Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336453 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.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#262854 Oct 9, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
<quoted text> Ink is wrong. We do not believe in abortion. Ink needs to explain.
I'll try and explain this to you. Ink knows the church doesn't believe in abortion. She doesn't believe in abortion either,nor do I and a number of folks,on here.
She is describing the double effect. Which is sometimes hard to understand. I didn't understand in the case of the 9 year old Brazil girl,either. She told me what she thought,about it,that the 9 year old was not in Immediate danger. In other words she wasn't going to die right away.
The church considers the action in cases where the child absolutely cannot survive.
If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means. What I described is not a tubal pregnancy.
corgilicious

United States

#262855 Oct 9, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll try and explain this to you. Ink knows the church doesn't believe in abortion. She doesn't believe in abortion either,nor do I and a number of folks,on here.
She is describing the double effect. Which is sometimes hard to understand. I didn't understand in the case of the 9 year old Brazil girl,either. She told me what she thought,about it,that the 9 year old was not in Immediate danger. In other words she wasn't going to die right away.
The church considers the action in cases where the child absolutely cannot survive.
If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means. What I described is not a tubal pregnancy.
WOW, where do you get your ideas from? Call to Action? Quit spreading lies. I posted the link where Ink got her info, she didn't tell the whole story.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262856 Oct 9, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
"LC, we all understand that the D&C completes the process of the pregnancy being terminated"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
"The D&C doesn't end the pregnancy, the miscarriage did."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Make up your mind.
She thinks there's a difference in the procedure if a D&C is done as an elective abortion compared to the the D&C done if it's a miscarriage. See in the elective abortion the D&C kills a life, terminates or ends a pregnancy. The D&C for a miscarriage doesn't terminate a pregnancy because the pregnancy terminated itself, so there is nothing that can be killed. Therefore the D&C for an elective abortion is not the same step taken for a D&C for a miscarriage. She can't comprehend for the life of her that the steps taken to remove either a live fetus or a dead fetus are the same. For that matter, we could refer to a D&C for an elective abortion a miscarriage procedure.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262857 Oct 9, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
Ink,please explain why you are posting about women who are pregnant have the OK from the Catholic Church to abort if the woman thinks their life is in danger? You are spreading lies and need to talk to a priest. Its only when there is a tubal pregnancy.
Give her time, I'm sure she's researching her own religious doctrine via the internet.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262858 Oct 9, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing its not unusual tho. How many people of faith will go to a faith based hospital, and have assumptions made? Personally, In Texas, I'm having a hard time believing there was a language barrier, I do think it was her decision, and some of this is normal denial by her family, y'know>
You'll probably never know the complete story.

Very sad :(

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262859 Oct 9, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
And supporting the right for anyone to make their own choice, does not mean we have to support the choice they make. They keep forgetting that.
Yep.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262860 Oct 9, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, smooch, smooch, smack, kiss!!!
Get off your mother's lap, perv.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#262861 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>She thinks there's a difference in the procedure if a D&C is done as an elective abortion compared to the the D&C done if it's a miscarriage. See in the elective abortion the D&C kills a life, terminates or ends a pregnancy. The D&C for a miscarriage doesn't terminate a pregnancy because the pregnancy terminated itself, so there is nothing that can be killed. Therefore the D&C for an elective abortion is not the same step taken for a D&C for a miscarriage. She can't comprehend for the life of her that the steps taken to remove either a live fetus or a dead fetus are the same. For that matter, we could refer to a D&C for an elective abortion a miscarriage procedure.
Totally ignoring this:

"In medical (and veterinary) contexts, the technical term "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced"

http://www.minahealth.com/what_is_miscarriage ...

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262862 Oct 9, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally ignoring this:
"In medical (and veterinary) contexts, the technical term "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced"
http://www.minahealth.com/what_is_miscarriage ...
Mhmmmm.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#262863 Oct 9, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
<quoted text> WOW, where do you get your ideas from? Call to Action? Quit spreading lies. I posted the link where Ink got her info, she didn't tell the whole story.
http://www.hli.org/index.php/condoms/265...
Katie

Graham, WA

#262864 Oct 9, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally ignoring this:
"In medical (and veterinary) contexts, the technical term "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced"
http://www.minahealth.com/what_is_miscarriage ...
And ignoring, no trying to nullify, next of kin use the same civil rights in end of life, life/death emergency decisions.

She claims she understands a medical directive directive and durable POA are the same thing, but she wants to treat these differently when it's applicable to JM's hypothetical situation and Michael Schiavo's real-life experience.

"Piece of work" is all I can say about that and then give an ...
<exasperated sigh>

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#262865 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Give her time, I'm sure she's researching her own religious doctrine via the internet.
So. Learning is a good thing,don't you think? Especially,if your not sure, of something.:)

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#262866 Oct 9, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
And ignoring, no trying to nullify, next of kin use the same civil rights in end of life, life/death emergency decisions.
She claims she understands a medical directive directive and durable POA are the same thing, but she wants to treat these differently when it's applicable to JM's hypothetical situation and Michael Schiavo's real-life experience.
"Piece of work" is all I can say about that and then give an ...
<exasperated sigh>
Doesn't fit the agenda, Katie. You sould know this! ;-)

How are you Katie?

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#262867 Oct 9, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Learning is a good thing,don't you think? Especially,if your not sure, of something.:)
Must admit that I use Google quite a bit.:-)

(AyakaNeo's post was funny :)
corgilicious

United States

#262868 Oct 9, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
II&#65533; What are the Catholic Principles of Morality in regard to abortion?

a) FIRST PRINCIPLE: "Any direct attempt on an innocent life as a means to an end - even to the end of saving another life - is unlawful.&#65533; Innocent human life, in whatsoever condition it is found, is withdrawn, from the very first moment of its existence, from any direct deliberate attack.&#65533; This is a fundamental right of the human person, which is of universal value in the Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden within the womb of the mother, as for the life already born and developing independently of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during or after its birth.&#65533; Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of the development of life born or still unborn, in profane and ecclesiastical law and in certain civil and penal consequences, all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(2)

b) SECOND PRINCIPLE: "Every human being, even a child in the mother's womb has a right to life directly from God and not from the parents or from any society or authority.&#65533; Hence there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral 'indication' that can offer or produce a valid juridical title to a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life; that is to say, a disposal that aims at its destruction whether as an end or as a means to another end, which is, perhaps, in no way unlawful in itself."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(3)
corgilicious

United States

#262869 Oct 9, 2012


Gianna Beretta Molla (1922-1962)

photo



Gianna Beretta was born in Magenta (Milan) October 4, 1922. Already as a youth she willingly accepted the gift of faith and the clearly Christian education that she received from her excellent parents. As a result, she experienced life as a marvellous gift from God, had a strong faith in Providence and was convinced of the necessity and effectiveness of prayer.

She diligently dedicated herself to studies during the years of her secondary and university education, while, at the same time, applying her faith through generous apostolic service among the youth of Catholic Action and charitable work among the elderly and needy as a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. After earning degrees in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Pavia in 1949, she opened a medical clinic in Mesero (near Magenta) in 1950. She specialized in Pediatrics at the University of Milan in 1952 and there after gave special attention to mothers, babies, the elderly and poor.

While working in the field of medicine-which she considered a “mission” and practiced as such-she increased her generous service to Catholic Action, especially among the “very young” and, at the same time, expressed her joie de vivre and love of creation through skiing and mountaineering. Through her prayers and those of others, she reflected upon her vocation, which she also considered a gift from God. Having chosen the vocation of marriage, she embraced it with complete enthusiasm and wholly dedicated herself “to forming a truly Christian family”.

She became engaged to Pietro Molla and was radiant with joy and happiness during the time of their engagement, for which she thanked and praised the Lord. They were married on September 24, 1955, in the Basilica of St. Martin in Magenta, and she became a happy wife. In November 1956, to her great joy, she became the mother of Pierluigi, in December 1957 of Mariolina; in July 1959 of Laura. With simplicity and equilibrium she harmonized the demands of mother, wife, doctor and her passion for life.

In September 1961 towards the end of the second month of pregnancy, she was touched by suffering and the mystery of pain; she had developed a fibroma in her uterus. Before the required surgical operation, and conscious of the risk that her continued pregnancy brought, she pleaded with the surgeon to save the life of the child she was carrying, and entrusted herself to prayer and Providence. The life was saved, for which she thanked the Lord. She spent the seven months remaining until the birth of the child in incomparable strength of spirit and unrelenting dedication to her tasks as mother and doctor. She worried that the baby in her womb might be born in pain, and she asked God to prevent that.

A few days before the child was due, although trusting as always in Providence, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child:“If you must decided between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child - I insist on it. Save him”. On the morning of April 21, 1962, Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you», the mother died. She was 39 years old. Her funeral was an occasion of profound grief, faith and prayer. The Servant of God lies in the cemetery of Mesero (4 km from Magenta). Today she is a Saint, ifthe Church allowed abortion to save her life....she wouldn't be worthy of being a saint would she.
corgilicious

United States

#262870 Oct 9, 2012
source http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/s... If the Church believes its okay to abort a baby because of uterine cancer or any other cancer,well then we wouldn't believe in trusting Jesus. The only way there is an okay is an ectopic pregnancy where both them other and the child would perish,no other time is abortion allowed

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262871 Oct 9, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
You link discusses harsher sentencing policies. Sentencing...that means after the crimes have been committed. That has nothing to do with cameras in public venues.
Ooo boy.....looks like I got my work cut out with you.
The link I provided with that post was to demonstrate that deterrent does not necessarily mean eliminate completely. That was in response to your assertion that because there was still crime....then CCTV's were not a deterrent.
My previous post included the link which illustrates reduction in crime at locations where CCTV cameras were installed.
I'll give it to you again.....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter7.htm

Pay attention.
Anonymous

Cleveland, GA

#262872 Oct 9, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"are you retarded? seriously"
And I pointed out that some cops snap and shoot suspects. Some of them beat their wives, commit crimes or just leave the force. They don't all hold up under the pressure.
"well DUH lady, the bully is deterred b/c he knows theres a great chance he WILL get his ass kicked"
Since when? Bullying is still a problem.
"question: you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?'
What are you talking about? These types of crimes are being committed every day. Murders, shootings, robberies, assaults, pickpocketing, etc...so who exactly is being deterred?
SOME COPS? SOME? thats like saying SOME people who drink hard core boose set themselves on fire accidentally, so lets try to outlaw alcohol all together, that argument doesnt fly, at all..........so some cops do - by your logic we should take guns away from our police force! DUMB much?

"don't all hold up under the pressure" - once again, SOME isnt enough of a reason to take away ANYONES guns.......SOME people drunk drive, text & drive, run over people with their cars...are you for banning cars, or cell phones? or alcohol? HYPOCRITE

the point you still miss is if the vast majority of cops can go without going on shooting rampages & they deal with FAR MORE stress than you or me, then why would average folks start going on shooting rampages???

OUCH, the answer is by & large they WONT........

"Since when? Bullying is still a problem." - OH MY GOD, lady, we know bullying still happens, dont be stupid...but dont lie to me by saying that bullies arent deterred from picking on bigger/potentially more apt to fight-kids..........obviously you dont have kids whove been bullied or witnessed it - if you did, you'd know that bullies pick on kids who they think WONT fight back........thats a proven fact, that also proves that bullies are deterred from picking on LARGER kids, jocks, other bullies with attitudes, kids they think WILL beat their ass..........stop with the LNMoon fantasy, this isnt Neverland, in real life bullies pick on more defenseless kids, DEAL WITH IT

"Bullying is still a problem" - YES, idiot, preceisely BECAUSE they try to pick on kids who wont fight back.....just like i said........

"types of crimes are being committed every day." - idiota, listen, rape is committed every day, but that doesnt mean that rapists are raping just ANYONE under the sun......rapists, muggers, cowards etc. try to go after those who are defenseLESS, which again shows us that there IS such thing as deterrant

i'm starting to wonder, do you even understand the concept of "deterrance"? if so, do you even believe it EXISTS? i mean seriously, you doubt that ANYONE is ever deterred from doing ANYTHING? you cannot possibly be this lame, this stupid, this insane..........you openly admit that crooks are deterred from robbing police stations, they know theyll get shot..........yet you openly deny that theyre deterred from ANYTHING else.......even other guns! what the fck is wrong with you?

now, answer this question, stop dodging little coward:

you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#262873 Oct 9, 2012
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
SOME COPS? SOME? thats like saying SOME people who drink hard core boose set themselves on fire accidentally, so lets try to outlaw alcohol all together, that argument doesnt fly, at all..........so some cops do - by your logic we should take guns away from our police force! DUMB much?
"don't all hold up under the pressure" - once again, SOME isnt enough of a reason to take away ANYONES guns.......SOME people drunk drive, text & drive, run over people with their cars...are you for banning cars, or cell phones? or alcohol? HYPOCRITE
the point you still miss is if the vast majority of cops can go without going on shooting rampages & they deal with FAR MORE stress than you or me, then why would average folks start going on shooting rampages???
OUCH, the answer is by & large they WONT........
"Since when? Bullying is still a problem." - OH MY GOD, lady, we know bullying still happens, dont be stupid...but dont lie to me by saying that bullies arent deterred from picking on bigger/potentially more apt to fight-kids..........obviously you dont have kids whove been bullied or witnessed it - if you did, you'd know that bullies pick on kids who they think WONT fight back........thats a proven fact, that also proves that bullies are deterred from picking on LARGER kids, jocks, other bullies with attitudes, kids they think WILL beat their ass..........stop with the LNMoon fantasy, this isnt Neverland, in real life bullies pick on more defenseless kids, DEAL WITH IT
"Bullying is still a problem" - YES, idiot, preceisely BECAUSE they try to pick on kids who wont fight back.....just like i said........
"types of crimes are being committed every day." - idiota, listen, rape is committed every day, but that doesnt mean that rapists are raping just ANYONE under the sun......rapists, muggers, cowards etc. try to go after those who are defenseLESS, which again shows us that there IS such thing as deterrant
i'm starting to wonder, do you even understand the concept of "deterrance"? if so, do you even believe it EXISTS? i mean seriously, you doubt that ANYONE is ever deterred from doing ANYTHING? you cannot possibly be this lame, this stupid, this insane..........you openly admit that crooks are deterred from robbing police stations, they know theyll get shot..........yet you openly deny that theyre deterred from ANYTHING else.......even other guns! what the fck is wrong with you?
now, answer this question, stop dodging little coward:
you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?
"you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?"

No. If I thought I had any right to steal from someone, simply the fact that I might get hurt doing so would not deter me. What DOES deter me is that I have no right to do so.

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 First Porn President 3 min Lawrence Wolf 274
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Jimmy 1,744,418
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min Bear Claw 70,933
News Ted Nugent says Parkland survivors are 'mushy b... 5 min javawhey 542
News If an assault weapons ban can't stop school sho... 8 min javawhey 763
News Feinstein loses support of California Democrati... 10 min nono 4
News Senate panel divided over Pompeo for secretary ... 11 min Lawrence Wolf 5