Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
267,321 - 267,340 of 305,434 Comments Last updated 37 min ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284650
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, is that what he meant? He thought those were my missing posts? If they were mine, I wouldn't know they weren't showing up because I'd be able to see them. What a doofus!
Hi Foo!!
No, they're not all yours. The only reason I know one was that idiot's was becasue I responded to one that's not there nor is the post I responded to. LOL!
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284651
Feb 18, 2013
 
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Which party is for workers' benefits?
If Democrats vote for equal opportunity, it's for all employees, Democrat and Republican.
If pregnant women need help, Planned Parenthood is available for all women, Democrat and Republican.
Thing is, unions once had a purpose. Now they milk the taxpayers to give government workers higher salaries and better benefits than the rest of us.

Employees feel they are compelled to join the union or risk not "being in good standing" in their positions of employment because of misleading wording in the contracts.

If a substantial amount of union dues were donated to support both parties, you might have a point. This isn't the case.

Planned Parenthood manipulates its numbers to show how much they provide preventative women's health care. They do provide some counseling and contraceptive pills and condoms but, for the most part, they are in the business of abortions. Oftentimes with no questions asked and the age of minors overlooked and unreported to the authorities. Minors are often abused by someone they know and are too afraid to say who their abusers are.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284652
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^Said to Obskeptic.
You just blew LNM and Katie's conspiracy theroy.
I don't have a conspiracy theory.

Have been waiting for those on the PL side to mention their pulled posts. That's why I listed what is missing. So everyone could speak up and we could work together on stopping this senseless censorship.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284653
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You people think I over use the phrase that none of you can read for comprehension, and I do, because not one of you can, and you all keep displaying it.
Want to try that one again - this time in somehting resembling comprehenisble English? Or maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school, and you would be able to speak in simple sentences coherently.
I never denied being obnoxious.
ROFOMAO!! And THERE'S something to be proud of!

LMFAO!!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284654
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
Doc and STO were talking about artificial wombs and viability. Both stating the possibility of limits of viability possibly becoming a non-issue if artificial wombs could gestate from beginning to end. Doc also suggested that abortion would also become a non-issue.
If using an artifcial womb, viability of a fetus is a non-issue since aborting that fetus would be a non-issue.
Clearly YOU can't read for comprehension you moron.

He said "abortion would become a non-issue". I pointed out that it would NOT become a non-issue since many women would NOT opt to USE it.

Unless of course you're suggesting forcing women to use one?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284655
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Have any pro-choicers on here ever seen an actual abortion or a sonogram of a fetus in the process of being aborted?

Just curious.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284656
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Normal people go through their lives believing in freedoms for people WITH LIMITATIONS."
If this is true:
Why do pro"choicers" object to laws that limit who can provide abortions, safety measures on the places that provide abortions, and lowering the timeframe of when abortions are allowed as medical science advances?
I personally dont object to hose laws. I dont know any PC'er's that do.

I DO understand tho that some people DONT think there should BE limitations. I disagree with that.
"FOr MOST, the concept of viability as a limit is a perfectly reasonable one. There is nothing contradictory about it."
If this is true:
Why is it condradictory for a prolifer to defend allowing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
Its not contradictory. At least not to me. Has anyone said it is? I honestly dont remember anyone saying or suggesting that, but I COULD be wrong.

You and other PL'ers like you Sue, are not like the extremists like some we see here, who dont think those exceptions should be allowed.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284657
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Normal people go through their lives believing in freedoms for people WITH LIMITATIONS."
If this is true:
Why do pro"choicers" object to laws that limit who can provide abortions, safety measures on the places that provide abortions, and lowering the timeframe of when abortions are allowed as medical science advances?
"FOr MOST, the concept of viability as a limit is a perfectly reasonable one. There is nothing contradictory about it."
If this is true:
Why is it condradictory for a prolifer to defend allowing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
It's only contradictory if you assume pro-choicers are not pro-life.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284658
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Want to try that one again - this time in somehting resembling comprehenisble English? Or maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school, and you would be able to speak in simple sentences coherently.
<quoted text>
ROFOMAO!! And THERE'S something to be proud of!
LMFAO!!!
Tough, tough broad.

She doesn't have a nice bone in her body.

She feels inferior - that is why she puts on this big act of superiority. Transparent.

Ain't that something?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284659
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy.
<quoted text>
What in the holy fk are you babbling about now Lynnekins? Nobody even REMOTELY suggested that an artifical womb would abort.
Isn't it YOU that's usually complaining that others jump into a discussion without knowing what's being said prior?@@
Doc said that an artifical womb could eliminate the need for abortion. I pointed out - respectfully and CORRECTLY - as he himself attested the point to - that while it would be another option for those women who - say - didn't want to getstate but didn't want to abort either, it would NOT eliminate the need for abortion.
Many women would STILL want to abort, since they dont WANT bring a child into the world only to give a child up for adoption, which would be the most likely scenerio for an artifical womb usage.
For the purposes of the discussion of abortion, women that might avail themselves of the option of an artifical womb, would be those that would be willing to allow a baby to be adopted out, but didn't want to gestate simply for that purpose.
Kind of like the sperm donor that doesn't want a kid - doesn't want to know about a kid, but wants to help others have one. If an artifical womb is to be developed (and science is VERY close to that for humans) it would create another OPTION for women. That's all. It wouldn't eliminate other options, nor the NEED for other options.
"Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy."

Now wait, Foo. Seems to me you aren't considering women with high-risk pregnancies. If I were to get pregnant again, it may kill me. Therefore, I'd opt out of it. Unless there was an artificial womb available to gestate for me.

When I first read your links on artificial wombs, this is where my thinking was because of my own experiences. How cool it would be for women to actually have their natural children without the fatal risks some pregnancies bring (ie, high blood pressure, cardiac, stroke, etc).
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284660
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe in freedom of speech, or you idiots wouldn't be reporting PLers trying to get them banned.
Agreeing with the viability restriction is a contradiction of the arguments you PCers here have made.
Explain how the PC arguments of "medical privacy", "personal autonomy", and "fetus doesn't have rights" isn't contradicted at the point of viability?
Why don't you explain how you see it as contradictory? I asked before and all you said was that it's contradictory. You didn't offer any explanation as to why or how you see it as such.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284661
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
You posted to Doc about artificial womb and abortion:
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to respectfully disagree. Abortion would certainly be an issue, because there are women that wouldn't want to have their ZEF transplanted. It would open another option, but it wouldn't eliminate many of the issues themselves.
I posted:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
If a woman is going to go the route of using an artificial womb, not only would she not have to have her developing child implanted into their own womb, but she wouldn't want to abort her child.
You reply:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about "artificial womb" and your claim that abortion would be an issue if she refused to have the "ZEF" transplanted.
I said "implanted" talking about going from artificial womb to being implanted in her own womb. You said "transplanted", so beginning in artificial womb to where would it be "transplanted"?
I'm not reading the rest of your stupidity, because you couldn't even begin your post understanding what was said. Even if I provided definitions you wouldn't get it.
I understood just fine what was being said between Doc and I, and he acknowledged it.

YOU trying to twist it once again to "suit your motive" is typical, but nonsensical.

Once again, you're trying to create an argument where none exists.

Doc said that ALS womb would make abortions a non-issue, inferring that women would or could transplant their ZEF TO the artifical womb for the purpose of gestation.

I respectfully disagreed, saying that many women would NOT want to do that. Period. THat's ALL there was to it. He acknowledged the point.

And NO, I was NOT talking about it starting in the artifical womb to begin with you moron. Do NOT try to put words in my mouth. You dont speak well for yourself, you CERTAINLY dont speak for me and what I said.

You saying "implanted" while I said "transplanted" is immaterial.
It would have to be transplanted FIRST which was the point, and NOBODY was talking about it going FROM the artifical womb TO another woman for implant.

Perhaps you should try reading ALL the words before you say stupid shit.

Gotta love how you acknowledge you dont read the posts in their entirety, before you start your bullshit. No WONDER your comprehension is so fuckedup, you dont bother to read what you're responding to - AND YOU ADMIT IT.

Just one more bit of proof you're NOT HERE to actually have a discussion.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284662
Feb 18, 2013
 
hmm, little goo-goo resembles someone else. they both make the same mistake over and over again. interesting.

they ain't fooling anyone.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284663
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't read for comprehension, Eddie? I didn't share Guppy's opinion.
Yet you said the exact same thing. Shocker.

....balance of your justifications delted for redundant stupidity.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284664
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions. However, opponents argue that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.

