Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,003
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. Full Story

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#251595 Aug 6, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
She goes overboard.
I wish she would.

Right off the top deck of a cruise liner, preferably.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#251596 Aug 6, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish she would.
Right off the top deck of a cruise liner, preferably.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I can see the headline now...."Annoyed Cruise Passengers Dump Crazed Fundie Into the Drink".

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#251597 Aug 6, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I can see the headline now...."Annoyed Cruise Passengers Dump Crazed Fundie Into the Drink".
hahahahahhaha!

Now THAT would be a reason to party!!
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251598 Aug 6, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>A woman finds out for the first time that she is pregnant at 8 months. She decides to terminate because she doesn't want the baby.
Do you support her choice to electively abort? Let's see if you are really for choice.
Every other so called "prochoicer" is welcomed to answer too :)
Let's see if you're really for reality and realize there are laws to work within. Woman finds out she's pregnant at 8months along, she's still got to abide the laws of the land. What state does she live in? What are their laws regarding terminating an unknown pregnancy at 8months? Let's see if you can use logic for once instead of emotional manipulation.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#251599 Aug 6, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>
"""I know it's hard for a control-freak like you to understand that not all of us are out to run everyone elses lives""""
Except the poor girl who doesn't find out that she is pregnant til after the cut off date(restrictions) or the girl who CHOOSES to abort late term when finding out the sex of the baby is the "wrong" sex for her. Then you want to CONTROL her choices.
How DARE you! Tsk tsk...
Poor woman has to be FORCED to keep her child alive instead of executing him/her in the womb because YOU and our law want to control her.
My gosh!! You're assuming women are so fucki%$ dumb and totally stupid to the fact that they may be pregnant even up to the late stages? Your control fetish is in high gear and you're using all the stupid shi7 you csn come up with to try to convince people you know what the he77 you're talking about. Seek help for your control addiction before it consumes you!
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#251600 Aug 6, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. LOL But for shits and giggles and the sake of a real discussion, be specific about how and why you disagree.
Here's what I said again:
" I think MORE on this forum support the woman's right to make her own medical CHOICES. Whether its on demand or not is irrelevant, since its none of our business either way what choice she makes, nor will it affect us in ANY way."
What specifically do you disagree with and why?
Abortion affects the people killed with abortion. Abortion makes the people killed with abortion dead. The people killed with abortion are among "us", untill they are killed with abortion. Than the people killed with abortion are no longer among "us", because they were killed with an abortion. Which directly affects who "us" are. Killing some of "us" affects "us", because killing some of "us" makes some of "us" dead. Which changes who "us" are into less of "us". Anyone can be killed at any age without anyone but the killer knowing about it. Which doesn't justify killing anyone.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#251601 Aug 6, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion affects the people killed with abortion. Abortion makes the people killed with abortion dead. The people killed with abortion are among "us", untill they are killed with abortion. Than the people killed with abortion are no longer among "us", because they were killed with an abortion. Which directly affects who "us" are. Killing some of "us" affects "us", because killing some of "us" makes some of "us" dead. Which changes who "us" are into less of "us". Anyone can be killed at any age without anyone but the killer knowing about it. Which doesn't justify killing anyone.
DAMMMMMMMMM! When you come off the crack pipe try to put your thoughts out there so we can remotely try to understand what you're trying to say!

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#251602 Aug 6, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Pass
You used to me remind me of my boy cousins -- guys I could disagree with, but still have fun even if we'd grown apart. Not so much anymore, BA. Our views aren't so different, except I definitely don't want to see Doe v Bolton overturned and do not understand why you'd even want to go there. It would just be a means to overturn Roe and you claim not to want to do that.
You claim you hold no contradictions, but don't want to listen when someone points out the most glaring one.
I explained this before Katie, Doe v Bolton is a contradiction to Roe v Wade's recognition of the State's important interset to protect life, including potentail life. With it's inclusion of "emotional health", as a reason to abort a viable fetus, there is little or no protection of the State's interest. I've explained this several times and now you're saying that I want Roe v Wade over turned, please show me that post.
BTW Katie, I used to like discussing abortion with you, but lately you just seem to distort everything I say, I've called you on it several times now and you've never been able to provide one of my posts to back up your distorted claims. It's beyond just not understanding what I'm saying, you simply are trying to portray my views for something they are not, I've been patient, but I'm tired of it.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251603 Aug 6, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Poor girl as in "poor sucker".
I am AGAINST the law that allows women to kill their baby in utero. I vote in people who will change the law because it is a crime against humanity.
You,OTOH,don't care about changing the law that restricts her choices and you dare call yourself PRO-CHOICE and PRO-WOMAN?
Of course we have to follow laws but we also have the ability to try to CHANGE laws that we disagree with.
Again,do you think that the law that restricts should be changed? YES OR NO?
And still you post more lies, "I vote in people who will change the law because it is a crime against humanity." Forced pregnancy is what is the REAL crime against humanity. Look it up yourself on the UN website. Lord knows I've linked it a dozen or more times for your sorry ass.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#251604 Aug 6, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I can vouch that you never argued for fetal rights.
Katie laughably tried to provide proof that you did and all she did was reiterate what RvW said. She's almost as stupid as chicky.
Almost.
Also, remember dicky's continued insistence that we provide the cut and paste where RVW established the definition of viability....and when we did she ridiculously tried to claim that it was in the discussion and not their ruling....and therefore was not legal precedent ?
Does stupid reach a higher level than that ?
I dont think you can win with these two, if they find them self losing they simply lie or distort what the arguement is about. In CS's case she is simply too stupid to understand how stupid she is, I dont know what Katie's excuse is, I dont remember her twisting things as she has done recently.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251605 Aug 6, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I explained this before Katie, Doe v Bolton is a contradiction to Roe v Wade's recognition of the State's important interset to protect life, including potentail life. With it's inclusion of "emotional health", as a reason to abort a viable fetus, there is little or no protection of the State's interest. I've explained this several times and now you're saying that I want Roe v Wade over turned, please show me that post.
BTW Katie, I used to like discussing abortion with you, but lately you just seem to distort everything I say, I've called you on it several times now and you've never been able to provide one of my posts to back up your distorted claims. It's beyond just not understanding what I'm saying, you simply are trying to portray my views for something they are not, I've been patient, but I'm tired of it.
Yeah? Or maybe you just don't realize what others are trying to do and that you're falling in line with it. Sorta like how you agree with some of the fundies on here and refuse to concede when the lot of you is mistaken or not completely accurate. See quote and link below:

"For that matter, if Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were to be struck down by a future Supreme Court, the states' lawmaking bodies (with citizen input in electing those bodies) would again assume the prerogative of making their own abortion laws."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T6B1...

Psst, the term is "killing the messenger". I get it.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#251606 Aug 6, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sue, Doc, Lynne, JM, and the all the rest of their hive believe those of us who agree with progressive restrictions on abortion as gestational age reaches a point of viability, well they believe this makes us as antichoice as they are rather than law abiding citizens.
.
What? This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion? The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut? And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus! Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251607 Aug 6, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I dont think you can win with these two, if they find them self losing they simply lie or distort what the arguement is about. In CS's case she is simply too stupid to understand how stupid she is, I dont know what Katie's excuse is, I dont remember her twisting things as she has done recently.
My excuse? My excuse for trying to show you facts? For thinking you were as open-minded as you'd claimed to be while displaying the opposite when refusing to see things from a different perspective? I see your perspective. You think abortion should be legal, but not after viability. You don't stand for any exceptions after viability because you think women will use the "health" clause for anything under the sun, like "not wanting to be pregnant" at 7mos along. You refused to see reality regarding psychiatric patients or the opposite side when a psych patient was court ordered (f'n COURT ORDERED) to abort her pregnancy!! Thankfully she still had a right to refuse medical treatment and did not go through with it. If you cannot see forcing women to remain pregnant will eventually lead to forcing them to abort (this was a perfect example of it in the f'n present!), then sure, I understand why you can't see any other point I make. It's all Greek to you, right?

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#251608 Aug 6, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Or maybe you just don't realize what others are trying to do and that you're falling in line with it. Sorta like how you agree with some of the fundies on here and refuse to concede when the lot of you is mistaken or not completely accurate. See quote and link below:
"For that matter, if Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were to be struck down by a future Supreme Court, the states' lawmaking bodies (with citizen input in electing those bodies) would again assume the prerogative of making their own abortion laws."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T6B1...
Psst, the term is "killing the messenger". I get it.
Did you miss the part "if Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton... "? Again, I didn't say Roe V Wade should be struck down, just Doe v Bolton. Doe v Bolton can, and has, been challenged separately. Why dont you just admit that you think abortion is 100% about the woman's concerns and desires until the cord is cut? Seriously, if that is how you feel why mask it? Speak your opinion, but at least be honest and consistent. Personally, I believe that many more would support the SCOTUS's decision on abortion if not for "emotional health" as a reason to abort a viable fetus.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#251609 Aug 6, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh no. The government doesn't make the claim that fetus's have rights. Only the BORN have "rights". Factually, rights are endowed upon birth.
Factually human rights are naturally endowed. Meaning humans have human rights simply because they are human. Birth has nothing to do with our being human, we are just as human before being born as after. Granting rights to cows and pigs simply because the are born, while denying the rights of people simply because they are yet to be born, is sheer lunacy.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251610 Aug 6, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>What? This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion? The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut? And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus! Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point.
OMG! You are as bad as NR with an inability to separate personal from factual. Here's a reality check for you.
=====

"This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion?"
There is no "partial birth abortion". There was the D&X procedure which was safer for the woman AND allowed her a whole baby to hold and grieve.
=====

"The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut?"
I claimed the birth process separating fetus from baby included cutting the cord and baby breathing.
=====

"And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus!"
I just rewrote that old argument and it sure didn't look like what you wrote above. You don't give psych patients (such as schizophrenics) the seriousness deserved when you compare it with "too fat" or "not being able to go out". But you sure just verified my prior post. Thanks much!
=====

"Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point."
Yeah, there's a woman wrapped around that uterus holding an embryo/fetus. A woman seemingly forgotten by you and others like-minded. SHE has an established life, SHE has civil rights. I do not disregard the embryo/fetus, as you try to claim, but I realize if somebody else's pregnancy is unwanted, unhealthy, or potentially fatal, I have absolutely no say-so in their decisions regarding it. None. And if it was me, I wouldn't want anyone else (you, JM, Ink, Sue, NR, etc.) to make the decision for me, either.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251611 Aug 6, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text> Did you miss the part "if Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton... "? Again, I didn't say Roe V Wade should be struck down, just Doe v Bolton. Doe v Bolton can, and has, been challenged separately. Why dont you just admit that you think abortion is 100% about the woman's concerns and desires until the cord is cut? Seriously, if that is how you feel why mask it? Speak your opinion, but at least be honest and consistent. Personally, I believe that many more would support the SCOTUS's decision on abortion if not for "emotional health" as a reason to abort a viable fetus.
"Why dont you just admit that you think abortion is 100% about the woman's concerns and desires until the cord is cut? Seriously, if that is how you feel why mask it?"

Because it's not what I believe. I've been very clear and concise. There are exceptions. Even after viability. I may not agree with these, I may not like these, but there is a small need. Something like .03% if I'm remembering right.

You see what you want to see, BA.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#251612 Aug 6, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
My excuse? My excuse for trying to show you facts? For thinking you were as open-minded as you'd claimed to be while displaying the opposite when refusing to see things from a different perspective? I see your perspective. You think abortion should be legal, but not after viability. You don't stand for any exceptions after viability because you think women will use the "health" clause for anything under the sun, like "not wanting to be pregnant" at 7mos along. You refused to see reality regarding psychiatric patients or the opposite side when a psych patient was court ordered (f'n COURT ORDERED) to abort her pregnancy!! Thankfully she still had a right to refuse medical treatment and did not go through with it. If you cannot see forcing women to remain pregnant will eventually lead to forcing them to abort (this was a perfect example of it in the f'n present!), then sure, I understand why you can't see any other point I make. It's all Greek to you, right?
I've never argued "psychiatric" reasons should not be considered as mental health, but "psychiatric" and "emotional" can be two very different things. Again, you are trying to portray what my views are from your simplistic generalization of those that dont agree with you. And BTW, I'm tired of arguments from you liberals that say "if the government can regulate abortion than that is the first step in the government forcing abortion", while you idiots support the government taking over the health care industry. What better reason could the government have to force abortion than to cut their cost on health care and support?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251613 Aug 6, 2012
My alarm goes off in a couple hours. I have to get a nap in.

A baby girl is in process of being born right now. Her mother (my daughter) has been laboring all day since early this morning. Thought she'd be here by now, but not yet.

NR will remind you all how I said personally, at viability, I believe it's a baby. Factually, in utero, it's still a fetus, but my personal opinion is it's a baby. I have posted this a bazillion times, but put it out there again for you, BA.

G'night.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#251615 Aug 6, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>I've never argued "psychiatric" reasons should not be considered as mental health, but "psychiatric" and "emotional" can be two very different things. Again, you are trying to portray what my views are from your simplistic generalization of those that dont agree with you. And BTW, I'm tired of arguments from you liberals that say "if the government can regulate abortion than that is the first step in the government forcing abortion", while you idiots support the government taking over the health care industry. What better reason could the government have to force abortion than to cut their cost on health care and support?
Um, the countries with socialized medicine do not force abortion. There may be zero restrictions, but this is not the same as forcing. Please provide just one example of forced abortion where socialized medicine is practiced.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min shinningelectr0n 1,154,291
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 35 min LonePalm 2,696
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 51 min Bruin For Life 28,405
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr Joe fortuna 201,179
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Joe fortuna 232,915
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Sat Roy the Boy 691
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web