Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Judged:

Lucy in the Sky wrote:

<quoted text>
There are many in the antichoice community who believe that contraception is equal to abortion and are against the use of any contraceptive device or medicine. Also, they believe that abstinence until heterosexual marriage is absolute; that copulation is only for reproduction. Those who embrace this ideology are major stumbling blocks to realistically reducing abortions. People need age appropriate, comprehensive sex education. Period.
I would add that there needs to be better media literacy so that kids don't buy into the fantasy lifestyles of celebrities, the delusions of slick advertisements and the fashion circus that frames young girls and young women as sex objects.

Well said...although there are those here that still don't 'get it'...

..........with diamonds !

cat

Dennis Deal wrote:

<quoted text>
That is the best you can do? Seriously? Really?
News flash for you scooter.. Your book of myths has no say in U.S. law.. Roe V Wade.. What wonderful decision for 36 years and counting

and counting !

C Hamilton

Since: Sep 07

13,870

Sycamore, IL

Judged:

One shot One Kill wrote:

<quoted text>
Weak and unworthy.
NEXT.

In other words -- you can't come up with a logical cover so you deploy the evade/avoid strategy. Got it!

cat

Judged:

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>In other words -- you can't come up with a logical cover so you deploy the evade/avoid strategy. Got it!

Nothing you can get used to-but that was 8 years of Bush WhiteHouse....evade/avoid and I'll add-lie.

what

Nashville, TN

Judged:

How can we expect these kids to NOT act out sexually when they are constantly bombarded with sexual imagery and content which sends the message "it's o.k. Everyone else is doing it, it's no big deal." Couple that with their hormones and they will have a lot of casual sex. And it doesn't even take a lot of sex to result in a pregnancy. Kids already know about "safe sex." They have easy access to birth control. The fact is they don't use it. If you ask me, they know enough about sex already. They just don't apply what they know very well. Kids already have sex education, yet evidence is conflicting as to whether this is helping reduce teenage pregnancy or not.
Lucy, I absolutely agree with you about training young girls to become sex objects. It needs to stop, but unfortunately, sex sells, so this kind of thing is only going to get more prevalent.

FaceTheTruth

Cpetr13 wrote:

Really? Where does it say that?
<quoted text>

14th amendment.

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

33,091

Indianapolis

Judged:

What you can't refute, you dismiss. Childish and moronic.

One shot One Kill wrote:

<quoted text>
Weak and unworthy.
NEXT.

FaceTheTruth

Cpetr13 wrote:

Abortion is the eviction of an unwanted tenant. Once the eviction proceeds, the landlord doesn't have to care about the squatter.
<quoted text>

I don't think that's the analogy you were really looking for. During an eviction, the landlord is not permitted to kill the "squatter".

cat

Judged:

Most teenagers, by the way, do NOT have any idea about sex. The 'girls' think they cannot get pregnant when they have their period. They think they cannot get pregnant if their 'partner' pulls out. They think they cannot get pregnant if they douche after intercourse.
Teens today are no different then teens of other generations. Those that absolutely do not want to take a chance - have oral sex-very popular with teens (even pre teens). These teens don't know about the STD's from oral sex-they think that intercourse is the ONLY way you can contract a sexually transmitted disease.
They're educated? I think not.
Do they need to be educated-yes.
Way too many teen pregnancies.(Way too many abortions-and I am pro choice).

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

33,091

Indianapolis

Usually, the same people who object to abortion also object to factual sex ed being taught in schools, especially contraception and prophylaxis. The point is not to swell the welfare ranks but to diminish the number of unwanted and unsupported children.

BTW--the GOP has fought abortion AND welfare programs.

what wrote:

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:
"I really CAN see where you're coming from.
That's why I'll never understand, feeling as you do, why you won't look for wats in which we can DECREASE the numbers fo abortions in this country, since you're not going to change the law...you've been at that battle for 30 years and have gotten no where.
Millions of dollars ahve been raised and wasted in thatwar.
So why not work together to reduce abortions?
And while you're at ti, since you are so into God, why not make some noise about the millions of unwanted, abused, and starving children in our own country? You know ,the ones that are actually living outside the womb."
I really appreciate that someone on here is willing to see where I am coming from. Thank you so much, you have restored my faith in pro-choicers. I am really glad to know that not all of them are as cold and empty and heartless as Cpet and cat are.
Noise is being made about the millions of unwanted, abused, and starving children in our own country. It is a myth that pro-choicers don't care about the baby once born. I don't see how people believe that one. Active pro-lifers do seek ways to reduce abortions. Not only do we have government programs designed to keep people from starving, these programs are very generous and actually allow poor people nearly the same standard of living as those on the bottom rung of the working, tax-paying population. I know, because I used to be on these government programs.
Not only that but there are many charities out there who assist people in all kinds of need. Many churches either have their own charity or contribute to one. I am not sure how you can have your cake and eat it too, I mean pro-lifers are condemned for fighting to get legislation passed to reduce the number of abortions commited, yet you are telling me that pro-lifers don't try to find ways to reduce abortions. Um, maybe you could clarify your point?

FaceTheTruth

Judged:

Cpetr13 wrote:

I don't care about your morals. The government doesn't care about them, and no pregnant woman has to care about them.
And no, RvW doesn't allow abortion to be outlawed. it restricts access in the third trimester to medical cases, but it does not outlaw them.
<quoted text>

You don't understand RvW. RvW does not restrict any access to abortion, but it permits states to do so, in the third trimester, for cases not covered by the medical exclusion. The prohibition is by the state - not RvW. If a state decides to permit abortion up until delivery, for any reason, RvW does not prohibit this.

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

33,091

Indianapolis

Judged:

Which has nothing to do with fetuses.

FaceTheTruth wrote:

<quoted text>
14th amendment.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

FaceTheTruth

Judged:

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Where does it say that?
You know a fetus isn't a person under the law...right?

If I can get a judge to decide YOU are not a person, does that make you not a person?

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

33,091

Indianapolis

During an eviction, the LOE has the right to use force to remove the squatter. If there's a hurricane outside and the squatter gets impaled with a palm tree, it's not the responsibility of the owner or the LOE.

FaceTheTruth wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think that's the analogy you were really looking for. During an eviction, the landlord is not permitted to kill the "squatter".

FaceTheTruth

Dennis Deal wrote:

<quoted text>
Your morality has nothing to do with this. Nor does you what you believe is right. Neither does mine or any any ones.
A woman making a choice on her reproduction is what this is about. Everything else is really not any one business. including what option she takes.
The beauty of RVW is that it demand that a pregnant woman must be responsible for her choice.
Think about that. A right to decide with referring to a government, organization, religious or secular, Not having to refer to any person or persons.. Having to make the decision regardless of what it is and taking ownership of that decision.
That is the heart of Roe V Wade. Being personally responsible for a decision that will affect her life.
With no one being able to tell her no. regardless of what that decision is for her.

Allow me to paraphrase:

Your morality has nothing to do with this. Nor does you what you believe is right. Neither does mine or any any ones.

A slaveholder making a choice on his property is what this is about. Everything else is really not any one business. including what option he takes.

The beauty of Dred Scott vs. Sandford is that it allows a slaveholder control over his property.
Think about that. A right to decide without referring to a government, organization, religious or secular, Not having to refer to any person or persons.. Having to make the decision regardless of what it is and taking ownership of that decision.
That is the heart of Dred Scott. Being in control of decisions that affect his life.
With no one being able to tell him no, regardless of what that decision is for him.

This used to be considered a valid argument for slavery. You've reprised it well.

FaceTheTruth

ProCHoice666 wrote:

You're missing the point. Nobody is disputing the historical record of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. What I have repeatedly maintained is that just because a government enacts a law or judgment does not make it moral or right. The examples of slavery and Nazi Germany make this clear.>>
You don't know your history very well!
The slavery in Nazi Germany was ordered by mr. Hitler, who was a "christian." He was following the bible, which endorses slavery. Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education.
Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians.
The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus.
Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years.
The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book,“On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.
Read Mr. Luther's hateful tome right here:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showca...
Keep in mind that Mr. Luther was the "father" of the protestant church, splitting from the catholics.
Mr Luther:
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

What are you talking about? I was talking about government, not religion. You're trying to address a point I didn't make.

FaceTheTruth

ProChoice666 wrote:

<<Actually, you are wrong in that claim. Roe v. Wade permits states to outlaw abortion under certain conditions.>>
No it doesn't...
If the woman has a health/life threatening fetus in the 2nd or third trimester, she still may abort it if that is her choice.

You are arguing with yourself again.

Let me give an example, since you're not the only person that seems to be confused about this.

If a state wants to pass a law outlawing abortion in the third trimester for the purpose of sex-selection, there is nothing in RVW that prevents them. That is an example of a state being able to outlaw abortion under certain conditions - because it does not violate the life/health exclusion.

FaceTheTruth

Judged:

Cpetr13 wrote:

Which has nothing to do with fetuses.
<quoted text>

A fetus is a child.
A child is a human being.
A human being is a person.

FaceTheTruth