Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,263
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
Anonymous

United States

#283850 Feb 14, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery was leagl. if you were living then, would you have supported the legal right to own a slave?
Think for once! Try and think!
Yes! This is the point, I was wishing they would see, but if they did, they didn't aknowledge it.

Many things have been legal, but it was still very much wrong.

Thanks for your other post as well. They do try to discredit any that disagree with them, or try and make them out to be a liar.

No matter what any of us say on this topic or in life, our hearts know the truth, and so does God.
It is that some of us need a new heart :)
Anonymous

United States

#283851 Feb 14, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That has nothing to do with my post, but thanks for sharing... I guess.
Thank you :)

I don't think calling abortion a ok moral choice is "ok ", but saying that most are an bad moral choice would be fit.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283853 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you :)
I don't think calling abortion a ok moral choice is "ok ", but saying that most are an bad moral choice would be fit.
I said that abortion is a moral right. You're speaking of something different and you don't even know it. You're funny.
Ocean56

AOL

#283854 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Its all in the wording. A woman could be severly depressed.
I guess you have never heard of POST PARTUM DEPRESSION? Women have been known to become very depressed AFTER they have had a baby.

In any case, it is still a fact that the only person to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the WOMAN who is pregnant. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision. Simple as that.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283855 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! This is the point, I was wishing they would see, but if they did, they didn't aknowledge it.
Many things have been legal, but it was still very much wrong.
Thanks for your other post as well. They do try to discredit any that disagree with them, or try and make them out to be a liar.
No matter what any of us say on this topic or in life, our hearts know the truth, and so does God.
It is that some of us need a new heart :)
For someone who professes to be honest and humble, you are decidedly neither. You do what you accuse of others, but are offended when treated the same. That's pretty hypocritical.
Ocean56

AOL

#283856 Feb 14, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
If both women were waiting to have abortions, they weren't far along enough in their pregnancies for there to be a fetal homicide charge. The rest of your post is just your personal opinion. Your opinion isn't relevant to anyone's pregnancy but your own.
Exactly. And since "Gtown" is a guy, he never has to worry about going through a pregnancy himself, so he has NO idea what a woman may have to suffer due to the medical issues of pregnancy.

Judging from some of his posts, it really seems to upset him that women can have sex and NOT want to get or stay pregnant. He has also made it clear what he thinks of women who don't ever want children. He believes they should be punished with lifetime celibacy because they have chosen NOT to procreate. Too bad for him, that ISN'T going to happen.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#283857 Feb 14, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>No saline is used and at 8-10 weeks, nothing is torn apart.
Your in denial elise, and obviously failed to watch the video I linked too that shows the little hands and feet being removed with forceps in pieces. Deny reality all you want. It only emphasizes that you don't know, and don't know you don't know. Here is another "little" sample of the abortionists work that makes you feel so righteous and comforted.
http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortion-pictur...
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#283858 Feb 14, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing a great job. Thankless but great just the same. These proabortion pagans will soon start pretending you no longer exist. Foomuffchew or one of the other of her klan will say something about you being a troll and they will go on as though you have proved nothing to them.
I have schooled them all on a few occassions and now they act like I don't exist. That is how it works. Or they will work together to ban you, another of there witchy ways. Your statements about God and life and the unborn child are rejected by these pagans. If they were to accept any of your premise, their entire belief system would collapse.
You must realize they all were once Christian women who were damaged early in life. They are hurt and angry. They lash out at Faith and most men. They embrcaed paganism and the freedom from responsibility it gives them. All you can reeally do at the end of the day is pray for their eternal soul.
Gods Bless!
Thats because ignorant liberals go straight to the bully tactic of shutting down the debate or calling you juvenile names when their argument fails to persuade. They only embrace the freedom of their speech, and the rights that they declare are legitimate. If you disagree, your speech must be silenced, or ignored, or the source needs to be eliminated.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283859 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not making a very good point choosing those verses, but let us look at them. Isaiah 30:26 says : the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days.
"It seems to me, that the brighter the sun is, the brighter the moon will be.
Isaiah 13:10 says : the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Again, it looks to me, that if the sun is dark, then so is the moon.
Both verses seem to indicate that the moons light depends on the sun.
Brighter the sun -brighter the moon.
Darker the sun -darker the moon.
You can try all you wish, but this is a sad attempt to discredit Gods Word.
"the moon shall not cause her light to shine" indicates the moon has it's own light. Of course you're always right when it comes to deciding what the bible means.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#283861 Feb 14, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Your in denial elise, and obviously failed to watch the video I linked too that shows the little hands and feet being removed with forceps in pieces. Deny reality all you want. It only emphasizes that you don't know, and don't know you don't know. Here is another "little" sample of the abortionists work that makes you feel so righteous and comforted.
http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortion-pictur...
Vacuum aspiration is commonly used until the 12th week of pregnancy. After anesthesia, a suction pump is inserted through the cervix into the uterus to vacuum out a developing fetus.

