Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 314651 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

#317322 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Very quickly, tort reform, urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers, buying insurance across state lines, just to name a few.
Lol! Ok, hon.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#317323 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Very quickly, tort reform, urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers, buying insurance across state lines, just to name a few.
Btw, if that was thorough and succinct, which I clearly instructed you to be...yikes!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#317324 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't imagine how you live for that to be your first thought.
I'm trying to be kind, old girl. You are addled, obviously. I figured you're embibing with the clan, how heartwarming. But, you're upset by that, so...
Okay, then, the only other option is that you really are, er, well...not smart. At all. Just kinda giddy, naturally. Okay, have it your way. Jeez, you're so sensitive...

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#317325 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, she said it was a 'potential' somebody and it isn't. You can't be a 'potential' somebody. If you exist, then you are what you are and we know the fetus does exist.
Wow....ok, whatever you say, kuklamou. Yikes
Ink

Havertown, PA

#317326 Dec 1, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I'm trying to be kind, old girl. You are addled, obviously. I figured you're embibing with the clan, how heartwarming. But, you're upset by that, so...
Okay, then, the only other option is that you really are, er, well...not smart. At all. Just kinda giddy, naturally. Okay, have it your way. Jeez, you're so sensitive...
Such a buffoon and a boor.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#317327 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for filling me in. So why are you or whoever calling Christians hypocrites?
Because Christians are howling that the Muslims shouldn't get this exemption on religious grounds...whilst clamoring for their own religious exemption.

The point of my post was, that NO religious exemptions are reasonable. Why should I have to follow a given law, to which the religious get a pass, on the grounds that I don't belong to any given 'religion', or even believe in a 'god'?

Reading for comprehension just really isn't your strong suit, is it?
worships reality

AOL

#317328 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't imagine how you live for that to be your first thought.
imagine a resentful-of-the-world shut-in with likely no surviving relatives other than a nonagenarian mother, and delusions of being a nurse and you've pretty much nailed it

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#317329 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, she said it was a 'potential' somebody and it isn't. You can't be a 'potential' somebody. If you exist, then you are what you are and we know the fetus does exist.
We know it's not guaranteed gestation, too. The body could, and frequently does, expel a given z/e/f at ANY time, without the woman's consent, and regardless of whether she considers it a 'person' or not. Therefore, until birth, a fetus is potentially a person. Before that, it's a proposition... a hope... a conglomeration of human cells that 'looks like a baby' after a long enough period of time has passed.

Babies, however, are born.

That's the breaks, babe.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#317330 Dec 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Because Christians are howling that the Muslims shouldn't get this exemption on religious grounds...whilst clamoring for their own religious exemption.
The point of my post was, that NO religious exemptions are reasonable. Why should I have to follow a given law, to which the religious get a pass, on the grounds that I don't belong to any given 'religion', or even believe in a 'god'?
Reading for comprehension just really isn't your strong suit, is it?
What I do comprehend is that atheists are constantly suing to be rid of one or another religious tradition that offends them and often winning in court. Religion is not forced on anyone but those of a religious nature shouldn't be forced to abide by laws that offend them.

What law do you object to from an atheist point of view?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#317331 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a buffoon and a boor.
Oh, my friend...Don't be so hard on yourself!
Ink

Havertown, PA

#317332 Dec 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>We know it's not guaranteed gestation, too. The body could, and frequently does, expel a given z/e/f at ANY time, without the woman's consent, and regardless of whether she considers it a 'person' or not. Therefore, until birth, a fetus is potentially a person. Before that, it's a proposition... a hope... a conglomeration of human cells that 'looks like a baby' after a long enough period of time has passed.
Babies, however, are born.
That's the breaks, babe.
That conglomeration of cells that looks like a baby is a human fetus, a boy or a girl, a son or a daughter. The government says you can kill him for any reason you want. End of story. Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#317333 Dec 1, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
imagine a resentful-of-the-world shut-in with likely no surviving relatives other than a nonagenarian mother, and delusions of being a nurse and you've pretty much nailed it
Really. Who thinks like that and posts it.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#317334 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Very quickly, tort reform, urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers, buying insurance across state lines, just to name a few.
1) Tort reform will inevitably result in those who sustain catastrophic injuries as a result of doctors' malfeasance, ineligible for any compensation. Doctors want to play "God" until they make a mistake, and THEN they want to be considered mortal.
Too bad for them. If they screw up, they need to pay for it - remember that 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY' you and your ilk are always yammering about? Why should doctors get a pass?

2) Urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers??? We already have those: they're called "Planned Parenthood Centers", and you want to shut them down en masse. Naturally, you'd much rather advocate your precious "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", which are indoctrination programs run by the SCPL, and which routinely apply bogus scare-tactics, religious pronouncements, and guilt/shame as 'medicine', in an effort to influence women to have children they don't want, cannot afford, and didn't plan to keep.

3) Buying insurance across State lines is illegal in most (not all) States, because of STATE, rather than Federal, regulations. The insurance companies in many States aren't prohibited from competing with those in other States, they just don't want to HAVE to. The States with regulations against cross-state insurance sales, were the targets of insurance lobbyists, who insisted that it would be UNFAIR COMPETITION. Every one of the States which prohibit it, does so because their insurance commissioner wants it that way.

Just so you know.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#317336 Dec 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Tort reform will inevitably result in those who sustain catastrophic injuries as a result of doctors' malfeasance, ineligible for any compensation. Doctors want to play "God" until they make a mistake, and THEN they want to be considered mortal.
Too bad for them. If they screw up, they need to pay for it - remember that 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY' you and your ilk are always yammering about? Why should doctors get a pass?
2) Urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers??? We already have those: they're called "Planned Parenthood Centers", and you want to shut them down en masse. Naturally, you'd much rather advocate your precious "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", which are indoctrination programs run by the SCPL, and which routinely apply bogus scare-tactics, religious pronouncements, and guilt/shame as 'medicine', in an effort to influence women to have children they don't want, cannot afford, and didn't plan to keep.
3) Buying insurance across State lines is illegal in most (not all) States, because of STATE, rather than Federal, regulations. The insurance companies in many States aren't prohibited from competing with those in other States, they just don't want to HAVE to. The States with regulations against cross-state insurance sales, were the targets of insurance lobbyists, who insisted that it would be UNFAIR COMPETITION. Every one of the States which prohibit it, does so because their insurance commissioner wants it that way.
Just so you know.
It isn't just doctors. It's those corporations -- the ones that want to be people, too, unless they screw up. Then they want to be untouchable.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#317337 Dec 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Because Christians are howling that the Muslims shouldn't get this exemption on religious grounds...whilst clamoring for their own religious exemption.
The point of my post was, that NO religious exemptions are reasonable. Why should I have to follow a given law, to which the religious get a pass, on the grounds that I don't belong to any given 'religion', or even believe in a 'god'?
Reading for comprehension just really isn't your strong suit, is it?
The completely undeserved feeling of
entitlement that religionists have for special treatment is disgusting. It makes no sense. Any members of a religion who believe they deserve exemptions have no sense of decency or integrity.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317338 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
www.thefreedictionary.com/potential&#8206 ;
poĚtenĚtial (p -t n sh l). adj. 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem. 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
Potential means that it doesn't exist yet. Do you believe that the fetus doesn't exist before birth? That's wierd because everyone knows that there is a baby in there. Even little children know.
Of course the fetus exists. It's not, in her opinion, a "somebody else". Can't you read?

A fetus is not aware it even exists. It is not a person, not a "somebody else". It's a blank slate, a potential person, if it survives birth, attains consciousness, and begins to accrue experiences.

"Baby" is a term of endearment for just about everything under the sun. I call my youngest daughter Baby, but she's nearly 20.

Children also "know" that feces is "poo-poo" and urine is "pee-pee". Do you use those words, and insist that other adults use them? Do you, as an adult, talk like a child?

Many children believe in Santa Claus. They "know" he exists. Does he really?

Do you ever give any thought to what you spout?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317339 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, she said it was a 'potential' somebody and it isn't. You can't be a 'potential' somebody. If you exist, then you are what you are and we know the fetus does exist.
YOU are the one who keeps missing the point, Witless.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#317340 Dec 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Tort reform will inevitably result in those who sustain catastrophic injuries as a result of doctors' malfeasance, ineligible for any compensation. Doctors want to play "God" until they make a mistake, and THEN they want to be considered mortal.
Too bad for them. If they screw up, they need to pay for it - remember that 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY' you and your ilk are always yammering about? Why should doctors get a pass?
2) Urban clinics staffed by interns or volunteers??? We already have those: they're called "Planned Parenthood Centers", and you want to shut them down en masse. Naturally, you'd much rather advocate your precious "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", which are indoctrination programs run by the SCPL, and which routinely apply bogus scare-tactics, religious pronouncements, and guilt/shame as 'medicine', in an effort to influence women to have children they don't want, cannot afford, and didn't plan to keep.
3) Buying insurance across State lines is illegal in most (not all) States, because of STATE, rather than Federal, regulations. The insurance companies in many States aren't prohibited from competing with those in other States, they just don't want to HAVE to. The States with regulations against cross-state insurance sales, were the targets of insurance lobbyists, who insisted that it would be UNFAIR COMPETITION. Every one of the States which prohibit it, does so because their insurance commissioner wants it that way.
Just so you know.
It all needs to change. Just so you know.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317341 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that your secular religion should be forced on other's religious beliefs. We will see what the Supreme Court says.
There is no such thing as a "secular religion", you Moron. And the MAP is not a religious doctrine, it's medication.

It's way past time to give that one remaining brain cell of yours some oxygen.....breathe in......and now breathe out.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#317342 Dec 1, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What I do comprehend is that atheists are constantly suing to be rid of one or another religious tradition that offends them and often winning in court.
Such as?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is not forced on anyone
Not for lack of trying on the part of religious zealots...it's obvious you'd like your views to be universally recognized, and adhered to. If you COULD force your religion on others, you'd be more than happy to do so.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
those of a religious nature shouldn't be forced to abide by laws that offend them.
Laws offend folks on non-religious grounds all the time, but nevertheless, the law applies to everyone.

Those who feel persecuted by their inability to persecute others, are in for a rude awakening. Your right to 'practice your religion' does not extend to discrimination against others in the workplace. Your religious right to be 'against abortion and contraception' does not extend to preventing others from accessing them. Practice your religion on yourself.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What law do you object to from an atheist point of view?
Any law YOU don't have to follow because of your belief in a 'God'.

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) 7 min Cheech the Conser... 1,547,509
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min HillaryFourty6 63,836
Grant R White 2 hr Just now 1
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Wed King George 98,415
Review: I Love Kickboxing (Jun '16) Jun 19 Kristin Krumrey 74
girls how many family members have you had sex ... (Dec '15) Jun 8 Get help 13
News Broward substitute teacher gets 30 years for se... (May '07) May '17 Jericho High Scho... 160

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages