Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311604 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#266071 Nov 24, 2012
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really believe your repeatedly pathetic attempts at "discrediting" PCers is anything but vain?
It's been quiet here yet you choose going against the very rights that protect you and focus on removing every American female's civil rights for the sake of faux victory on a Topix thread at the start of the Holiday Season. And you point your fingers to deflect from yourself (as if it weren't obvious).
It's been "quiet" here? That's because only PC were posting to one another, except for Knit's posts. That's how you people stay quiet, when you have no one around that tells it like it is about the stupidity you people post.

There's no logical reason for me to deflect from anything I've posted, since what I post proves the lies posted by you PC. You don't ever make any sense.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#266072 Nov 24, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
...I see something dragged the carrion back into the forum, and Lynne is in her glory as she thinks she has a playmate back. What worthless pieces of shit they both are.
I...
Just your typical personal attacks using lies, to try to deflect from what we proved were lies posted by you, about the Ariel situation. You played exactly as I knew and posted you would. Here's a biscuit for you, Fido.

Now, as to the countless lies that we proved you posted back then and the lies in your denials in the present, whay say you, Toots? Another post of attacks to deflect? More ignoring of the truth we posted? Anything and everything you can think of but facing the truth. Which is, we all know you're a pathological liar. Even your friends here can see it, but you all deflect from each others' lies or ignore it altogether.
Googleicious

Cicero, NY

#266073 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed to address the actual point of personhood being subjective...and the historical (& contemporary) deadly results.
Blacks were considered 3/5 persons. Yes or no?
No. They were not.

http://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-c...
Googleicious

Cicero, NY

#266074 Nov 24, 2012
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Actually you're both wrong.
1) The plantation owners wanted to count each slave as 1 person. The Northerners didn't want the slaves counted at all.
2) This led to the 3/5 compomise, not 2/3.
3) The issue was Congressional representation, not taxes. Because representation in Congress is based on population, counting slaves as whole people would show a higher population and thus more representation in Congress.
Exactly.
Googleicious

Cicero, NY

#266075 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: Human being is a religious/philosophical concept, not scientific.
Homo Sapiens is Latin for Humans(synonym: Human beings). I'm glad you like Latin, but it's okay to translate into English.
In English, it actually means homo = man sapiens = wise.

Its okay you like English, but you should know how to correctly translate.

Homo sapiens

1.A taxonomic species within the genus Homo — human/man.
Googleicious

Cicero, NY

#266076 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: "I don't support abortion at all."
You support a woman's right to choose to intentionally kill the little human in her womb.
Same difference.
Not the "same difference" at all. Supporting someone's right to make their own choices does not automatically equate with stupporting a choice that person makes.
Googleicious

Cicero, NY

#266077 Nov 24, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Just your typical personal attacks using lies, to try to deflect from what we proved were lies posted by you, about the Ariel situation. You played exactly as I knew and posted you would. Here's a biscuit for you, Fido.
Now, as to the countless lies that we proved you posted back then and the lies in your denials in the present, whay say you, Toots? Another post of attacks to deflect? More ignoring of the truth we posted? Anything and everything you can think of but facing the truth. Which is, we all know you're a pathological liar. Even your friends here can see it, but you all deflect from each others' lies or ignore it altogether.
The irony coming from you is amazing.
HUSKER

United States

#266078 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: I did not say "human" is a religious/philosophical term. I said "human being" is.
_____
A human and a human being are synonyms...interchangeable.
Look up "synonym" in the dictionary. Ask one of your Wiccan cricket goddesses for a thesaurus for the holidays.
For example: "Blockhead" and "Dimwit" are synonyms.
That should help you get started....
They just can't admit they are wrong, LOL!