About as civilized as chopping it up and removing it piece by piece.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#283862 Feb 14, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
"the moon shall not cause her light to shine" indicates the moon has it's own light. Of course you're always right when it comes to deciding what the bible means.
The prophesy says "immediately after the distress of those days, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light."

The moon's light is the reflection of the sun. So it makes perfect sense.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283863 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Jewish faith against abortion, as it stands now?
As I've posted before and you've ignored, this is the OFFICAL view of the American Jewish Congress.

Dear Friends,
Did you know that abortion can be a religious requirement? Not just
permitted, but required!
In some religious traditions, if the fetus endangers the life of the
mother, abortion is not a matter of choice; it is mandatory!
The conflict over abortion is not between "secularists" and "religionists,"
between "moral" people who value life and "immoral" people who do
not, but between different moral traditions, different understandings of
the sacredness of life.
According to some religious traditions, the sacredness of life can be
diminished far more by callousness to those already born than to the unborn,
however precious their promise.
These religious traditions believe that the sacredness of life requires
in some circumstances that the woman's well-being takes precedence over
that of the fetus.
Legislation that denies a woman's choice is objectionable not because
it limits some abstract notion of unrestrained freedom, but because it may
inflict irreparable damage to the human dignity of the woman who is carrying
the fetus.
Judaism affirms that nascent life has great value.
But it is not the only value.
In the face of the kind of desperation that drives women to risk their
lives and mutilate their bodies rather than carry the fetus to term, no one
has the right to say that other conflicting values do not exist.
When faced with such conflicting values, individuals should be able
to turn to their own moral traditions or religious faith for guidance.
Government has no business preempting that very personal process,
leaving women trapped without a choice.
We do not propose that a particular religious view of abortion find
expression in legislation. That would be violating someone else's religious
freedom. And many people's moral choices regarding abortion are deeply
personal, and not determined by any particular religious tradition.
In the face of such great moral and religious diversity, the proper role
of government in a free society is to allow different traditions to advocate
their respective views, and to leave the decision to the woman, answering
to God and to her conscience.
This

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283864 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Jewish faith against abortion, as it stands now?
Officals of the Jewish faith do NOT want to legislate their religous views. Period.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283865 Feb 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>

It is that some of us need a new heart :)
And some of you need a new brain along with some common sense to go with it.
Anonymous

United States

#283866 Feb 14, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
"the moon shall not cause her light to shine" indicates the moon has it's own light. Of course you're always right when it comes to deciding what the bible means.
Feces, may I call you feces? When I had my transformation from God, over 12 years ago, and was lead to read the bible, there came a time when I had to decide if I was going to believe, some, most, or all of my bible was inspired by God. I decided if only one word in my bible was wrong, then I would question every word. When it speaks of the moon, it speaks of the sun. It refers to the sun as him, and moon as her. Almost as the two are married, and one needs the other, but even if my bible said that "the moon gives off its own light, without any help from the sun or any other source, then I would stand on that fact,regaurdless of what science or any other source says. Plus the bible MUST be rightly divided, line upon line, precept upon precept. The bible is not one book, but many books, written over many many years, by many different men. My conversion was kinda like that of pauls, with many exceptions.
He truly believed what he believed in, and was struck down and showed the truth, which was the exact opposite of what he believed. I was woken up by this same God, and showed the truth, which was the exact opposite of what I believed.

I was a sinner on my way to Hell
I am now a sinner on my way to Heaven.

