Politics | 01/22/2009 2:30 pm

36 Years On, Protesters Rally Against Roe v. Wade

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Tens of thousands of protesters came together in Washington to rally against Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion 36 years ago today.

Brandishing signs such as "The Audacity of Hope: No More Roe," the group marched to the Supreme Court from the National Mall, which was host to the Inauguration just two days ago. Obviously aware of the new political climate, organizers penned an open letter to Obama asking him to attend and speak: "America needs your strong leadership as president of all the people to stop the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 pre-born boys and girls each day and the brutalizing of mind, heart and body of pregnant mothers," they wrote. Obama did not take them up on their offer.

Though the debate has raged for more than three decades, the nation’s still split on whether or not to keep abortion legal. From an August 2008 Pew Research poll:

Polling conducted between 1995 and 2008 reveals that support for keeping abortion legal in all or most cases has fluctuated between 49% and 61% over the 13-year time period. Fewer Americans have tended to express support for making abortion illegal in all or most cases, ranging from a low of 36% to a high of 48% over the same period of time …

An August 2008 poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press confirms that American opinion on this issue remains very much in line with this historical pattern. A slim majority of the public (54%) says abortion should be legal in all (17%) or most (37%) cases, while 41% say abortion should be illegal in all (15%) or most (26%) cases.

Interestingly, those numbers are split almost evenly between men and women.

With the debate still all the rage, reader, we’re wondering: Where do you stand on abortion rights?

Read more about: Abortion, Barack Obama, Health, News, Roe v. Wade

169 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

kb, thank you for sharing and explaining your view as it contrasts with mine. So long as we keep talking with each other like this, civilly and respectfully, we may be able escape some of the terrible internal strife created around this issue.

By Susan B on 01/23/2009 9:30 am

“Adam/Eve were without shame while they were without sin. Once they screwed up (and they BOTH screwed up), then they wore clothes, Adam had to start farming for his food (till the earth) and Eve suffered pain in child birth.” At what point in the Afar Triangle in Africa near the equator did man have to start wearing clothes ? And since that is where the earliest man is from, and he was black, then “God” is black, correct ? And those people were hunter/gatherers until they migrated north and began farming, so who was Adam & Eve ? My point in this is, why should anyone have to pay attention to arbitrary rules that are based on nonsense. You are entitled to believe whatever you choose, but you have no right to force me to live by it. The United States is a secular country and religious beliefs have no place in our laws. I go back to my original point, if you do not believe in abortion, don’t have one.

By EKA - on 01/23/2009 1:35 pm

e-mail alert

“You are entitled to believe whatever you choose, but you have no right to force me to live by it. ” — I agree, this is a country of majority rule. And, at this point, the majority are okay with aborting pre-born children. If the majority vote in gay rights, then I will follow the law of the land because that is what God tells us to do. That does not mean I have to agree with it at all. That does not mean that I can’t vote against it when the opportunity arrises. That does not mean that I can’t speak my opinion (yet). But regardless of who’s opinion currently prevails in the government right now, I am also still free to correct mis-information about what is contained in the Bible. “My point in this is, why should anyone have to pay attention to arbitrary rules that are based on nonsense. ” — again, I agree, Darwinism sure is arbitrary, but its fun. The more science learns, the more that theory falls apart. That poor land walking mud-puppy has been through so many girations…. did you hear the latest? He did push ups by the shore and then, when his legs were evenually strong enough, he crawled out of the water… I’m thinking that he heard there were condo’s for sale at 1/2 price in FL and was looking for a good deal because the water was getting to the arthritis in those mangly looking toes he had. Best one yet (IMHO) is an entire species of man from a pig’s tooth. That one was a good one, you have to admit. I know some people that must have evolved from that species because they certainly are pigs. I love Darwinsits. I’m purposefully burying odd bones together along with strange tools for them. Hopefully scientists in the future will find them and have all sorts of fun making up stories about the strange little animal tribe, its odd tools and rituals. I’m collecting dead ipods and setting them up with skeletons from calves w/chicken winged feet and hand like appendeges at the shoulder (BTW, my “hands” are far more convincing than that poor mud-puppy). I’m placing them in a ritualistic cirlce around a fire pit and making a technology burial ground near by with a record player statue to “worship”. The record player is going to have low grade radioactivity to help explain the sudden evolution. Fifty years from now, my little farm is going to be famous as the “first use of technology by non-human animals.” They’ll find it because of a strange little book, written by a crazy old lady talking about animals using technology in extraordinarily realistic ways. The locals will have blown her off as “just crazy”, but she’ll have taught them how to dance to their down loaded music and how to write for liberal blogs… hehehe Darwinism certainly isn’t as booring as a book that is centuries old, has never changed in all that time, and is the most accurately preserved document on earth. Yup, thank God for Darwinism, because you have to love the humor in it. :-) OKAY — to those Darwinists with their knickers in a knot, get a life.. the Darwin stuff is HUMOR (sort of). Just like all the slams Christians are taking from non-believers…

