Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313199 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.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273359 Dec 31, 2012
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Consent to sex, is, was, and always will be the number 1 reason women get pregnant. This don't mean women (have) to carry a child, it just means they are with child.(SHE IS WITH CHILD) is the phrase used by most, and still used by some.
you can call me a religious nut, if you will.
the truth is, I may kinda be alittle fanatical, but had you lived my life, and then have your life completely changed in the blink of an eye, by a God, that just a few momments before, wanted nothing to do with any god, then you to may be alittle fanatic. Plus knowing you have eternal life, even though you deserve hell, is another reason why, you may get alittle fanatical.
I was born in 1971
I was born again in 2000
Not by man, or church membership, but by God Himself.
You and all others can be born again as well.
All one must do, is be Sick of the Sin in your life, and turn to God, for Him to come dwell inside of you forever. If you call upon the lord, from a pure sincere heart, He will come in and change you, into a born again believer, bound for heaven.
You would at that point be a (REAL) christian.
yet it is hard to be sick of Sin, if there is no such thing in the world You live in.
abortion in Sin, legal or not.
It may be legal to man, but all will answer to God, becouse His laws are written on the heart of everyone.
I support your right to your opinion. Enjoy it.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#273360 Dec 31, 2012
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Do women really have it better now than two hundreds ago?
A lot of college-educated women are currently unemployed.
Women got the right to vote but have they helped to elect the best candidates? Even though most women are college-educated, they tend to vote with their emotions/hearts.
Single mothers have to spend a lot of money on day-care and wish they had more time to spend with their children.
Women have to spend a good deal of money on contraceptives and paying for abortions, unless they can get the government to pay for it.
Women who put career first and are now in their 30s and early 40s are struggling to find a man to start a family with and/or they are having trouble conceiving due to their advanced age.
I don't know, I believe if you took 100 young women from the 18th or 19th centuries are put them in the present day, after living in the present day for a few years, 75 of them would want to go back to their time period.
hahaha, oh yeah... I bet so many women would choose to go back to an era with no air conditioning or refrigeration, no legal rights and boatloads of physical abuse.

And I'm sure women are dying to go back to 200 year old medical care too. Appoximately 25% of women died when they were quite young. Infant mortality was also high and some children died before the age of 3 years old.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#273361 Dec 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You're upset. That doesn't mean there's a problem with abortion rights. There really is nothing you can do to stop women from making autonomous and confidential medical decisions regarding their pregnancies. You have no right to try to involve yourself in private medical matters. It's called HIPAA and it protects you, me and all other citizens.
Do you know what advertisers do? Advertisers try to convince consumers to buy a product or a service.

Should advertisers have a right to involve themselves in consumers' buying decisions? Afterall, why are they trying to convince us consumers to do something that we may hot want to do?

Based on your logic, all advertisers should immediately stop advertising because they are interfering with our lives.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273362 Dec 31, 2012
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it really that wrong for men in the 18th and 19th century to want to ensure that there would be enough young women available for the young men of that time to marry?
If they at that time had condoned the wishes of career-minded women that they be allowed to enter college and/or take up whatever career they wanted to, and in doing so they would be putting off marriage and raising a family until years later, say into their mid-30s, then a lot of young men would be put into a situation in which there would be a fierce struggle with men to win the hearts of the young women that did want marriage and a family at a young age. There would have been a lot more bar fights if you ask me.
Fast forward to today, I believe if you were to poll all the young men between the ages of 16-24 with the question "Should women put off their career until after they get married and raise a family?" the overwhelming response would be 'yes'.
Men don't want to wait years and years for marriage and a family. You women should take this into account before you blame the men of the 18th and 19th centuries as nothing more than a bunch cruel jerks.
I guess you boys will just have to deal with it. Women aren't going back to the dark ages because a few "men" feel entitled. Stop whining.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#273363 Dec 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This from the jerimiah project
You should check it out. If you don't I'll show you more.
The federal government abridges the free exercise of religion in America by:
Regulating churches and other religious organizations through its tax laws.
I thought churches and other religious institutions have tax exempt status.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Limiting religious liberty in the area of public and private education.
religious liberty is unlimited in a privately funded education. As for public education, of course its illegal. Why should my tax dollars and yours go for something you and I don't believe in? I'm pretty sure you'd object if Islam, Wiccan, Satanism et. al were taught in public schools
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Forbidding non-denominational prayer in public schools and at educational ceremonies.
again, I and many other don't want our tax money supporting religion, any religion.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Excluding the Bible from school classrooms and from other school property.
along with the Koren also, and Satanist books, and any books abut Vishna.....
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Refusing to permit the religious displays on public property, such as Christmas and Chanukah.
yup, nor any Islamic displays, Wiccan. Satanists, FSM etc

Listen, stop being so paranoid. We're not just picking on Christianity, we want ALL religion out of public schools, public and governmental property

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#273364 Dec 31, 2012
husker du wrote:
<quoted text>They will not understand because they hate us for not believing in same sex marriage,pre marital sex, contraception and abortion. They live for the moment and not for the future.
That's a load of BS. No one that I know of that is pro-choice really cares what mythology you believe in.

The reason most people HATE your kind is that you are constantly trying to force others to live according to your religious dogma. You are all for freedom of religion as long as it is your religion.

Stop trying to enact you theology, its tenets and dogma into our legal system and we will all get along.
burn

United States

#273365 Dec 31, 2012
Long Night Moon you will one day face your maker and your atheist ass will be his!!!!!!!
burn

United States

#273366 Dec 31, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, BS, you don't personally know any young men. I, on the other hand, am sitting nearby three within that age range, and they say you're wrong. The overwhelming answer was, women should do as they see fit about their own careers and family, that it's not for men to say. You're completely out of touch.
One day your witchy wiccan ass will be in the hands of God! Repent and accept Jesus as your Savior while theres still time.
burn

United States

#273367 Dec 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you boys will just have to deal with it. Women aren't going back to the dark ages because a few "men" feel entitled. Stop whining.
Someday your lying fallen Christian ass will be in the hands of God the Almighty! The time to repent is NOW!!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273368 Dec 31, 2012
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Do women really have it better now than two hundreds ago?
A lot of college-educated women are currently unemployed.
Women got the right to vote but have they helped to elect the best candidates? Even though most women are college-educated, they tend to vote with their emotions/hearts.
Single mothers have to spend a lot of money on day-care and wish they had more time to spend with their children.
Women have to spend a good deal of money on contraceptives and paying for abortions, unless they can get the government to pay for it.
Women who put career first and are now in their 30s and early 40s are struggling to find a man to start a family with and/or they are having trouble conceiving due to their advanced age.
I don't know, I believe if you took 100 young women from the 18th or 19th centuries are put them in the present day, after living in the present day for a few years, 75 of them would want to go back to their time period.
You're clueless. Apparently, you don't know any women. A modern women would never put up with the treatment women were dealt in the past. I'm sorry that you were born in the wrong century for your taste. Man up and deal, kid.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#273369 Dec 31, 2012
Women with families are running multi-million-dollar corporations; I think they can handle a parish. Women in other sects seem to do just fine.

Hubby can stay home with the sick kid, or a relative. Jesus christ, my mom had 7 kids and taught school; she only called off when my sister got polio.

You'd think a curch that uses joan of arc as a symbol of human endeavor might have more confidence in women.
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Women were expected to get married and raise a family. That is what women had done for thousands of years before the Catholic Church had come into existance. The early Church leaders/popes didn't want to include women as clergy because they felt it would take them away from what they were naturally expected to do in life, which was to raise a family.
Also, during the early stages of Christianity, the faith was spread primarily by missionaries who traveled all over the pagan world -- by themselves. How could you expect a woman to go out into the world, by herself, and not get raped whereever she went? Women would have needed an escort whereever they went and this would have been costly to the Church.
And if the Church was to allow women to be in the clergy, what do you do when her biological clock starts ticking? Do you allow her to raise a family and still try to do all the tasks that a pastor is required to do? What if a child is sick on a Sunday morning, does the priestess stay home with her child or does she go to say Mass?
I believe the Church was wise to exclude women for their own protection and to avoid conflicts of interest.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#273370 Dec 31, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "Oh quit trying to move the goal posts of something I said a long time ago that you decided to use against Grumpy for reasons that only make sense in your head."
You have a run on sentence fetish, grandchild killer.
Where've you pulled this latest accusation from, your ass? Don't be messing with my girls, NR. You just keep showing you're no Christian. You're nothing but a xtian, a fake, a phony. Rotten to the core. Go blow you up some dollies, take the stress off your virginal self.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#273371 Dec 31, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD: "fascism and religious intolerance"
Intentionally killing innocent preborn babies is intolerance & fascism on steroids.
Dumbass.
No! Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is fascism on steroids. Move to the Middle East. You'll fit in better there than here, the land of the free.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273372 Dec 31, 2012
Breaking: Two blood clots in Hillary Clinton's groin determined to be testicles.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273373 Dec 31, 2012
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what advertisers do? Advertisers try to convince consumers to buy a product or a service.
Should advertisers have a right to involve themselves in consumers' buying decisions? Afterall, why are they trying to convince us consumers to do something that we may hot want to do?
Based on your logic, all advertisers should immediately stop advertising because they are interfering with our lives.
Do you even know what HIPAA is?

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#273374 Dec 31, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, BS, you don't personally know any young men. I, on the other hand, am sitting nearby three within that age range, and they say you're wrong. The overwhelming answer was, women should do as they see fit about their own careers and family, that it's not for men to say. You're completely out of touch.
It makes me wonder how they would response if you weren't sitting in the room with them. Men tend to act and/or speak differently when women aren't around.
burn

United States

#273375 Dec 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you boys will just have to deal with it. Women aren't going back to the dark ages because a few "men" feel entitled. Stop whining.
If anyone on here feels entitled its YOU and your fellow heathens! You kill for what you want! In your case why bother since your so good at lying about yourself. "Wahh I wanna career so my baby needs to go! Lemme call an abortion Doc!" "Wahhh I need my money for more shoes and accessories so lemme abort my baby!!"
burn

United States

#273376 Dec 31, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Women with families are running multi-million-dollar corporations; I think they can handle a parish. Women in other sects seem to do just fine.
Hubby can stay home with the sick kid, or a relative. Jesus christ, my mom had 7 kids and taught school; she only called off when my sister got polio.
You'd think a curch that uses joan of arc as a symbol of human endeavor might have more confidence in women.
<quoted text>
Now Vladdy opens his big c sucken pie hole.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#273377 Dec 31, 2012
No it was nor seen as a "criminal act forever"--even in this coutry, abortion laws didn't even exist until antebellum tmes, and thn not in every state. When RvW went into effect, I think only about 20 states forade it altogether, another ten had exceptions and the other twenty had NO such laws.
The judges were pro-constitution; there is no basis for abortion laws in that document.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
you are kidding right?
Abortion:stopping a live process that produces adult human beings if left alone.
killing a person, if you will.
this was viewed as a criminal act forever, or up untill about 40 years ago, when just a few pro choice judges , used their position , to MAKE NEW LAWS, instead of UPHOLDING LAWS, and forced the american peoole to, as you say deal with it.
now many many many tiny babies have died since then.
Pro life people are hoping, that we have a prez in office, who cares for All life, not just some , and when the old death judges die or retire, then the prez can appoint life loving judges, and one day soon, the very same system used to kill, will be used to kill again, but instead of killing babies, it will kill the old Bad choice to kill babies, and once again it will be against the law to kill babies.
women will still be in full control over their life.
they will need to think for more then 2 sec , before having sex , but they will not legaly be able to kill a baby. I believe the reason pro death folks are so afraid of this happening , is becouse they know women will still be able to get abortions, and just as safe as they are now, but the women will have to pay for them, instead of the taxpayers , who dont like abortions now.
plus , when you have to pay cash, you will not be so careless.
right now, it is easy come , easy go
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273378 Dec 31, 2012
Jeb Wilson wrote:
dam man thats harsh. maybe the new year will bring you a better attitude. since no one is a killer on here.
Jeb: "No one is a killer on here"

Here's the thing, Jeb: Abortionists themselves admit that their intent IS to kill the human being in utero.

Heck, look at what your fellow Topix proabort troll says about it while flipping her mullet:

NR: "Preborn baby is clearly affected by abortion...to death."

FooManSpew: "Yes dear, that IS the point of abortion."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Panks 62,896
Flaming idiot Liberal smokes himself 1 hr Merry Moosmas 1
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... 2 hr Bloody Bill Anderson 1,278
Joanne Chesimard will be pardoned (Jun '15) 2 hr Maude 5
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 3 hr Princess Hey 17,220
Why does Melania's chest look like half-done pa... 5 hr Allen 1
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 5 hr Hooplah 42,262

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages