Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,097
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

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287668 Mar 3, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so very, very right. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child. However, you will get no where with this one. She is firmly in the grasp of Satan. She has been risding that fence forever. she thinks she is clever but it is clear by her own words that she supprots the right of a woman to chose an abortion to kill her unborn child. She has said this, yet claims she hasn't.
Sadly, your kind words are wasted on many if not most of these pagans. They place no value on any life but their own. They have no special feelings aobut sex, other than the immediate carnel pleasrue it gives them. Even pagan gay Vladdy claims his annonymous gay sex is good for you. How is that for sad.
Much like the crazy ocaen woman who hates her womanhood, these are people who should not be parents. They can't even manage their own lives.
God Be with you!
"these are people who should not be parents".

Then why would you support forcing birth on people like "them"? Genius.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287669 Mar 3, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
No you pagan twit, fetal homicede is the crime, not the cause of death. The caaus of death could be due to a variety of things. The point is other than a "legalized killing"(legal abortion) of an unborn child, all other killings are prosecuted by local authorities. You cannot find one case in which the authorities didnot press charges.
You pagans are not only vile and evil, you are dense.
"Ok, the coronor determines the cause of death. In this case, fetal himicide to you pagans". The genius strikes again.
Ocean56

AOL

#287670 Mar 3, 2013
The Prince wrote:
Much like the crazy ocean woman who hates her womanhood, these are people who should not be parents. They can't even manage their own lives.
Still posting the same LIES, I see, Tommydumdum. Why am I not surprised.

Just because a woman makes her OWN sexual and reproductive decisions instead of allowing some toxic religious institution to make those personal choices FOR her certainly doesn't mean she "hates her womanhood." I certainly don't hate mine. I just don't choose to make myself into a mindless baby factory for church OR state. Don't like it? Too bleeping bad.

Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required, and if a woman DOESN'T want pregnancy or children (or any MORE children), that is HER decision and none of your business.
Ocean56

AOL

#287671 Mar 3, 2013
Mentally, the right-wing misogynist guys (like "theprince" and company) are stuck in the 19th century and can't seem to get past it. In his essay "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:

"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."

**********

I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.

This is exactly the type of injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. These guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers.
Ocean56

AOL

#287672 Mar 3, 2013
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --

-- Girls got much less education than boys did.

-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.

-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.

-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.

-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.

-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.

-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.

-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.

-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.

-- Women were not allowed to vote.

-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.


In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.
Ocean56

AOL

#287673 Mar 3, 2013
Since this is the first weekend of Women's History Month, I thought it would be a good idea to post a few thoughts FROM women. Such as:

**********

Woman and the New Race, by Margaret Sanger, 1920

http://www.questia.com/library/1461039/woman-...


1. "Most women who belong to the workers' families have no accurate or reliable knowledge of contraceptives, and are, therefore, bringing children into the world so rapidly that they, their families and their class are overwhelmed with numbers."

2. "The deadly chain of misery is all too plain to anyone who takes the trouble to observe it. A woman of the working class marries and with her husband lives in a degree of comfort upon his earnings. Her household duties are not beyond her strength. Then the children begin to come -- one, two, three, four, possibly five or more. The earnings of the husband do not increase as the family rapidly does. Food, clothing and general comfort in the home grow less as the numbers of the family increase. The woman's work grows heavier, and her strength is less with each child. Possibly -- probably -- she has to go into a factory to add to her husband's earnings. There she toils, doing her housework at night. Her health goes, and the crowded conditions and lack of necessities in the home help to bring about disease -- especially tuberculosis. Under the circumstances, the woman's chances of recovering from each succeeding childbirth grow less. Less too are the chances of the child's surviving."


3. "As far back as 1900, I began to inquire of my associates what one could tell these worried women who asked constantly:'What can I do?' It is the voice of the elemental urge of woman -- it has always been there; and whether we have heeded it or neglected it, we have always heard it. Out of this cry came the birth control movement. Economic conditions have naturally made this elemental need more plain; sometimes they have lent a more desperate to woman's cry for freedom.... But the birth control movement as a movement for woman's basic freedom was born of that unceasing cry of the socially repressed, spiritually stifled woman who is constantly demanding:'what can I do to avoid more children?'

