Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311215 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.

Ocean56

AOL

#274374 Jan 4, 2013
sassylicious wrote:
Sin is saying "no" to God. God gave us a free will to choose him. While he allows that,and all that goes with that,he surely doesn't condone it(read the bible,he is quite clear about that). Evil is not "of" God.
S.I.N.= Self-Inflicted NONSENSE.

If you want to inflict such nonsense on yourself, be my guest. Thankfully, the first words of the First Amendment say I don't have to.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274375 Jan 4, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>Keep backpedaling and hope by kizzing old pasturized bubba azz, he will bail you and the foobot out.

Haha!
Who's backpedaling? I'm not saying what Bobby said was wrong. He's right. All I did was go into greater detail for the benefit of the hypocrites like you, who don't understand their own religion, and the pretend to understand mine better than those who practice it.

By the way, I don't need anyone to bail me out. I don't trample on my faith like you and your ilk does ya zevel.
Ocean56

AOL

#274376 Jan 4, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
A man can request that his wife dress differently but she can deny his request, if she doesn't agree with him. A spouse that makes demands, rather than requests is a jerk, whether male or female.
Exactly. A man can also "request" (yeah, right) that his wife wear only what HE wants to see her wear, and nothing else. Any guy who makes such "requests" is a guy I would advise women to RUN from.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274377 Jan 4, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>You and the foobot are backdelaing you butts off trying to get around what pasturtized bubba said is the "real" Jewish position.

You are kizzing his azz hoping he will come on and bail you put.

Gotta love it.
Hey, you want to take the word of an atheist who was born a Jew over the word of two practicing Jews, even to the extent of shunning your source like you're doing, be my guest.

Abortion will still be a legal choice for women regardless of whose opinion on the issue, from a religious stance, you care to take.

And there isn't a g-damned thing you can do about it, but have a hissy fit.

Bottom line, my religion doesn't forbid abortion. Yours does. You're the one with the double whammy.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274378 Jan 4, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>Redemption is possible for all, even you.
Redemption is possible only for those who drink the turd tea of xtianity.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274380 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>Says who? I certainly never said that. Jesus cries when you lie.

[QUOTE]
Judaism forbids it.
You don't. You want a woman to have that choice to keep or kill her child. "

Judaism agrees with allowing those women to have their choice.

Try actually READING the offical view of the American Jewish Congress this time Skanky. Its been publiished in the newspapers and stands as the view of MOST Jews to this day.

Dear Friends,
Did you know that abortion can be a religious requirement? Not just
permitted, but required!
In some religious traditions, if the fetus endangers the life of the
mother, abortion is not a matter of choice; it is mandatory!
The conflict over abortion is not between "secularists" and "religionists,"
between "moral" people who value life and "immoral" people who do
not, but between different moral traditions, different understandings of
the sacredness of life.
According to some religious traditions, the sacredness of life can be
diminished far more by callousness to those already born than to the unborn,
however precious their promise.
These religious traditions believe that the sacredness of life requires
in some circumstances that the woman's well-being takes precedence over
that of the fetus.
Legislation that denies a woman's choice is objectionable not because
it limits some abstract notion of unrestrained freedom, but because it may
inflict irreparable damage to the human dignity of the woman who is carrying
the fetus.
Judaism affirms that nascent life has great value.
But it is not the only value.
In the face of the kind of desperation that drives women to risk their
lives and mutilate their bodies rather than carry the fetus to term, no one
has the right to say that other conflicting values do not exist.
When faced with such conflicting values, individuals should be able
to turn to their own moral traditions or religious faith for guidance.
Government has no business preempting that very personal process,
leaving women trapped without a choice.
We do not propose that a particular religious view of abortion find
expression in legislation. That would be violating someone else's religious
freedom. And many people's moral choices regarding abortion are deeply
personal, and not determined by any particular religious tradition.
In the face of such great moral and religious diversity, the proper role
of government in a free society is to allow different traditions to advocate
their respective views, and to leave the decision to the woman, answering
to God and to her conscience.

http://www.violence.de/ajc/ajc.pdf

It was introduced and REINTRODUCED a number of times to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the question has come up in politics.

[QUOTE]How can you say that you are a practicing Jew?"

Easy. Becasue I am.

How can YOU claim to be a christian, when you clearly violate EVERYTHING your jesus stands for?
Great post Foo!

The skank/dweeb, and the likes of her, can all claim to be Christians because they're hypocrites, who stab you with one hand, then offer you last rites with the other hand, all in the pursuit of their morbid desire to "speak for the unborn."

Speaking for the unborn is one thing; speaking against the women who carry the unborn, is another. The latter one being the worse.
Ocean56

AOL

#274381 Jan 4, 2013
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.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274382 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't posted SHIT about Jewish teaching on abortion Inkstain, I however have.

Here is the site with the OFFICAL AMERICAN JEWISH VIEW on abortion, its history and its theology. I've posted this LITERALLY over 50 times, only to have you and your idiot friend IGNORE it and make shit up as you go along.

http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/search/node...

NOBODY HERE HAS EVER CLAIMED THEY SUPPORT OR AGREE WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND.

Why are you two idiots arguing about something NOT ONE PERSON HERE HAS EVER CLAIMED?
They hate all non-Christians. That's why.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274383 Jan 4, 2013
Tom Tom wrote:
<quoted text>"NOBODY HERE HAS EVER CLAIMED THEY SUPPORT OR AGREE WITH ABORTION ON DEMAND."

So then you do not support a womans right to make her own choice.
So to you, choice = abortion.

Duly noted.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274384 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc, believe it or not, its really good to see you. Did you ride out the storm okay?? Many here were wondering and hoping you were okay.
Why wouldn't I believe it ?
Did not get hit that hard by storm but son who has a home near the shore did not fare as well. Been helping him out.

By the way you can call what you deleted from my post inflammatory but it is certainly not nonsense. Cpeter is a pedantic, pontificating know it all blowhard who got nailed on his bullshit, as most blowhards who spew enough of it inevitably do.And he got nailed on a blatant contradiction of an issue that is far from trivial but rather sits at the heart of RvW and the abortion issue as a whole. Rather than man up and admit he erred he hides like a coward. And I'll continue to delight in pointing it out.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274385 Jan 4, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
Good to see you back, Doc. Was hoping you and yours were okay after Sandy. Hope your home is okay.
Was hoping to read your sensible and witty posts again. Petey, Katie and Bitner missed you a great deal, I'm sure.
Doing fine. Thanks for asking.

I know Tinker Bell missed me the most.
Did you see his comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274386 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Doing fine. Thanks for asking.
I know Tinker Bell missed me the most.
Did you see his comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance.
Doc: "Did you see [Tinker Bell] comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance."

Did cPeter really define viablity as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance?

Did he really say that?
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274387 Jan 4, 2013
Doc: "Did you see [Tinker Bell] comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance."

Wow.

First cPeter defines viability as the ability to survive WITHOT medical assistance.

THEN, he says the fetus must be viable in order for artifical life support to be meaningful.

What a mess......

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274388 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>Why wouldn't I believe it ?
Did not get hit that hard by storm but son who has a home near the shore did not fare as well. Been helping him out.

By the way you can call what you deleted from my post inflammatory but it is certainly not nonsense. Cpeter is a pedantic, pontificating know it all blowhard who got nailed on his bullshit, as most blowhards who spew enough of it inevitably do.And he got nailed on a blatant contradiction of an issue that is far from trivial but rather sits at the heart of RvW and the abortion issue as a whole. Rather than man up and admit he erred he hides like a coward. And I'll continue to delight in pointing it out.
Hope your son bounces back quickly from his encounter with Sandy.

When Wilma hit us in '05, many lived with blue tarps on their roofs for almost a whole year before they were able to have their roofs replaced. There were too many jobs for not enough roofing contractors and 5 years after the storm, people were still having their roofs re-replaced because of problems with the repairs to their roofs.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274389 Jan 4, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Instain seems to think that all conversations have to begin when she enters the discussion, and anything said before no longer counts where she's concerned. That way, she can skew her view and dismiss anything anyone says as irrelevant to what she didn't bother to read to begin with.
FooManSpew flips her mullet in the air and waves a fake star of David above her head. Then, she expects everyone else to tiptoe around her as she promotes brutally killing preborn baby humans.

If you dare oppose her flippant & disrespectful attitudes towards innocents, she will pull out her homosexual card or "antisemite!" card.

You see, she's the biggest coward in here. Foo acts all ManSpewy, but feels exempt from criticism because she is a faux Jew & powerless lil' lesbian.

Pffft.........

Welcome to the real world, dear. I don't give a damn what you are. Leave the babies alone.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#274390 Jan 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history: we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century.
You haven't been wearing your strap on for 12 hrs/day, have you Ocean56?

I can tell.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274391 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetal Homicide laws (FHLs) exist for one purpose and one purpose only; to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term, and all that such entails. Any other argument is futile, because it simply isn't true. And you want to know why that is? Look up each and every state's own FHL and you'll find that each and every one of them has an exception from prosecution for doctor who performs a legal abortion.
Not true. Do you think that the more times you or anyone else claims this, the more traction it gets or the more validity it
has ?

The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death.

If its sole purpose were what you claimed ..."to protect a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term" then that could have been accomplished simply by increasing or enhancing the punishment for already existing laws involving assaults on women which result in pregnancy loss. There would be no need to establish the fetus as a separate victim.....NONE.
In addition, if its sole purpose was what you claim then why was it so universally and vociferously opposed (even with the abortion exception) by the PC brigade ? The protection of a woman's right to choice, including the right to carry a pregnancy to term, is precisely the goal the PC strives for. If the sole purpose was what you claim, they should have not only NOT opposed it, they should have embraced it !
And finally if its sole purpose is what you claim then someone who assaults a woman entering a clinic to obtain a desired abortion, resulting in the death of this unwanted fetus, could NOT be charged with fetal homicide.

Let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274392 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Hope your son bounces back quickly from his encounter with Sandy.
When Wilma hit us in '05, many lived with blue tarps on their roofs for almost a whole year before they were able to have their roofs replaced. There were too many jobs for not enough roofing contractors and 5 years after the storm, people were still having their roofs re-replaced because of problems with the repairs to their roofs.
Thanks. There wasn't a lot of wind with the storm so no real above ground structural damage. All the damage was flood related. He had 6' of water in his basement.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274393 Jan 4, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc: "Did you see [Tinker Bell] comment about artificial life support not meaning anything unless the fetus is viable ? This after defining viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance."
Did cPeter really define viablity as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance?
Did he really say that?
Indeed he did. He's been running and hiding ever since.
Gtown71

United States

#274394 Jan 4, 2013
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.
So, are you happy with where women /girls are today? I doubt it.

Life is not, nor ever will be fair.

People that are well suited for a job can't get one, becouse they must keep balance.
The more people try to make this world their home, and better for them, the worse it gets. You clearly think what has happened to women is horrible, and are Very passionate about it, just like many are crying inside for what is happening to babies.
I realize how eaay it is, to say that the unborn child don't count, but remember, that's the same kind of voice, that has been saying the same thing about women.
No matter what group it is wanting something, another group must give up, in order for them to get 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) 46 min TeaRump Idiots 1,383,525
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr mdbuilder 59,510
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 hr TRD 70,607
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 10 hr winston molineri 20,303
News Suspect Had Quit Rehab (Mar '08) May 24 Ken Burke 135
News West Hartford Seniors Win Gold At State Table T... May 23 Coolstory 1
News Shots Fired After Bank Robbery, Police Chase In... (Mar '08) May 23 JoeBakRotsInHell 87
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages