Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310229 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321129 Jan 23, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I have anything to fear.
Uh huh.
VoteVets Org

Chicago, IL

#321130 Jan 23, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>When I got pregnant in October, I expected a baby in July....unless I miscarried the fetus, which happened five times. One of these was lodged in my Fallopian tube, so I had it removed. After that, I expected to live.
Which I did.
Next....
Precisely. And when I was expecting my sister for Thanksgiving, she also could have potentially met her untimely demise on the way. That doesn't mean she never existed.
Silly goose.
VoteVets Org

Chicago, IL

#321131 Jan 23, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Descartes does not exist....anymore.
Next...
What Descartes SAID, not what he SAYS.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321132 Jan 23, 2014
"I think, therefore I am."--Rene Descartes

Fetuses don't think, therefore, they aren't.
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Reference what Descartes said.
Since I chewed on that for all of one second looks like you didn't get to take comfort in legal abortion for very long. Too bad. That's a shot in your hefty derrière.
VoteVets Org

Chicago, IL

#321133 Jan 23, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
He must exist or you wouldn't be responding to him.
She responds therefore I am.
VoteVets Org

Chicago, IL

#321134 Jan 23, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
"I think, therefore I am."--Rene Descartes
Fetuses don't think, therefore, they aren't.
<quoted text>
Yet we know for a fact that they "are". I think it might take old Rene a while to mull over that conundrum.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#321135 Jan 23, 2014
gidget wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner operates with clarity, accuracy & integrity - none of which are qualities that you demonstrate. She avoids melodramatic dishonesty, since her position (unlike yours) doesn't require those stunts for support.
Sucks to be you.
Bitner consistently avoids answering legitimate questions when doing so will expose her ineptitude & hypocricy.

She has never veered from this cowardly approach.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321137 Jan 23, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner consistently avoids answering legitimate questions when doing so will expose her ineptitude & hypocricy.
She has never veered from this cowardly approach.
The sad thing is that you consider that to be a "legitimate question", when it was merely a stupid question.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321138 Jan 23, 2014
Don't bring up axioms that invalidate your own argument. Descartes, btw, was proving his existence as a sentient being; obviously his argument doesn't apply to non-sentients. Fetuses aren't sentient and therefore "aren't." Its sentient owner/guardian can do as she wishes.
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we know for a fact that they "are". I think it might take old Rene a while to mull over that conundrum.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#321139 Jan 23, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
He's lying here, too. When NR says, "When YOU said "a human" exists in the womb, human was a noun (not adjective). An adjective requires a noun to describe. You did not include a noun. You said "a human" exists in the womb," he forgets the implied fetus/embryo is the noun which "exists in the womb". Anyone could replace human with canine, feline, equine, etc., and the sentence would still be correct, still make sense.
Katie: "He's lying here, too. When NR says, "When YOU said "a human" exists in the womb, human was a noun (not adjective). An adjective requires a noun to describe. You did not include a noun. You said "a human" exists in the womb," he forgets the implied fetus/embryo is the noun which "exists in the womb". Anyone could replace human with canine, feline, equine, etc., and the sentence would still be correct"
_______

I enjoy narcissists like you who are too impulsive and stupid to catch when you're being stupid. Your mind tells you how brilliant you are, while ignoring the actual buffoonery you post.

"Human" can be a noun or adjective. bHitler used the NOUN form ("a human exists in the womb"). She DID NOT use the adjective form of human. She did not "imply" the adjective form. She did, however, use the noun form.

Here is what you are saying: I should've seen bHitler's statement "a human exists in the womb" and changed "human" to an adjective and added "fetus" for the noun human described.

Really? Since when do YOU promote changing another posters grammar in order to arrive at a different meaning? Don't you believe bHitler should be the one to say she expressed her sentiments wrong and meant "human" to be an adjective?

You constantly preach that we should not change the meaning of what a poster writes. Now, you are saying we are "lying" b/c we didn't change bHitler's grammar? That we're lying b/c we should have "implied" the noun was an adjective?...& we should have supplied a noun for the adjective to describe?

Really?

You are a moron. An intellectually dishonest bonehead.

You don't realize it, but what you're actually saying is that bHitler is too damn dumb to say she wrote her post wrong....and that she needs YOU to explain what SHE meant to do and say.

Hahahaha!!! You're calling bHitler an English language flunky, & she sits back & lets you say it! Hahahahaha!

bHitler used human as a noun, I read it as a noun. Anyone who read it as an adjective when it was written as a noun is either an imbecile, or is being purposely intellectually dishonest to cover their spineless baby-killing friend.

bHitler could have re-written her comment and explained the reasoning behind her changes long ago. But, gues what? She DIDN'T.

Now you both look like jackasses.

You two are the butt cheeks of the proabort A-hole. You come together tightly when one of you slips up, but you still end up making a bigger incontinent mess of ignorance.

And.

I laugh.

AT you.

Every time.
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#321140 Jan 23, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The sad thing is that you consider that to be a "legitimate question", when it was merely a stupid question.
A) A little human in the womb

B) A sandwich

Which do you value more? A or B.
Husker

Falls City, NE

#321141 Jan 23, 2014

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321142 Jan 23, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
A) A little human in the womb
B) A sandwich
Which do you value more? A or B.
Again, what's sad is that you obviously think this is a legitimate question. It's not.

Also, when you made this statement, among others, that I place more value on a (what is obviously YOUR favorite) sandwich, than a fetus, and I said your post was nothing BUT lies, what do YOU think that meant?

How stupid ARE you, really?
VoteVets Org

Chicago, IL

#321143 Jan 23, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Don't bring up axioms that invalidate your own argument.
I'll do what I please.
Descartes, btw, was proving his existence as a sentient being; obviously his argument doesn't apply to non-sentients.
That's right. So why did you bring it up ? My reference to Descartes was related to MY existence.
You know, I had heard you were stupid. Now I'm seeing it firsthand.
Fetuses aren't sentient and therefore "aren't." Its sentient owner/guardian can do as she wishes.
<quoted text>
Either his argument doesn't apply or it does. Make up what little mind you have.
katie

Seattle, WA

#321144 Jan 23, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "He's lying here, too. When NR says, "When YOU said "a human" exists in the womb, human was a noun (not adjective). An adjective requires a noun to describe. You did not include a noun. You said "a human" exists in the womb," he forgets the implied fetus/embryo is the noun which "exists in the womb". Anyone could replace human with canine, feline, equine, etc., and the sentence would still be correct"
_______
I enjoy narcissists like you who are too impulsive and stupid to catch when you're being stupid. Your mind tells you how brilliant you are, while ignoring the actual buffoonery you post.
"Human" can be a noun or adjective. bHitler used the NOUN form ("a human exists in the womb"). She DID NOT use the adjective form of human. She did not "imply" the adjective form. She did, however, use the noun form.
Here is what you are saying: I should've seen bHitler's statement "a human exists in the womb" and changed "human" to an adjective and added "fetus" for the noun human described.
Really? Since when do YOU promote changing another posters grammar in order to arrive at a different meaning? Don't you believe bHitler should be the one to say she expressed her sentiments wrong and meant "human" to be an adjective?
You constantly preach that we should not change the meaning of what a poster writes. Now, you are saying we are "lying" b/c we didn't change bHitler's grammar? That we're lying b/c we should have "implied" the noun was an adjective?...& we should have supplied a noun for the adjective to describe?
Really?
You are a moron. An intellectually dishonest bonehead.
You don't realize it, but what you're actually saying is that bHitler is too damn dumb to say she wrote her post wrong....and that she needs YOU to explain what SHE meant to do and say.
Hahahaha!!! You're calling bHitler an English language flunky, & she sits back & lets you say it! Hahahahaha!
bHitler used human as a noun, I read it as a noun. Anyone who read it as an adjective when it was written as a noun is either an imbecile, or is being purposely intellectually dishonest to cover their spineless baby-killing friend.
bHitler could have re-written her comment and explained the reasoning behind her changes long ago. But, gues what? She DIDN'T.
Now you both look like jackasses.
You two are the butt cheeks of the proabort A-hole. You come together tightly when one of you slips up, but you still end up making a bigger incontinent mess of ignorance.
And.
I laugh.
AT you.
Every time.
This is a lame attempt, NR. Even for you. You're projections of your own shortcomings onto others (mainly those who are PC) is beyond evident. You just can't admit when you're wrong. And so like a child, you go on and on and on and on protesting overly much with exaggerated ad hominem attacks.

It's beyond boring.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321145 Jan 24, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
He must exist or you wouldn't be responding to him.
If "I think, therefore I am," is the proof of existence....you don't exist.

Next...

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321146 Jan 24, 2014
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll do what I please.
And so will the rest of us.*shrug*
VoteVets Org wrote:
That's right. So why did you bring it up ? My reference to Descartes was related to MY existence.
Your reference was shown to be ridiculous. Fetuses don't think.(Neither do plants, or rocks.) Guess they don't exist.
VoteVets Org wrote:
You know, I had heard you were stupid. Now I'm seeing it firsthand.
The one and only thing necessary for you to see 'stupid' firsthand, is to read anything you type before you post it. Please do.
VoteVets Org wrote:
Either his argument doesn't apply or it does. Make up what little mind you have.
My argument still applies. You haven't proven you think, so you haven't proven you exist - according to Descartes' argument.

Try again?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321147 Jan 24, 2014
Uh...what kind of sandwich?
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
A) A little human in the womb
B) A sandwich
Which do you value more? A or B.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#321148 Jan 24, 2014
So, the Msgr. Walter Rossi is too stupid to write his own homily, or the archbishop just presumes he is?
Husker wrote:

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321149 Jan 24, 2014
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
She responds therefore I am.
If you predicate your existence on my response, will you cease to exist when I cease to respond?

That would be cool.....let's give it a try.

:)

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.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Into The Night 54,514
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Yeah 1,275,921
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) 6 hr Bob 291
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 9 hr VINNY DINARDI 20,102
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 18 hr TRD 70,159
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Aug 27 Norbert of Norview 71,944
Review: Nirenstein Horowitz And Associates (Sep '12) Aug 26 juliaj887 50
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hartford Mortgages