Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309896 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.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247115 Jul 4, 2012
bluestreak prime wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually, I admitted that I was here at the invite of an ally of mine.
That's what I said you dolt. You were "invited" here to troll by Skanky. You also admitted you have no real interest in the topic, thus you're only here at its invitation to troll.
You got the ball rolling with that nonsense- ya could have chilled out at any time, and didn't.
Actually YOU got the ball rolling by coming to this tread at the invitation of the Skank, to start shit. YOU started the racist bullshit, not anyone else.
Just like that Rational Tulsans fella; I understand he's one of yours (how do you feel about black on white bigotry?).
I have absolutely no clue who you're talking about, but racism of ANY stripe is an unintelligent cowards way out.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247116 Jul 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
You lost. Don't be a poor sport.
If by losing you mean I've lost any attempt to keep this "discussion" on an honest course of logic....you're probably right.
You wanna argue the word "viability" as it was used in Roe could include embryos. That's dumb. You know it. I exposed it.
I don't wanna argue that at all. In fact I agreed that the concept of an embryo as viable was over the top. Do you just blabber on without listening to the other side of the conversation ?
It was YOU that brought up the concept of a viable embryo. I simply answered 'yes' to it.....as anyone would have had to given the definition.
You can blur all the definitons of viability you want. Won't change the fact an embryo is not physiologically viable, no matter where it develops.
Your head is a blur.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247117 Jul 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
This'll be 32x I'm challenging, and I'm bettin' it will be 32x you dodge.
Good bet. You're on a roll. You should play a number today.
If you had an explanation, you'd have posted it by now. Twice, if what you say is true.
I have. More than twice.
Explain how a state sanctioned abortion, obtained with explicit permission by the state due to a specific exception, and provided for by a licensed medical professional is illegal.
**********
Should be a simple short explanation, Doc.
Actually it wasn't THAT short. Go look for it.

Speaking of a question you claim hasn't been answered.....I've got a few for you that I asked that you conveniently ignored....

- How is it that you are absent here for weeks at a time but when you come back you pick up right where you left off with my posts....sifting through what has to be over a thousand posts to find mine, yet you couldn't do the same with my answer to your psychotically repeated illegal abortion question ?
- Why did you lie to CD and tell him I said an embryo wasn't viable inside a woman's uterus ?
- Do you agree that BC's assertion that an otherwise healthy preemie born at 34 weeks that might need some temporary artificial assistance to breathe....is NON VIABLE ?

Try answering these then I might consider giving you the link to the post where I answered yours.
I'd have to go look for it.....but I'd consider it.
It's getting tiring having this 'failure to answer question'issue being totally one sided.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247118 Jul 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
When you include embryos as viable, knowing they would not be viable without assistance, then yeah, you do consider medical assistance a requirement to meet the criteria of viability. At least, under that circumstance.
Now lie about it and say you don't.
Medical assistance is NOT a requirement for viability. If it were, then an infant born at full term that needs no assistance at all to survive....would be considered non viable.

Because you (or anyone for that matter) can identify a specific circumstance(s) under which consideration of medical assistance IS necessary for a determination of viability....does not mean the need for medical assistance is necessary for any infant....premature or otherwise, to be considered viable.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247119 Jul 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
He'll slither around and avoid acknowledging your spot-on point, StO.
That's his M.O.
Just like his policy on penalizing rape victims.
His "spot on" point.

Good one.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247120 Jul 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"Roe set precedent for the legal definition of viability......"
Yes it did. Ya know sometimes you DO state the obvious.
That's why you ignore physiological viability. Your "legal" defintion could include frozen embryos. But the physiological reality is a big NO, not included.
"My" legal definition ? Let's be clear....something you have a real problem with.....It's "THE" legal definition.

Ya know, there may be an out for both of us here since we both appear to be uncomfortable with the concept of a viable embryo.
I double checked the Roe definition of viability and it clearly indicates that "...a FETUS becomes viable when......".
So by Roe's defintion an embryo would not be viable.
I hereby withdraw my 'yes' answer to your hypothetical.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247121 Jul 4, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thx, La. I didn't miss a pitch. Sounds like you were watching the wrong game! lol
My guess is that you throw like a girl. Like Obama......kinda.
Katie

Kent, WA

#247122 Jul 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep....same ol' same ol'. You still haven't provided a definition of viable that defines it exclusively without medical assistance.....and 10 months later you STILL haven't provided one single solitary speck of proof to back up your assertion. Proof you said I had made EASY for you to find.
Yep. Same ol' same ol'.
Happy Wednesday !!!
Yes I did.
To your best bud even.
Surprised you missed it.
No ... really.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Katie

Kent, WA

#247123 Jul 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that doesn't work. That attitude epitomizes selfishness. It's no wonder you can relate to it.
You're asking those who sincerely believe that abortion kills an innocent human life to adopt the attitude " well as long as human life that is related to me is OK that's all that matters. I'll just turn my back on the fact that it's open season on life that is not related to me."
How perfectly, predictably and disgustingly self centered.
Well....what would you expect from someone who accepts money from an organization that they believe promotes pedophilia.
Give the money back !!!
What a load of crap! Self-justification for butting into other people's private lives is more like it. "Open season on life that is not related to me."?? Quick!! Somebody had an abortion today. Run and report it. Hurry!!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247124 Jul 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I did.
To your best bud even.
Surprised you missed it.
No ... really.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Don't be surprised. I didn't miss it.

There's no definition of viable there that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.

Try again.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247126 Jul 4, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap! Self-justification for butting into other people's private lives is more like it. "Open season on life that is not related to me."?? Quick!! Somebody had an abortion today. Run and report it. Hurry!!
Ya see....again therein lies the problem. What you see as butting into other people's lives others see as caring for life other than their own or that which is related to them....and the fact that it's extermination is legal.
Your lack of compassion and your lack of any ability to see beyond your own self centered little world leads you to embrace a selfish concept like "don't like abortion.....don't have one".....and to not be able to even comprehend what sincerely motivates PL.
Only someone narrow minded and self absorbed could label that " a load of crap".

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#247127 Jul 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya see....again therein lies the problem. What you see as butting into other people's lives others see as caring for life other than their own or that which is related to them....and the fact that it's extermination is legal.
...".
Oh, stop with the histrionics.

The *reality* is that it pisses you off that you can't control these women and girls in what is an extremely personal, often difficult decision for them.

The *reality* is is that you have no respect for these women and girls and don't think they are capable of determining how to proceed with the contents of their very own body.

The *reality* is is that you think you know *better* than they do, so you want to push them aside and show them "how it's done".

The *reality* is is that you could not care less what happens to the child once it is born, even though you whine about "extermination", because you don't care what household it's born into, as long as it's born, that is ALL that matters to you.

I could not care less what faux-clever retort you come up with. Everything I have posted here is 100% correct. Your twisting and denying and insulting will not change that fact.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#247128 Jul 4, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Foo, lala and chicky avidly defend nasty nana who wrote racial slurs against her own daughter and grandchildren. At first they themselves called her a racist btw...UNTIL she went proabort.
Nana has NEVER written any racial slurs against her own daughter and grandchildren. And, as usual, you offer absolutely no evidence to back up your BS. Can you really not stop yourself from lying? What a fine xtian example you set.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#247129 Jul 4, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Who said she said that?
First of all, she isn't IN the south.
Yes, she is in the South. One state further and she'd be in the Gulf of Mexico. You can't get much further South.
SassyJM wrote:
Michelle even told her that she would have been better off aborting then to have a Grandma like her.
Ask them......go on....I want to see them deny it.
I don't believe Michelle ever said any such thing. I assume you can offer some proof of your accusations?

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#247130 Jul 4, 2012
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Nana has NEVER written any racial slurs against her own daughter and grandchildren. And, as usual, you offer absolutely no evidence to back up your BS. Can you really not stop yourself from lying? What a fine xtian example you set.
She lies about that as a matter of course, lies about how we supposedly chided NN for saying what she did not say, and lies about things I supposedly said regarding Latinos.

I think she's drunk when she posts on here, Cham. It certainly is starting to seem that way.

No one takes her seriously, fortunately.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#247131 Jul 4, 2012
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Nana has NEVER written any racial slurs against her own daughter and grandchildren. And, as usual, you offer absolutely no evidence to back up your BS. Can you really not stop yourself from lying? What a fine xtian example you set.
Sassy is right. By the way the nuns in the bus are in schism so they are not really Catholic anymore but old cranky women who lost their way and decided Christ is not important to them anymore. And by the way 80% or more of the nuns in the U.S. do not approve of what those nuns are doing.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#247132 Jul 4, 2012
&fe ature=player_embedded#!
Katie

Kent, WA

#247133 Jul 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be surprised. I didn't miss it.
There's no definition of viable there that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.
Try again.
I'll pass, thanks anyway. Got better things to do with my time. Plus I think my link from a legal encyclopedia beats yours from a blog.

Happy Independence Day!!

"The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/...
Katie

Kent, WA

#247134 Jul 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya see....again therein lies the problem. What you see as butting into other people's lives others see as caring for life other than their own or that which is related to them....and the fact that it's extermination is legal.
Your lack of compassion and your lack of any ability to see beyond your own self centered little world leads you to embrace a selfish concept like "don't like abortion.....don't have one".....and to not be able to even comprehend what sincerely motivates PL.
Only someone narrow minded and self absorbed could label that " a load of crap".
Look! A busy-body pointing his finger at me and claiming I'm self-absorbed when advocating for women to retain their civil rights.

You're so far removed from the truth and reality of my ability to see beyond rose-colored glasses, it's almost funny. Not funny haha, but ironic funny.

You just don't get it and you never will. You are not in charge of strangers' uteri. No matter how far you're willing to go in your mental masturbation, you're more'n likely just to implode of self-indulgence with all your fake "caring" and "compassion" of strangers' pregnancies.
Katie

Kent, WA

#247135 Jul 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, stop with the histrionics.
The *reality* is that it pisses you off that you can't control these women and girls in what is an extremely personal, often difficult decision for them.
The *reality* is is that you have no respect for these women and girls and don't think they are capable of determining how to proceed with the contents of their very own body.
The *reality* is is that you think you know *better* than they do, so you want to push them aside and show them "how it's done".
The *reality* is is that you could not care less what happens to the child once it is born, even though you whine about "extermination", because you don't care what household it's born into, as long as it's born, that is ALL that matters to you.
I could not care less what faux-clever retort you come up with. Everything I have posted here is 100% correct. Your twisting and denying and insulting will not change that fact.
Exactly, La!
Happy 4th :)

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min DBWriter 1,233,763
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Jacques Orleans 190,131
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 3 min Synque 207
News Scott Walker Approved Pro-Immigration Reform Lo... 6 min Your Ex 20
News Can Rick Santorum escape his past? 8 min Reverend Alan 7
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 8 min spocko 2,431
News ACLU Waging Total Lawfare on Hapless PA Town Tr... 10 min what can brown do 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min voter 182,691
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Ooogah Boogah 164,236
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 45 min positronium 328,561
More from around the web