support or dont support already. Do you EVER stop lying??
I support a woman's right to make her own medical choices PERIOD.
Nothing more. Nothing less. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, because you're frankly REALLY bad at it.
Foo: "For Christ's sake, stop lying about what I support or dont support already. Do you EVER stop lying??
I support a woman's right to make her own medical choices PERIOD.
Nothing more. Nothing less. "

Newsflash, Toots; no one's lying about what you support.

You're in an ABORTION forum supporting a woman's right to electively choose abortion, not just for her health or fetal abormalities, but for any reason she wants an abortion up to the point of viability.

True, or false?

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) 1 min EditorAtLarge 1,683,091
News Leaders say Trump presidency is at odds with ML... 1 min Lawrence Wolf 218
News With Congress divided, US governemnt heads for ... 2 min Impeach the Creep 8
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Rider on the Storm 52,251
News Chuck Schumer flashes big smile after learning ... 3 min Red Crosse 12
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 7 min Wondering 841
News Trump appointee resigns after racist, sexist an... 7 min Red Crosse 3
News Conservatives balk at GOP plan to avert governm... 16 min Guest 40
News Oprah speech has Democrats buzzing about possib... 32 min CodeTalker 596
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 35 min positronium 17,404
More from around the web