After a year's study in foreign countries for the purpose of supplementing the knowledge gained in my fourteen years as a nurse, I came back to the United States determined to open a clinic. I had decided that there could be no better way of demonstrating to the public the necessity of birth control and the welcome it would receive than by taking the knowledge of contraceptive methods directly to those who most needed it."
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287674 Mar 3, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>"these are people who should not be parents".
Then why would you support forcing birth on people like "them"? Genius.
I would support them sterilizing themselves.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287675 Mar 3, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, and you're not stupid about what happens when a woman chooses to end her pregnancy.
A human life must be killed, in order for her to undo her pregnancy.
You are FOR the ending of human life. Plain and simple.
Not true. I support a woman's right to make her own choice regarding her own uterus and pregnancy. Period.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287676 Mar 3, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still posting the same LIES, I see, Tommydumdum. Why am I not surprised.
Just because a woman makes her OWN sexual and reproductive decisions instead of allowing some toxic religious institution to make those personal choices FOR her certainly doesn't mean she "hates her womanhood." I certainly don't hate mine. I just don't choose to make myself into a mindless baby factory for church OR state. Don't like it? Too bleeping bad.
Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required, and if a woman DOESN'T want pregnancy or children (or any MORE children), that is HER decision and none of your business.
What country do you live in that you think anyone, Church or otherwise is forcing children on mothers? The US is a free country and we can all make our own decisions.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287677 Mar 3, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't judging you at all. It's not my place to judge anyone as I leave that up to God. If that's what you got from what I wrote then you've misunderstood what I've written. To make a long story short, I feel that given the fact that you carried on an extra marital affair for a long time which resulted in child outside of your marriage and that you only managed to let God into your life when you were caught up, you're really not in a position to lecture anyone about God, sin and the sanctity of marriage.
Of course, you're free to share your story. However, given your history, do you really believe that people take you seriously when you speak about the importance of marriage, marital fidelity, raising children in a 2 family home, sin and God? Think about it this way. If people are discussing the importance of those things, who do you think people are going to take seriously? A couple, both of whom have been spiritual since they were young, who have been married, faithful, and had their 2 children while married to each other for over 30 years or a couple whose been married for 30 years but the husband carried on a long term relationship with another woman which resulted in a child being born out of that relationship and the husband discovered God after he got caught with his pants down?
It sounds like you believe in God and if you do then you would know that God loves all His children especially those sinners who see the light and ask for His help.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287678 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. I support a woman's right to make her own choice regarding her own uterus and pregnancy. Period.
Do you think it would be a better choice to either use BC or have themselves sterilized if they don't want children or do you think abortion is a better answer?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287679 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think it would be a better choice to either use BC or have themselves sterilized if they don't want children or do you think abortion is a better answer?
Irrelevant. I support a woman's RIGHT to make her OWN choice regarding her uterus and pregnancy. How I may feel about the choices has nothing to do with it. What part of that don't you understand?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#287680 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's no man. That's the forum's admitted liar, Knutter, AKA Knit and Pray, AKA Huskerlicious, etc.
I should've known. Knutter is the one obsessed with weight. If it bothers her so much she should just address her own weight issues and stop projecting.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#287681 Mar 3, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh. I mentioned California because that's where Peterson was tried. There are other states that similarly do not restrict potential fetal homicide charges to a limited fetal age.
Ya see....it's post like these that demonstrate why I would never have any post of yours removed.....and why I would never want to.
I only asked a question. No need to get pompous.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287682 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you another idiot who thinks a clinical breast exam is NOT cancer screening?
No but I also think that 'cancer screening' can be thought of as mammograms. In fact many women think that they do mammograms.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287683 Mar 3, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I should've known. Knutter is the one obsessed with weight. If it bothers her so much she should just address her own weight issues and stop projecting.
She's a hatefilled, shallow thing alright. I keep pointing out that I can always lose weight, but that she'll always be ugly on the inside, no matter what she looks like on the outside.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287684 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. I support a woman's RIGHT to make her OWN choice regarding her uterus and pregnancy. How I may feel about the choices has nothing to do with it. What part of that don't you understand?
Just wondering if you think it is better to use BC than to depend on abortion to fix things.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#287685 Mar 3, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Again.....I never saw the posts. I can't respond to what I don't see. And after others pointed out that the posts did exist I acknowledged you in fact did answer. I did not perpetuate my lie claim. Hell, knowing the posts had been removed I even asked you to personal message me the post or the post #. Sound like someone who wants to continue claiming you lie and evade ?
<quoted text>
Once again if my sole intent was to claim you were evading how was I supposed to get away with it since posts need to be up and visible before they can be removed. There were several here who saw the posts and said so. You have yet to establish any plausible motivation on my part to have some harmless benign posts of yours removed. Frankly you are a lightweight who poses little challenge and your responses aren't difficult at all to rip apart. So why would I pick your posts to remove ? All I've ever done on this forum unlike other cowards like Bitter, Vladdy and the pseudo nurse, is to answer every question that's ever been directed to me.....and answer them directly.
<quoted text>
Knock yourself out.
By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)
"By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)"

