Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313390 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.

Ocean56

AOL

#239087 May 18, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
Why are Christians the most judgmental people on these forums? They are supposed to emulate Jesus Christ and yet it doesn't appear that they even make an effort to do so.
Great question, Elise! I think it's because they seriously believe themselves to be "superior" to everyone else and don't have to emulate the person they CLAIM to follow. That attitude is shown most often by the militant religionist kooks like sASSy, knutter, tomtom, and others here.
Ocean56

AOL

#239088 May 18, 2012
Tom Tom wrote:
Again with your toxic church, blah, blah blah. You must really hate your life to have such a large log up your ass all these years.
There must be something much deeper going on. You are really quite crazed over all of this.
You hate the fact you were pregnant. You will NEVER,NEVER be pregnant again.
I am sure your child will enjoy going over all that with their therapist for the rest of their lives. Gee, thanks mom, sorry I was born.
You sound like some bratty little girl who has to consistently tell people how independent she is to avoid the reality that she doesn't believe it herself.
Find a good psychiatrist. You are one crazy woman.
Awwwwwwwww, it really pisses you off big time that women can LEAVE a toxic religious institution like the catholic church, doesn't it, goofy. Too bleeping bad.

You can keep telling yourself the idiocy you just posted if that's what makes YOU feel better. I'll go on loving the FREEDOM I have to make my OWN decisions regarding sex and reproduction while you, sASSy, knutter and other morons are still slaves to that toxic church.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239090 May 18, 2012
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>You don't decide who is and who is not in the RCC, but thanks for your pathetic arrogance again.
I was thinking the same but figured since posting to her is like talking to a wall I decided to just skip it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#239091 May 18, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove what you don't know how to read or understand? Okay.
"Legal
under any
circumstances
26%"
"Legal only
under certain
circumstances
51%"
This means (after adding 26 to 51) 77% of people support RvW because they want to see it remain legal. It is not up to anyone to determine what those certain circumstances are because these can be varied.
...
The link I left: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

""Legal
under any
circumstances
26%"
"Legal only
under certain
circumstances
51%"

This means (after adding 26 to 51) 77% of people support RvW because they want to see it remain legal. It is not up to anyone to determine what those certain circumstances are because these can be varied."

"Legal under certain circumstances" is NOT saying they want it legal under ALL circumstances or even up to viability. It also doesn't prove Chicky's claim that 77% of ALL PEOPLE support Roe v Wade. Also 1st tri-mester is not supporting RvW which goes to viability.

Chicky's claim wasn't about 77% of all people [polled], not about 77% of Catholics, not about 77% of people with pets etc.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
#238940
"77% of all people support Roe v Wade."

77% of [all] people...

I told her she needed to prove her claim and of course she couldn't.

I provided stats of people [polled] and even of people [polled] there wasn't any 77% that "support Roe v Wade", and the numbers you fools added together to make it seem like 77% support RvW, because supposedly that's the percentage that want it to remain legal, is also not proven. 26% support legal under [any] circumstance.
The other 51% of people polled saying they support it being legal only under [certain circumstances] isn't something you can reasonably add to those who support it being legal under [any] circumstance. Reason: RvW allows for legal up to viability, not just in 1st tri-mester.

Then there was the section after the numbers you quoted that stated,
"Legal under any circumstance: 26%"

Legal under most circumstances: 13%" for a combined total of 49% not 77% of people polled.(Again, Chicky's claim was [all people], not all people [polled] and 49% isn't 77%.

The next said "legal under only [a few] circumstances: 38%". What are those FEW circumstances?

Trend under what circumstances:
47% of people [polled] claimed to be pro-choice, 47% claimed to be pro-life.

39% of those polled want laws to remain as is.
9% less strict
9% remain the same which is [57% combined total] of those polled who support RvW.
That's also not 77% of those polled who support RvW, and certainly not 77 of "ALL people".

28% want stricter laws.
15% no opinion.
That's a total of 43% polled who [don't] "support RvW". So there's not 77% polled who do support it.

69% favor women waiting 24 hours before having an abortion. 71% want under 18 to have parental consent. 50% favor a law requiring women to be shown ultra sound image before abortion. A constitutional ammmendment to ban abortion in all circumstances except to save life of mother, 61% oppose. That's still not 77% of all people.

There were people who supported one thing or the other but you lame brains here think you can add the numbers to try to come up with 77% of [people polled] and that STILL wouldn't prove Chicky's claim that 77% of ALL people support Roe v Wade.

The only thing that came close to her 77% was the post she made about [Catholics polled], and that was just about those who disagreed that BC was wrong.

As it is and after all the hemming and hawing the PC did about the numbers, still not one of you has proven "77% of [all] people] support Roe v Wade." You tried to use the info on the link I provided and failed. I provided that to prove that there isn't even a 77% of those [polled] who support RvW.



“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#239092 May 18, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
I was being mean, huh, Foo. I know it. But I'm not sorry. Nope not one bit. She spends so much time posting how intelligent and unbonehead-like she and all her buddies are that once there was an opportunity to highlight reality, well, I seized it. My bad.
<snicker>
You seized and failed to highlight reality again, bonehead. You have yet to prove anything but what an ignorant buffoon, and liar you are.

By the way, while displaying what an ignorant buffoon you are about stats, you conveniently ignored another post I made, directed to you.

~So Katie, instead of posting stupid remarks that don't serve any purpose except to display your ineptitude in debate, how about you try doing what the grown-ups do and refute what was said?
What exactly is incorrect in what I stated about what you people have said?

They don't see the hypocrisy in their idea of "choice", "personal autonomy", as Katie ignorantly calls it, "civil rights", "medical privacy"...
Most of them say their personal opinion of the cut off point is at "viability".
Of course for Petey and Chicky, they would interpret that to mean once the human life is born and surviving without medical assistance. Although, how their definition of viablity would have anything to do with the [abortion] issue is a detail that highlights their lack of logic and one they try to ignore. Unless they both believe that the human life can still be aborted after being born.???
According to Katie, it's still a fetus once born,[before] 1st breath and cord is cut, so I don't know how that factors into Petey's and Chicky's idiocy about viability. Because, if viability is [born and surviving *without* medical assistance], then every newborn at 9 months gestation wouldn't be viable, since they ALL need assistance getting that first breath and having that cord cut. Again???
Then these boneheads think we're the ones not understanding their so-called facts, when we're the ones seeing there's no sense in their senselessness. "~

Come back with specifics of what I posted that's inaccurate.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#239093 May 18, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I hate that song, dislike disco, but Summer had a beautiful voice and she was an admirable woman. She was an accomplished painter.. who knew?
I used to hate it, but I heard an interview with the writer of the song, and became more intrigued by it. Did you know it was about Linda Ronstadt's cousin?

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php...

Personally, I think the guy got some of that bad acid at Woodstock....

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#239094 May 18, 2012
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
You and all the other Christian hating culture of death pagans, would find that quite funny. What a sick and twisted mind you pagans have.
Yes, I do find it HYSTERICAL that idiots like you think that story's true.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239095 May 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh look, SASSY goes by "Ralph" now. LMAO!
It's either her or Doc Puppet. Imagine. An anti- choice troll. It's what they do best. Pretend there are more of their ilk than there are.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#239096 May 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>babbling bullshit deleted for stupidity....... You tried to use the info on the link I provided and failed. I provided that to prove that there isn't even a 77% of those [polled] who support RvW.
Yes folks, Lynne really IS this stupid! LOL!

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239097 May 18, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>Let me guess: you're talking about Lynnie-poo, right?
It's is pretty obvious isn't it?

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239098 May 18, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>Math was never Lynnie's strong point. It doesn't help that she's a DOTDS :-/
Yeah that DOTDS does seem to stunt.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239099 May 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>YOU WRITE porn, and about children! Sick pervert!
She is a disquieting pig.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239100 May 18, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>Duuuuuuh.

What a duuuuunce you are.

WOW.
Freaking hilarious. She ran away early yesterday. She will be gone for a while.
grumpy

New City, NY

#239101 May 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The link I left: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
""Legal
under any
circumstances
26%"
"Legal only
under certain
circumstances
51%"
This means (after adding 26 to 51) 77% of people support RvW because they want to see it remain legal. It is not up to anyone to determine what those certain circumstances are because these can be varied."
"Legal under certain circumstances" is NOT saying they want it legal under ALL circumstances or even up to viability. It also doesn't prove Chicky's claim that 77% of ALL PEOPLE support Roe v Wade. Also 1st tri-mester is not supporting RvW which goes to viability.
Chicky's claim wasn't about 77% of all people [polled], not about 77% of Catholics, not about 77% of people with pets etc.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
#238940
"77% of all people support Roe v Wade."
77% of [all] people...
I told her she needed to prove her claim and of course she couldn't.
I provided stats of people [polled] and even of people [polled] there wasn't any 77% that "support Roe v Wade", and the numbers you fools added together to make it seem like 77% support RvW, because supposedly that's the percentage that want it to remain legal, is also not proven. 26% support legal under [any] circumstance.
The other 51% of people polled saying they support it being legal only under [certain circumstances] isn't something you can reasonably add to those who support it being legal under [any] circumstance. Reason: RvW allows for legal up to viability, not just in 1st tri-mester.
Then there was the section after the numbers you quoted that stated,
"Legal under any circumstance: 26%"
Legal under most circumstances: 13%" for a combined total of 49% not 77% of people polled.(Again, Chicky's claim was [all people], not all people [polled] and 49% isn't 77%.
The next said "legal under only [a few] circumstances: 38%". What are those FEW circumstances?
Trend under what circumstances:
47% of people [polled] claimed to be pro-choice, 47% claimed to be pro-life.
39% of those polled want laws to remain as is.
9% less strict
9% remain the same which is [57% combined total] of those polled who support RvW.
That's also not 77% of those polled who support RvW, and certainly not 77 of "ALL people".
28% want stricter laws.
15% no opinion.
That's a total of 43% polled who [don't] "support RvW". So there's not 77% polled who do support it.
69% favor women waiting 24 hours before having an abortion. 71% want under 18 to have parental consent. 50% favor a law requiring women to be shown ultra sound image before abortion. A constitutional ammmendment to ban abortion in all circumstances except to save life of mother, 61% oppose. That's still not 77% of all people.
There were people who supported one thing or the other but you lame brains here think you can add the numbers to try to come up with 77% of [people polled] and that STILL wouldn't prove Chicky's claim that 77% of ALL people support Roe v Wade.
The only thing that came close to her 77% was the post she made about [Catholics polled], and that was just about those who disagreed that BC was wrong.
As it is and after all the hemming and hawing the PC did about the numbers, still not one of you has proven "77% of [all] people] support Roe v Wade." You tried to use the info on the link I provided and failed. I provided that to prove that there isn't even a 77% of those [polled] who support RvW.
Slice it any way you want. The facts remain that in both using birth control or Roe v. Wade, your views are not in line moderates in this country. You are a Fundamentalist enemy of reason.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239102 May 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>It was vile sick filth that she dreamed up and wrote all on her own and it involved the rape of children....someone's actual grandchildren! Disgusting!
Yeah. Evil too. Isn't it odd that a pure hearted, Christ-like catholic, would have those fantasies about babies while claiming to be pro life?

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239103 May 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe she secretly wants some lesbian action. She was getting all excited for awhile...like she was in some pick-up bar.
What? Another catholic hiding their sexual preferences? Nah.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#239104 May 18, 2012
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I took that train. That guy was reciting "The Lord's Prayer".
Really ? Was he also vomiting on himself and muttering something about PL believing viability begins at conception ?

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239105 May 18, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>The problem with some PLs is that they think all PCs have the exact same position on abortion rights. I believe that a woman should have the right to abort throughout her pregnancy with no restrictions. Mine is not a popular view. Most PCs agree with restrictions on LTAs, as do you. It's a compromise that I can accept, since elective LTAs aren't in high demand in the states in which they are legal.
My position is the same as yours but I am willing to accept the compromise of Roe. I simply don't believe that any entity should have the authority to limit a woman's right to make her own personal decisions concerning her own pregnancy/body. Every woman seeking an LTA is doing so in crisis and tragedy and mourning. Why should anyone be allowed to burden her further? there is simply no rational reason to do so.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239106 May 18, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>omFg!
LOLOLOLOLOL
Yeah.

Brilliant_Chicky

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#239107 May 18, 2012
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>she did scare me. not for me mind you but for any young innocent that might be left alone with her.
your chicky has serious anger management issues.
but you dismiss them with a snickering "hell hath no fury" comment. wonderful. keep posturing about the "fetus sniffers" and how people like you are the only ones that really care for the born.
typical head in the sand moron
Translates to:
"Waaaa, waaaaa, waaaaaaaaassa. I'm a loser that stole one of Chickys screen names and got caught trolling because I'm stupid and have been attacking the object of my obsession ever since. Im too idiotic to form a rational thought so ill just keep attacking the person i love and admire most...Chicky... I love you and want you....pay attention To me! Somebody help me talk about Chicky, pleeeeeaaase."

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.

Bethlehem Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min ester povington 1,498,258
Is 40 Below the best club in the Lehigh Valley?? (Apr '08) 25 min Reggie 98
News Should illegal immigrants get tuition breaks? (Apr '09) 3 hr Exam questions1 3,834
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 14 hr silly rabbit 8,023
News A sample menu for Georgia prison inmates on Fri... (Jun '09) 16 hr silly rabbit 49
News Man Charged With Rape Of Child Since Girl Was 6 (Feb '06) Sat silly rabbit 4
News Two jailed after Bethlehem incident -- themorni... (Aug '07) Feb 23 IdiotsInAmerica2017 37

Bethlehem Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bethlehem Mortgages