Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310002 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: Aug 09

Location hidden

#287697 Mar 3, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
It is still cruel male mutilation that is a pagan custom that should be stopped. No one is advocating the cutting of a females c!it. However, these pagan women seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to mutilate male children for the enjoyment of the woman.
Hypocrisy and inhumane. Not fit to be mothers.
While historical records may indicate that the practice of circumcision can be traced back to parts of Africa, including ancient Egypt, it happens to part of the religious law of Judaism--the "covenant with God."
The depths of your ignorance about not merely "paganism," but the roots of your own religion are apparently limitless.
Read your Bible my good "Tom-Tom." Genesis 17:10-12.
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
"And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."

Seriously "Tom-tom," changing your earlier goofy screen-name to one that's equally idiotic hasn't done you any favors. Until you come up with some "new" material and drop your worn out "Pagan" schtick, and your obvious misogyny--the practice of circumcision originated in male-dominant societies--you're going to continue to be a laughingstock here...

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287698 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? My personal opinion on any of it makes no difference, not only to any other woman, but to my position. Which is that I support a woman's right to make her own choice regarding her own uterus and pregnancy.
You don't have a personal opinion or you don't want to reveal it?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287699 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a personal opinion or you don't want to reveal it?
Of course I have personal opinions. They're irrelevant, because I'm not the one making a choice, I'm not trying to have my personal opinions on any aspect of this issue legislated, and my personal opinions form no part of my argument in this debate.

What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287700 Mar 3, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what this is except something that once again confirms what I've said....that fetal homicide laws to designate limited legal rights upon a fetus. They must or the fetus could never be a considered a victim of homicide.
As far as you ignoring me you certainly are. You ignored my response to STO which you indicated you couldn't wait to see.
You ignored his response to me in which he basically agreed that the concept of reaching viability ( outside of the hypothetical artificial womb ) was impossible.
And you ignored my direct question where I asked you to give me any scenario ( just make one up ) where an infant can currently "reach" viability with medical assistance ?
That's a lot of ignoring.
Naah. It's a matter of perspective. I read your posts, decided I didn't need to respond. What's the point anyway? Besides being contentious just for the sake of being contentious?

Artificial wombs and artificial surfactant will create changes in the medical diagnosis of viability. As long as the courts remain at a distance without having a determining factor in it (as you've predicted will be), then all is well in the world.
feces for bhitler

Falls City, NE

#287701 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Go peddle your lies elsewhere, Knutter. As an admitted liar, you have no credibility here.
Hey, how many butter and bacon sandwiches do you eat to keep up your gargantuan figure? Do you slather on the feces for more flavor?

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

#287702 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds like you believe in God and if you do then you would know that God loves all His children especially those sinners who see the light and ask for His help.
I would hope so or else Heaven is an empty place. ;o)
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287703 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you NOT take health in school? Have you NEVER gone to an OB/GYN? Breast exams are DISCUSSED in health classes, in doctor's offices, on TV, in women's magazines. Every female with an ounce of sense knows that a breast exam done, whether by a doctor or yourself, is looking for tumors. From our teens on up, we are reminded to examine our own breasts for the earliest possible detection of breast cancer. How is that anything OTHER than breast cancer screening? Are you so stupid that you think breast cancer screening didn't occur BEFORE mammography was invented? Don't be any dumber than you must.
No one, except the liars and idiots on your side of this debate, has ever claimed that mammos are the only test for breast cancer. And even the liars know better, they are just saying it so that they can call PP liars for saying the do breast cancer screening, after it was shown that PP DID NOT lie and say they did mammos.
Boy you really have your panties in a knot, don't you. I never said PP lied about breast screenings. Go back and look.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287704 Mar 3, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Naah. It's a matter of perspective. I read your posts, decided I didn't need to respond. What's the point anyway? Besides being contentious just for the sake of being contentious?
Artificial wombs and artificial surfactant will create changes in the medical diagnosis of viability. As long as the courts remain at a distance without having a determining factor in it (as you've predicted will be), then all is well in the world.
For now. Eventually everyone will have to admit that a woman is carrying a real baby and it's life has value.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287705 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I have personal opinions. They're irrelevant, because I'm not the one making a choice, I'm not trying to have my personal opinions on any aspect of this issue legislated, and my personal opinions form no part of my argument in this debate.
What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?
I was just trying to find out if you were a complete numbskull.

Gee even the president tells us his opinion on the subject.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287706 Mar 3, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
I would hope so or else Heaven is an empty place. ;o)
Why be so critical of a sinner who has repented and is trying to tell us how meanful it was to him and how God has changed his life?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287707 Mar 3, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be much better if they had a medical doctor do it.
True.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287708 Mar 3, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundies don't ever want to face these facts.
Why not?
God

Brooklyn, NY

#287709 Mar 3, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And he's apparently forgotten that it was Judaism where that practice began. They are hardly "Pagan".
Sunday afternoon and Bitner, cpeter and fat moon are posting about killing babies and abortions like they do everyday. Pretty pathetic

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

#287710 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why be so critical of a sinner who has repented and is trying to tell us how meanful it was to him and how God has changed his life?
I absolutely think it's great that he found God. However, I just don't feel he's qualified to lecture anyone about the sanctity of marriage, fidelity, God and sin considering his background. Perhaps it's the cynic in me but I've always found folks who find God after doing a whole lot of questionable things, which caused them to get in trouble(in this case, a long term extra-marital affair that resulted in a child being born into that), to be rather interesting, if you will for a lack of a better word.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287711 Mar 3, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutely think it's great that he found God. However, I just don't feel he's qualified to lecture anyone about the sanctity of marriage, fidelity, God and sin considering his background. Perhaps it's the cynic in me but I've always found folks who find God after doing a whole lot of questionable things, which caused them to get in trouble(in this case, a long term extra-marital affair that resulted in a child being born into that), to be rather interesting, if you will for a lack of a better word.
What kind of qualifications does one need to share his feelings and experiences?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287712 Mar 3, 2013
feces for bhitler wrote:
<quoted text> Hey, how many butter and bacon sandwiches do you eat to keep up your gargantuan figure? Do you slather on the feces for more flavor?
Go peddle your shallow hatred and jealousy elsewhere, Admitted Liar. You have no credibility here.

And remember, I can always lose weight, but you'll always be ugly inside.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287713 Mar 3, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
To sum it up, the concept of "potentially viable" may only be applied to the the natural womb -- like you said. However, a fetus at the same gestational stage in the hypothetical artifical womb would be considered "viable", even tho, in reality it is "potentially viable". In both scenarios, the fetus would have to "reach viability".
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think there's anything we disagree on here. The bottom line here is that outside of the concept of the not yet plausible "artificial womb" the concept of "reaching viability" with medical assistance, outside the natural womb, is impossible.
Hear that Kate ?
Yeah I hear you believe that VIABILITY in concept applies only to the gestating fetus. I hear you believe it has no practicality being applied to a micropreemie or other premature newborns; even those who don't survive.

To me it seems like you're splitting hairs just for the sake of splitting hair. Or being contentious just for the sake of being contentious.

I maintain, a fetus determined to be viable who is delivered and attached to ALS, but dies anyway, was obviously not viable. It was unable to survive outside the womb.

Back to splitting hair -- I have interchanged VIABLE and SURVIVE throughout this yearS long discussion/disagreement. I do not believe it's been wrong to do so.

Limit of Viability
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM1993...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287714 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy you really have your panties in a knot, don't you. I never said PP lied about breast screenings. Go back and look.
No, I don't have my "panties in a knot".

I wasn't counting you among the liars there.

Your deflecting, but that's no surprise. I knew you wouldn't actually address my post.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287715 Mar 3, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I was just trying to find out if you were a complete numbskull.
Gee even the president tells us his opinion on the subject.
Good for him. Why would I care what he says?

Sorry, Witless, you are the "numbskull". You prove that with every post.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287716 Mar 3, 2013
God wrote:
<quoted text>
Sunday afternoon and Bitner, cpeter and fat moon are posting about killing babies and abortions like they do everyday. Pretty pathetic
I'm not posting about killing babies, Liar. Why is God such a liar? And what has the day to do with anything?

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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Tinka 1,236,280
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min kal 53,589
Review: Red Balloon Party Rental (Sep '09) 4 hr Careliz Leal 43
Review: Law Offices Of George Castrataro 8 hr Caitlyn 52
News Supreme Court disciplines 10 attorneys, Three f... (Jan '11) 22 hr Frank M Jerry 28
Is my neighbor racist? 23 hr MyPerspective 3
News Fort Lauderdale: Police giving funding to Oniku... (Mar '08) Mon MyPerspective 9
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]