Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318334 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309028 Aug 23, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
He was,older yes ..She was too young yes.
It says,she does not want support but a,settlement .which sounds,like a lawyer is involved.
The CHILD has the right to support ..it may be paid by either mom or dad,
If she had Bern my kid yes,I'd want him in jail.
They gave him probation because the sex was,consensual..no force involved .
My baby's,dad was 20 I was 16
I was stupid ..he was a jerk
But it's not the same as if some 30 year old teacher talked her into sex or thankfully not that he raped her ..
Thing is,..She is now an adult and a mom .
What I think is the court should tell him
MOM cannot waive child support
YOU HAVE TO PAY .blackmailing this,girl will not get the support waived
As SHE has nothing to do with it..it's,the right of the CHILD ..
I'm betting he,would stop bugging her ..as he probably isn't dad material .
She offered to accept a settlement in lieu of child support, if she didn't have to have a relationship with him. It's the STATE that is insisting on the child support.

He needs to be in prison. Of course, the state wanting him to pay child support is the REASON he's not. He couldn't possibly make enough there to do so.

It's not her, it's the state. I don't believe they can insist on child support from him while not allowing him visitation.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309029 Aug 23, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Women have the right to life."
So do baby women.
Isn't killing unborn women babies, sexist?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309030 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Aborting healthy unborn baby girls is sexist.
Is it? That's your perspective then?

I disagree. That's based on the fact the majority of induced abortions occur during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy when gender is not known.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309031 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Blame? When did "blame" enter into this comparison? And why??
The passage is a prediction of what would happen. If any women were ripped open, the Assyrians did it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309032 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't killing unborn women babies, sexist?
Women are adults, Witless.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309033 Aug 23, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>God commanded abortions. Try reading it with your eyes open.
If you're a Braille user, my apologies.
No He didn't, unless you can point out the passage that shows me wrong.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309034 Aug 23, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
really? refute it then. up till now you've just been blowing smoke.
<quoted text>
bullshit. that's just your assumption. i can assure you i've done the research.
for example....
http://teenadvice.about.com/od/amipregnant/a/...
now let's see some of "your" research loudmouth. find a link that proves pregnancy is "not" a direct result of willful engagement in intercourse.
<quoted text>
of course you refuse you simpleton. because you "can't".
<quoted text>
it sure is simple. yet you still ridiculously claim that pregnancy is not a direct result of willful engagement in intercourse.
I refuse to get on your merry-go-round. You can ignore the car accident/driver analogy all you want. You can pretend to've never read it here. You can even pretend your perspective on this is accurate based on what you pulled from Ask dot com.

I know the medical definition of pregnancy means a fertilized egg has implanted. It happens with mammals. Fertilized eggs implanting. Pregnancy. The definition does not claim this is the direct result of a willful act. It does not specify whether pregnancy was intended or not. It just states a fertilized egg has implanted.

However, even you overlook what the site Ask dot com stated and that was when pregnancy happens even without penetration. And it does happen since the sperm moves upward and lives for 3 days.

Do you wish to bypass medically treating drivers/accident victims and "punish" them for the rest of their lives because they chose to get into a vehicle and drive? Since we all know you don't, I'll continue believing you wish to "punish" pregnant women because you wish to bypass medically treating their unwanted/unhealthy pregnancies.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309035 Aug 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
When a christer brings their god into the argument, I will point out that their sourcebook contradicts them--especially when they claim the bible condemns abortion, which it does not.
<quoted text>
It does because of the commandment not to murder and in the bible an unborn child is spoken of as a child. Many passages refer to the unborn as the child in the womb. God speaks of knowing that child before it is born.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309036 Aug 23, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "Women have the right to life."
So do baby women.
But not fetal females - or fetal males, for that matter.

The 'right to life' is finite. Everybody dies. Some of us die before we're born. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your deity of choice.

ZEF, is that you?
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309037 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Women are adults, Witless.
They all started in the womb.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309038 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it? That's your perspective then?
I disagree. That's based on the fact the majority of induced abortions occur during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy when gender is not known.
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
Reading is Fundamental

New York, NY

#309039 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She offered to accept a settlement in lieu of child support, if she didn't have to have a relationship with him. It's the STATE that is insisting on the child support.
He needs to be in prison. Of course, the state wanting him to pay child support is the REASON he's not. He couldn't possibly make enough there to do so.
It's not her, it's the state.

