Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310940 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

#262957 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It is an abortion procedure, if it weren't an abortion procedure, then Pro-Life is lying about all those gruesome elective abortion procedures on Youtube right? It is medically an abortion procedure as well as a procedure for other uterine dx's.
"A D&C is not and never will be medcially called an "abortion procedure", not even when it's used to induce an abortion".
What?
Listen toots, it's a dilation and curettage. That's what the D&C PROCEDURE is called, medically. End of story.

That's what the PROCEDURE is called. Then it's charted/coded whatever floats your boat, as to what the procedure was used for, ie: the specific medical issue.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262958 Oct 9, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Who cares what you felt about a NON FAMILY members choice then?
She doesnt need your approval so stop bashing this deceased woman and HER BABY(As you referrednto her non -viable fetus as) memory.
Exactly. She thinks she had a right to use a non-family member's story, a woman Foo made sure we all knew was a Catholic woman, who refused an LTA, which means she was pro-life, and USED her story to advocate FOR abortion.

This woman would probably turn over in her grave if she knew her story was being used that way by an nasty and vile PCer on a public abortion discussion forum.

But because we've mentioned it, Foo will add more to her story and probably claim she got permission from the woman's brother. She's so full of shit and will use anything for her own selfish agenda here. I'm seeing that pretty clearly now.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262959 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>So because there was nothing on the internet about it it's untrue? How are whereabouts mistakenly unknown? That's going to great lengths to try to prove something you can't prove isn't it. Doesn't make it untrue. I'm just sayin'.
Unless you were here and saw what Sassy is claiming, a little suggestion, don't try to argue it. Or you'll look as foolish as you have looked trying to argue about a D&C being an abortion procedure, and claiming no PCers said it was an abortion after a miscarriage. You don't know facts and then post as if you do.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262960 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmmmm you're not for real with that question are you?
Why shouldn't it be a real question? Foo barely knew the woman and she thinks she has the right to use that woman to share her opinions on that woman's choice?

If Foo can share her disapproving opinions about that woman's choice and make it public here, then ANYONE reading about it can also share their opinions. That's how it works, like it or not.

Sad thing is, Foo doesn't even realize she's publicly stating her disagreement with that woman's choice, and making her an example. But not the kind of example that woman wanted to be, I'm sure. She was obviously pro-life. She'd want to be a pro-life example, not a pro-choice for abortion one.

What Foo did is all very disgusting. Regardless of her motives, nothing makes her motive pure, respectful to that woman or that woman's memory, or makes the point she thought she'd use that woman to make. That's IF that story is true. Of course if it isn't true, again, that's a different level of disgusting.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262961 Oct 9, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>So because there was nothing on the internet about it it's untrue? How are whereabouts mistakenly unknown? That's going to great lengths to try to prove something you can't prove isn't it. Doesn't make it untrue. I'm just sayin'.
Foo is the one who said thay it WAS on the news. NR, without foo thinking that he would check her story out, search it. NOTHING about a 14 yr old kidnapped,raped and dumped in a park.

Foo claimed to have the link to it. The story she linked was about a 20 yr old woman who took a bus ride and wasnt seen after that. Her whereabouts where in question but it ended up a misunderstanding on her moms part.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262962 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprised coming from her. Let me guess. Was it after she had been caught in a lie she was trying to deflect from?
A -yep.
1 post removed
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262964 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that she claims I,(but she keeps attributing it to me using Lynne's name), said delivery is safer than an LTA when I never said that, so she's lying there too.
What I said was, when the choice between [delivering a *viable fetus] and [*aborting a viable fetus]; a late term abortion is no less dnagerous than giving birth. That baby has to be "delivered" either way, dead or alive.
Foo used that story to attack HER VRSION of my views, and her version of my views was a LIE. Do I expect anything different from a proven pathological liar? Of course not.
This was a LTA but the fetus (oopsy..i mean baby in this case according to foo) was conveniently non- viable.

@@
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262965 Oct 9, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! Less bench warmers in the pews. That's my take.
New question. Why didn't JC marry and have children? Was He ...?
Guess I'm feeling a bit frisky this day, but there are some boundaries that I won't cross.(Impotent.)
Bigot.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your constant attacks on Christianity is really unacceptable.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262966 Oct 9, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Mother can get testy... funny, many aren't listening anymore.
John 15:18

Not really that funny.
1 post removed
Googleicious

Syracuse, NY

#262968 Oct 9, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> This was a LTA but the fetus (oopsy..i mean baby in this case according to foo) was conveniently non- viable.
@@
My God you two are truly vicious harridans.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262969 Oct 9, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said!
And I'd only want to add that the RCC leadership is NOT qualified to make a medical determination for all cases.
They rely on Catholic medical experts to make the qualified medical determination
As I stated earlier, MANY "medical expert"prolife Dr's (I might add that they are NOT all RC btw) have challenged and disagree with what proaborts Dr 's will qualify as "medically necessary..life threatening causes for abortion".
Googleicious

Syracuse, NY

#262970 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
She goes off guns blazing at us without any real details of anything she posts about. We don't know how far along the woman was, what the options were...nothing.
Yes, a number of people made that point, including foofoo, but that didn't stop you from going on the attack.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#262971 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
So are you suggesting that Mrs. Shiavo and JM's daughter in hypothetical situation had a medical directive signed and notarized IN WRITING by person who's life this is about, as to what their wishes were?
Because that's what I'm talking about.
In the case of Foo's story, she said the woman herself refused an LTA.
In the cases you're talking about, it's about someone making the decision for someone ELSE, with no medical directive. Which means there's nothing in writing making those people their agent, or anything that gives them the power to make those decisions on the other person's behalf, except the other person's word.
I'm not the one not getting this.
^^^ Perfect example ^^^ of you moving the goal posts.

Michael Schiavo was his wife's next of kin and had every right under the sun to decline futile ALS. His complications began with her parents and traveled through the Florida court system until a court order existed for him. That court order was the directive -- are you trying to claim or imply this doesn't match YOUR criteria?

JM's hypothetical included her having POA over her daughter. Even then, JM still typed she didn't have any decision-making power as if she weren't hypothetically the decision maker. Are you trying to claim this doesn't match YOUR criteria?

Every scenario involves individuals using their civil rights to make end of life decisions or life/death emergency decisions legally for themselves or for whom POA is held and following their wishes.

So, tell me again why you are arguing, moving the parameters, and in general being a real PITA. Obviously you have no respect for the civil rights of personal privacy and bodily autonomy for yourself or for others.
Googleicious

Syracuse, NY

#262972 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The more she posts about it, the more the story changes. Her excuse? She didn't know all the details. I'm seriously questioning the credibility of her story as well now. I believed it at first, but the more she talks about it, the more full of shit she sounds. The more she tries to make claims of who's going to the funeral etc. the more full of shit she sounds. It's the pattern of the "Foo claims" here.
Funny, I thought it was more YOUR pattern.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262973 Oct 9, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
OL! I've read the passage a few times and I'm still unclear.
From your link: "If a necessary treatment brings about the death of the child indirectly it may be allowable."
I believe it's the word "necessary" that is bothersome. Who decides in what could amount to a life/death situation and after the event who rules whether it was in fact "necessary"? Don't hospitals (and their lawyers) have medical procedure reviews periodically?
There's no doubt in my mind (none) that the child in Brazil would have died without intervention. How often do 9 year olds successfully deliver even one baby?
For some that wish to aspire to sainthood - this is clearly black and white. For others, mitigating circumstances would prevail. If the pregnant woman's life isn't considered worth saving, she's merely a child bearing vessel and I find that notion distasteful.
1. You are misunderstanding what is being said regarding what you pointed out in the link. It means the NECESSARY treatment for MOM to save her life....that will indirectly bring about the death of her unborn child.

2. Your opinion about the 9yr old is just that...YOUR opinion. Nothing more. Others her age and older HAVE successfully gone full term. Her case was different due to carrying twins and she SHOULDNT have gone full term. ESPECIALLY if her life was in danger. They should have delivered right at viability..

You keep ignoring this.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262974 Oct 9, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>My God you two are truly vicious harridans.
You MUST be foo or related to her for sure with all your bullsh*t "stories" that you BUST yourself on and with all your dramatic posts.

LOL

:::yawn:::

Better luck next times suckaa.

((psst.....it's also convenient that your upstate NY too))
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262975 Oct 9, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a number of people made that point, including foofoo, but that didn't stop you from going on the attack.
Uh...no...you (cough)....I mean fooL said that she posted about this girl to make a point so WITHOUT 'that point' she had NO POINT. She lacked ANY real info about what happened so she flat out lied while attempting to make her point.

Get it sweetie? URwelcome ;)

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#262976 Oct 9, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Do you have a link to that story where 6 so called "Catholic" Dr 's said that if she carried to viability, that she 'd die?
It's absolutely sick and depraved to expect a 9 year old child to go through a pregnancy. I care more about the child, and you apparently care more about the zygote/embryo.

Or the will of your sick and depraved church.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#262977 Oct 9, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> As I recall the situation, these six Catholic Drs were saying that her life would be jeopardized carrying twins to term...not referring to delivering her babies at viability(those babies would be very tiny). FWIW, most women don't carry twins to term anyway.
Yet she is not a woman. She is a child. A 9 year old child who should be innocent and playing and enjoying childhood...not pregnant. And with twins.

It's sick and depraved to expect a 9 year old child to remain pregnant with twins.

Where exactly was your God when this child was being raped and impregnated? Certainly not saving her from her vile abuser. At the very least your omnipotent God could have prevented the conception. Or is it God's will that some little 9 your old girl should be staggering around pregnant with twins?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262978 Oct 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen toots, it's a dilation and curettage. That's what the D&C PROCEDURE is called, medically. End of story.
That's what the PROCEDURE is called. Then it's charted/coded whatever floats your boat, as to what the procedure was used for, ie: the specific medical issue.
I told you that 10x over and you still said it wasn't an abortion procedure, now you're saying it is. I got it, it's an abortion procedure when you're ready to say it is.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Yeah 1,374,537
News Transgender people in bathroom: Laugh or cry 1 min INFIDEL 155
News N.C., Miss. 'religious freedom' measures hardly... 2 min Ronald 617
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 3 min WasteWater 8,201
News U.S. President Obama to visit Hiroshima in late... 4 min slick willie expl... 55
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 4 min lides 1,574
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 9 min True Judgment 389
News Is single-payer healthcare dead in the U.S., or... 17 min Newt s Gimlet Rage 162
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 42 min Coffee Party 380,924
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Le Jimbo 222,525
More from around the web