Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311608 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

#291112 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you wrote it to me.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
That's how you treat "positive" posts?
Read carefully.

I said YOU responded to a post I wrote. I responded to you incorrectly. I already apoligized to you.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#291113 Mar 29, 2013
No one can force another party to support their life unless that party agrees. The law of today is based on the constitution, not your mythical god.

"A woman has reproducitve organs for one reason."--Yes, and that reason is because they were born with them. How they choose to use them--or not use them--is totally up to them.

BTW--the law of nature in most cases is for the male to impregnate the female and move on--the very behavior you seem to abhor. Only a small percentage of animals raise offspring together.
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the right to wantonly destroy another human life. Huamn life begins at conception. The law as of today allows the killing of unborn children. That does not make it right, moral or ethical.
A woman has reproducitve organs for one reason. When she decides to put thsoe organs into use, the child must be consedered in all decisions. Your argument is loved by deadbeat dads. They can claim once their sperm is gone, it is not their problem. If a child comes into existence since the act of having sex is not the same as agreeing to be a parent. You folks twist into pretzels with your nonsense.
That gets all you proabortion pagan panties in a bunch but that is the Law of God and Nature.
One day the current law allowing the wanton killing of unborn children will be overturned.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291114 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Inkstain, WHY do you lie so incessently?
I never said ANYTHING of the kind. You idiot.
Okay, it was bitter. You guys talk out of the same mouth anyway.

Since you are so appalled at being misquoted, does that mean you finally disagree with her comment?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291115 Mar 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No one can force another party to support their life unless that party agrees. The law of today is based on the constitution, not your mythical god.<quoted text>
Where in the Constitution is that?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#291116 Mar 29, 2013
It's usually not their disbelief in the woman's choices, it's the long history of women who DO change their minds and sue because they think the doctor didn't counsel them properly. It unfortunately does color the doctors decisions.
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. I believe there has to be a compelling medical reason for a doctor to perform a radical hysterectomy; they aren't done for ELECTIVE reasons.
Some women who know they don't ever want kids have problems finding a doctor who will even perform a tubal ligation procedure, even when some of the women are 30 and older. Some doctors can't seem to accept that NOT all women want to be mothers.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291117 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!! Inkstain, liars like YOU are the dying breed, and not dying fast enough frankly.
You make comments like 'women are not on the front lines" in the military, and you think YOU represent rational thoughts?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You know, or maybe you don't that Sassy and I were talking about combat positions where physical strength is neccessary. We understand that brute muscle is many times required and that can be an issue with women.

Your attempt to turn our conversation into your agenda is duly noted and accepted that some women are 'manly'.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/opinion/armour-...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#291118 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, it was bitter. You guys talk out of the same mouth anyway.
Since you are so appalled at being misquoted, does that mean you finally disagree with her comment?
She has no reason to as my comment was not what you are pretended it was.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#291119 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the Constitution is that?
The very same place where it says we can't own another person's body.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291120 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry you dont LIKE the facts, but the FACT is that an aborted ZEF IS medical waste. Your side doesn't like facts and will ignore them when it suits you, while mine accepts facts for what they are.
When does it become human enough for you to consider it a human being?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291121 Mar 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The very same place where it says we can't own another person's body.
That's what we have been saying, the woman doesn't own the body of her unborn child.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291122 Mar 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was. I was giving an example that highlighted your melodrama.
No, you were trying to make it about you. You inject yourself all the time when no one is talking about your uninteresting life.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291123 Mar 29, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to you proabortion lesbian pagans it isn't.
Is there a name for 'phobia of pagans"? If so, this idiot has it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291124 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, or maybe you don't that Sassy and I were talking about combat positions where physical strength is neccessary. We understand that brute muscle is many times required and that can be an issue with women.
Your attempt to turn our conversation into your agenda is duly noted and accepted that some women are 'manly'.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/opinion/armour-...
NOW you're saying 'women in the military are "manly"'? You're REALLY an ignorant bitch.

From your link that you CLEARLY didn't read. Again.

"The debate the move has raised presents an obvious reality check: Our American community needs to be educated that women are capable of taking on military roles and have done so throughout the nation's history."

You going to claim these women are "manly"??

http://buzzinn.net/sexy-military-women-around...

Go for it. Maybe you'll end up with a M16A2 Assault Rifle up your ass.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291125 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
When does it become human enough for you to consider it a human being?
I've spoken to this many times over the years. Use that brain for something besides a door stop and maybe you can figure it out Inkstain.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291126 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what we have been saying, the woman doesn't own the body of her unborn child.
Except while its attached to her, she does.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#291127 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what we have been saying, the woman doesn't own the body of her unborn child.
The Constitution doesn't apply to fetuses, Imbecile.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#291128 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you were trying to make it about you. You inject yourself all the time when no one is talking about your uninteresting life.
No I wasn't.

And guess what? A woman's decision regarding her own pregnancy isn't about you at all. You are irrelevant. Completely.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291129 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I've spoken to this many times over the years. Use that brain for something besides a door stop and maybe you can figure it out Inkstain.
Touchy touchy. Gotcha panties in a twist? Or are they boxers?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291130 Mar 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No I wasn't.
And guess what? A woman's decision regarding her own pregnancy isn't about you at all. You are irrelevant. Completely.
Public oppinion on that is changing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#291131 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Public oppinion on that is changing.
On you being completely irrelevant? I doubt that. Oh, you meant a woman's decision. No it's not. Public opinion is not only irrelevant, but it's what it's always been, split right down the middle. Our civil rights to "life, liberty and property" are not a matter for "public opinion".

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) 26 min RoxLo 1,418,024
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 70,940
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Hipocrits 20,489
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Into The Night 61,023
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