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266079 Nov 24, 2012
HUSKER wrote:
<quoted text>They just can't admit they are wrong, LOL!
Sadly, you are to bigoted to understand we are right.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#266080 Nov 24, 2012
HUSKER wrote:
<quoted text>No,they don't want to buy someones contraceptives, they know that it is morally wrong to do so .
How is it morally wrong to prevent unexpected/unwanted pregnancies that may result in an abortion? Every one isn't Catholic and follows the rhythm method. So please explain how it is more moral to refuse pregnancy/abortion prevention than it is immoral to provide it?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266081 Nov 24, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>How is it morally wrong to prevent unexpected/unwanted pregnancies that may result in an abortion? Every one isn't Catholic and follows the rhythm method. So please explain how it is more moral to refuse pregnancy/abortion prevention than it is immoral to provide it?
Because the RCC wants to have it's cake, AND eat it, too.

They don't WANT pregnancies prevented, anymore than they want them aborted. And they know how many of their parishoners USE BC pills, against their wishes. They don't want to make it easy for them to do so. Fewer pregnancies means fewer Catholics; less money in the plate, less power in the world.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266082 Nov 24, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
They CAN be used interchangeably, when both apply. It's not required that they are. For example, YOU are both a human and a human being (albeit not a very good example of one). A fetus being gestated inside a human being is a human, but not a human being.
You can say so all you like, but I don't have to debate as though it's true.
A human and a human being are synonyms.

You're making up a subjective & random vocabulary rule in order to excuse executing little humans.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#266083 Nov 24, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
Goes to show that Foo is in fact a pathological liar who posts stories for attention for herself to try to make herself seem relevant in what she tries to pass off as important but the stories are complete fabrications.
She gets caught in her lies and posts even more agressively with personal attacks that are also lies, toward whomever OWNED her.
In the face of the truth, the girl still lies her ass off. It's mind boggling how deluded she is in her belief that people don't see it all. Her friends will ignore the posts and try to defend her by reporting people who prove she's a liar.
Pathetic bunch.
LOL really? Back to this? Pathetic.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266084 Nov 24, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the "same difference" at all. Supporting someone's right to make their own choices does not automatically equate with stupporting a choice that person makes.
Googleicious: Supporting someone's right to make their own choices does not automatically equate with stupporting a choice that person makes.
_________

If someone said "I do not support terrorism, but I support the right of Muslims to choose to commit acts of terror," you wouldn't find that conflicted?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266085 Nov 24, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>
In English, it actually means homo = man sapiens = wise.
Its okay you like English, but you should know how to correctly translate.
Homo sapiens
1.A taxonomic species within the genus Homo — human/man.
I said Homo sapiens means humans.

You said Homo sapiens means humans.

Thanks.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266086 Nov 24, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly.
Exactly. Blacks were considered 3/5 persons.

Just like I said.

(You're like my parrot)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266087 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
A human and a human being are synonyms.
You're making up a subjective & random vocabulary rule in order to excuse executing little humans.
I've never executed any humans.

Human is scientific, human being is philosophical. All human beings are human, but not all humans are human beings.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266088 Nov 24, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
You can evict any unwanted residents from your property; you are not responsible for their survival past your threshold. The uterus is the woman's property.
<quoted text>
There you go again, Petey. Dehumanizing humans again.

Pregnancy is how mankind was created to procreate. It's not a disease, or a property rights situation. It's a normal part of what it is to be human.

EVERY single 'argument' you present in support of abortion has at its core dehumanizing of humans.

It's all you've got, Petey.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266089 Nov 24, 2012
Googleicious wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony coming from you is amazing.
Here's irony:

Wiccan woman accidently stabs herself in the foot with a sword during a GOOD LUCK ritual in a cemetery.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25803777/ns/us_ne...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#266090 Nov 24, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never executed any humans.
Human is scientific, human being is philosophical. All human beings are human, but not all humans are human beings.
This isn't Wicca. You can't make things up as you go.

A human, and a human being are synonyms. Period.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,417,656
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Ize Found 70,939
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr annie puzzo 20,482
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Heretic 61,014
Chris Powell Editor of the JI investigated for ... Aug 22 HCourantsub 1
News SEA CLIFF: Paramedic arrested on child harm cha... (Jun '08) Aug 21 Greg 55
News Gay Marriage (Mar '09) Aug 20 newsb 482

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages