Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 322295 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318853 Dec 21, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
For how long?
Mr. Robertson has been suspended from the show 'indefinitely'.

So, once again, you'll have to ask A&E....not CPeter.
But of course, you already knew that.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#318854 Dec 21, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just curious why folks who scream equality and tolerance the most can betth most intolerant folks.
[email protected] can do as they wish, and i've never watched DDI, but I do know it is extremely popular .
Also the media tends to want us thinking every other person is gay.
It's simply not true.
A tiny sect of folks are gay, but it's the media"in" thing to fire those who speak against it. Imo
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.

Phil Robertson quoted the Bible as a source for his opposition to homosexual lifestyle. If anything, the left has demonstrated intolerance to his religious beliefs and views.

I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318855 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Valid point. I think that's the type of answer the OP was looking for when he asked her opinion about what the significance of the fetus was relative to the abortion issue.
As it stands, the significance of the fetus, relative to the abortion issue, is whatever significance the woman affords it in the first trimester, with whatever (currently increasing) significance the States choose to individually afford it in the second and third.

Which is perfectly and elegantly handled by RvW, as said ruling neither compels, nor prohibits, States to or from imposing restrictions..........but places no restrictions on abortion at the Federal level.

There are, however, federal restrictions on who pays for it, per the Hyde Amendment.

What's your point?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#318856 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
<quoted text>
Gay agenda lacks discipline. It's violating others' religious freedoms and will undoubtedly experience societal push-back. It's straight "supporters" are now beginning to see that the "tolerance" horseshit your kind speaks is a manipulative ruse. You morons are going to marginalize yourselves w/ your own intolerance. Keep up the good work!

"A Colorado judge says a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs" http://conservativeread.com/judge-says-baker-...

Oregan baker:ďI didnít do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and itís not to discriminate against them. Itís not so much to do with them, itís to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer [to] him for"
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/oregon_baker_...

Christian baker faces boycott from homosexuals for refusing to make cake for lesbian wedding reception
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stor...
(Erm, that's exactly what Christian baker wants - for same-sex wedding couples to go elsewhere. Nice move, Vaseline.)

Flower shop owner sued for for refusing gay wedding
http://gnli.christianpost.com/video/flower-sh...

Squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, but the Vaseline.

Keep up the good work estranging society!!

"We are prohibited from donating blood. Boo-hoo......."
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#318857 Dec 21, 2013
"We want a cake and cupcakes shaped like this..."

(__*__)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318858 Dec 21, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.
Phil Robertson quoted the Bible as a source for his opposition to homosexual lifestyle. If anything, the left has demonstrated intolerance to his religious beliefs and views.
I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.
Your views are not what the gay population objects to. It's your ACTIONS affecting that population, such as denying them equal rights to the legal benefits of marriage, which are frowned upon.

Phil Robertson's views are still available on News stands everywhere, and the upcoming season's shows have already been recorded - they include Mr. Robertson, and will air with his performances intact. He has not been censored by the government, nor has he been imprisoned....which means his First Amendment rights are intact as well.

The First Amendment does not guarantee one continued employment, in the event your free speech writes checks your responsibility to your employer won't cash. In other words, welcome to 'Right to Work', fella.

Practice your religion on yourself, leave others out of it, and you won't keep having these problems.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#318859 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really ? THAT'S what it is ???
If you hurry you can catch your sense of humor before it gets away.
<quoted text>
For crying out loud if you weren't going to answer the question couldn't you have said that in the first place instead of cutting and pasting all this crap that does nothing but repeat what everybody knows ?
<quoted text>
If I wanted to speculate I would have done so. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing by giving you the opportunity to give your opinion. You of course, declined. But not before wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting a slew of crap that is common knowledge
<quoted text>
I never said they were equivalent. And I never said the pregnant woman should be discounted from the equation. The only thing I DID do was ask your opinion regarding what significance, if any, the fetus had, at any time, relative to the abortion issue.
How does a simple question put to you, come around to the PLM followers and what you think they are trying to do ?
Do you remember writing this sentence? "With respect to the STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN POTENTIAL LIFE, the "compelling" point is at viability."

How about you point out exactly where you found this in the cut and paste I supplied along with the link? Because everything quoted for your benefit was also for the benefit of others. The state does NOT have "important and legitimate" interest in potential life. Just like CPtr said, the state has its interests where it deems it has its interests. Roe v Wade says these interests must be "tailored to the recognized state interests." Not once did I read the state has specific interests in potential life. So, how about you provide the quote and link from Roe v Wade stating it does. Verbatim.
katie

Tacoma, WA

#318860 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really ? THAT'S what it is ???
If you hurry you can catch your sense of humor before it gets away.
<quoted text>
For crying out loud if you weren't going to answer the question couldn't you have said that in the first place instead of cutting and pasting all this crap that does nothing but repeat what everybody knows ?
<quoted text>
If I wanted to speculate I would have done so. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing by giving you the opportunity to give your opinion. You of course, declined. But not before wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting a slew of crap that is common knowledge
<quoted text>
I never said they were equivalent. And I never said the pregnant woman should be discounted from the equation. The only thing I DID do was ask your opinion regarding what significance, if any, the fetus had, at any time, relative to the abortion issue.
How does a simple question put to you, come around to the PLM followers and what you think they are trying to do ?
First, never mind the prior post. I screwed that one up and hit send before realizing it wasn't the one I'd wanted to send. I know where Roe v Wade discussed states' interests in potential life. It's a bit chaotic here, but you probably don't care. Anyway, I screwed up and sent the wrong reply. Sorry.

What I wanted to point out was that BA had asked for my opinion before you came along and made that snarky reply to me. Why are you interested, if not to be snarky?

My answer stands as it did the first time I gave it. If it's not my pregnancy, not my embryo/fetus, it's not my business. Sure, even if the pregnancy is unwanted/unhealthy, if left alone, a baby will be born. How else can an embryo/fetus be relative to pregnancy/abortion? Were you expecting a different answer??

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318861 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless, they have that power. Ho?w many people have been fired for something on their FB How many states are right to hire (which translates to right to fire?, They don't even have to give a reason) In a country where someone can still fire a person for being homosexual (and I think we can safely assume they are not having sex on the clock), or if they can refuse to hire one based upon a credit rating, they DO have that kind of power. I'm not advocating it, simply pointing out that they already do.
Free speech is not an absolute right, anyway. Anywhere.
And on top of all that is the absolute OUTRAGE over this of people like Caribou Barbie, who just a while ago was trying to get someone ELSE fired for saying something about HER. The hypocrisy is terribly amusing.
And I don't have a dog in this fight, anyway. I don't watch the show, or the network, and I don't give two shits what some redneck (who is all self-righteous now that he's "found God", but was scum before that) spouts, nor does it surprise me to see a redneck who is homophobic. I was just, again, pointing out that one doesn't really have free speech when one's speech is public, and may affect the employer's business.
And this bothers me...employers are gaining more and more power over our personal lives.

Nobody is required to agree with this Duck guy. I don't see "homosexuality is a sin" as hate speech or inciting hate, just an opinion. One I disagree with, but if we tell this guy he can't say that in public then what will be next? Someone is kicked off TV for saying God doesn't exist? Where will it end?

I'm not arguing with you on this, just venting a bit...

:)
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318862 Dec 21, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Mr. Robertson has been suspended from the show 'indefinitely'.
So, once again, you'll have to ask A&E....not CPeter.
But of course, you already knew that.
It was a rhetorical question. If they worry about their pocketbook, he won't be out long.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318863 Dec 21, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.
I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.
LOL Fat chance.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#318864 Dec 21, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> Your views are not what the gay population objects to. It's your ACTIONS affecting that population, such as denying them equal rights to the legal benefits of marriage, which are frowned upon.
Phil Robertson's views are still available on News stands everywhere, and the upcoming season's shows have already been recorded - they include Mr. Robertson, and will air with his performances intact. He has not been censored by the government, nor has he been imprisoned....which means his First Amendment rights are intact as well.
The First Amendment does not guarantee one continued employment, in the event your free speech writes checks your responsibility to your employer won't cash. In other words, welcome to 'Right to Work', fella.
Practice your religion on yourself, leave others out of it, and you won't keep having these problems.
I don't think Phil Robertson has a problem.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318865 Dec 21, 2013
I agree in terms of most companies, but show business is more dependant on public opinion than most other industries. The network has a right to protect its brand, and every contract includes language to that effect. When he broke policy in a public appearance, they had every right to mitigate the damage.
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'm not quite up to speed on this discussion but I must say that I'm against giving employers too much power. If I go to work and do my job as expected and to the satisfaction of my employers and then go home and write a FB post, seen by my friends there, that my company sucks, then I don't think they should have the power to reach into my "off the clock" personal life to prevent it. I could just as easily be sitting in a coffee shop with a group of friends while airing my grievances and negative opinions against my employer. If a boss should be in there buying coffee and I don't see him/her should he be able to discipline me at work the next day for my remarks? I say, no.
Some years ago I went to work at a pharmacy as a clerk and they had a package of papers for new hires to sign which "forbade" us from speaking negatively about the company outside of work. It also forbade us from drinking within 12 hours of working a shift (responsible people wouldn't drink before work anyway, I hope) and the 12 hours AFTER working a shift. I didn't even really drink much, but c'mon. How much fkn reach into our personal lives do employers want.
When I'm on the clock I do things their way, off the clock my life is none of their business.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318866 Dec 21, 2013
This was a corporate decision, twit, because this hilljack didn't follow guidelines as his contract demands. He signed it and took the money, so he's bound by it. "Gays" had nothing to do with it.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.
Phil Robertson quoted the Bible as a source for his opposition to homosexual lifestyle. If anything, the left has demonstrated intolerance to his religious beliefs and views.
I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318867 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I agree in terms of most companies, but show business is more dependant on public opinion than most other industries. The network has a right to protect its brand, and every contract includes language to that effect. When he broke policy in a public appearance, they had every right to mitigate the damage.
<quoted text>
Yeah, but you know that one way or the other they're gonna piss some people off. It seems crazy...it's "reality TV" and then there's an uproar because one of the people speaks an actual opinion. That gives an awful lot of weight to this guy's one opinion. Phil Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin...is anyone actually surprised? The gay people now have the option to not watch the show, buy any of their products, and boycott the sponsors.
Raymond Burr
#318869 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
This was a corporate decision, twit, because this hilljack didn't follow guidelines as his contract demands. He signed it and took the money, so he's bound by it. "Gays" had nothing to do with it.
<quoted text>
Around the holidays my thoughts always and inevitably return to you and your cottage cheese-like backside. Yum....
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#318870 Dec 21, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text> Your views are not what the gay population objects to. It's your ACTIONS affecting that population, such as denying them equal rights to the legal benefits of marriage, which are frowned upon.
Phil Robertson's views are still available on News stands everywhere, and the upcoming season's shows have already been recorded - they include Mr. Robertson, and will air with his performances intact. He has not been censored by the government, nor has he been imprisoned....which means his First Amendment rights are intact as well.
The First Amendment does not guarantee one continued employment, in the event your free speech writes checks your responsibility to your employer won't cash. In other words, welcome to 'Right to Work', fella.
Practice your religion on yourself, leave others out of it, and you won't keep having these problems.
Yes it is his views that the gay population objects to. If one quotes the bible,the gays attack the person personally,hence the reason why the "homophobe" remarks fly. For those who believe in the bible,homosexuality is a sin according to God. He loves the sinner,not the sin. Gays show zero tolerance toward anyone who believes differently then them.

Phil Robertsons is being personally attacked for his beliefs. Heck, Cracker barrel even removed his items so not to *offend* people. Is that a joke?

Such displays of hypocriscy ,hate and intolerance.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#318871 Dec 21, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but you know that one way or the other they're gonna piss some people off. It seems crazy...it's "reality TV" and then there's an uproar because one of the people speaks an actual opinion. That gives an awful lot of weight to this guy's one opinion. Phil Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin...is anyone actually surprised? The gay people now have the option to not watch the show, buy any of their products, and boycott the sponsors.
They won't just brush off anothers belief. They DEMAND that everyone accepts their lifestyle whether it goes against someones beliefs or not.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#318872 Dec 21, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you remember writing this sentence? "With respect to the STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN POTENTIAL LIFE, the "compelling" point is at viability."
How about you point out exactly where you found this in the cut and paste I supplied along with the link? Because everything quoted for your benefit was also for the benefit of others. The state does NOT have "important and legitimate" interest in potential life. Just like CPtr said, the state has its interests where it deems it has its interests. Roe v Wade says these interests must be "tailored to the recognized state interests." Not once did I read the state has specific interests in potential life. So, how about you provide the quote and link from Roe v Wade stating it does. Verbatim.
Did you hear about the comatose woman from Texas ,who is being kept alive (against her husbands wishes) in order to keep her 14 week old baby alive until that baby can be delivered. The unborn ARE reconized and protected after all.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#318873 Dec 21, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>((sigh)) can't you take it for what it was meant for. Lighten up, once in a while take your caps lock off and enjoy something else. Appreciate it for what it is.
I sure enjoyed it Bitner! Thanks
No. I simply can't. I don't appreciate cat people. Besides,it wasn't funny. It was boring. I got immediately bored when I watched yet another funny <cough> cat video.

LOL YOU lighten up sweetie.

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 Ghey Ghost 1,659,433
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 8 hr lisa 98,620
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 64,312
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Fri bbyrd009 72,045
girls how many family members have you had sex ... (Dec '15) Fri lizX 25
Looking for a pure boy Shih Tzu to breed with m... (May '12) Dec 14 Stefanie 26
I need help Dec 13 Bummed 1

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages