Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311496 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.

pupsilicious

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#252638 Aug 14, 2012

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#252639 Aug 14, 2012
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>There is that little option that the anti-choice people want to keep open for themselves to use at their discretion"just in case..." while trying to force their beliefs against termination on others. Just who in every town and state would make the final sayso in that "option" and how would those people be chosen and by whom?
Excuse me sir,do you mean forcing ones belief as in a candidate running for election? This is why most of us vote,because a candidate's beliefs are like ours.
The court abandoned Roe's strict trimester framework,so I'd guess the laws in each state and town,would make the final say so..

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252640 Aug 14, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text> In the CONTEXT of what I was discussing, that is the article by the woman that HAD an LTA and why, and fetus's with Tay Sachs, well if you REALLY have to ask, then you're a MUCH bigger idiot that I gave you credit for.
But then I know context isn't your strong suit.
<quoted text> But the POINT you keep deliberately missing is it DOESNT mean healthy.
<quoted text>
No, but perhaps YOU DO asshole.
norĀ·mal
Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
Sorry, NORMAL isn't someone on life support. Neither is healthy.
YOU are the fool Lynniekins. Sorry, I dont consider a severely prematurely born child on life support as "normal". And until the last few years, others didn't either. Medicine can keep a dead man "living" indefinetly, but should they?
<quoted text>
Parents of a child with Tay Sachs DONT HAVE A HEALTHY CHILD you idiot. ANd YES it IS better to abort late term than to subject that child to what they WILL go through (to say nothing of the family) and if you want to talk about brutal? BRUTAL is how they WILL die. There is NO gentle death for a child with Tay Sachs.
Have you ever seen one? Ever been around them as the disease QUICKLY progresses? Progresses to the point they KNOW what's happening and dying in the worst pain you can imagine? Pain the doctors cant even BEGIN to mitigate?
I have. Twice in my family. Yes, an abortion would have been MUCH better, and the parents agree. MOST parents that have suffered from this horror of a disease would.
"But the POINT you keep deliberately missing is it DOESNT mean healthy."

Wrong, you ignorant buffoon. The POINT is; abortion is NOT a necessary "treatment" for mother OR child in such cases.

Also, the discussion was NOT about abortion for reasons of a defective fetus, as you tried to turn it into.

It was about a mother's life being at risk, and having a VIABLE fetus. The POINT to the discussion was that a VIABLE fetus does NOT need to be aborted for mother's life at risk. Aborting a viable fetus is no less risky than birthing a live child, as I've shown proof of with links to that fact.

You're the idiot who tried to claim that [yes, a woman could hemmorage from aborting late term but that's a NECESSARY surgery], as though a c-section to SAVE mother AND child would not be a "NECESSARY surgery".

You make a fool of yourself and you're your own worst enemy by doing everything that you do here.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252641 Aug 14, 2012
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
I pity your "my side vs your side" world.
I pity her cowardice.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#252642 Aug 14, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is going to restrict your access to BC? Do you have to buy your contraceptives from Catholics?
Are you brain damaged??

What part of the "conscience clause" for PHARMACISTS eludes you? What the heck does that have to do with Catholics? I answered your stupid, obvious question and you come back at me with 2 more?

Are you senile??

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#252643 Aug 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks, Ladi. These effing fundies won't be happy unless we women are shoved back into the status we had 70 years ago.
Seriously? I wonder about some of them. Their ability to look past today is clearly in question, as is their working knowledge of history. I personally feel that people should have to pass a test in order to be permitted to vote. If they don't pass, then they have to take a remedial course in order to get up to snuff.

Scary people out there, e.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#252644 Aug 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Do you ever read? Do you pay attention to what is happening on the state level around the country? If not, please educate yourself so that you can discuss the issue. Or, if you think there is nothing more to discuss, stop trying.
Unbelievable, right?

I think she's senile.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252645 Aug 14, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it was pretty one sided and Foo has proved it out in her recent posts. I knew I could count on her.
You're deluding yourself greatly if you actually think "it" is "pretty one sided".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252646 Aug 14, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is going to restrict your access to BC? Do you have to buy your contraceptives from Catholics?
Why should a Catholic pharmacist be allowed to pick and choose what prescriptions he/she is willing to fill? If the pharmacist is against birth control then the pharmacist doesn't have to use birth control, otherwise he should just do his job and fill scripts.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252647 Aug 14, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Every post in which you feign ignorance. I really dont understand your love of making yourself look very VERY stupid, but hey, whatever trips your trigger. I suspect you think you're proving something when you get the kinds of responses you're asking for, but in REALITY, all you're doing is harming your agenda. Something your kind are famous for.
What I think is going on with her is that she posts things without thinking it through and then when she gets challenged she evades and deflects and acts obtuse because she then is backed into a corner by her own foolishness.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

#252648 Aug 14, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>CS, CPeter, and maybe Elise, although they have not taken it to "until the cord is cut" as you have.
You have confused an argument regarding the physiological differences between fetus and baby with my stance on abortion. Again, abortion isn't even legal after 32wks (excepting the life/health of mother). This crappy claim has been perpetuated (but not recently) by the likes of NR, Triple L, Doc, JM, and a couple others. They have been repeatedly corrected and I've repeatedly clarified my stance. Even in a post to you last week. Am guessing you didn't see it.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>You, and the people I mentioned, see abortion as a private issue for the woman, strictly a question of a woman's right to medical autonomy.
Yes, I do hold the perspective abortion is a private matter. That it is one part of the whole package regarding women's reproductive civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>How is that so out there, when you were the one that argued that a baby wasnt born until the cord was cut?
Again, to clarify, I argued the physiological differences between fetus and baby. Fetus in utero, baby at birth (which includes first breath and cutting cord). Another way to see it is labor and delivery propel the changes in the fetus so it can survive outside the womb as an infant.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Katie, you have argued against me on Partial birth abortion, D & X procedure,
Might I suggest you join forces with JM? She is of the belief I "argued" the banning of the D&X procedure. This was clarified for you last week; guess you didn't see that one, either. I did not argue the banning of or the act of the D&X procedure. What I did while others argued it was to provide facts that included more than the description of the gruesome procedure. Seemed most couldn't see the forest through the trees. One thing being now only the D&E procedure is an option. Or what Triple L and a few others keep promoting; C-Section.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>as well as excluding "emotional health" for a reason to abort a viable fetus, when "mental health" is covered in Roe v Wade.
I've counted a few people stating you're incorrect in your assessment of "mental health" covered by RvW. Like has been said by others and I said last week, BA, DvB WORKS WITH RvW by expounding on "mental health" and finally factoring in "emotional health" with it. Emotional health had been mostly ignored prior to DvB.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Own up to your own arguments, you're the one that's "out there" when you make arguments and then try to call someone for calling you an extremist.
BA? I am owning my arguments. I am not, however, owning your misinterpretation of same. Said arguments have been clarified for you, you should no longer be unclear. Feel free to let me know if you are, though.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#252649 Aug 14, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>haha about the ground hog! lol
What really this whole issue is about, is at what point do you regard 'it' to be something that needs protecting AND at what expense.... That pretty much sums it up...
Jumping gee willikers - gosh, Rachel - now I'm not sure - I reckon that the woman wrapped around a fetus gets the most say. She might want her potential offspring protected at all costs. She might want to terminate. Guess it's her call. Kinda figure it's none of my business - ya know what I mean?

What's your take? I'm easily manipulated and sway like a willow tree. You let me know what view I should hold, and by golly, I'm going to echo your sentiment. This be could be fun.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252650 Aug 14, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
By now I shouldn't even expect you to follow the previous posts. You do this all the time and I'm not explaining anymore. Continue with your silly rant. I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
Go on, run Ink, run.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252651 Aug 14, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, RUN AWAY little coward. That's what your kind do best when - as Lynne likes to say - you get "owned", in THIS case, by your OWN foolishness.
I followed the previous posts. I was responding to YOUR post and YOUR moronic question, NOT ANYONE ELSES.
Now you can 'explain' how my direct and factual response to YOUR stupid question should be applied to something someone ELSE said, but as ususal, you'd be wrong, and failing in your deliberate attempts to deflect from your own ignorance.
You twit.
LMAO!!! I definitely should have read ahead.
Katie

Tacoma, WA

#252652 Aug 14, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"But the POINT you keep deliberately missing is it DOESNT mean healthy."
Wrong, you ignorant buffoon. The POINT is; abortion is NOT a necessary "treatment" for mother OR child in such cases.
Also, the discussion was NOT about abortion for reasons of a defective fetus, as you tried to turn it into.
It was about a mother's life being at risk, and having a VIABLE fetus. The POINT to the discussion was that a VIABLE fetus does NOT need to be aborted for mother's life at risk. Aborting a viable fetus is no less risky than birthing a live child, as I've shown proof of with links to that fact.
You're the idiot who tried to claim that [yes, a woman could hemmorage from aborting late term but that's a NECESSARY surgery], as though a c-section to SAVE mother AND child would not be a "NECESSARY surgery".
You make a fool of yourself and you're your own worst enemy by doing everything that you do here.
Both of these views need to be included in the arguments regarding post-viability abortion. It's not well-rounded otherwise. There are too many variables involving same; not a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach to issues, arguments, or solutions (which usually involve compromise). You keep arguing one over the other and acting as if your one view is the only correct view at the expense of all others.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#252653 Aug 14, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should a Catholic pharmacist be allowed to pick and choose what prescriptions he/she is willing to fill? If the pharmacist is against birth control then the pharmacist doesn't have to use birth control, otherwise he should just do his job and fill scripts.
It doesn't even have to be a Catholic pharmacist. She makes no sense. She acts as if all of this crap isn't constantly in the news. I'm tired of being her information source. I have no patience for deliberate ignorance.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252654 Aug 14, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>You say "no risk" , I've told you that my step father's first wife died from such a procedure, so obviously there is risk. Also, you do not even attempt to argue what the effect on the family would be if the forced, premature baby, would have life long debilitating, and constant care requiring, handicaps. Why would someone who would not be personally impacted by such a decision even try to influence such a decision unless they were self righteous, selfish idiots?
Badaxe, when I said, "I'm not judging women. I'm judging their decisions, which you people also do when it comes to aborting at viability when there's no risk to mother or child...", I meant no risk of dying because of the pregnancy. Late term abortions carry as much risk as giving birth does to a woman. That viable child has to come out somehow, dead or alive.

Badaxe; "Also, you do not even attempt to argue what the effect on the family would be if the forced, premature baby, would have life long debilitating, and constant care requiring, handicaps."

Why argue it? AT VIABILITY,(legally 24 weeks), a healthy fetus has a good chance to survive out of the womb without those effects. 25 years ago a fetus had a good chance to survive, and the chances are better these days.

"Why would someone who would not be personally impacted by such a decision even try to influence such a decision unless they were self righteous, selfish idiots?"

Because that's not how it is, that's why. We're talking about a VIABLE fetus, that HAS to come out of the woman one way or another, and at 3rd tri-mester (legal age of viability), abortion carries no less risk to the mother than giving birth to a live child does, so killing that child is not necessary. Abortion in 3rd tri-mester often includes surgery and as much risk as c-section. I left links to these facts.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252655 Aug 14, 2012
We're talking about KILLING a VIABLE human being in utero, supposedly because a woman's life is at risk if she continues the pregnancy.
2 posts removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#252658 Aug 14, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! I definitely should have read ahead.
You and Foo are both idiots to suggest Ink is a coward because she chose to stop reading stupidity and arguing with fools who post it, and chose instead to go to bed. What, you expect people to hang around all day and night like you people do, as long as you're making posts? LOL, what a bunch of pinheads! The posts will still be there whenever any of us gets back to the forum, and we will all still have the choice to read and respond, or not. Leaving the forum doesn't mean anyone is a coward. Except maybe that's why you people leave? Must be if you even think that that's why anyone else would. For the rest of us leaving only means we've had enough of your ignorance, stupidity and senselessness enter our brains for one day, AND because we all have lives away from here.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#252659 Aug 14, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't even have to be a Catholic pharmacist. She makes no sense. She acts as if all of this crap isn't constantly in the news. I'm tired of being her information source. I have no patience for deliberate ignorance.
She reminds me of a toddler saying "why why why" all day.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Aura Mytha 201,709
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 12 min pooky 10,494
News Sheriff Joe Chapman 16 min saint compared 3
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 25 min Quirky 5,695
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 32 min Quirky 391,567
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 33 min Jay 233,549
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 219,714
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr VetnorsGate 1,405,628
News The Latest: First lady calls out Trump, - hatefula 8 hr LoveTRUMPHate 86
More from around the web