I don't believe they can insist on child support from him while not allowing him visitation.
They can and they did. You need to read. And all you old hens need to curtail your over the top histrionics until you know the facts.

"The victim nevertheless claims that she is entitled to relief because the conditions of probation bind her to an ongoing relationship with Melendez. Her claim is based on a misunderstanding of what the sentence requires. In fact, no visitation or other obligations were imposed on the victim as a result of the sentence....."

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/sup...
Katie Not So Smart

New York, NY

#309040 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So, God aborts all of Samaria but you think this doesn't represent abortion?
Aborts all of Samaria? Since as you've stated previously abortion terminates a pregnancy, nothing more.....was all of Samaria pregnant ?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309041 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage is a prediction of what would happen. If any women were ripped open, the Assyrians did it.
You're moving away from the initial comment which was that God apparently has no problem with abortion when he commands others to destroy the entire nation of Samaria, including their children, babies, and pregnant women. God commanded the entire nation destroyed. Nothing says I Love You like total mass destruction, does it. Obviously you're cool with it since you're playing the blame game now instead sticking to the topic.

And that passage you're dancing around, the one in Numbers where women were made to drink the bitter water to show if they had committed adultery or not, the same bitter water which would render here barren even if she was currently with child? You remember that passage? You, on your own time, can look into further if you wish. I don't have any enthusiasm of discussing it again.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309042 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
They all started in the womb.
Way to ignore the point, Witless.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309043 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
Your ignorance is showing. Sexism could not possibly apply when the gender is not known.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309044 Aug 23, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not know until she is born but it has already been decided very early in her development.
That doesn't matter oh obtuse one. We all know gender is decided when the sperm fertilized the egg. We all know gender is generally not known at the time the majority of induced abortion occur.

In order for your claim that abortion is sexist when female embryos/fetuses are aborted, the gender would have to be known.

And here that isn't an issue. I am well aware your PLM is trying to make it an issue, though.

Guess you're getting a head start.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309045 Aug 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
He won't get the kid; he's a felon on parole and I would presume also now a registered sex offender. But she can keep him in court for a very long time and at tremendous cost.
The question in my mind is, why the hell did they allow a 14yo rape victim to have a kid to begin with?
<quoted text>
"He won't get the kid," eh? I wouldn't have thought he would get paroled....or get a court ruling in his favor, regarding parental rights, for that matter...but apparently those both happened. Accordingly, I can see some asshat of a judge granting him full custody, as well. If 'best interests of the child' were the operating principle here, the judge(s) failed miserably all the way around...what's to stop them from sticking to that pattern?

To answer your question, the mother had no intention of 'allowing' her 14 year old to gestate this baby...but the daughter must have agreed to the abortion, or she wouldn't have been given one. Their motives / reasons for the abortion might have differed. From what I understand, dude was mom's boyfriend first. Circumstantial evidence supports the idea that mom wanted kid to abort, to keep from giving evidence of paternity...to keep the rape charge against him from materializing, due to the lack of same.

Nonetheless, the decision to abort the fetus is well within the legal purview of the daughter, and the legal procedure, for collecting DNA evidence of paternity from the products of conception, was not followed. Mom should be absolved of criminal charges, if there are any. JMO
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309046 Aug 23, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're moving away from the initial comment which was that God apparently has no problem with abortion when he commands others to destroy the entire nation of Samaria, including their children, babies, and pregnant women. God commanded the entire nation destroyed. Nothing says I Love You like total mass destruction, does it. Obviously you're cool with it since you're playing the blame game now instead sticking to the topic.
And that passage you're dancing around, the one in Numbers where women were made to drink the bitter water to show if they had committed adultery or not, the same bitter water which would render here barren even if she was currently with child? You remember that passage? You, on your own time, can look into further if you wish. I don't have any enthusiasm of discussing it again.
God did not command anyone to destroy any nation.

Nowhere in Numbers does it say that the woman drinking bitter waters was pregnant.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309047 Aug 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is showing. Sexism could not possibly apply when the gender is not known.
And when it is known to be a girl and she is killed, that is sexism.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min NotSoDivineMzM 37,013
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 51 min Cheech the Conser... 1,619,768
News Trump again blasts NFL over players kneeling du... 1 hr Retribution 69
News 'It Stuns Me': Kelly Blasts Congresswoman for L... 1 hr Mick 5
News Republicans ram $4 trillion budget bill through... 1 hr Retribution 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr cpeter1313 12,979
News America's deadliest shooting incidents are gett... 1 hr Noe 474
More from around the web