March for Life Activists Take to Streets of Washington

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  4 months ago  •  54 comments

By:   Thomson/Reuters

March for Life Activists Take to Streets of Washington
Despite freezing temperatures, marchers assembled on the National Mall, bearing signs that read "I am the post-Roe generation" and "The future is anti-abortion." The event marks the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But Friday's marchers were optimistic that this would be the last march to occur before the overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling

Here are photos of some of the best signs:


love-them-both.jpg ChurchPOPIMG_6193-e1485569187682.jpg ChurchPOPIMG_6229-e1485569162555.jpg ChurchPOPIMG_6162-e1485569258648.jpg ChurchPOPIMG_6094.jpg ChurchPOPIMG_6080.jpg

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



March for Life Activists Take to Streets of Washington


GetFile.aspx?guid=1465bd73-98c0-4328-bae0-0b34f9a82ed0&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600

Tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington on Friday for the annual March for Life, their mood boosted by recent state abortion restrictions and the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could soon upend the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Despite freezing temperatures, marchers assembled on the National Mall, bearing signs that read "I am the post-Roe generation" and "The future is anti-abortion."

The event marks the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But Friday's marchers were optimistic that this would be the last march to occur before the overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable, at around 24 weeks.

Rachel Young, 19, came from northeastern Ohio with her fellow students at Franciscan University of Steubenville, a Roman Catholic school that sent several busloads of students on the 5-hour trip to Washington.

Young said it was her third time attending the March but that it was a uniquely exciting occasion because of how close the Supreme Court is to overturning Roe.

"I just can’t even believe it," she said. "I am so thankful that God has brought us here. And that we are so, so close."

In December, the Supreme Court signaled its openness to overturning Roe during arguments for a case out of Mississippi. The conservative justices, like Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, indicated sympathy for Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.

If the conservative-leaning court rules in Mississippi's favor, it could overhaul abortion rights protected in the United States for nearly half a century. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, the national anti-abortion group organizing Friday's event, said activists are hopeful "this year will bring us much closer to building the culture of life we have all marched for since Roe v. Wade was imposed on our nation nearly 50 years ago."

Abortion has long been a politically divisive issue in the United States, with abortion opponents concerned about preserving life from conception and abortion supporters standing for a woman's bodily autonomy.

In recent years, Republican-controlled states have advanced legislation and policies making it harder for women to get an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights organization, found that 2021 saw the most restrictions of U.S. abortion rights in decades, with 108 abortion restrictions enacted in 19 states as of Dec. 31.

Liberate Abortion, a national coalition of more than 100 proabortion groups, was not planning any in-person counterprotest at the March for Life because of the recent spike in COVID-19 cases, coalition campaign director Sharmin Hossain said. The coalition instead will hold a series of virtual events to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week.

"I think it's ironic that they call themselves March for Life because they ideologically do not support people living their best lives, lives filled without shame and stigma," Hossain said, adding that mobilizing large unmasked gatherings disregards public safety.

The antiabortion movement also is celebrating a Texas law that banned abortion after six weeks and empowered private citizens to sue anyone who assists someone getting an abortion past that gestational limit. The Supreme Court has allowed that law, which took effect in September, to stand as it's challenged in lower courts.

Mark Lee Dickson, director of Right to Life of East Texas, said he would attend the March for Life in Washington for the first time, inspired by the large crowds of anti-abortion protesters who gathered outside the Supreme Court for the oral arguments in the Mississippi case.

"There may not be another March for Life with Roe on the books, so I want to be a part of this," he said.

© 2022 Thomson/Reuters.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 months ago
Mark Lee Dickson, director of Right to Life of East Texas, said he would attend the March for Life in Washington for the first time, inspired by the large crowds of anti-abortion protesters who gathered outside the Supreme Court for the oral arguments in the Mississippi case. "There may not be another March for Life with Roe on the books, so I want to be a part of this,"
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2  Gordy327    4 months ago

How about that, a march celebrating wanting to deny women their constitutional rights.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2    4 months ago

Like the right to be alive as a human being?   Hopefully this is the last such rally. The one next year can hopefully be one in celebration   🥳🎉🍾🎈instead!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    4 months ago

No such right until birth.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    4 months ago

We are human beings and have human rights from the moment we are alive which means conception.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.2    4 months ago

Not according to the law. We don't celebrate conception day. Individuals are recognized and celebrated at birth. We don't receive a SS number until birth. There is no law which lists or recogizes legal rights of the unborn. Your statement is factually incorrect and I'd wager emotionally based.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.2    4 months ago

how is that exact point in time known and verified?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.4    4 months ago

While zygotes, embryos and fetuses do not have full human rights they are protected to a great extent. Most terminations occur during the first trimester of gestation and late term abortions are highly regulated and generally illegal except in rare circumstances like rape, incest or health concerns of the mother. So, even when legal abortions are highly regulated. The demand for terminations is dictated by the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. This is why making terminations completely illegal has never and will never work. We tried that and it failed. Since the beginning of time women have been "choosing" to terminate. For most their reason is already having more children than they can care for, although there are many other legitimate reasons. Ultimately preventing unwanted pregnancies is the only way to stop abortions from happening. Thus we know how to prevent the vast majority of abortions but the same lame groups most opposed to reproductive choice are also adamantly opposed to comprehensive sex education and making all forms of birth control easier to get without parents or spouses being involved. It is maddening!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.2    4 months ago

If that is so everybody is approximately 9 months older than what is on record.  I believe age was always calculated from birth, I think the bible counts it that way. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Gordy327 @2    4 months ago

Bunch of violent thugs.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  SteevieGee @2.2    4 months ago

Because all those women, men, and children at the event yesterday and the 48 years prior for such events engaged in anything other than peaceful assembly, speeches, music, and prayer.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
3  charger 383    4 months ago

 they are hooked up to somebody else's power plant and septic system

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @3    4 months ago

Like a parasite. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    4 months ago

Calling another human being a parasite or clump of cells is nothing more than a coping mechanism to evade the true meaning of the termination of that human life.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.1    4 months ago

Calling it a parasite is an apt description. It feeds off its host, offers no benefit In return, and can possibly cause harm to its host. Thats a parasite. Terminating it is called an abortion. That's a fact. Your attempt to try and change that description (along with a bad psychanalysis) is both transparent and an attempt at an emotional appeal. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.2    4 months ago

Calling a human being a parasite is an emotional release / escape mechanism from the clear shame, horror, and guilt that results from otherwise ending another humans life.  It is a form of objectification humans often use to rationalize or justify that which they would otherwise never consider doing.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.3    4 months ago

Spare me your weak psychobabble and then look up what a parasite is. You're flat out wrong as usual.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.2    4 months ago
Calling it a parasite is an apt description.

Sure if you are scientifically illiterate, don't know what a parasite is , don't understand the human reproductive system and need to rely on emotionally  charged words like parasite instead of making logical arguments. 

nd an attempt at an emotional appeal. 

I do have to thank you for my laugh of the day. Accusing someone  else of making an emotional appeal after calling a fetus a parasite is top notch unintentional comedy.  Just perfect. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.1    4 months ago

It's actually quite accurate.

After fertilization, the conceptus travels down the  oviduct  towards the  uterus  while continuing to  divide [6]   mitotically  without actually increasing in size, in a process called  cleavage . [7]  After four divisions, the conceptus consists of 16 blastomeres, and it is known as the  morula . [8]  Through the processes of compaction, cell division, and blastulation, the conceptus takes the form of the  blastocyst  by the fifth day of development, just as it approaches the site of implantation. [9]  When the blastocyst hatches from the  zona pellucida , it can implant in the endometrial lining of the uterus and begin the embryonic stage of development.

Regardless your emoting it is not a human at that point.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.6    4 months ago
Regardless your emoting it is not a human at that point.

Is it a cat? Or maybe a salamander?

What other animals or plants do you believe  a human fetus magically turn into?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1.8  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    4 months ago

It's a zygote. XX was stating (with emotion) that a fertilized ovum is a human being.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.8    4 months ago

It's a zygote

It's a human zygote.  Its one part of human development  that ends about 25 years after conception.  There's no magic that transforms a meaningless bunch of cells into a "human" at some arbitrary point. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1.10  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    4 months ago

A fertilized ovum is not a human being. In humans it contains the genetic material to produce another human being. In and of itself it actually is a clump of cells, not a human being.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.10    4 months ago

In and of itself it actually is a clump of cells, not a human bein

Since you don't believe in biology, when do you believe the clump of cells magically transforms into a human?   Do you believe in medieval concepts like "ensoulment" or "quickening?"

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1.12  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.11    4 months ago

I believe in science, not magic. That's your word. Please refer to my 3.1.6 post for the actual science.

I'm not saying the fertilized ovum is not human. It's just not a human being. 