The difference is Jesus Christ.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283867 Feb 14, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. I couldn't be more right.
<quoted text>
Of course not. But WITH ALS it is viable. That's the whole point !
<quoted text>
WRONG. ALS cannot "bring" it to viability. It is impossible. If it has to "reach" viability that means it is not yet viable. If it is NOT viable, it cannot survive no matter what ALS is applied. In order for a physician to decide to apply ALS he must first determine the infant to be VIABLE. He will not apply ALS to an infant he has deemed to be NON VIABLE. By definition, an infant cannot "reach" viability with ALS because an infant that is not yet viable will not...and cannot survive no matter what ALS is applied.
A not so subtle, indisputable point you refuse to concede.
<quoted text>
Being right is a great aphrodisiac.
<quoted text>
I couldn't be prouder
<major fist pump>
They just don't get it.

STO said of your position: "His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable."

You never said that. You have repeatedly said that if the infant dies despite being on ALS, then it was not viable, which is a fact.

Determining viability of a [fetus] isn't about an infant needing to "reach" viability, because the determination is about a fetus, and the physicians would have determined viable or non-viable before birth. Once born, if they believe the infant has a chance to survive then yes, ALS will be used, but, if that infant dies, then obviously it wasn't a "viable infant". They're interchanging viability of both a fetus anf infant. When determining viability of a fetus, it's not about a born infant needing to reach viability, it's about a fetus having reached it before birth. It's the potential of that fetus to survive after being born, with or without medical help.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283868 Feb 14, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Officals of the Jewish faith do NOT want to legislate their religous views. Period.
Here's a better question, one that never seems to occur to them in their zeal to accuse you of not "living your faith". Is there any prohibition in Judaism to being pro-choice? To supporting the rights of other women, and especially non-Jewish women, to make their own choice?

See, this is something that the Catholics, especially, don't understand here. Because their church leadership wants to control even their followers own private thoughts on every subject, and wishes for their dogma to be the law of the land, they pretend that it's against their religion to say that any woman, even a non-Catholic woman, should not have to follow RCC dogma, and should be free to make her own choice. They don't seem to understand that not all religions work this way. That not all religions expect those who are not a part of them to follow them. The RCC obviously does NOT believe in free will.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283869 Feb 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I be cooperative with a disrespectful ingrate such as yourself? I'm done with your ad homs and aggressive arguing. You do not debate, you viciously attack. Any ounce of empathy I may have had for you at one time has dissipated into thin air.
I gave you a hint to look into fetal brain development. If I can find it so can you.
Why should you allow how anyone else posts to you to determine whether or not you'll substantiate your claims? You're using it as an excuse not to, and it's obvious why.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283870 Feb 14, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between "viable" and "viability" They mean the same thing. One is a noun and one is an adjective. But their meaning is identical.
She makes these outrageous statements....unsubstantiated. ....and never bothers to explain them or back them up. Just leaves them hanging out there like a big matzo ball.
Exactly. Her newest one is claiming amniotic fluid has an anesthetic. She wouldn't substantiate her claim, I provided the chemical make up of amniotic fluid,(nothing that's an anesthetic), and she's still making excuses as to why she won't prove her own claim. Anything from expecting me to prove it for her by looking it up myself, which I did to prove her wrong; to her claiming she won't prove her claim because I'm not civil to her. Whether or not they're civil to PLers doesn't stop us from proving our claims arew a fact, because when we're right, we're right, and their behavior toward us has nothing to do with it.

She's a mental case.

.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283871 Feb 14, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I'm PC ? Where the hell did THAT come from ?
Like I said n prior post; she's a mental case.

Add to that the fact that she posts lies, she doesn't pay attention, she can't read for comprehension, doesn't have adult intelligence to understand anything posted here or that she reads online and brings in here, and the list goes on and on.

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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min woodtick57 1,126,766
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 4 hr Chuck 19,382
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 11 hr Just Saying 54,521
STEVE DeBAUGH (May '12) Wed Steve 2
Baltimore on Orkin Rattiest City List Oct 21 numberonepestcont... 1
Need help to get down! Oct 20 sweetenvy 1
Review: Atas Marc J Oct 20 Briansaul 5
Baltimore Dating
Find my Match

Baltimore Jobs

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]