This is the problem.

Also, phone cameras have recorded numerous incidences where employees of Planned Parenthood simply ignore the law.

A bigger problem.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284665
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eddie M wrote:
<quoted text>
You're much more ignorant than you think you are. Do I care to rebut your posts kissing Doc's ass? No. I like Doc by the way so this is nothing against him. As for your other posts? You mean the long string of verbose missives that go on about the "mind boggling" ignorance and stupidity of anyone who dares to disagree with your most superior and learned opinions? The endless manifestos about the people you deem too stupid and too lacking in "comprehension skills" to be even worthy to walk in your most eminent shadow? The pages and pages of posts where you pat yourself on the back and exert your grandiose perceptions of self-importance? You want rebuttals to those posts? The very posts where you obsess endlessly over the lowly status of those ignorant members of the PC camp who in your mind clearly are not even worthy of wiping your royal ass? And then there's the petulant posts where you stomp your feet like a middle schooler and rage because people have the nerve to be friends with Foo. That is the content of your posts in a nutshell. The posts you think make you seem to superior in intelligence to everyone else, but only in your own little detestable mind, when they merely are screams for attention.
Enjoy your massive delusions of grandeur, Lynne. And yes, by now most everyone here "with any intelligence" seems to know you're the pathetic creature know as Lynn. Your pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other.
It's absolutely "mind boggling" that you still cling to this deception that you're not Lynne.
Lynne is a useful idiot for a few people here, which is the only time those on her "side" bother to respond to her - which is to use her for THEIR purpose. She's not intelligent enough to understand that.

Lynn's been a joke here for many years now. Its sad really.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284666
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SapphireBlue wrote:
Have any pro-choicers on here ever seen an actual abortion or a sonogram of a fetus in the process of being aborted?
Just curious.
Have any anti-choicers ever seen an abortion or sonogram of a fetus destined to be grossly deformed at birth?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284667
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
Foo jumps in disagreeing that abortion would be a non-issue, and give a reason that has nothing to do with the artificial womb discussion.
Actually it had EVERYTHING to do with the artifical womb discussion.

Doc opined that an artifical womb would create an atmosphere where abortion would be a non-issue.

I pointed out FACTUALLY, that unless women CHOSE to make use of that technology, abortion would still very much still be on the table.

ALL an ALS womb would be in that scenerio, is a new option for women who were considering abortion. It wouldn't make abortion a 'non-issue'.

Doc acknowledged the point.

This really wasn't a hard discussion to follow, yet you managed to screw it up. As usual.

AGAIN, you try to twist the discussion to suit your agenda.

You falied AGAIN as well Lynne. You always do.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284668
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SapphireBlue wrote:
By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions. However, opponents argue that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.
This is the problem.
Also, phone cameras have recorded numerous incidences where employees of Planned Parenthood simply ignore the law.
A bigger problem.
Obamacare allows fderal funding for abortion.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284669
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ummmm......WHAT? If she's pregnant, she woudln't have to HAVE her ZEF implanted ANYWHERE Lynne, you idiot. Its already implanted via the pregnancy."
Now wait, Foo. Seems to me you aren't considering women with high-risk pregnancies. If I were to get pregnant again, it may kill me. Therefore, I'd opt out of it. Unless there was an artificial womb available to gestate for me.
When I first read your links on artificial wombs, this is where my thinking was because of my own experiences. How cool it would be for women to actually have their natural children without the fatal risks some pregnancies bring (ie, high blood pressure, cardiac, stroke, etc).
Artificial wombs? I feel like we're talking about a sci-fi movie and everyone instinctively knows it won't have a good ending.

The farther away we go from nature and the natural order of things, the closer we get to screwing things up.

How do you feel about "custom-ordered" babies? Eye color, gender, hair color, etc.

Or sperm banks where someone could end up marrying a half-sister or half-brother from the same sperm donor?

Are we really becoming this shallow and self-serving?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min CUT TO THE CHEESE 1,099,222
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 46 min danetoo 68,334
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr hsktommox 18,832
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr litesong 46,275
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL 68,916
Police: Suspect Tried To Strangle Woman (Mar '08) 15 hr Confused 167
Life is beachy for local gay community at New L... Aug 25 IoanInPueblo 7
•••
•••
•••

Hartford Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Hartford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hartford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hartford
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••