Frankly I doubt that you would say a fertilized ovum or zygote is in fact a human being. I think you're a lot smarter than that.

Arguing for arguments sake is boring. You win, how's that ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.12    4 months ago

not saying the fertilized ovum is not human. It's just not a human being

If you are saying it's not a human being, when, exactly,  does it become one?  And what is the biological basis for believing that it's a human being at that exact  point, and not a minute before?

I have the advantage of matching my arguments to the science. A one year old toddler is the same biological being  it was eight months earlier and will be 20 odd years later when it finishes developing. I don't  arbitrarily  pick a stage and claim it divides a human from a non human. 

But I agree it boring and pointless,  to argue about, no different than religion. You have your subjective belief and nothing is going to change that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.5    4 months ago

Maybe you should pay closer attention.  I said a fetus is like a parasite, for the reasons specified. If you think there's any emotional appeal or drive in that, then that is just projection on your part.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    4 months ago

A zygote is nothing more than a single cell. To think there's something special about a single cell is delusional. No one makes a fuss when we scratch some cells off our asses or something. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.13    4 months ago

The instant an egg is fertilized, do you consider that (the zygote) to be a human being?   Not simply a form of human life, but a human being with personhood rights? 

Should a zygote have all the rights and privileges of born human beings?   For example, if the zygote is intentionally aborted by its mother via a medication abortion such as RU-486, should she be tried for murder?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.14    4 months ago
If you think there's any emotional appeal or drive in that, then that is just projection on your part.

Lol. I admire how how you double down on your own projection.  Just keep accusing others of doing what you are so blatantly doing, eh? 

Look,  using comparisons to "parasites" has a long history with mass murderers for obvious reasons. Dehumanization is the obvious necessary first step. Thus Nazis made overtly emotional comparisons of  Jews to parasites and Stalin the same with Kulaks to parasites. You  inflame everybody's emotions and killing human  parasites becomes a righteous act

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.15    4 months ago
. No one makes a fuss when we scratch some cells off our asses or something.

Your biology teachers failed you if can't tell the fundamental difference between a skin cell and zygote.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.17    4 months ago

Bravo!  The objectification of one group of humans by another is exactly what can often lead to genocide.  In this case 50 years of it.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.20  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.16    4 months ago
The instant an egg is fertilized, do you consider that (the zygote) to be a human being? 

This is the question that religion has tried to answer for many many years.  It basically comes down to when does the soul enter the physical body so that the body can become a human being. Some believe it's at conception, some believe it's at birth, and some have a set number of days (during Aristotle's time it was 40 days after conception for males, 90 days after for females,  Islam teaches that the soul enters the body 140 days after conception).   This is a question that will not have an answer until we are in our next lives I believe.  So until then we have the 'joy' of arguing over who is right.

Should a zygote have all the rights and privileges of born human beings?   For example, if the zygote is intentionally aborted by its mother via a medication abortion such as RU-486, should she be tried for murder?

Interesting question, as we have seen in the past if a person murder's a pregnant woman that person can be charged with two murders. How the future will play out for this question is something I am not wise enough to answer.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.1.21  arkpdx  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.6    4 months ago

It ain't going to be a turnip buckoo!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.22  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.21    4 months ago

No, but an egg isn't exactly a chicken either!

Buckaroo?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.20    4 months ago
This is a question that will not have an answer until we are in our next lives I believe.  So until then we have the 'joy' of arguing over who is right.

As you note, the notion of soul is as valuable as 'the force' in the matter of abortion.   In the meantime, we necessarily must make decisions as a society.

Interesting question, as we have seen in the past if a person murder's a pregnant woman that person can be charged with two murders.

It is more interesting if you go to the very instant the sperm fertilizes the egg.   A millisecond before we had an unfertilized egg cell, then as soon as the sperm enters we have a human being with personhood whose life is to be protected by law?    Is the woman who uses medication abortion technology right after sex to ensure she does not wind up giving birth in 9 months now a murderer?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1.24  pat wilson  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.21    4 months ago

Your level of intellectual discourse is something to behold.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.25  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.20    4 months ago

If we don’t know for sure we should err on the side of caution and assume that yes the person is a human being at the earliest possible moment, conception.  For sure at least once the combined sperm and egg attach to the wall of the uterus and begin to develop.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.26  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.23    4 months ago

