Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310470 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#240023 May 22, 2012
So you are qualified to dx OCD? Please.

How does one "uphold" the past?
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>The fact is, she is leading grandkids to a life full of darkness and hate. Chicky poo has OCD. You know whats really sick? Aborting four hundred million babies , now that is sick. And you uphold it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#240024 May 22, 2012
So, where does christ tell his followers to act and speak as you do? Or are you better than jesus and know the real way to deal with others?
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text> You are def not a Christian. And I suppose you have a bad case of anxiety, you can't let things go. Now that is sick.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#240025 May 22, 2012
Another empty pronouncement from the popesucker.
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>These people that post and say they have degrees and such, are so anti-social I doubt they have a high school diploma. No one that deranged like Chicky, peter prancer, could make it through college.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#240026 May 22, 2012
You think all pro-choicers have had abortions? idiot.

When one escorts a fetus, there's a WOMAN wrapped around it doing the walking. You seem to forget that.
sassychic wrote:
Proaborts have problems with A PLer making comments about children? The VERY same proaborts who have paid...PAID ....a legalized hitman to kill the life of their developing child? Or escort developing babies in utero to their executions ?
Oh the irony!
What a joke.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#240027 May 22, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So, where does christ tell his followers to act and speak as you do? Or are you better than jesus and know the real way to deal with others?
<quoted text>
She's a mealy mouthed hypocrite.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#240028 May 22, 2012
St Psychotic's Finishing School for The Insane.
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Where did you go to college?
1 post removed

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#240030 May 22, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
St Psychotic's Finishing School for The Insane.
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, that for-profit school. They have a popular online course for agoraphobics.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#240031 May 23, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have time to look.
You're full of shit. I answered it right after you asked last time.....when you disappeared. All you need do is check your post history, check when you asked last, and scroll ahead a few pages. Should take you all of 90 seconds.
It's the least you can do. As I recall I spent a good bit of time on the answer.
For the 23rd time...
Explain how a state sanctioned abortion, obtained with explicit permission by the state due to a specific exception, and provided for by a licensed medical professional is illegal. Don't go back to your flawed analogy. It is missing the crucial element of the state granting specific case by case permission, under special circumstances, as it is doing with your rape exception. I fixed it for you, so the state IS giving case by case permission to the voter. Remember?
Yep, like it was yesterday. Now get crackin and start lookin. Time's a wastin.
And when did you decide to get into nursing and change your name to Mary? Did your answer disappear? lol
yeah I heard you the first three times. Grumpy's is the only cryptic nonsense I even consider responding to.
I can't tell you how much we all missed your dopey phony lol's while you were gone.
1 post removed

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#240033 May 23, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
If the infant at 22 weeks can't go home and nurse or take a bottle and be handled by the family that's come over to see the new baby, would you say it meets the criteria of "viable"?
If, in the opinion of a qualified physician, it can be sustained with medical assistance/artificial support and develop to a point where it no longer needs any assistance, then yes, it would be considered viable. In this case the infant/fetus turned out to be viable. If it wasn't viable it wouldn't have survived. After all that is what non viable means....it cannot survive no matter WHAT assistance or support is provided.
If so, do you think it is more or less viable than a fetus at 38 weeks? Do you think it is more or less viable than a fetus at 22 weeks?
There are no degrees of viability. Either it is or it isn't.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#240034 May 23, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know, ever since I asked BadEffup to show where in its ruling SCOTUS used "viability albeit w artificial support" as the cut off for abortion he doesn't seem to want to talk much either. See I showed that the quote he was using to be all big man a adamant about was not actually part of the ruling but a historical discussion within the ruling about the differing attitudes of what viability is and when it takes place. Asked him to find it in the ruling.
Now all I hear are crickets. He wants me to shut up about it after he went on and on and on about how he proved viability meant w support because roe said so.
Except it didn't.
I wonder why mr integrity can't admit HE IS WRONG??
You said there was no reference to medical assistance in the RvW decision.
You said an otherwise healthy infant born at 8 months that might need temporary assistance to breathe....is non viable.

You are exceptionally....exceptionally .....stupid.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#240035 May 23, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
No,
Then what are you arguing about ? We agree.
but then again, I'm not scouring the NICUs in South Florida, or the remainder of the Country, to find those who have not needed artificial support, and neither have you done the same looking for the opposite. So, it's very reasonable to believe the possibility exists.
Sure the possibility exists. But the fact is if you found one then I think any physician would agree you've found a true medical anomoly. You didn't even read my link did you ?
And second, no one, and no disrespect to CPeter, can put the point of viability at one precise figure for all neonates.
<quoted text>
Cpeter deserves all the disrespect you can muster. He's a coward.
And you're right. All neonates are different. Only a qualified physician could determine if an individual neonate was viable
I'm not defending what's indefensible Doc.
Yes you are. And you're still doing it now. No one can defend someone who believes that an otherwise healthy infant born at 34 weeks who might need temporary artificial assistance to breathe....is NON VIABLE. It's insanity. And you're not only entertaining it....you're attempting to defend it.

For it to be indefensible would require a hands down, no holds barred, unequivocal 100% of all preemies born at or near the point of viability, to require medical assistance, notwithstanding that the medical definition of viability must require medical assistance. And it does not.
no it wouldn't. And I'm not saying the definition of viability says it MUST require medical assistance. I'm just saying there is no legal or medical definition of viability that qualifies it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance. The concept of viability existed 200 years ago, when there were no mechanical ventilators or other means of artificial support that we have today. As such an infant born 200 years ago that would be considered viable today would not have been considered viable 200 years ago. How could the limits of viability have changed so drastically over the last 200 years with advances in medical technology... if it DID NOT include with available artificial/medical support ?
If you consider her definition of viability to be at all valid you would also have to then acknowledge that the limits of infant viability would NEVER change.....EVER. Yet we know they have.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#240036 May 23, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>An obstructed airway causes hypoxia which absolutely impairs brain function. She needs to take it easy on the fellatio (sp).
Y'know, my cat coughed up a furball this AM, it did sound similar too....

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#240037 May 23, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong dweebiekins. Viability just means that the newborn's body could sustain life period(.)
With or without artificial support. No definition defines it exclusively without.
The only requirement for viability to exist is the litmus test of 50/50 chance of survival outside the womb exists. Anything else is irrelevant and not the bottom line.
Precisely. And how could such a limit be set at around 24 weeks if it meant without medical assistance ? Are you saying that all of those who survived at 24 weeks required no medical assistance ?
Do some research like I said. Here's a start.....

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafte...

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#240038 May 23, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I know.. I just want her to answer the question. To see if she is willing to break ranks.
She won't. No integrity at all. None.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#240039 May 23, 2012
JEB wrote:
Are republicans serious about abortion or just playing for the votes ?
Well let's see. Bush promised the anti choice sheeple a constitutional amendment against abortion. The stupid sheeple have no idea what that means but since it sounded good they voted for him.

What happened to that amendment? When was it even attempted?

We all know what happened to the economy though. Stupid sheeple.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#240040 May 23, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>It is not Chicky refusing to back her claim.

You and your buddies are refusing to look at this with the same perspective medical personnel do.

The 22wk preemie would be determined likely able to reach viability with life support. This does not mean the newborn is already viable -- which is what you and your buddies continually claim.
I've backed all my claims. Not sure what she's babbling about.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#240041 May 23, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>Newsflash: Baby Amelia was born at 21 weeks and survived. She was considered non-viable.

Back to the topic of chickys claim that VIABLE babies dont need life.support when born.

Would YOU like to tell her the truth that she is wrong? Or are you gonna play peekaboo and pretend?
Lay off the booze, dingleberry. This makes no sense.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#240042 May 23, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I did NOT say the rabbi demands. I SPECIFICALLY said Halakha - Jewish law - demands abortion if the woman's life is at risk.

Perhaps you should stop trying to manipulate others responses and making an ass of yourself while you try and fail EVERY time.
That's what she does. It's pathetic. It's because she can't win a rational, logical, discussion on the issue.
1 post removed

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#240044 May 23, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Nope,Lynne. You and Doc are devotees of the Harpy School of Debate. You nag and nag and nag until a normal person gives up in disgust and ignores you. Then you nutjobs declare victory. I have to admit it's pretty funny. What a couple of dorks you are!
Well said!

: D

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#240045 May 23, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
She won't. No integrity at all. None.
She has has as much as stated she supports knutter. It a way sick way to go through life in my opinion. At the very least my contact with those toxic people is just through topix. Which is bad enough.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min taletha 340,589
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Snowball the Elep... 1,274,297
Time to go? 8 min CSA - Voice of Am... 3,207
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 9 min -Stray Dog 47,746
News Univision reporter removed from Trump news conf... 13 min serfs up 25
News As Biden weighs 2016 bid, donors so far stick b... 17 min serfs up 26
News This One Weird Pic DESTROYS Ayn Rand 18 min Chilli J 3
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 25 min IND 193,375
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 29 min Lawrence Wolf 76
News Trump says he'd deport undocumented immigrants ... 2 hr positronium 631
More from around the web