Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311930 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.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288214 Mar 6, 2013
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text>What's the proof that the woman's suppose infidelity caused the pregnancy and not her sexual intercourse with him? So she would miscarry HIS child?
Makes no sense.
Throughout scripture murder is described as THE KILLING OF INNOCENT HUMANS...A HEINOUSCRIME.
Now...in genesis God says we are his creation made in his image and likeness.
Here's where the bible refers to the CHILD in the womb..or the children(twins) in Rebekah's womb...or in Luke about the UNBORN Christ...
JEREMIAH 1:5
PSALM 139:13-16
EXODUS 21:22-25
GENESIS 1:26-27 9:6
What's interesting is how you ignore that.
STO clings like poison ivy to this one chapter that makes no sense thinking it supports abortion. and he has some other dummies that don't even know what a bible looks like to join his silly side.
Even if he is right, I can't believe God would devise a law so stupid and pitifully inadequate
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288215 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what you're up against regarding Ink's position. What we're all up against, STO.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/TPR1...
Ugh.

Again, they don't want to argue the merits of our arguments, so they ignore them and create a make believe position that we do not hold and argue against that, instead.

We know what a Strawman looks like. Jeez. You'd think by now they'd try a new tactic.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#288216 Mar 6, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh.
Again, they don't want to argue the merits of our arguments, so they ignore them and create a make believe position that we do not hold and argue against that, instead.
We know what a Strawman looks like. Jeez. You'd think by now they'd try a new tactic.
Question...if God supposedly approves of abortion then why do you support no elective abortion after viability?
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#288217 Mar 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
he refuses to explain how this could be an effect test for infidelity if the wife isn't pregnant.
I don't believe God would give such a stupid law to his people.
If you interpret it his way, it sounds like the Jews guys figured a way to poison their wife so they could get a new one.
Why did he refuse to answer? Seem what I mean? He even did that to gtown. He will answer what fits his sgenda and will ignore what doesn't.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288218 Mar 6, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh.
Again, they don't want to argue the merits of our arguments, so they ignore them and create a make believe position that we do not hold and argue against that, instead.
We know what a Strawman looks like. Jeez. You'd think by now they'd try a new tactic.
Let's see you argue the sense of such a law.nd how it would prove anything.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#288219 Mar 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see you argue the sense of such a law.nd how it would prove anything.
Looks like he's run off.

Oh well.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288220 Mar 6, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh.
Again, they don't want to argue the merits of our arguments, so they ignore them and create a make believe position that we do not hold and argue against that, instead.
We know what a Strawman looks like. Jeez. You'd think by now they'd try a new tactic.
You'd think so, STO. But ... um ... aint happened yet!

Was looking at some sites regarding abortion in the bible and found a number of interesting ones. What's funny is how people interpret the same passages and claim these mean different things. What wasn't so funny was how some of the passages were altered and then interpreted afterward. Those were the fundie sites, though. And one even ended with, "You CAN Be SAVED ...(send money here)."

However, thought this worth posting here.

"The Bible never specifically mentions abortion. This is significant, because herbal abortifacients--most notably pennyroyal and silphium--were in common use at the time that the New Testament was written. Jesus, Paul, and the other major figures of the New Testament were surrounded by cultures that practiced abortion, but no specific condemnation of the practice can be found in the Bible." http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/b...
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288221 Mar 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it make sense to you that this would be an effective way to determine a wife's faithfulness? You keep ignoring this question. Could it be you don't have an answer?
He's told you it's God's law. You responded to it, even.
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Whos! Is your faith shaken?
I would like to discuss the rest of your post because you are now looking at the Law of Jealousies from a secular POV.
Before we go there, however, I'd like to ask: Do you accept that I've made my case?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You still have to explain how trying to abort a woman who is probably not pregnant going to prove or disprove her fidelity.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Why do post as if people haven't responded to you all while acting high and mighty, calling others dummies? You are the one who doesn't directly respond to questions.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#288222 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd think so, STO. But ... um ... aint happened yet!
Was looking at some sites regarding abortion in the bible and found a number of interesting ones. What's funny is how people interpret the same passages and claim these mean different things. What wasn't so funny was how some of the passages were altered and then interpreted afterward. Those were the fundie sites, though. And one even ended with, "You CAN Be SAVED ...(send money here)."
However, thought this worth posting here.
"The Bible never specifically mentions abortion. This is significant, because herbal abortifacients--most notably pennyroyal and silphium--were in common use at the time that the New Testament was written. Jesus, Paul, and the other major figures of the New Testament were surrounded by cultures that practiced abortion, but no specific condemnation of the practice can be found in the Bible." http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/b...
Those "fundie" sites didn't include my bible.

"""The bible never specifically mentions abortion""" "

According to you and STO it does in numbers.

Your site, btw, proves that there is a child in the womb .

The passage about two people fighting and the woman miscarriaging and him not being charged is referring to it not being deliberate act to kill the unborn baby. Why would they be charged with murder ?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288223 Mar 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it make sense to you that this would be an effective way to determine a wife's faithfulness? You keep ignoring this question. Could it be you don't have an answer?
It's clearly ridiculous, but what does that have to do with the concept that the bible not only doesn't seem to forbid abortion but in some cases even justifies it.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288224 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> If the bible is "okay" with ripping women's wombs open and dashing infants heads against rocks (rolls eyes), then it MUST be acceptable for that practice today.
Why are moms in prison for killing their born? God says it's okay. Right?
You people will do or use anything to justify killing the innocent.
Shall we find out what God has to say about killing the innocent? Or about a child in the womb? Or what God ssys about killing?. Nah......STO won't do that. He won't even answer Gtowns simple question asked of him SEVERAL times. Why ? It doesn't suit his agenda what God says about that.
His Mom aborted and he is desperately trying to justify it. His Mom is unrepentant and if he really loves her he will pray for her. He is also misleading his fellow proaborts. He should be telling the truth and leading them to God with messages of love and forgiveness.
"If the bible is "okay" with ripping women's wombs open and dashing infants heads against rocks (rolls eyes), then it MUST be acceptable for that practice today."

You can't have it both ways, Sassy. You want us to follow your archaic Bible-based religious dogma, but now some things written about in the bible are not relevant to "today".
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#288225 Mar 6, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
So Ms. fake nurse, you would take a job just so you could piss off Catholics. Make sure the poor patients sare kept away from you, pagan.
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep".
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288226 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Those "fundie" sites didn't include my bible.
"""The bible never specifically mentions abortion""" "
According to you and STO it does in numbers.
Your site, btw, proves that there is a child in the womb .
The passage about two people fighting and the woman miscarriaging and him not being charged is referring to it not being deliberate act to kill the unborn baby. Why would they be charged with murder ?
My site showed the ambiguity of the bible's position on abortion. Do you need the definition of ambiguous provided?

"am·big·u·ous adjective \am-&#712;bi-gy&#601;- w&#601;s\

Definition of AMBIGUOUS

1
a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness <eyes of an ambiguous color>
b : inexplicable
2
: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways <an ambiguous smile> <an ambiguous term> <a deliberately ambiguous reply>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amb...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#288227 Mar 6, 2013
Not everyone bases their personal opinions on your zombie carpenter or his rapist dad.
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text>Question...if God supposedly approves of abortion then why do you support no elective abortion after viability?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288228 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion has no restriction during the first trimester. Following that, states can regulate.
Wrong. Casey vs PP rejected the RvW trimester framework and recognized:
"...a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure"

Regardless, the fact that you are wrong about this has nothing to do with the point I was making anyway.
Therefore your above premise is false.
Your head is false.
Anyway, as you pointed out, the question is what type of life is that life prior to viability? It is developing, unknown, and unaware.
So is it worth more than/equal to a woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy? To the point where following through with the pregnancy will cause harm to the pregnant woman and/or the fetus/baby?
You totally, as usual, miss the point. Do you have a genetic defect that prevents you from understanding points being made ?

The fact that YOU consider life prior to viability to be "developing, unknown and unaware" and less meaningful than a woman's right to privacy is irrelevant...even if we assume it to be true. Because the fact is the RvW decision acknowledged that the SC did not know when meaningful life begins nor were they going to even attempt to answer that "difficult question".
So once they make it clear that they do not know when meaningful life begins, and then turn around and render a decision giving a woman the right to abort without restriction, whether prior to the end of the 1st trimester or prior to viability, then they are blatantly contradicting themselves. By rendering such a decision they are effectively acknowledging that meaningful life does NOT exist prior to this point, for if it did they would be compelled to protect it. Yet within their own decision they indicate they do not know when meaningful life begins. If one does not know when meaningful life begins then it is axiomatic that one cannot say when it does NOT exist.
Their decision and their statement regarding the unknown point at which meaningful life begins, are blatantly contradictory and just one reason why RvW was just a terrible decision.
Gtown71

United States

#288229 Mar 6, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with educating the ignorant.
I didn't "give verses". I quoted them. I showed you and Ink the translations.
Do you have a problem with me sharing information? I would think you'd appreciate knowledge you were unaware of. Seems to me you don't want folks to learn.
I think learning "can " be a good thing, but rightly divided, when it comes to the bible, and it is a far reach to tie numbers 5 and abortion together.

Some people are ever learning, but not able to come to the truth.
Gtown71

United States

#288230 Mar 6, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Dollars to donuts that this thing was a Sunday school dropout - argued with the priests about everything. While that gtown fool never saw the inside of a bible study class.
You could take a satan worshipper, who's never seen a bible and even they could read numbers 5, and see it has nothing to do with abortion. Not that you really care, for the bible or abortion?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288231 Mar 6, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Your reference to abortion being murder is also not relevant.
Now you're just lying. I've never said abortion was murder nor have I ever said it SHOULD be murder.

No matter how it happened, natural, induced, or self inflicted it's still an abortion and neither are murder. There is no such thing as a miscarriage, they are all abortions. Why can't you bring yourself to say natural abortion?
Who said I can't bring myself to say natural abortion ? I can say it. The same way I can say natural death ( as opposed to death by homicide). Both, by definition are considered deaths and both result in the cessation of life. But both are hardly comparable.
Just because a miscarriage technically qualifies, by definition, as an abortion, in no manner, shape or form means you can conclude that there is no difference between a naturally occurring abortion and an induced abortion.
That conclusion is absurd and the point you dopey PC's are trying to make in making this ridiculous comparison, remains a mystery.
Gtown71

United States

#288232 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> STO is frustrated. He doesn't like to have bible discussions. He links something that he's copied and pasted and refuses to acknowledge the inconsistencies.
Mesnwhile, he knows(or claims to) the bible. Having read the "entire bible" yet leaves out what God has to say about killing the innocent or how he created us. He has NO problem talking about this ONE passage in the bible for weeks on end but when asked about another ( by Gtown) he runs because he is afraid to have his proabort friends not like his answer.
He has an agenda. He's using God to justify his evil support and to cover up his siblings death.Take notice that otherwise, he REFUSES to talk about God.
Sad, but true.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288233 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is that different than this, "THIS baby was not viable due to injuries sustained by his mother and him."
I'm not gonna say this is the stupidest question ever because there are probably some I haven't seen that are equally asinine. But this one is definitely in the top 5.

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) 7 min My New Alias RULES 1,434,082
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min It s That Simple 61,534
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ize Found 71,068
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Earl 20,655
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) 21 hr Stephanie 66
anybody remember (Aug '12) Fri Hagatha Christie 4
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Sep 28 rabbee yehoshooah... 72,039

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages