Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 346386 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#258321 Sep 14, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you feel the need to even announce your departure? It's not like anyone really cares....
It's for the pro-choicers who claim only they have lives, and claim I'm the one here all day. Just pointing out how stupid that kind of claim they make is, especially when they're the ones always here, that's all. Nothing you need to concern yourself with.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#258322 Sep 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
Wow, LLL's all kinds of hurt over getting a warning. Who knew she has feelings?
LOL "Hurt" about what? Because a PCer reported me? Not at all. I'm laughing at how little some of the pro-choicers can take, while they dish out a whole lotta "shit" to us, and we don't report it, because we're not babies, we're grown adults, and we understand the phrase we teach our children and grandchildren; "stick and stones....". I don't care what names i'm called, I'm not going to report it.

If grown, intelligent, sensible adults are going to report anything, well make sure it'll be something MUCH worse than the vulgarity we see in PC posts in what they call us, and certainly extremely worse than, "Got a life to get back to", "wise up", "how stupid are you"..." or the use of the word "bullshit". lol

Seriously.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#258323 Sep 14, 2012
Pure Brilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let her fool you.
Thats narcissistic indignation at being told what she can and can not do by an inferior entity. A mere moderator, who can not possibly understand that she is superior to all, and others have done worse than her anyway!
She will be back to let us all know about it some more later.....
"Thats narcissistic indignation at being told what she can and can not do by an inferior entity. A mere moderator, who can not possibly understand that she is superior to all, and others have done worse than her anyway!"

LOL, that's being said by someone who has admitted she got banned, threatened to keep reporting my posts for no good reason, who has made posts like:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
258189
"Wrong, you dumbass... Shame you are such a compulsive moronic liar.
Yes, I was banned... My reporting you assholes got BadFuckup banned,...
Do you think it is going to keep me from posting? Never has before!
But here is a warning for you. I am still reporting all of your posts that have ANY insults or name calling. So you are going to have to be really, really, nice now.
Or you WILL be banned.
The thread will thank me when it finally happpens!"

Let's see the post you just wrote again:

"Thats narcissistic indignation at being told what she can and can not do by an inferior entity. A mere moderator, who can not possibly understand that she is superior to all, and others have done worse than her anyway!"

Obviously you posted about yourself.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#258324 Sep 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Omg, do you ever shut up?
Do you?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#258325 Sep 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marijuana is not physically addictive, but you can become psychologically addicted to it--just like anything else. There are case studies of people who become psychologically addicted to television, bandages, fabrics, etc. But that is not a reason to make it illegal.
Prescription pain pills are all addictive physically. Since it is impossible to truly dx whether someone actually has pain or not, pain pills are fairly easy to get.
Did your brother have a lawyer? If he is prescribed the pills and has a valid history of chronic pain, he should not have been adjudicated as an addict--unless there are aspects you didn't mention, like using more than the prescribed dosage or driving while using them. Most pain pills make driving unsafe, and there is no right to drive while impaired.
I'm not unsympathetic--I have spinal arthritis and some days can be agonizing. But I have chosen to avoid the prescription route because of the risks of addiction; I use OTC painkillers as well as relaxation exercises and heat. It doesn't take all the pain away but it does allow me to function properly.
<quoted text>
He had a public defender and a valid history of chronic pain. He was on his way to play poker with some friends and rather than take the entire bottle, he took two pain pills and put them in his pocket. He didn't want to drive under the influence of them. Well just his luck, he gets pulled over for speeding and and was patted down. He is planning to file suit against the county, because according to state law he should have only had to spend 60 days for his offense but spent 90 because of the shortage of a bed in rehab. It becomes overcrowded in the jail in the meantime and he was sleeping on two of those little mattresses they give you (they gave him two because of his disability) but then took it away when they needed it for another inmate. When I visited him in rehab after his release, he was on crutches. What they should have done imo, is release him and other non violent offenders after their 60 days into custody of family members until the next court date with a judge, then to rehab when a bed becomes available. I was livid, I wrote the Governor, the States Attorney and the County Attorney and wrote a letter to the Editor of the newspaper.
I researched a lot on it and you're right, I remember reading that pain cannot be dx'd, so laws concerning prescription drugs have to be strict on the users that need them. I guess this is what gives judges the authority to make a dx of drug addiction because pain cannot be proven. But geeze, you'd think that two near fatal car wrecks would be proof enough.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#258326 Sep 14, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you?
Puleeeze, lol. You're so dumb :-D

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#258327 Sep 14, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>He had a public defender and a valid history of chronic pain. He was on his way to play poker with some friends and rather than take the entire bottle, he took two pain pills and put them in his pocket. He didn't want to drive under the influence of them. Well just his luck, he gets pulled over for speeding and and was patted down. He is planning to file suit against the county, because according to state law he should have only had to spend 60 days for his offense but spent 90 because of the shortage of a bed in rehab. It becomes overcrowded in the jail in the meantime and he was sleeping on two of those little mattresses they give you (they gave him two because of his disability) but then took it away when they needed it for another inmate. When I visited him in rehab after his release, he was on crutches. What they should have done imo, is release him and other non violent offenders after their 60 days into custody of family members until the next court date with a judge, then to rehab when a bed becomes available. I was livid, I wrote the Governor, the States Attorney and the County Attorney and wrote a letter to the Editor of the newspaper.
I researched a lot on it and you're right, I remember reading that pain cannot be dx'd, so laws concerning prescription drugs have to be strict on the users that need them. I guess this is what gives judges the authority to make a dx of drug addiction because pain cannot be proven. But geeze, you'd think that two near fatal car wrecks would be proof enough.
It needs to be pointed out to the courts that addiction is not a crime. But that has nothing to do with this, does it? In your brother's case, it can be argued that a person who is being treated with opiates for chronic pain, is not considered to be physically addicted. Its is very possible that if your brother does not have a history of substance abuse, and miraculously stopped being in pain, he would not have a problem withdrawing from his pain meds. I think he has a case.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#258328 Sep 14, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ExCUSE me. You said you didn't care about that topic, and then you reported me, because you can't handle things here like an adult.
Calling someone a bonehead is not adult. I reported you for violating TOS towards me. I don't care what you call others or what they call you. I'm not responsible for what you say or they say, I'm responsible for what I post to you and others and I have not called you any silly names not once. You will show me the same respect or I will report. It's that simple Lynne.
1 post removed

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#258330 Sep 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry about your brother. 90 days is a lot, considering he could prove that he has a script for the drug. There is a backlash on legitimate opiod users and illegal users. Pain is something that we take very seriously in the medical field. If a person is in pain, treatment is ineffective and healing is impaired. Unless we have concrete evidence to believe that someone is truly drug seeking, we take them at their word that they are truthful. Besides, even an addict needs meds when experiencing pain.
We all need a pain pill every now and then. But I'm like Cpeter if I can stay away from them I will. For surgery's yeah, I take them as prescribed but for chronic leg/hip pain I have, carpal tunnel, nah. I live with it.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#258331 Sep 14, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Calling someone a bonehead is not adult. I reported you for violating TOS towards me. I don't care what you call others or what they call you. I'm not responsible for what you say or they say, I'm responsible for what I post to you and others and I have not called you any silly names not once. You will show me the same respect or I will report. It's that simple Lynne.
I'm sorry that she is judging you guilty by association. You are here and you are prochoice, therefore you are a yada, yada, yada. That's that special Lynne Logic for ya.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#258332 Sep 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>It needs to be pointed out to the courts that addiction is not a crime. But that has nothing to do with this, does it? In your brother's case, it can be argued that a person who is being treated with opiates for chronic pain, is not considered to be physically addicted. Its is very possible that if your brother does not have a history of substance abuse, and miraculously stopped being in pain, he would not have a problem withdrawing from his pain meds. I think he has a case.
No he's still in pain, but because he's "addicted" and in rehab, he can't get what was originally prescribed to him by his PCP. I agree with you, the states are going to have draw a very line with prescription pain meds and legit users and those that get addicted via recreational and illegal means. That's why it just kills me that the tax payers are paying out the wazoo to jail and rehab both legit and non legit users. Pain pills are not a cure for pain, but neither is rehab ya know?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#258333 Sep 14, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been your erroneous claim I was on here 24/7, but it is, nonetheless, erroneous. I could be bitchy and spiteful like you and Triple L and demand you prove your false contention, but frankly, I don't give a damn.
"I say,'Good Day!'" -- Fez
I thought you were no longer responding to posts of this nature ? I thought you had moved on ?
Can't help yourself can you ?
I understand.
1 post removed

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#258335 Sep 14, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry about your brother. 90 days is a lot, considering he could prove that he has a script for the drug. There is a backlash on legitimate opiod users and illegal users. Pain is something that we take very seriously in the medical field. If a person is in pain, treatment is ineffective and healing is impaired. Unless we have concrete evidence to believe that someone is truly drug seeking, we take them at their word that they are truthful. Besides, even an addict needs meds when experiencing pain.
"We" in the medical field.....

Good stuff.
4 posts removed

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#258340 Sep 14, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
"We" in the medical field.....
Good stuff.
?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#258341 Sep 14, 2012
Pure Brilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
I can see that you are just too fncking stupid to see the difference between me making ONE post admitting I was banned and why, and your bitching and whining and whining and crying and belly aching and name calling and insulting and spewing more mindless vomit in post after post after post complaining that YOU were WARNED and how dare they since others have done SO much worse things than you.
But then, no one has ever mistaken you for a rocket scientist.
Now eff off, ya narcissistic freak show.
Oh, and REPORTED.
Hey, she screeched that she doesn't care. She bellowed that she finds it amusing. She has nagged incessantly that she is just here to...to... aaah, I stopped reading. She's a tedious, tedious lady.
1 post removed

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258343 Sep 14, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
They are probably thinking of all the males on here that masterbate?:/
Yeah, all that wasted sperm.

If the fundies think God is running everyone's life then add up all the miscarriage stats and God himself is doing a good job of "slaughtering millions". According to the OT that was his thing anyway.
4 posts removed
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#258348 Sep 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The problem withthe la in question is that it seeks to practice medicine by fiat instead of by license and experience. The law requires a doctor to take steps to secure and support a fetus that does not die during the abortion process. That sounds great until you realize that if the fetus is not viable, there is no fu**ing way in hell it will survive regardless of how many machines you hook it up to. The law takes way the doctor's right to make professional decisions and causes medical personnel to go through motions they KNOW don't mean diddly-damn.
Birth doesn't determine species, but it does determine rights. Moreover, science does not count any organism to be part of a species until it is born. So if you want to ring up science, you defeat your own contention. Which is pretty much par for the course for you, little boy.
<quoted text>
Nothing you say makes any sense. Most species are never born.
Human rights are inherent. Birth has nothing to do with who is or isn't human, so birth has nothing to do with who does or doesn't have rights.
inherent
adj
existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inherent

intrinsic
adjective
1.
belonging to a thing by its very nature
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrin...
1 post removed

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#258350 Sep 14, 2012
All I know, is that I'm still here! I haven't been warned or anything. I guess I'm well liked!

Anyways... what's new otherwise?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#258351 Sep 14, 2012
Not that "that" is new! hahahhahaha
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#258352 Sep 14, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, the constitution denotes rights as the domain of the born or naturalized, two conditions that exclude the fetus.
Even justice scalia, the ardent catholic, recognizes that rights belong to the "walking-around" people, not fetuses.
<quoted text>
No one in their right mind cares what tiresome old bigots like justice scalia recognize. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her unborn baby. Alcohol in the mother's blood passes through the placenta to the baby through the umbilical cord. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and a range of lifelong disorders, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). There is no known safe time to drink alcohol during pregnancy. Drinking alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy can cause the baby to have abnormal facial features. Growth and central nervous system problems (e.g., low birthweight, behavioral problems) can occur from drinking alcohol anytime during pregnancy. The baby’s brain is developing throughout pregnancy and can be damaged at any time.

If a woman is drinking alcohol during pregnancy, it is never too late to stop. The sooner a woman stops drinking, the better it will be for both her baby and herself.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY:(888) 232-6348
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/index.html

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 Ex-GOP Mayor Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $80M ... 8 min Say What 34
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 8 min Dada 10,068
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min mdbuilder 1,784,521
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 14 min Say What 583
News Trump's immigration order sparks confusion, dee... 32 min Annie Oakly 37
News Trump urges Republican lawmakers to drop immigr... 42 min Annie Oakly 65
News Democrats Have Zero Tolerance for Solutions to ... 44 min HillaryFartedOh 39
News Trump's land of delusion 1 hr fish and poi 963
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr TangledWebOfBonkers 88,516
News Nearly 70 children being taken from families at... 2 hr FartinHillary 300