Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309875 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.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241550 Jun 4, 2012
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>If only you were open minded enough to realize the same thing, you fundie extremist.
If only......

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241551 Jun 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, he knows her alright.
Yeah shes got a lot of nerve complaining about my posts after the perversions she has posted. She thinks I should be fired. I think she should be arrested for child porn and publicly exposed and humiliated.

She should be more careful.
Kenose

Westbury, NY

#241552 Jun 4, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>
""Actually, doctors WILL advice narcotics for serious illnesses or intense pain regardless of whether someone is an addict"""
they will (sic)advice?
@@
Uh,where is Mr. Kenose the spelling police now?
lol
Uh,I KNOW that they will advise narcotics whether someone is an addict or not, THAT is why I said that they will. Can't you read? They will just be careful about it. NO Dr recommends narcotics for addicts. It can make a person go off the wagon. FACT.
""And yes, most addicts DO have boundaries""" "
BULL. An addict can't drink or do any drugs. ONLY narcotics for severe issues is recommended and even then,cautiously. For you to say that you CAN drink and claim to be sober,is a lie.
I'm not doubting your sobriety,but you are flat out lying about being able to drink occassionally when you are an addict.
I don't harp on every single error and I don't bother to read every inane post on this thread. Everyone makes mistakes, but it seems that lots of people don't know the difference between your and you're.

You can talk a big talk and try to seem smart, but when you make a grammar mistake that 4th graders don't make, it makes you look silly.

You have a great day, Ms Piggy.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241553 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah shes got a lot of nerve complaining about my posts after the perversions she has posted. She thinks I should be fired. I think she should be arrested for child porn and publicly exposed and humiliated.
She should be more careful.
Yes, she should.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#241554 Jun 4, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>And that's what I'm freakin saying, precedence was set so thereby it is a legal definition/guideline of what abortion laws are to consider viable, are you arguing with this?
What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks. And that simply isn't the case. Florida's abortion law, for example, makes no definition of viability at 24 weeks. In fact, in the definitions section of Chapter 390 Florida statutes, what is defined as the period "after 24 weeks," is the third trimester, not viability. What you're failing to grasp is that while SCOTUS opined on the point of viability, this is a portion of the opinion that isn't binding on the states, and pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the decision of what will be the point after which a legal abortion is not be allowed, belongs to the states. Nebraska is a perfect example. No abortion is allowed after 20 weeks, and viability has no bearing on that decision.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>No one said that artificial support was "required", that's ridiculous, where did you get that? I dont think anyone would suggest that a fetus needed to "require" artificial support to be considered viable.
Maybe you should say something to many on your side of the fence who believe it is.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Roe v Wade weighed the woman's right to privacy against the State's interest to protect life, including "potential life". They said each argument was more compelling at different stages of the pregnancy, and when the fetus became "viable" then the State's interest was more compelling than the woman's right to privacy, as far as it protecting her to electively abort. She has other rights that allow her to abort in cases where it threatens her life or health, but her mere implied right to privacy is not a more compelling argument than the State's interest to protect life.
The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way. It only indicates the point at which the states can restrict her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>What are you talking about? I said that Roe v Wade did not define "when" a fetus is viable, it defined "what" viability is. Did you read in your excerpt "In any event, we agree with the District Court that it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which essentially is a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period."?
I've never argued that R v W said "when" a fetus is able to "live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid". However, at least 12 State's have abortion laws that cut off "elective" abortion at 24 weeks or the third trimester, Roe v Wade said that "viability" "MAY" occur as early as 24 weeks. Are you going to tell me that those States would not argue that R v W "defined" "viable" as "able to survive outside the woman's body, albeit by artificial aid" and that this "may occur as early as 24 weeks", which considered the medical experts opinions?
Actually, you made both arguments.

12 states? Wow. How many states in the union? You'd think that if your point is accurate, and RvW made a demarcating point of what viability is, and/or when a fetus becomes viable, ALL states would have such law.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#241555 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I wonder how Father Roh at Sacred Heart would feel about your nasty perverted little mind? Maybe I should email it to him?? I'm sure he would be appalled that one of his flock is sick like that. Does he know you knit and pray???
I do wonder how the good priest would take that bit news..

I don't know if there she can say enough hail marys and our fathers to make for that "sin".

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#241556 Jun 4, 2012
Tom Tom wrote:
All you pagan lesbos don't have jesus inside you like I do. Praise Jesus whos seed rests inside me forever. I yearn for Jesus to return, please come back. I love you and miss you and want you deep inside me. I am so scared of life I need the true love of Jesus. Please fill me up.
~OOOOKKKAAAYYYY~ Forgot to take your meds did you.. Aren't you the special one..

**pat pat** It. ok little, fanatic. I hope some one came along and increased your drip...

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#241557 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Its over
When she changed her tune from "roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to " uh well that's obviously the definition they USED." then started denying they claimed Roe defined viability AT ALL and claimed that doctors defined it cuz it was already defined by doctors, she was admitting she was wrong in her own warped little way.
It's over. We win. FACTS MATTER.
YEP Facts do matter when it come s to what is a legal right and how that right is put into practice. Something that I have noted that a lot of people not just the anti choicers here either, but in IRL, really do not understand.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#241558 Jun 4, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
From the Knut's little article:
"In the aftermath of the closing of 48 schools in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and in light of the dramatic decline in Catholic school enrollment in the United States over the past half century, in January CWR profiled five Catholic schools that were thriving..."
48 closed IN JUST ONE STATE, there's FIVE nationwide that are "thriving".
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Evidently you didn't read the article. 40 ARE THRIVING in one diocese and there are many thousands more. Sad part is all schools , esp the public schools have a lower rate of students due to contraception being used and aborting the unborn. The Culture of Death has aborted the future of the United States.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#241559 Jun 4, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks. And that simply isn't the case. Florida's abortion law, for example, makes no definition of viability at 24 weeks. In fact, in the definitions section of Chapter 390 Florida statutes, what is defined as the period "after 24 weeks," is the third trimester, not viability. What you're failing to grasp is that while SCOTUS opined on the point of viability, this is a portion of the opinion that isn't binding on the states, and pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the decision of what will be the point after which a legal abortion is not be allowed, belongs to the states. Nebraska is a perfect example. No abortion is allowed after 20 weeks, and viability has no bearing on that decision.

Badaxe wrote, "<quoted text>No one said that artificial support was "required", that's ridiculous, where did you get that? I dont think anyone would suggest that a fetus needed to "require" artificial support to be considered viable."

Maybe you should say something to many on your side of the fence who believe it is.

Badaxe wrote, "<quoted text>Roe v Wade weighed the woman's right to privacy against the State's interest to protect life, including "potential life". They said each argument was more compelling at different stages of the pregnancy, and when the fetus became "viable" then the State's interest was more compelling than the woman's right to privacy, as far as it protecting her to electively abort. She has other rights that allow her to abort in cases where it threatens her life or health, but her mere implied right to privacy is not a more compelling argument than the State's interest to protect life."

The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way. It only indicates the point at which the states can restrict her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life.

Badaxe wrote, "<quoted text>What are you talking about? I said that Roe v Wade did not define "when" a fetus is viable, it defined "what" viability is. Did you read in your excerpt "In any event, we agree with the District Court that it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which essentially is a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period."?
I've never argued that R v W said "when" a fetus is able to "live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid". However, at least 12 State's have abortion laws that cut off "elective" abortion at 24 weeks or the third trimester, Roe v Wade said that "viability" "MAY" occur as early as 24 weeks. Are you going to tell me that those States would not argue that R v W "defined" "viable" as "able to survive outside the woman's body, albeit by artificial aid" and that this "may occur as early as 24 weeks", which considered the medical experts opinions?"

Actually, you made both arguments.

12 states? Wow. How many states in the union? You'd think that if your point is accurate, and RvW made a demarcating point of what viability is, and/or when a fetus becomes viable, ALL states would have such law.
Love your posts, CD.

Absolutely HATE when people deny making arguments they've clearly made. Especially when they deny it, and then make it again. Smh

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#241560 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Love your posts, CD.
Absolutely HATE when people deny making arguments they've clearly made. Especially when they deny it, and then make it again. Smh
Ditto! Hot Stuff (CD) is daunting.
Kenose

Westbury, NY

#241561 Jun 4, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text> Evidently you didn't read the article. 40 ARE THRIVING in one diocese and there are many thousands more. Sad part is all schools , esp the public schools have a lower rate of students due to contraception being used and aborting the unborn. The Culture of Death has aborted the future of the United States.
Empty words from an empty mind.

Keep showing your fear of death.

And hey, why not back up your statement about lower rates of students in public schools with some evidence? Oh, that's right, you don't know what evidence is and instead you'll vomit some more fake, "pro-life" jargon.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241563 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Its over
When she changed her tune from "roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to " uh well that's obviously the definition they USED." then started denying they claimed Roe defined viability AT ALL and claimed that doctors defined it cuz it was already defined by doctors, she was admitting she was wrong in her own warped little way.
It's over. We win. FACTS MATTER.
You really are too stupid for words, as I've stated before.

""roe defined viability AS able to live albeit with assistance" to ""

We claimed RvW "defined viability" [as pertaining to their decision about abortion] as being THE definition which included "albeit with artificial aid", bonehead. That never changed. We never said the judges created the definition, or that they didn't use a medical definition, or that they didn't use a definition at all.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/define

define:
"1.
a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)."

Which RvW did. They stated the precise meaning of the word viability that pertained to their decision about viability.

The only ones wrong are you idiots who thought for one second that we were claiming RvW defined it, like a dictionary would have "defined" it. No, fool, we meant they clearly stated what [they meant] by "viability", which was the definition they USED in their decision that included "albeit with artifical aid".

The more you try to claim something we didn't do, the more irrational and desperate you look. You're obviously trying to distance yourself from the fact that YOUR claim was that viability with regard to a fetus means [born and surviving [without] medical assistance], which we proved wrong 100 times over. Also you made a claim as though that the meaning of viability,[which included albeit with artificial aid] wasn't made clear in RvW, when it was.

Just because the lightbulb went on over YOUR head when we said certain things, doesn't mean those same things haven't been said by us 100 times over and the lightbulb over your head didn't go on.

“All HOMAGE to”

Since: Jun 12

The FETUS

#241564 Jun 4, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>How bigoted of you.
Oh dear, how incredibly judgemental of you.
:(

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241565 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure if I can post under registered name or not. Not sure why Topix is not allowing my posts whether signed in or not. Nothing profane about any of 'em. Just countering the PLers involved in this drawn out discussion that Chicky recently claimed we won because facts matter. Obviously Topix doesn't think facts matter because they're not letting my TOS-followed posts show. I mean, it's not like I was posting to Lynne D and telling her she's FOS (spelled out even). Or like I was calling anyone names that regularly get put up here (liar, b*tchy, moron, stupid, cnut, etc.). And it's not like I did anything more than stand up to those who refuse to listen to facts by posting excerpts from the Roe v Wade documents from Cornell -- when KW and Chicky and others have done the exact same thing. So no, unless there's people reporting my posts, there's no reason whatsoever for these not to show up. And if people are reporting my posts, it just goes to show how afraid of the truth they are; more a reflection on them than on me.
However, I am fed up over the whole fiasco. What happened to innocent before proven guilty? And who started the whole mess? I'd guess Lynne D, but she'll gleefully deny it (like she did when was banned around Easter (those loving christians and all)).
I do believe it is just a glitch, my friend. Please don't take it personally :(

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241566 Jun 4, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks. And that simply isn't the case. Florida's abortion law, for example, makes no definition of viability at 24 weeks. In fact, in the definitions section of Chapter 390 Florida statutes, what is defined as the period "after 24 weeks," is the third trimester, not viability. What you're failing to grasp is that while SCOTUS opined on the point of viability, this is a portion of the opinion that isn't binding on the states, and pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the decision of what will be the point after which a legal abortion is not be allowed, belongs to the states. Nebraska is a perfect example. No abortion is allowed after 20 weeks, and viability has no bearing on that decision.
<quoted text>
Maybe you should say something to many on your side of the fence who believe it is.
<quoted text>
The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way. It only indicates the point at which the states can restrict her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life.
<quoted text>
Actually, you made both arguments.
12 states? Wow. How many states in the union? You'd think that if your point is accurate, and RvW made a demarcating point of what viability is, and/or when a fetus becomes viable, ALL states would have such law.
"What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks."

Prove Badaxe said that.

No one said that artificial assistance is "required". Prove Doc, Badaxe or I said that.

Chicky: "The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way.
It only indicates the point at which the states [can restrict] her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life."

Be sure to let Katie know that. She tried arguing that RvW was clear that the state's interest is [not] in the interest of preserving "potential life". She even argued stating that it wasn't about fetal rights, and yet, you admit that it's about preserving fetal life.

Also, can you read your own post for comprehension?

You just admitted that a state's right to [restrict a woman's right to elective abortion][is no indication that her "right to privacy" is affected in any way.] It's that a state "can restrict her right to elective abortion." Exactly as PLers have said all along; elective abortion is not about a [right to privacy] and a [woman's right to privacy isn't affected] even if she wouldn't have a right to elective abortion.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241567 Jun 4, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Love your posts, CD.
Absolutely HATE when people deny making arguments they've clearly made. Especially when they deny it, and then make it again. Smh
Your lack of reading for comprehension is not anybody else making wrong claims, pea brain.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241568 Jun 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure if I can post under registered name or not. Not sure why Topix is not allowing my posts whether signed in or not. Nothing profane about any of 'em. Just countering the PLers involved in this drawn out discussion that Chicky recently claimed we won because facts matter. Obviously Topix doesn't think facts matter because they're not letting my TOS-followed posts show. I mean, it's not like I was posting to Lynne D and telling her she's FOS (spelled out even). Or like I was calling anyone names that regularly get put up here (liar, b*tchy, moron, stupid, cnut, etc.). And it's not like I did anything more than stand up to those who refuse to listen to facts by posting excerpts from the Roe v Wade documents from Cornell -- when KW and Chicky and others have done the exact same thing. So no, unless there's people reporting my posts, there's no reason whatsoever for these not to show up. And if people are reporting my posts, it just goes to show how afraid of the truth they are; more a reflection on them than on me.
However, I am fed up over the whole fiasco. What happened to innocent before proven guilty? And who started the whole mess? I'd guess Lynne D, but she'll gleefully deny it (like she did when was banned around Easter (those loving christians and all)).
You have nothing to offer here but erroneous claims, whining about being a victim (of PLers and now of Topix) and posting things about deaths in your life, as though NO ONE ELSE here has deaths in their lives.

If you can't handle what goes on here, stop entering. It's as easy as that. If you want to keep coming to the forum, then deal with what goes on like a mature adult and not like a whiny, self-pitying child.

If you made a post and it didn't show up as soon as you clicked on it, it has NOTHING to do with anyone reporting your posts, you paranoid nut. Topix just does that sometimes, and not just to you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#241569 Jun 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe it is just a glitch, my friend. Please don't take it personally :(
LOL, proof Katie's a paranoid nut. Even this^^ bonehead realizes it's just a Topix glitch,

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#241570 Jun 4, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, this from a lawyer? Many cases defer to expert opinion to make their determinations, that's why they require they be qualified as "expert". No one suggested that the justices ever made their own, unqualified, determination in "defining" what viable was. My argument is, and has been, that the R v W decision's definition of "viable" is precedence/guideline to any abortion law. Do you wish to argue that? You jumped into this conversation suggesting that I'm arguing things I'm not, or are you bloviating for the sake of hearing your self talk, as usual? If you want to discuss it, read and listen to my arguments first, thanks.
And the basis for your argument is, and has been, that RvW defined viability, and/or the point of viability. And that's not true. SCOTUS affirmed what medicine defined. Not the opposite.
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Where the F' do you get that I'm suggesting that artificial aide is a "requirement" of "viable"? It "includes" artificial aide, albeit- "not withstanding", not required. Come on man, that's as simple as a lawyer understanding that calling your wife a bitch does not constitute assault charges in Florida, oh sorry, I didn't mean to bring that up again.
So you're saying that a viable fetus can survive without any artificial aid?

BTW, keep the argument between you and me; ok? The only one who can bring my wife into the mix is me.

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.

Allentown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min lucid 1,232,866
Editorial: Reports That WT Might As Well Vote F... (Apr '12) 5 hr poke chop 21
Judge, Allentown's arson dog, competing for nat... 5 hr silly rabbit 3
Allentown bank robber getaway driver in dark ab... 21 hr poke chop 9
Whitehall neighbors want the volume turned down... Sun silly rabbit 4
Violent day in Allentown with possibly two shoo... Sun silly rabbit 5
Joyce Marin: Preserving region's farmland more ... Sat silly rabbit 1
More from around the web

Allentown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]