Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317506 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.

No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273337 Dec 31, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, abortion is a medical decision made by ONE person about HER body. Abortion is not now and NEVER HAS BEEN murder. You didn't "twist" about that, you just LIED about it flat out.
Again, you didn't "twist" that, you LIED about it.
Nobody "forced murder" on anyone, NOBODY forced abortion on anyone. You dont get to vote on MY right to make my OWN medical decision. Sorry dear, but that's just going to remain forever your tough shit moment. All your religous bullshit wont change that.
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...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273338 Dec 31, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it is MY time here on earth, as well as MY time to post, it is also MY decision what to do with that time.
Don't like what I have to say? Don't read it then. But I will continue to bring up the HARDSHIPS of motherhood all I want. Whether YOU like my doing so or not is irrelevant.
"Me my me I I myself me me I I me myself I me me..." - Ocean56
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#273339 Dec 31, 2012
The far rights "god" has killed more babies by billions then abortion...Maybe they should HATE there murdering god.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273340 Dec 31, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, without Christianity life would be an endless paradise.
You promote killing preborn babies.

Your "paradise" will end when cholesterol finally closes off your cold heart's arteries.

Then, it's off to be w/ your master and Father Of Lies (Satan) for eternity.

Have fun..........
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273341 Dec 31, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
See that's yours and your ilk's ignorance and purblindedness. As for me, while abortion is, hands down killing, and as such, tragic, I'd rather a woman kill her unborn and America remaining a free country, than have fascism and religious intolerance rule the country I help defend, and have woman, and men, be deprived of their constitutionally protected rights, by fanatic extremists who think their view of any issue, specifically aborrion, is the only view.
We know what happen to Nazi Germany; we know what happen to the Soviet Union; we know what happens to women, and the men who defend them in Muslim countries to name a few.
I don't know about you, but if having 3,000 women a day terminating their pregnancy is a grain of sand of an influence in keeping our country free, being it on. Xtians believe the clean soul will not go to hell. We Jews believe the soul enters at birth. So, from a religious stance, abortion has no downside with regard to the unborn's afterlife.
Now watch the religious talibangelists like sassy, no relevance, dum dumb to also name a few, have a field day twisting my post.
CD: "fascism and religious intolerance"

Intentionally killing innocent preborn babies is intolerance & fascism on steroids.

Dumbass.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273342 Dec 31, 2012
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Consent to sex is not consent to have and carry a child, you religious nut.
I think we all know what causes pregnancy.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273343 Dec 31, 2012
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...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273344 Dec 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not interested in your cult and it's beliefs. You are not relevant to any woman's reproductive choices but your own. I make my decisions. You make yours. Your opinion is not of import to me.
God Bless You :-)
Did your son & daughter have a nice Christmas?

Oh.

That's right.

You killed your daughter.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#273345 Dec 31, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
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. The only mess here is you. And your out-of-touch buddies.
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.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#273348 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.
More baseless claims. Do you have anything besides your worthless opinion and boasting? You are no better than those you condemn. Go eff yourself.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#273349 Dec 31, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we all know what causes pregnancy.
I repeat, consent to sex is not consent to have and carry a child, you religious nut.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#273351 Dec 31, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.
This is exactly the type of oppression, injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. You guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers. Sorry (not really), but the 19th century is PAST. Get over it.
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 of cruel jerks.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273352 Dec 31, 2012
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
If women could deal with pregnancies, then they wouldn't be having abortions and the Pro-Life movement would have never started. Its a Catch-22.
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.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273353 Dec 31, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
HEY! It was my B-day on the 29th... just sayin
So, that's why that was such a great day:-)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273354 Dec 31, 2012
bman wrote:
Why are all of you linking abortion to religion? Abortion isn't a religious issue. My religion has nothing to do with my pro-life stance. I just can't believe the fact that we as a country allow someone to just walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and have an abortion, no questions asked. I'm not saying that all people do that, I'm saying that our country allows that and it's hard to imagine anyone to justify that.
You don't have to imagine it. Read all about it. You obviously know how to use a computer.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

#273355 Dec 31, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --
-- Girls got much less education than boys did.
-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.
-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.
-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.
-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.
-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.
-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.
-- Women were not allowed to vote.
-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.
In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.
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.
burn

United States

#273356 Dec 31, 2012
God will strike you heathens down!!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273357 Dec 31, 2012
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that as long as there have been humans, there has been abortions, what you fail to realize , is many, if not most american people ( including you) do not like important issues like this decided by a few judges, instead of letting the people have a say.
I can promise you IF , in the future, a handfull of judges decide that abortion is no longer law of the land, that you will be the first person on topix screaming how injust it was to allow a few judges decide what is right, when it comes to womens rights!
as far as blood , well abortion is a bloody business.
please tell me that I am wrong, about what I said above.
liberal people are all the same, you want every voice to be heard, and noone denied, UNLESS they disagree with you, then you want their voice stopped.
even pro choice people ( who are happy, that abortion is legal) should be very upset , with the way it was made legal.
mainly becouse the same way it was made legal ,can be the same way it is made illegal.
on top of that, just the huge number of abortions should give you some kind of unrest.
You pontificate on and on, but it's all just your personal emotions being aired. You have an opinion, that's all. It isn't based on facts.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#273358 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 of cruel jerks.
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.

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.

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 Chitt for brainsdot 1,601,610
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 hr It s Weather Not ... 63,974
News Developer Resubmits Plan In Wethersfield (Jun '08) Thu ANONYMOUS 45
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu TheReal411 21,182
News Eastman Chemical cutting up to 300 jobs, reduci... (Mar '09) Sep 18 Caitlyn Jenner 7
Sick Minded Sexual Perversion is an Abomination!! Sep 18 TrueX 2
Cromwell-the most racist town in CT (Jun '10) Sep 14 ANONYMOUS 31

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages