Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Tom Tom]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, no.

What are you laughing about "abortion rights advocate". It is your choice.

[Tom Tom]

cpeter1313 wrote:

She did marry a german and has been very happy. Only an idiot would call her a she-male. Idiot.
<quoted text>

Vlady you crazy old buttt pirate, this thread is filled with shemales. Just aske kathy and cd.

[AyakaNeo]

bman wrote:

<quoted text>
You should be telling Planned Paranthood this too because some workers there tell women that having an abortion is a better option. So they're telling women what to do with the pregancy. Many women are brave enough to report this. Planned Parenthood isn't this perfect organization you pro-choicers love to praise. Look behind the walls of what they're hiding. That's probably a hopeless task for an ignorant person such as yourself. I'm doing a good job not to cause a preganacy because I'm practicing abstinence, a decision you pro-choicers attack because unwanted pregnancy is such an accepting norm for you. If it's not my buisness what a woman does with her pregnancy, I guess neither does the doctor, gynachologist, nurse, husband, family, etc. She's in it alone? Makes alot of sense. I think giving her help is what she needs and that is what many pro-life people (not all) are trying to do. I don't see alot of pro-choice people doing that.

You went to PP because you're practicing abstinence? No one "attacks" someones decision to be abstinent, it just isn't realistic to believe that every teenager or single man or woman is going to wait until marriage to have sex. It isn't realistic to believe that there isn't going to be unexpected, unwanted pregnancies because not every teenager or single man or woman is going to wait until marriage to have sex.

[AyakaNeo]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
He asked you if you and your mother were the same human being. It's a simple yes or no question.
Responding about mtDNA doesn't answer the question. It's just an attempt at deflecting from answering it.
Are you and your mom the same human being? Yes or no?

I'm not deflecting from answering the question, I can't answer the question because it makes no sense to me to claim a fetus is not part of the mothers body because it has different DNA when it's not true. Being human and human being are different and not transposable words that mean the same thing.

[Ocean56]

No Relativism wrote:

Ocean, remember the time I asked you if mankind was created to procreate via pregnancy?
Remember what you said? You said, "Yes".
Yeah, I remember that, too.
Fun times.
Have a nice day........

Yes, NoRelevance, but I ALSO said that women can choose NOT to procreate through pregnancy. Women can choose to AVOID "procreation via pregnancy" by either using reliable contraception or by abortion in the event the birth control method fails. Funny how you can't seem to remember THAT.

Next.

[Ocean56]

bman wrote:

I visited your website and it says how women have POSITIVE experiences with abortion. It's screwed up. Most of them are rich white women, where as many who have abortions are poor minorities. There are alot more women who regret their abortion than rejoicing it. If women are so "happy with their choice" why not have another one?

It's not MY site, goofy. It's been around for a few years now, and it simply presents stories from women who DON'T regret having their abortion. You can say "it's screwed up" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there are women who have had an abortion but experience NO regrets about it.

http://www.imnotsorry.net

[AyakaNeo]

lil Lily wrote:

The above is from The Laci and Connor's law, The Victims of Violence Act of 2004, for protection of the unborn child.

That law defines that there are two victims, it doesn't define an unborn child as a human being.

[Ocean56]

bman wrote:

The only way that is a 100 percent guarantee not to get an STD or an unwanted pregnacy is abstinence. I don't care if people are using contraception. I have nothing against it. Abortion isn't contraception. And contraception isn't a 100 precent guarantee to prevent STD's or pregnancy. I'm not saying that abstinence is easy. But it's self control that you're too stupid to recognize. Unlike you, I don't see sex as a freindly gesture. If you don't want unwanted pregnancies like you say, then stop encouraging people to do the acts that could make them happen.

Believe it or not, I actually agree that teens, especially girls, since they have to cope with the burdens of teen pregnancy, would better off avoiding sex entirely until they have, at the very least, graduated from high school.

I wrote this a few months ago, as a kind of "public service" post:

**********

This might help girls see the difference between the two lifestyles of being a free teenager and being a teen mom BEFORE they make the mistake of having sex and possibly ending up pregnant.

If you or anyone can think of more benefits of lifestyle #1 or negatives of lifestyle #2, please go ahead and add them.

LIFESTYLE #1 - LIFE AS A FREE TEENAGER:
- Keeping up grades, studying, doing homework
- Participating in after-school activities
- Going to school dances and parties
- Relaxing during summer vacation
- Having fun at the junior or senior prom
- Graduating high school and attending after-graduation parties
- Attending college or vocational training after high school with no restrictions

LIFSTYLE #2 - LIFE AS A TEEN MOM:
- Missing school, falling behind in classes
- Getting up two or three times at night to feed a baby
- Endless diaper changes, including stinky ones
- Losing friends who don't want to be around crying babies
- Staying home with a crying baby while friends are out having fun
- Missing high school graduation, or even having to drop out of school
- Settling for part-time, low-income or minimum-wage employment instead of a dream job/career


As a teenager who is happily NOT pregnant, which lifestyle do YOU want? Wouldn't you rather have the first lifestyle instead of the second?

You can keep Lifestyle #1 very easily, just by staying sexfree (meaning free FROM sex) and saying NO to any guy who pressures you to have sex. If your boyfriend says he'll break up with you if you won't have sex with him, don't cave in. Break up with HIM instead.

Keeping your freedom to BE a teenager; there's no better reason to say NO.

[Ocean56]

bman wrote:

You should be telling Planned Paranthood this too because some workers there tell women that having an abortion is a better option. So they're telling women what to do with the pregancy.

REALLY, and which Planned Parenthood facility did that? I doubt that your little story is true.

Personally, I went to Planned Parenthood quite often when I was 18+ and had just moved to a big city after graduating high school and vocational school. I knew that if I chose to have sex at some point, I DIDN'T want to get pregnant, so I needed reliable contraception to PREVENT that unwanted outcome. They charged very LITTLE money for that contraception, and I was very grateful to get it. I would have had to pay MORE anywhere else.

The Planned Parenthood facility I went to was terrific. The medical staff were very knowledgable and helpful, they answered all my questions on preventing unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and finally set me up with the contraception that I felt would work best for me. Thanks to Planned Parenthood and its wonderful staff, I never got pregnant before the time when I WANTED to become a mother, which wasn't until my 30's. I never got a sexually transmitted disease either. I went OFF birth control when I decided I was ready for the responsibility.

I strongly suggest that teens avoid all types of sexual activity with partners while in middle or high school because even WITH the use of birth control and condoms, unwanted pregnancy is still a possibility. Must protection always be used if for any reason a teen girl or guy decides to have sex? ABSOLUTELY, and EVERY time too. Is that protection a GUARANTEE a girl will never get pregnant? Absolutely NOT. All birth control methods can and do fail occasionally. When BC fails and a pregnancy results, it is still the girl's/woman's decision whether to continue it or not.

[Katie]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>That law defines that there are two victims, it doesn't define an unborn child as a human being.

They don't seem to realize it doesn't matter what they want to call the ZEF. It doesn't give the ZEF more rights than the woman or even equal rights. And why should it?

Haven't they bothered to read how women are allowed to die over the magnified importance of a ZEF? If woman dies, so does ZEF. And how common is it that ZEF survives when woman doesn't?

[elise in burque]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not MY site, goofy. It's been around for a few years now, and it simply presents stories from women who DON'T regret having their abortion. You can say "it's screwed up" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there are women who have had an abortion but experience NO regrets about it.
http://www.imnotsorry.net

Most women who have abortions don't suffer repercussions emotionally or physically from the experience. If these antichoicers fantasies were true, abortion would be viewed by the majority of women as a problem, not a right. These fools don't care about logic or truth. They simply want to cram their own emotional viewpoint down everyone else's throat. There are very few antichoicers who are not members of a fundamentalist religion.

[Ocean56]

bman wrote:

You can have sex in marriage without having a kid and not using contaception. Ever heard of natural family planning? You should look into it. Works alot better than artificial birth control.

Oh PLEASE. Do you really expect me to believe such nonsense? If you do, get used to disappointment, junior.

There's an old joke that goes like this:

Q. What do you call a couple that relies ONLY on "natural family planning" as their primary form of birth control?

A. PARENTS.

That is why the Catholic Church approves of it while FORBIDDING all other forms of birth control that are far more reliable in preventing unwanted pregnancy. The church doesn't WANT married couples to prevent pregnancy indefinitely, or to take the step of voluntary sterilization. The church wants married couples to start the procreation process sooner or later, and preferably sooner.

Such backward beliefs concerning sex and reproduction is one of the many reasons I kicked the toxic baggage of Catholicism to the curb over 20 years ago. I haven't regretted that decision for a New York minute. I make my OWN decisions in those highly personal matters, rather than allowing a bunch of male clerics in dresses to make those choices for me.

[Ocean56]

elise in burque wrote:

Most women who have abortions don't suffer repercussions emotionally or physically from the experience. If these antichoicers fantasies were true, abortion would be viewed by the majority of women as a problem, not a right. These fools don't care about logic or truth. They simply want to cram their own emotional viewpoint down everyone else's throat. There are very few antichoicers who are not members of a fundamentalist religion.

Exactly, Elise. I found it hilarious that "Bman" has finally revealed his religious background, which appears to be Catholicism. His advocating "natural family planning" was a dead giveaway, unless some other churches are promoting the same method of "birth control." :-)

[AyakaNeo]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, Elise. I found it hilarious that "Bman" has finally revealed his religious background, which appears to be Catholicism. His advocating "natural family planning" was a dead giveaway, unless some other churches are promoting the same method of "birth control." :-)

bman is sassy trolling the thread.

[Ocean56]

Gtown71 wrote:

Why does it not shock me, for you to think if a man or woman loved another enough to marry them, that they would also want to keep a baby from being aborted, if the woman becomes "with child ",something people would say for years.(WITH CHILD). pregnant couldn't even be said on tv for years.
Yet for a couple to love each other enough to marry, and have kids would be delutionable to you.

Personally, I strongly believe that a couple needs to resolve the important issue of whether to have children or not long BEFORE marriage is even considered. Why? Simple, because if one partner absolutely wants children and the other partner does NOT want them, this particular couple should NOT get married.

There are quite a few married couples out there who have chosen to be childFREE, which simply means "no kids by CHOICE." Just because a couple decides to get married DOESN'T mean that children will be part of the marriage.

[Ocean56]

Forum carlsbad nm wrote:

God decides when a child is to born. Why do they not understand that it is destruction of God.
A woman always wants her child. It is her body and her suffering.
I would have my baby without him.

NO, dear, it is for each WOMAN to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy, not you or some imaginary deity.

Furthermore, not all women want pregnancy and children. That is why many women use reliable contraception; to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy to the best of their ability. Since it IS "her body," the only person to choose to continue the pregnancy or not is the WOMAN who is pregnant.

Beliefs AREN'T facts, in case you were unaware of that.

[elise in burque]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, Elise. I found it hilarious that "Bman" has finally revealed his religious background, which appears to be Catholicism. His advocating "natural family planning" was a dead giveaway, unless some other churches are promoting the same method of "birth control." :-)

Very, very few people, including Catholics, practice NFP. I don't care what these fundies, here, say. Facts are facts.

[elise in burque]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>bman is sassy trolling the thread.

Wow, how trifling is that broad, lol?

[grumpy]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren't educated on any topic you post about.
Even legally the fetus is considered a "human being".
It's common sense.
Note what it says in this law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1...
"Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
Also from same law:
from that same law.
"‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
‘(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’."

Did you read this part?
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;"

[Kathwynn]

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does it not shock me, for you to think if a man or woman loved another enough to marry them, that they would also want to keep a baby from being aborted, if the woman becomes "with child ",something people would say for years.(WITH CHILD). pregnant couldn't even be said on tv for years.
Yet for a couple to love each other enough to marry, and have kids would be delutionable to you.

Oh Bullshyt.. you are trying to generalize and the world does not work that way.

You know and if were honest would acknowledge it.

You are not honest. you are a delusional at best and moronic f*cktard at worse.

Here is how it works out in the real world..

She gets pregnant. She decides to allow her husband to know she is pregnat. he may or may n be happy about this situtation.

Depending on where their lives are both economically, as a married couple, Her health, and what their long term plans are, if any.

She decides on what choice to keep or abort. It is her decision. He does not necessarily have to like it. But at the end will accept it as being her choice. As a mature adult should.

In your scenario he acts out like a spoiled brat for not getting his way. An immature little shyt. Which really points out a problem with their relationship. She needs to make a decision. Which Roe V Wade makes plain is hers alone.

As man I find the fact that many men, invariably are part of one of the Abrahamic religions, act as though they should always get the final word on what their wives should do with their bodies. The flimsy excuses of they love their wives or the worse one. Their god some how says so. Is just an immature response that is both pathetic and stupid.

In the real world a man support his partner and understands that it is not always about him. That sometimes the hardest decision is made when no one else can make it for you.

This is one such place in the real world. A woman does not need her husband having a snit. When she is the one that has to make and live with the decision. Regardless of which one she makes.

I know I just made to much sense again..