Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.

Comments (Page 13,623)

Showing posts 272,441 - 272,460 of304,925
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290019
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Right now they do. But we're talking about the logic being used to justify why unborn human life shouldn't also be afforded legal protection. It doesn't hold up. And you're not doing anything to refute that."
The bottom line is...if you're not born then you don't have rights. To give the "unborn" rights would mean to elevate their legal status above that of a born person. That is the key to the whole issue. The unborn are not here yet, they are not born. Born = rights. Not born...no rights yet. It's very simple.
Would that it were only so simple. If it's the concept of fetal rights that bothers you, a fetus can be afforded legal protection without being assigned rights per se. In fact fetuses are already afforded a level of legal protection post-viability. Sure its under the guise of the "states right to protect potential life", but it is legal protection nevertheless.
There is no comparable situation where a man would have to face such an issue as having his rights subjugated by a non-born entity, but if the situation was reversed you damn well know that men would be screaming that some z/e/f isn't going to have more rights than them.
"We're talking about those who willingly and with mutual consent engage in acts that they know full well could result in pregnancy.
FYI I support the right to abort in cases of rape and incest. Not sure where you were going with this one."
I get what you're saying but men can act irresponsibly and then walk away, the woman must deal with the consequences. That's a big difference. And then we have men like you fighting against women essentially having that same freedom...to not deal with an unwanted pregnancy and consequently raising a child they didn't want. It's easy for the men...just leave, and then here you are expecting the woman to deal with something so many men walk away from.
How did we get so far away from the point of RvW being terrible Constitutional law ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290020
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She wasn't "convicted" of anything. Her license was revoked because they claimed she didn't put enough information into a computer program which was making the diagnosis. Not of falsifying anything, and Tiller didn't have anything to do with it, he was cleared of all charges.
So was OJ.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290021
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much ground to hold right there. RvW didn't "create" a legal definition. They established the legal definition based on an existing medical definition.
The legal definition established by RvW matched the medical definition pretty closely I'd say.....
"viable infant
Neonatology An infant who is likely to survive to the point of sustaining life independently, given the benefit of available medical therapy"
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
<quoted text>
Correct about what ? Who even knows what you're talking about ? So more micropreemies die than survive prior to 25/26 weeks of gestation. So what ? But the ones who DID survive were viable at the time ALS was applied. They had to be. Because they survived. If they weren't viable, they would not have survived. Pretty simple. But you STILL don't get it.
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is by definition, IMPOSSIBLE to "reach" viability with ALS. Because if you have the ability to survive with ALS, by definition you are ALREADY viable.
<quoted text>
Watch it sewer mouth. No need for the profanity.....even as an acronym.
So in which of the two scenarios you describe above has an infant "reached" viability with medical assistance ? I'll tell you.....NEITHER. In the first scenario where the infant dies...it was NEVER viable. In the second scenario where the infant survives it was viable at the time it was born and ALS was applied. It had to be viable because it survived.
So I'll ask you again.....provide me with a scenario under which an infant "reaches" viability with medical assistance as you said it could. And please, try to answer without resorting to your ugly, vicious profanity.
<quoted text>
Who really has no desire to learn something ? Think about it.
Even STO agreed that the concept of reaching viability was impossible....unless one was still in the womb.
Aside from all this, aside from the original point made months/years ago now, I'm done being sidetracked on one phrase. I know you don't like it when I post "reaching viability". I know you think it's incorrect, inaccurate, what have you. I know you will insist you're right and I'm wrong forever and ever and ever because it's what you do. You enjoy it. You get off on it. You'd probably spend every waking moment just trying to prove me and other PCers wrong.

You know what I find hilarious? How you keep referring back to one specific incident where I let loose and dropped all pretenses of civility with you and others because you'd dropped it with me first by insisting I approved of infanticide. Since that time and before, I've mostly ignored all the name calling BS coming from you and your side in the spirit of civility. Sure I get a jab in here and there, everyone does. Even you. But you're the one who carries on and on and on about it.

I bet you don't even remember why I first used the phrase "reaching viability" or the context of the discussion. You've been so stuck trying to "correct" me, you blew right past my point and made it nonexistent.

That's why I'm done with this conversation. It can't move forward because you won't let it. You're like a guy who hears only a portion of a sentence, gets stuck on it, misses the entire point, and wonders why people aren't listening.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290022
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, at six, you were not only thinking of about sex (sounds like you should have been removed from your parents), you then made a conscious choice to only be sexually attracted to men? Really?
Youiu arer one insane proabort pagan. You have to much sex on the brain and not enough for real.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290023
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
I said nothing of the kind. Bisexuals can have permanent relationships with one person. It doesn't mean they can't be attracted to other people; they just choose not to act on it--you know, like everyone else can.
The second statement is true. Many are bisexual with a pronounce preference, but also have occasional attractions to the less-favored gender.
<quoted text>
In your bizarro world, beastiality and pedophillia are condsidered normal. The only reason you would claim they should not be allowed is law and victimization. The condition however, by your weird science, is quite normal. Much like Bi-sexualism, lesbianism and homosexualism.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290024
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pedophiulia is learned, not inborn. Moreover, there is a victim involved in molestation. There are many pedophiles who never touch children and thus commit no crime.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, with what YOU just wrote in.mind, what about all the MANY MANY MANY people who are sexualy attracted to kids?????
Who they CHOOSE, usually has to which kids the have access to.
God make them that way, or if you say you don't believe in God -are they born that way?
See YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.
I HAVE AN ANSWER.
We ARE ALL BORN WITH A SIN NATURE. THAT NATURE KNOWS NO BOUNDS.
It makes women want to lay with women -men lay with men -adults lay with children.
IT IS THE SAME DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ALL.EVEN.THOUGH SOME ARE WAY WORSE, OR ILLEGAL.
YET WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE? SRY -I REALIZE REBELS WANT NO LINE.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290025
Mar 21, 2013
 
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie, you'd win your bet and then some, because I know quite a few childfree people, both individuals and couples, who are enjoying life very much without children. For some idiotic reason, the idea of women and men having happy and productive lives WITHOUT children makes some anti-choicers almost barking mad (as in crazy, not angry). I often wonder why that is, when the choice NOT to have kids doesn't personally affect THEM at all.
In my experience, I've noticed that people who are secure and happy with their choices in life don't go full speed loco (nuts) because others may choose NOT to marry, have children, or be part of some religion or church. It's the ones who secretly AREN'T that happy with their life choices (but can't or won't admit it) who go on hatefilled rants at anyone who doesn't fit into their tiny little idea of "normal."
They may be happy in a paganistic way. The union of a man and a woman is for the propogation of the species. Marraige is meaningless without children. It is like goinmg steady with papaerwork.

You pagans are really screwed up in your view of life and moraility. You are the reason the country is going to Hell in a handbasket. Your pagan secularism will be the epitah written on our once proud nations tombstone.

You are the shame of a nation.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290026
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
Pedophiulia is learned, not inborn. Moreover, there is a victim involved in molestation. There are many pedophiles who never touch children and thus commit no crime.
<quoted text>
You can take out the word ped, and put in and word other then straight /normal people. The only difference is the victim part.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290027
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
In your bizarro world, beastiality and pedophillia are condsidered normal. The only reason you would claim they should not be allowed is law and victimization. The condition however, by your weird science, is quite normal. Much like Bi-sexualism, lesbianism and homosexualism.
Your insanity knows no bounds.
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290028
Mar 21, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Pedophiulia is learned, not inborn. Moreover, there is a victim involved in molestation. There are many pedophiles who never touch children and thus commit no crime.
<quoted text>
That is crazy. See what happens when your paganistic immorality runs amuck. You consdier it normal behavior. The only problem is the victim? That is sick.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290029
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No son, you're blind. I'm not upset, I'm disgusted by you and your hypocricy.
<quoted text>
Seems to me you're nothing now but a big kid that's upset because you know you're STILL doing wrong with these lies.
<quoted text>
STOP LYING idiot.
I never said any such thing.
YOU said your mother was the whore, not me. I've simply repeated what YOU said.
<quoted text>
Obviously I do, since you can't seem to stop lying.
Say all you want -you have No answers.
Your friends REFUSE to answer, even you pro life friend sue.
You must have them under your super power. Lol

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290030
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Say all you want -you have No answers.
Your friends REFUSE to answer, even you pro life friend sue.
You must have them under your super power. Lol
Why are you so determined to drag someone else into your arguement?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290031
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Have blacks used the n-word as hatespeak for well over a century?

Have gays used the f-word to oppress each other?

When an oppressed minority take over an epithet, they remove its power. That does't mean that others can take the word and still use it for negative reasons.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you call a black man the n word, if you seen his black friend do the same?
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290032
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
They may be happy in a paganistic way. The union of a man and a woman is for the propogation of the species. Marraige is meaningless without children. It is like goinmg steady with papaerwork.
You pagans are really screwed up in your view of life and moraility. You are the reason the country is going to Hell in a handbasket. Your pagan secularism will be the epitah written on our once proud nations tombstone.
You are the shame of a nation.
I fully understand where ocean is comming from. My wife and I were married for almost 20 years, before God blessed us with a child. We were always told we couldn't have any, and my wife was not one to deeply desire kids, and I really was happy without them. I would see others with kids, and think yuck! They are nasty, loud, always needing attention, well just read one of oceans many many neg. List. Lol

Anyway -we went out to eat alot! I went to coffee shops :)-we went where we wanted /when we wanted.

Yet after I was saved things changed for me in every way. After God began to mend what I had broken, one of the first things that convicted me was my home. We are blessed with a 4 bed 3 bath, 2,500 sq. Ft. Home with 6 acres of land, with a shop /plus a large shed, and even a 1 acre pond. Its a long way from the trailer we started out in. I was proud of what I had in a worldly sense, but after being saved -I was ashamed I had all this for just me and my wife. How many beds do you need? Baths? It felt like vanity vanity. So we went to foster classes and took in a 16 yo. Years after that my wife became pregnant, and we has a little girl who will turn 6 next sat.

She was nasty, loud, and has held us back from many trips to town, BUT I wouldn't change one sec I've had with her, and truly found the meaning of love on this earth, when she was born. I would die for her, and kill for her. I cannot see how in this world anyone who has had a child could ever ever be for abortion. They must be insane, or just lost without God /same thing.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290033
Mar 22, 2013
 
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
So was OJ.
Lol

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290034
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

I don't say god did anything. On the other hand, I've actually taken time to research these topics. If you did the same thing, you wouldn't make these lazy, idiotic arguments.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong.
I KNOW FOR A FACT, that some adults lust toward children, and always will!
So it is up to those of you, who wish to claim God made people gay, to also say God must have made some adults only lust toward kids.
Stop lying to yourself.
Stop worshiping creation, and turn to the one who created all things.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290035
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I fully understand where ocean is comming from. My wife and I were married for almost 20 years, before God blessed us with a child. We were always told we couldn't have any, and my wife was not one to deeply desire kids, and I really was happy without them. I would see others with kids, and think yuck! They are nasty, loud, always needing attention, well just read one of oceans many many neg. List. Lol
Anyway -we went out to eat alot! I went to coffee shops :)-we went where we wanted /when we wanted.
Yet after I was saved things changed for me in every way. After God began to mend what I had broken, one of the first things that convicted me was my home. We are blessed with a 4 bed 3 bath, 2,500 sq. Ft. Home with 6 acres of land, with a shop /plus a large shed, and even a 1 acre pond. Its a long way from the trailer we started out in. I was proud of what I had in a worldly sense, but after being saved -I was ashamed I had all this for just me and my wife. How many beds do you need? Baths? It felt like vanity vanity. So we went to foster classes and took in a 16 yo. Years after that my wife became pregnant, and we has a little girl who will turn 6 next sat.
She was nasty, loud, and has held us back from many trips to town, BUT I wouldn't change one sec I've had with her, and truly found the meaning of love on this earth, when she was born. I would die for her, and kill for her. I cannot see how in this world anyone who has had a child could ever ever be for abortion. They must be insane, or just lost without God /same thing.
I also understand the desire no to have children. IMO where prolifers make the biggest mistake is in being against birth control. If a woman desides that she doesn't ever want children, all forms of BC, including having her tubes tied or her partner having a vasectomy, should be readily available.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290036
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

I don't give a flying f**k what people do as long as they don't victimize others o do it. Nor do I give a crap about what you or anyone else thinks is "normal." I also don't care about the opinion of an idiot who thinks sexual attraction is somehow amenable to legislation.
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
In your bizarro world, beastiality and pedophillia are condsidered normal. The only reason you would claim they should not be allowed is law and victimization. The condition however, by your weird science, is quite normal. Much like Bi-sexualism, lesbianism and homosexualism.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290037
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you so determined to drag someone else into your arguement?
Oh Idk Susan, If memory serves me, I was talking to foo, and she wrote a long post about how God made her gay, and how could she look at a man, when she's always desired women. You responded to that with -

WELL SAID!!!

I can only assume you to believe God made her gay, and asked you a simple question, which you have still failed to answer, and prob will.

Ok?:)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290038
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

So why do they allow 80yo's to marry--they clearly can't reproduce.

People marry for many reasons...you don't determine if their reasons are good enough.
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
They may be happy in a paganistic way. The union of a man and a woman is for the propogation of the species. Marraige is meaningless without children. It is like goinmg steady with papaerwork.
You pagans are really screwed up in your view of life and moraility. You are the reason the country is going to Hell in a handbasket. Your pagan secularism will be the epitah written on our once proud nations tombstone.
You are the shame of a nation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 272,441 - 272,460 of304,925
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••