No.  There is a great variable in the time it takes a sperm to reach the egg.  In the vast majority of cases a same night or morning after pill will do what it does before the sperm and egg ever meet. But it is another matter later once the combined speed and egg attach to the wall of the uterus and begin developing.  There is no doubt that he/she is a human being at that point and b/c measures designed to rip that life off of the wall and flush it are exactly what you suggest.  That’s why Hobby Lobby won its case about not providing certain birth control methods that are very early abortions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.26    4 months ago

Then you think a mother who chemically aborts is a murderer and should be tried, convicted and sentenced?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.28  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.27    4 months ago

Yes absolutely. That what all abortion is.  As to the consequences of such an act, no, not now.  Laws would need changing first and an emphasis protecting mother and child pre birth and after would have to be set in place first before any criminal consequences should be assigned if it happened anyway 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.28    4 months ago

Of course you would seek to convict and sentence a woman for murder because she chemically induced an abortion the day after she had sex.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.30  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.29    4 months ago

If you read what I wrote you could not have written what you did with any intent toward truth.  The morning after pill works before the pregnancy begins with the baby attached to the uterine wall and is not an abortion before then.  I’ve never opposed birth control that works before that point.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.30    4 months ago

I, however, did not limit this to the morning after pill.   I spoke of medication abortions (a chemical abortion) which can operate well after (months) attachment to the uterine wall.

TiG @3.1.27 ☞ Then you think a mother who chemically aborts is a murderer and should be tried, convicted and sentenced?
XX @3.1.28Yes absolutely. That what all abortion is.  As to the consequences of such an act, no, not now.  Laws would need changing first and an emphasis protecting mother and child pre birth and after would have to be set in place first before any criminal consequences should be assigned if it happened anyway 

Apparently you are the one who is not reading the questions you are answering.


So apparently, based on your last comment, you think it is okay to kill a zygote but it is not okay to kill a blastocyst or beyond.

A zygote is a fertilized egg, a blastocyst is a multicellular form that attaches to the uterine wall.

On what criteria do you draw this line?   Why do you consider a blastocyst a human being with personhood rights and not the zygote?   Seems like attachment to the uterine wall is arbitrary.   What is the basis for this seemingly arbitrary distinction you draw?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.17    4 months ago
Your biology teachers failed you if can't tell the fundamental difference between a skin cell and zygote.

The skin cell is more differentiated than a zygote. But they're both just cells. Perhaps you need to brush up on biology and even embryology.

I admire how how you double down on your own projection.  

Speak for yourself. It seems you're resorting to "I know you are but what am I" type responses.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.20    4 months ago
It basically comes down to when does the soul enter the physical body so that the body can become a human being.

One must prove there's such a thing as a soul.

as we have seen in the past if a person murder's a pregnant woman that person can be charged with two murders.

Not quite. Such laws are obviously knee-jerk reactions to harm inflicted against a pregnant woman. But they are not always applied and are based on harm committed against the woman. It's also dependent on the time of gestation, the circumstances of the death, and whether a prosecutor pushes for a double murder charge.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.25    4 months ago
If we don’t know for sure we should err on the side of caution and assume that yes the person is a human being at the earliest possible moment, conception.

Why? Based on what?

 There is a great variable in the time it takes a sperm to reach the egg.

It can take up to 2 days.

There is no doubt that he/she is a human being at that point 

It's not! Pretending otherwise only makes you wrong!

That what all abortion is.  

Factually and legally false! An abortion is an acceptable medical procedure and a woman's right to end a pregnancy. 

 Laws would need changing first and an emphasis protecting mother and child pre birth

What laws would those be?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  charger 383 @3    4 months ago

A feature that is not unique to humans among mammals in the earliest stages of our life’s development stages.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2    4 months ago

So? Is that supposed to mean something? Species of a class (mammalia in the case of humans) share similar traits. If anything, that means there'snothing special about humans. I'll bet if you looked at pictures of a human, dog, cat, and pig embryo, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
3.2.2  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2    4 months ago

I agree with that statement

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.1    4 months ago

How many dogs, cats, pigs, cows, dolphins, etc.  run around trying to kill their offspring while still in their womb?  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
3.2.4  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.3    4 months ago

how many of them believe in religion?  or make laws?  or perform surgery?  ect ect

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.3    4 months ago

Ever watch nature documentaries? But of course your reply doesn't actually have anything to do with my post. It's just another dodge on your part.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  charger 383 @3    4 months ago

We all (except Adam and Eve) began our very human lives as human beings exactly the same way.  

 
 

Who is online

shona1


55 visitors