I did answer....twice. Obviously you don't think I addressed this question adequately. I will concede that I may not be understanding what you're asking. It sounds convoluted. Let me try to clarify your question....

The Court did not know the answer to the question of when life begins.
You feel if they did however answer that question, they would possibly make a ruling on RvW that opposed their current ruling. You also think that perhaps they did really know the answer since they were able to claim when life does *not* begin.

Okay, what criteria did they use to decide when life does *not* begin? That was part of my original answer. Life begins at conception (imo), but when does that life pass from being simply functioning cells to a living being/person. If you killed off an amoeba would you really care about the loss of that life? Yet, if you killed off the cells just hours after conception some people here would call that the murder of a human being...so it's not about what the z/e/f is at the time of an abortion, but what it is meant to become. The dividing line is that some people will say it's a zygote or an embryo...no more than that, while others say it's a human being or a "potential" human being.

The Court deals with law, but their opinions/decisions have to be based on something more concrete than just the concept of law. The Court can claim it is a human "being", a person, at the moment of conception and so abortion would then become murder at any stage of gestation, but the court still needs a concrete foundation on which to base that decision.

The zygote/embryo is human, no question there, but it comes back to the question of: is an unborn human a "person" or a "being" and I think that is the huge fork in the road.

So what criteria did the Court use to decide when life "does not begin"?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#287686 Mar 3, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
It is still cruel male mutilation that is a pagan custom that should be stopped. No one is advocating the cutting of a females c!it. However, these pagan women seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to mutilate male children for the enjoyment of the woman.
Hypocrisy and inhumane. Not fit to be mothers.
Are you stupid enough to think that fathers aren't involved in this decision? Are there no Christian males who have been circumcised? When a couple has a male baby in the hospital they are asked if they plan on circumcision. It isn't a pagan thing, or a woman thing...it has become a cultural thing.

Get a clue, Ass.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#287687 Mar 3, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --
-- Girls got much less education than boys did.
-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.
-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.
-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.
-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.
-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.
-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.
-- Women were not allowed to vote.
-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.
In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.
The fundies don't ever want to face these facts.

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) 18 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,156,054
Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) 8 hr Keyeport resident 5
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Bently 19,568
snapchat usernames! (Nov '13) Thu anermagicman 104
Viagra may work for women, too (Jul '08) Dec 24 Teras 25
Merry Christmas...Christ was born on December 25th Dec 23 your cuz 1
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Dec 23 Squach 120,227
Baltimore Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:16 am PST

NBC Sports11:16AM
Redskins' RG3 has full practice, probable for game - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report12:02 PM
Monroe (Ankel) Doubtful vs. Browns; Suggs, Others Questionable
NBC Sports12:13 PM
Eugene Monroe unlikely to play on Sunday
ESPN12:15 PM
Ravens' Forsett rewards linemen with TVs
NBC Sports 1:04 PM
Romo, Cowboys not backing off against Redskins - NBC Sports