Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318405 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.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290222 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? China only allows one son to be drafted per family? Because that WAS what was being discussed, you know.
LOL Stupid, they are allowed only one child to be born. How the hell can they send more?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290223 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Stupid, they are allowed only one child to be born. How the hell can they send more?
Wow, sarcasm, like so much else, is obviously beyond you.

Also, that's only for urban families, and doesn't include twins, or if both parents are only children themselves.

Dammit, woman, do yourself a favor, and just stop posting. Or educate yourself. You're looking dumber by the second.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290224 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for proving you have NO idea what Sue's point was. Which, just by the way, had nothing to do with WOMEN, but FAMILIES. You witless thing, you.
I know her point. I just don't agree with it. If you want women called up for the draft, they should go when called .

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290225 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I know her point. I just don't agree with it. If you want women called up for the draft, they should go when called .
Obviously, you DON'T understand her point, or you wouldn't keep implying it was just about the women. She didn't say women shouldn't be called, just not both parent in any given family. You flocking idiot.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290226 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, sarcasm, like so much else, is obviously beyond you.
Also, that's only for urban families, and doesn't include twins, or if both parents are only children themselves.
Dammit, woman, do yourself a favor, and just stop posting. Or educate yourself. You're looking dumber by the second.
It effects 91% of the population. 91% of the population can only contribute their one and only child to the states military.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290227 Mar 24, 2013
affects

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290228 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It effects 91% of the population. 91% of the population can only contribute their one and only child to the states military.
Again, I was being sarcastic in that post, Witless.

And where does your figure of 91% come from? I seriously doubt that 91% of the population of China lives in urban areas. And even if they did, the exceptions for women carrying twins, ethnic minorities, or a couple who are both only children themselves would decrease that number further.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290229 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I was being sarcastic in that post, Witless.
And where does your figure of 91% come from? I seriously doubt that 91% of the population of China lives in urban areas. And even if they did, the exceptions for women carrying twins, ethnic minorities, or a couple who are both only children themselves would decrease that number further.
So you just don't believe that China has a one child policy. Okay, have it your way.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290230 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So you just don't believe that China has a one child policy. Okay, have it your way.
Nothing I said indicates that, Witless. In fact, I acknowledged the policy when I listed the exceptions to it. Damn, you're stupid.

What's the matter, can't tell me where you got that figure from? Who was it, that nut Jill Stanek? Or another biased site where they tell lies?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290231 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing I said indicates that, Witless. In fact, I acknowledged the policy when I listed the exceptions to it. Damn, you're stupid.
What's the matter, can't tell me where you got that figure from? Who was it, that nut Jill Stanek? Or another biased site where they tell lies?
Okay so you acknowledge the policy but claim it has no effect on the number of children drafted by the military from each family.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290232 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay so you acknowledge the policy but claim it has no effect on the number of children drafted by the military from each family.
No, I didn't make THAT claim, either, Idiot.

One, and again, for you, you stupid thing, I was being sarcastic in my post to Gtown.

Two, I simply let you know there are exceptions to that policy, and that it only affects the urban population. Then I asked you where you got that 91% figure, because it's wrong.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290234 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't make THAT claim, either, Idiot.
One, and again, for you, you stupid thing, I was being sarcastic in my post to Gtown.
Two, I simply let you know there are exceptions to that policy, and that it only affects the urban population. Then I asked you where you got that 91% figure, because it's wrong.
Well do they have a one child policy or not? You decide.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290235 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well do they have a one child policy or not? You decide.
I already acknowledged that they do, you f*cking idiot. That has nothing to do with my post. WHERE did you get that 91% figure?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#290236 Mar 24, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you're done. You're wrong. I'd say I was done too if I was as wrong as you. Why subject yourself to more ridicule ? Or put yourself in a position where you're forced to compose babbling, nonsensical responses like this one.
<quoted text>
Wrong. I love it when you do. You only demonstrate how clueless you are every time you do.
<quoted text>
Wrong again. I don't THINK it's incorrect. It IS incorrect. There is no context within which the term "reaching viability" EVER makes any sense for a born infant. NONE.
<quoted text>
I keep referring back to one specific incident ? When was that ? Find one example of me referring back to a specific incident. Again, if I KEEP doing it it shouldn't be that hard to find.
And when did I ever say you approved of infanticide ? You lie.
<quoted text>
You're done wit it alright. How many times have I heard that ?
Doc, you caused Katie to paint herself into a corner very early on in the discussion.

You turned Katie emotionally inside out. I've enjoyed witnessing the more reasonable you've become, the more unreasonable she becomes. The extent she goes to to avoid "being wrong" is interesting. She even makes things up thinking the puzzle pieces she pulls from her butt will fit the missing parts of her empty argument.

Katie was "done" after your initial two posts on the topic. She's been on defense ever since, and making an abject ass out of herself every subsequent step along the way.

Kudos. You made Katie a cat toy in record time.....and have kept your cat toy fresh for a record time period.

Klueless Katiekins is the Lindsay Lohan of Twitter.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#290237 Mar 24, 2013
* Klueless Katiekins is the Lindsay Lohan of Topix. *
Gtown71

United States

#290238 Mar 24, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I don't believe that women should go off and leave their children but it is what women want these days and I believe they will make it happen.
I'm afraid you're right.

I just believe that there are still women who doesn't want to leave their kids, do take pride in the FULL TIME JOB of keeping their house in order. They could still work or do things outside the home, but not be a slave to it.

I also believe and wish these women would stand up, and tell all the women who use the mask of equal rights as a cover for what they really want "full control ",that they've had enough.

If they're christians, then they should already know who's in control, and it is not the man or woman.

We live in an upside down world, and I will answer my own question, which is No -I don't think girls should be drafted in any way.
Gtown71

United States

#290239 Mar 24, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? China only allows one son to be drafted per family? Because that WAS what was being discussed, you know.
Yes I know. I got sidetracked making a not so funny, funny. I'll "try " to do better. But I am just a man. Lol
A very sarcastic butt head at times, man :)
Gtown71

United States

#290240 Mar 24, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
* Klueless Katiekins is the Lindsay Lohan of Topix.*
:)
I must say I've really had a laugh at ink and bitner this morning. You two going back and forth have cracked me up! Lol

I'm sure I entertain others with my butt head, sarcastic attitude many times.
I had no support growing up, what can you expect? Lol

Lindsay Lohan of topix, was the icing on the cake.

At times I picture someone "who I shall not name ",as that cartoon bulldog, with a Big Head and little body, pulling at the chain that ties her down. Lol
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290241 Mar 24, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid you're right.
I just believe that there are still women who doesn't want to leave their kids, do take pride in the FULL TIME JOB of keeping their house in order. They could still work or do things outside the home, but not be a slave to it.
I also believe and wish these women would stand up, and tell all the women who use the mask of equal rights as a cover for what they really want "full control ",that they've had enough.
If they're christians, then they should already know who's in control, and it is not the man or woman.
We live in an upside down world, and I will answer my own question, which is No -I don't think girls should be drafted in any way.
A lot of things shouldn't be but the women will insist because they never look to the future to see the possible consequences of their demands.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290242 Mar 24, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know. I got sidetracked making a not so funny, funny. I'll "try " to do better. But I am just a man. Lol
A very sarcastic butt head at times, man :)
Don't expect any pro choicer to ever get a joke. It isn't a possibility. Now she demanding where I got my figures on the people affected by the one child policy to try deflect your well made point.

In China 97% of births are first babies. That says it all.

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.

Hanover Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Joy 1,621,729
News To bear healthy babies (Oct '08) 9 hr CaDad 3
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 9 hr Dudley 21,296
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) 11 hr Josephi 83
Juvenile facility (Montrose School or others) i... (Aug '06) Sun Mommomh 423
out the closet chaz harris Oct 21 411HIV 1
News Maryland's first Steak 'n Shake on the auction ... Jul '17 Kathy 3

Hanover Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hanover Mortgages