Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310327 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.

Ink

Morrisville, PA

#252608 Aug 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Except its NOT one sided as proven in YOUR recent posts.
Really, which one?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252609 Aug 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She said an unborn baby was human but wasn't sure it was a human being. Do you think she was confusing a baby with shit?
No offense to Junket, just Foo butting in again when she doesn't know what she talking about.
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about Inkstain.

Interesting how you love to make yourself look like an idiot.

I was not responding to Junket, I was remarking on this bit of ignorance from you:
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>

What is the difference between Human and human being? I think you are splitting hairs.
My factual answer to your abject stupidity stands.

Do you see "anger" in my response? My bet is you'll say yes. And in part you'd be right. I dont suffer stupid fools like you well. But MORE of what you see is disgust. I am thoroughly disgusted at the DELIBERATE ignorance you and your kind portray.

But I'll give you one thing Inkstain. You ARE The poster child for the ignorance that literally permiates every aspect of your kind's agenda.

Congratulations. I suspect you're proud of looking like a complete idiot.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252610 Aug 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is going to restrict your access to BC? Do you have to buy your contraceptives from Catholics?
And again, Inkstain display's her deliberate ignorance.

Seriously, is ANYONE shocked?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252611 Aug 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, which one?
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.
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#252612 Aug 13, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about Inkstain.
Interesting how you love to make yourself look like an idiot.
I was not responding to Junket, I was remarking on this bit of ignorance from you:
<quoted text>
My factual answer to your abject stupidity stands.
Do you see "anger" in my response? My bet is you'll say yes. And in part you'd be right. I dont suffer stupid fools like you well. But MORE of what you see is disgust. I am thoroughly disgusted at the DELIBERATE ignorance you and your kind portray.
But I'll give you one thing Inkstain. You ARE The poster child for the ignorance that literally permiates every aspect of your kind's agenda.
Congratulations. I suspect you're proud of looking like a complete idiot.
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.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252613 Aug 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it did. Go back and read, otherwise don't bother me.
No Inkstain, it did NOT. It had NOTHING to do with her post to you.

YOU were the moron that asked such a foolish and frankly moronic question. SHe didn't ask that, YOU did. And you got a FACTUAL answer, one you dont like.

Dont want to be "bothered"? Stop being a deliberate idiot. When you ask a stupid question in response to someone (Junket) that's trying to get a real discussion out of your stupid ass, then you shouldn't be "bothered" when your stupidity is spotlighted.

After all, the responses you're getting is EXACTLY what you're asking for.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#252614 Aug 13, 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.
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.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252615 Aug 13, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. You are incorrect. Their *total* abortion rate is lower than ours, BA. And I'm not talking about the total number, I'm talking about abortions as a *percentage* of pregnancies.
So your logic/assumptions are flawed.
Well, you're looking at statistics and assuming that the reason is strictly because they are more liberal on abortion laws. You cant do that becuase there are many diverse differences in the morals/standards/priorities from one country to another. So rather than compare apples to oranges, here is what I'm saying, in a society that has little or no restrictions on abortion, or recognition of the fetuses potential human life, abortion rates would be higher, though maybe still below the abortion rate of the US, than if emphasis was placed on recognition of the potentail life of the fetus.
This is not a dodge, or twist, but you cant just look at abortion rates per country and assume liberal laws on abortion should be the only consideration when comparing the two. You have to consider the culture as well.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252616 Aug 13, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Who here believes in abortion up until delivery and the cord is cut, BA? That is so out there AND illegal -- it's difficult to think you'd really believe it. Yet you've attributed it to me. Who else do you attribute it to? And why?
CS, CPeter, and maybe Elise, although they have not taken it to "until the cord is cut" as you have. 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. How is that so out there, when you were the one that argued that a baby wasnt born until the cord was cut?
Katie, you have argued against me on Partial birth abortion, D & X procedure, as well as excluding "emotional health" for a reason to abort a viable fetus, when "mental health" is covered in Roe v Wade. 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.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252617 Aug 13, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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. There's a difference between judging a person and judging their choices. It's not self-righteous to judge choices.
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?

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#252618 Aug 13, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you're looking at statistics and assuming that the reason is strictly because they are more liberal on abortion laws. You cant do that becuase there are many diverse differences in the morals/standards/priorities from one country to another. So rather than compare apples to oranges, here is what I'm saying, in a society that has little or no restrictions on abortion, or recognition of the fetuses potential human life, abortion rates would be higher, though maybe still below the abortion rate of the US, than if emphasis was placed on recognition of the potentail life of the fetus.
This is not a dodge, or twist, but you cant just look at abortion rates per country and assume liberal laws on abortion should be the only consideration when comparing the two. You have to consider the culture as well.
Recognition of the fetus' potential human life hasn't an iota of comparison to recognition of the mother's existing human life, even if restrictions to abortion were greater than they are now in this society. You simply cannot hold potential human life over existing human life and suggest that a woman's constitutional rights aren't disavowed, especially when the undisputed fact is that the fetus' potential human life depends solely on the existing human life of its mother at all stages of the pregnancy.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252619 Aug 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
But you have a flawed argument: "I have known since I was 12 or so, that sex could lead to pregnancy and that I would be responsible for that child for the rest of my life."
One does not follow the other. You could abort, you could miscarry, you could have a stillborn, you could have given it up for adoption. You decided you had one option; other women believe in more.
That sounds like the reasoning of a coward. As a man, I do my only decision after I have created a child is to support it. Yes, the women could make the other choices, but I went into knowing what the result could be, and as a man, I am always willing to stand up to my responsibilities.
I Didn't decide what she could do in my scenario, I simply said I understood what my responsibilities could be, why dont you understand that, scumbag?.
cpeter1313 wrote:
If that bear gets you, you can still have a doctor ameliorate any damages he caused. You don't just have to sit there and acept the wounds.
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that I dont have to sit there and let the woman decide what she will do? Once I made the decision to have sex with her I wouldnt even consider harming her to prevent her from having the child. I think you need your ass kicked by a man so you can understand what it means to be, an accountable, man, you F'nk sissy puke.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252620 Aug 13, 2012
My mother didn't have a choice to make, a-hole. She often pondered what she would have done if she had. But there was no diagnostic format to know the fetus had a heart problem.

My suffering? WTF are you talking about? I support women's right to choose based on THEIR reasoning, not mine.

Wake me when one of those "miracles" comes around.

I didn't choose to be gay and atheists are not pagans.

The first requirement of a saint is to be dead; mom's not a saint.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mother would not have aborted because she was a Chritian, part of the culture of life. She understands Gods Plan for everyone. You would kill an unborn child because you rationailze your sauffering, as its suffering. You know not what miracle
God has in store.
However, your story is one more piece to the puzzle of why you choose your abberent lifestyle and turned to paganism. Your mother was a Saint. Many homosexuals have a unique boond with their mothers.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252621 Aug 13, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Recognition of the fetus' potential human life hasn't an iota of comparison to recognition of the mother's existing human life, even if restrictions to abortion were greater than they are now in this society. You simply cannot hold potential human life over existing human life and suggest that a woman's constitutional rights aren't disavowed, especially when the undisputed fact is that the fetus' potential human life depends solely on the existing human life of its mother at all stages of the pregnancy.
If the fetus it a threat to the woman's life or health, then yes, her rights always prevail. Until the fetus has a very probable chance of surviving, then yes, her individual rights to medical privacy prevail. But once the fetus is viable, her rights to privacy are secondary to the State's interest to protect that potentail life, you should know this, counselor!?????

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252622 Aug 13, 2012
How do you "protect the fetus from its mother" without enslavement of the woman to her uterine contents and the whims of fate?

The debate at this point concerns the constant attempts of the neocons to rip women's rights from them.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as the abortion law goes, I don't think you can unring the bell. The number of abortions in this country a year demonstrates how much women use it for birth control. The fetus has no rights and no protection from it's mother.
Just because I believe that it is wrong to kill an unborn baby isn't going to change the law. Where's the debate?

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#252623 Aug 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Abortion IS okay; you just don't like it. Of course it's about the woman. She takes all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, she suffers all the pain. She suffers any negative social reactions. It's HER body; at no time does she lose her right to make her own decisions.
<quoted text>
Listen to yourself, "she takes all the pain, all the social negative social reasons, why should she be accountable?" Look, killing/terminating a potentail life should not be an opinion for irresponsible behaviour, period. There are times where abortion is a necessary option, but it does not excuse the woman or man for irresponsible behavior.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252624 Aug 13, 2012
"I think a human being is fully developed and living outside of a uterus."

That doesn't explain Carrot Top:
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
"Anger" seems to flow from both directions - unless you are not reading the same posts I do. "Contempt" is the same. It's not a one sided arrangement - not by any stretch.
I think a human being is fully developed and living outside of a uterus. That may not be correct on my part - but if I'm wrong - no doubt someone will chime in and enlighten me. I live to be enlightened.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252625 Aug 13, 2012
Very nice. I've met some "valium people". They could be used as a cure for insomnia.
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>That's one of the best burns I've ever read.... I'm going to soooo copy and paste it! Thanks Petie,,,, you adorable fella you
oh another favorite
Reading you is like the literary equivalency of valium
(got that from a Mars vs Venus joke)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252626 Aug 13, 2012
Let us know when you come near a coherent sentence.
JBH wrote:
IT COMES AT THIS PROPER TIME TO PRESENT MOMENTS TO REFLECT WHY THINGS ARE SO WRONG TO YOU ALL--IT IS BECAUSE OF THE WRONGFULNESS OF OBAMA, BIDEN AND THEIR COMPANY.
You ought to know to to your job for your better future. You have to remind IT HAS BEEN the major blunder that Obama-Biden presence at this point of time has been VIVIDLY demonstrating their poor showing with bad public acts --this is a total embarrassment.
YOU NEED TO REVERT THE CHANGE IN ORDER TO BECOME PRODUCTIVE--OTHERWISE YOU CAN NEVER GET Ahead SUCCESSFULLY.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO BUILD MORE AND LARGE CROWDS NOW AND BLASTING OPENLY AGAINST OBAMA AND BIDEN.
THE INDICATION WILL INDICATE CLEARLY TO TELL PEOPLE THEY OBAMA AND BIDEN HAVE BEEN DOING THE WRONG BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC OFFICE.
THE COUNTRY'S BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IN THEIR HANDS TO MESS UP.
THIS IS TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PEOPLE KNOW THE FUTURE AHEAD FOR ALL TO ELECT ROMNEY AND RYAN AS THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO ACCOMPLISH DOING THE RIGHT BUSINESS FOR THEM.
AND THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR ALL.
You have to get going all the time.
You have to steer and bring up the polls before going to Romney's convention by not relying on expecting polls bouncing up due to Convention.
You have to not only maintain polls going up after Convention, but keep on going after that.
Then you watch the Democrats' Party Convention by taking notes to make sure to bash them back.
At this time, Ryan needs to work on own more before Convention, to have full preparation beyond debates and stack up attacking Obama-Biden.
Ryan has to make it a critical importance that he must do a lot of work before becoming to be the Next VP of USA.
He would work with Romney's schedule and other matters ,including Romney's budget--but the budget should not be made much an issue because they may be only more applicable once they hold office.
The election can be, and also is not about the budget in general.
It may have something to do with image, personalities and public acts , skills, charisma, communication abilty , appearance-showing, stands (including positions on issues), direction and policies.
Right now, you need to get aggressive to block and bicker the pathetic OBAMA-BIDEN TALKING ABOUT NUISANCE OF A WOWAN'S CANCER AND OUTSOURCING because they are the ones who cause them.
Then all you have to do is to get really tough after Labor Day.
Florida is a very important state.
Despite California is leaning whichever way, it still needs to devote effort there.
Florida , Pennsylvania, Ohio,(and Virginia, Carolinas), are very critically important to make certain to do more about what are needed to be done.
YOU NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS FROM NOW ON AND MAKE THEM RIGHT BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CARE FOR YOURSELF AND MAKE IT--THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAT YOU MUST KNOW.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#252627 Aug 13, 2012
Maybe the father was a plumber...
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
BRAVO! Worth a repeat and 100% DEAD ON!
Guess hers were "meant to be" dead in a toilet. She's an idiot.

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 Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 min CDC 52,058
Time to go? 3 min CSA - Voice of Am... 2,364
News Some U.S. senators want to start oil war with Iran 3 min Synque 17
News Media Buzz: Why the Trump spousal 'rape' story ... 3 min Mr Amigo 21
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Coffee Party 194,423
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,262,878
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Mothra 54,343
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Injudgement 189,919
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 53 min Coffee Party 336,416
News Donald Trump blasts John McCain over 'crazies' ... 4 hr Silent Echo 616
More from around the web