By k b on 01/23/2009 5:51 pm

e-mail alert

Look, I could care less what you believe, it’s a free country. You’re not getting my knickers in any knot. Ultimately, the only answer is when you die and find there is nothing there, but by then your argument is over. I have friends and family who believe in fairy tales( in my opinion ) and I am happy to let them do their thing. What they believe makes sense to them, what I believe ( Science, evolution.. whatever ) makes sense to me. Again, we are not living in Iran here, so we shouldn’t feel threatened. Religious belief, or lack of, has nothing to do with what kind of person you are, it is how you live your life, and how you treat your fellow humans in the short time you are here. MY ISSUE is if you try to impose rules or laws on me based on your narrow beliefs. The beauty of America is that there is room for both of us. Calm down, go back and read your book about the old white man in the sky and I’ll read my book about my cousin, the ape.

By EKA - on 01/23/2009 6:56 pm

e-mail alert

k b, Re-Darwinism, better check your facts. According to award winning Scientist Edward O. Wilson, Harvard Professor, in his 70’s, he has spent his life proving Darwin right. He says it has been an exciting adventure. His current book is “Elegant Organism.” I think if your life is in danger what do you want the research that determined the treatment or drug to cure you to be based on? That based on provable science or that based on the Bible and prayer?

By beverly linens on 01/24/2009 12:38 am

e-mail alert

Just because I find Darwinism humorous does not mean that I don’t believe in science. I simply think darwinists are taking the long way around to what has already been answered centuries ago. Science is routinely proving the Bible out, look at mtDNA (eve), the land bridge across the Red Sea and many other parts of the Bible that have been proven by science. Many scientists are Christian. Healthcare (ranging from herbs through Bayer Corp) are also from God. Believe it or not, neither God or the Bible promotes ignorance (as in refusing to learn)… and how else would we have been given the geniuses that we’ve seen through the ages. I just don’t count darwinists amongst the geniuses. They’re a shining example of building a mountain from a mole hill (or rather an entire species from a tooth — aka Nebraska Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man ). Can’t wait for them to finish and publish the mapping of the Neanderthal genome… funny, they’re turning out to be remarkably simmilar to “modern man” (and remarkably NOT similar to apes or chimps)… they had the physiology to speak, had tools, culture and… whoa, what’s that… did they live before modern man (as originally told?)… no, they CO-EXISTED with modern man.. wonder how the abrogine, japaneses, irish or nigerians would feel about being called a different species today just because they look different. I have no problem with studying ancient cultures. They’re facinating. Darwinism is not about ancient cultures, it is about the evolution of one species to another. IF evolution really were true, we must be in a dry spell. In nearly 3000 years of well documented history (and 3000 years of pretty good documentation before that), not one species has evolved before our eyes (or within documentation)… unless you count the extinctions. So while all sorts of new BREEDS can be created through selective breeding or geographic isolation and we have well established hybrids (e.g. the mule)… not a single evolutionary event. By now, you’d think they could have gotten those fruit flies to breed at least a wasp or something. Fruit fly research is VERY valuable and has been able to demonstrated thousands of other concepts, if anything could pop out a new species it would be those little buggers. But alas.. not a single new species even from them. Wilson argues that faith should not be rejected. I have no problems with his theories or positions, except that one little sticky bit they’ve never been able to show evidence for… that one SPECIES has begot another SPECIES. But that is not critical to sociobiology (unless you’re a darwinism purist). Ask any thoroghbred breeder if they don’t know for a fact that temperment is inherited. Willson’s best quote “Science and religion are two of the most potent forces on Earth and they should come together to save the creation.” There’s a bid difference between claiming that temperment / behavior is inherited and that species evolve. I don’t see where Wilson has any major investment in “proving Darwin right” he simply accepts the concept as true. Can you post a link to that? Were darwinism utterly disproven, it wouldn’t change the issue of inherited traits, so I’d like to see his statements (and work) that has supported darwinism.

By k b on 01/24/2009 1:59 pm

e-mail alert

kb, Is that the flim flam that creationest are using to keep christians away from science. Wilson say’s he does believe in God. If you think you are doing the young people of tommorrow a favor by discounting science you are crazy. We need them for the future of our beleagured world. Stop it, it isn’t a joke! You might think about covering your bases. All those end timers that were around 40 years ago are still waiting. I have a passel of neices and nephews who didn’t get a proper education because their mother was busy preparing for the end of the world. Well she’s gone and the kids are well into middle age with educations that ill prepared them for the future. Again I say it isn’t a joke.

By beverly linens on 01/24/2009 5:15 pm

e-mail alert

hey, search ‘Lamarck’s Signature’—-the PBS Docu ‘Ghost in Your Genes’—-Darwin’s dead, save rare example—-we do evolve, but via ‘environmental interaction’—-as the French scientist proposed—-how did Darwin’s hypothesis survive—-he was English, not French—-his work coincided with both Brit and Euro Colonial ambitions. a friend of his said .’it’s survival of the fittest.’ leading to ‘white-man’s burden’ and wholesale colonial exploitation—-Darwin said Lamarck may be correct—-now, it’s fact. our Brit-influence is old—-Newton yet gets credit for ‘The Calculus’, but the German Liebnitz had the 1st, and ‘useable’ version—-nobody uses Newton’s Calculas—-all use the Liebnitz’s—-as for Darwin? he’s history—-only applies to mass/minor extinctions—-hardly the main engine of obvious evolution—-simply put—-the French guy was right—-but, ‘white man’s burden’ sure liked Darwin—-

By gulliver fourmyle on 01/26/2009 12:52 am

e-mail alert

K B I can not even begin to tell you how awesome your post is! You have clearly stated the truth and hopefully, have enlightened others.

By HA BIBI on 01/27/2009 10:50 am

e-mail alert

Elaine, I found her post a very interesting read, but her refutal of Darwinism left something to be desired. Evidence of natural selection continues on every day before our eyes (or microscopes or telescopes). God didn’t stop after only 6 days, the process of creation and adaptive change at both the cellular and species levels continues to show the ongoing unfolding of Creation. Perhaps this difference in views has more to do with where we each draw our information about the Divine: through observation or through doctrine.

By Susan B on 01/28/2009 9:34 am

Susan, It all comes down to what one believes……..I side with her. :)

By HA BIBI on 01/28/2009 3:06 pm

e-mail alert

Personal belief. There it is!

By Susan B on 01/28/2009 4:20 pm

Susan - I absolutely agree with you that this is flat out a religious issue. that’s why it is so unresolveable (probably not a word huh?). That’s why you can talk and talk and talk on the pro-choice side and not be heard by the pro-life side and vice versa.

By Chrome Toe on 01/23/2009 4:47 pm

e-mail alert

good—-but ‘not-so’ on ‘impossible to change…’—-and yeah, fathers view wives as ‘personal-property’—-as they don’t wish to raise another man’s child—-simple to see the origin of that. not a matter of property, yet it may appear so in behaviors—-as to using ‘faith’, or ‘scripture’, stuff as ‘original-sin’? what to futz is that? being born? you tell me—-:)

By gulliver fourmyle on 01/28/2009 1:26 am

e-mail alert

I agree Gulliver. Few men wanted (or could bear) the responsibility of raising another man’s child, and I do think that’s where the “property” thing came from. Even then, they needed attorneys! Doctrine works for many. It’s in black and white. I’ve just never been able to view the world that way.

By Susan B on 01/28/2009 9:38 am