Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314719 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311596 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are confused.
No, YOU are. OR, you're pretending to be, because you know I'm right.

1)Interracial marriages used to be illegal. Correct?

2)That affected not only blacks, but whites as well. Correct?

3)The law changed, and now interracial marriages are legal. Correct?

4)That means that it's NOT static. Correct?

Now, WHO needed things spelled out for them?

Now, explain to us all HOW the "pursuit of happiness" only applies to interracial marriages that were once not "within the law", but not to same sex marriages, which are legal in many places now, based upon a document that was written to get the colonists OUT OF THE LAWS of another country?

WHY should it be illegal for some adults to marry the adult they love, but not others, and how is it NOT a violation of civil rights, and equal protection under the law to not let them?

Don't you THINK before posting?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311597 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be legal consequences for anybody breaking the law except mom, she has suffered enough.
Then why make it illegal if you're not going to punish everyone breaking the law?

That is stupid.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311598 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know HOW to "spell", Witless.
All of your examples are equally illegal for EVERYONE. They are not legal for some people and illegal for others who happen to be different in some way. Right?
They are ALSO activities that infringe on the civil right of others. Tell me, HOW does it harm your civil rights if two men, or two women, are allowed to marry each other?
Again, if the "pursuit of happiness" was only ever what was within the law, we'd still be a colony of England, and not a separate country.
Why should SOME adults be allowed to marry the person they love, but others not? How is that NOT a violation of civil rights? Equal protection under the law? Is ANY of this ringing a bell for you? Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?
Wher it is legal it is allowed and where it isn't, it isn't.

As each state allows gay marriage there will be fewer and fewer complaints. Then the other oppressed groups can start there inititive for other types of marriage.

Bitner, you can marry your dog if you want. I wouldn't care.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311599 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be legal consequences for anybody breaking the law except mom, she has suffered enough.
So illegally attempting or procuring an abortion should be the only crime on earth, which has no legal consequences?

While performing or supplying one, should be punished like any other crime...specifically murder?

Really?

Wow.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311600 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Current and changing laws, are allowing more people to pursue happiness. Winning!!
True.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311601 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU are. OR, you're pretending to be, because you know I'm right.
1)Interracial marriages used to be illegal. Correct?
2)That affected not only blacks, but whites as well. Correct?
3)The law changed, and now interracial marriages are legal. Correct?
4)That means that it's NOT static. Correct?
Now, WHO needed things spelled out for them?
Now, explain to us all HOW the "pursuit of happiness" only applies to interracial marriages that were once not "within the law", but not to same sex marriages, which are legal in many places now, based upon a document that was written to get the colonists OUT OF THE LAWS of another country?
WHY should it be illegal for some adults to marry the adult they love, but not others, and how is it NOT a violation of civil rights, and equal protection under the law to not let them?
Don't you THINK before posting?
All correct but you are confused that I said something I didn't.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311602 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Without looking it up I would say because blacks were considered inferior. Unfortunately, a long held untruth.
They weren't considered equal. Yep. They had no equal protection under the law, despite the fact that they were citizens of this country and entitled to such. Well guess what? So are LGBT people.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311603 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people have forgotten the original reason doesn't mean that you can make up a reason to suit your agenda. I gave you the history behind the tax exenmption and you can choose to ignore it. That's fine.
Ink, you gave one man's interpretation of the history behind the tax exemption, and I took issue with it. I didn't ignore it, I rebutted it.

It's called 'debate'.

If I have an agenda, it's keeping The separation of Church and State: because it is a fundamental precept of our Constitution.

That it keeps churches from being taxed is perfectly okay with me - as long as it works both ways, and also keeps churches from interfering with the laws of the People. Somehow, it seems the people are getting the very short end of the stick.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311604 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Wher it is legal it is allowed and where it isn't, it isn't.
As each state allows gay marriage there will be fewer and fewer complaints. Then the other oppressed groups can start there inititive for other types of marriage.
Bitner, you can marry your dog if you want. I wouldn't care.
Thank you, for admitting that same sex marriage being illegal IS a question of the oppression of someone's civil rights.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311605 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>So illegally attempting or procuring an abortion should be the only crime on earth, which has no legal consequences?
While performing or supplying one, should be punished like any other crime...specifically murder?
Really?
Wow.
When has it ever been prosecuted?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311606 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
All correct but you are confused that I said something I didn't.
No, I'm not.

Oh, but please, do "enlighten" me on what that was.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311607 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Ink, you gave one man's interpretation of the history behind the tax exemption, and I took issue with it. I didn't ignore it, I rebutted it.
It's called 'debate'.
If I have an agenda, it's keeping The separation of Church and State: because it is a fundamental precept of our Constitution.
That it keeps churches from being taxed is perfectly okay with me - as long as it works both ways, and also keeps churches from interfering with the laws of the People. Somehow, it seems the people are getting the very short end of the stick.
So you think the exemption given to the churches in 1894 was due to the fear of churches influencing the government rather than because of the charity work they did to care for people who had no one to care for them.

Okay have it your way.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311608 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not.
Oh, but please, do "enlighten" me on what that was.
I have no idea what you 'thought' I said.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311609 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, for admitting that same sex marriage being illegal IS a question of the oppression of someone's civil rights.


You're welcome but I also consider polygamous groups, incestous groups and those who want to marry a different species to be oppressed. They will all have their day in court.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311610 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you 'thought' I said.
You said that same sex marriage was not a question of civil rights. Yes?
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311611 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why make it illegal if you're not going to punish everyone breaking the law?
That is stupid.
I'm not making it illegal. It was a hypothetical question posed to me. Maybe that's why you are confused.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311612 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't considered equal. Yep. They had no equal protection under the law, despite the fact that they were citizens of this country and entitled to such. Well guess what? So are LGBT people.
You don't say.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311613 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You're welcome but I also consider polygamous groups, incestous groups and those who want to marry a different species to be oppressed. They will all have their day in court.
A different species can't consent to a marriage contract. You should know this.

Incest is only illegal to a certain point (for example, I believe second cousins can marry), and only because it's too small a gene pool. And that's a fairly recent phenomenon, by the way.

There is no reason to make polygamy illegal where all parties are consenting adults.

Your bigotry (as evidenced in this grumpy tone of defeat) is duly noted.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311614 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not making it illegal. It was a hypothetical question posed to me. Maybe that's why you are confused.
If you truly didn't understand that I was not saying you, personally, then you're even more stupid than I thought.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311615 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't say.
Then your original position that same sex marriage does not fall into the same civil rights category as rights for blacks, was wrong.

Here's a reminder...it's time to inhale and exhale again.

Or, perhaps it's already too late. After your posts today, it seems as though your brain is completely oxygen starved, and in a vegetative state already.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr VetnorsGate 1,549,439
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 18 hr True That 20,946
Juvenile facility (Montrose School or others) i... (Aug '06) Jun 24 Karen M 417
News 6 miners in Utah remain trapped - (Aug '07) Jun 23 indict dick cheney 3
Elizabeth Warren Jun 21 Fitius T Bluster 5
work from home and earn real cash as an interne... Jun 21 sil123 1
News Memories of 'the Village,' as it used to be (Sep '08) Jun 21 Sarah 2nd Grade 16

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages