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 14,141)

Showing posts 282,801 - 282,820 of304,940
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301233
Jun 19, 2013
 
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), left, and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). Franks authored the 20-week abortion ban that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday.(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday 228 to 196 that prohibits women from having abortions 20 weeks after conception.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point. It contains exceptions for women whose lives are in danger as well as some rape and incest victims who can prove that they reported their assaults to criminal authorities, but it contains no exceptions for severe fetal anomalies or situations in which the woman's health is threatened by her pregnancy.
You were saying??
I was saying that there were exceptions and there are.
Fr Silesius SJ

Sonoma, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301234
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There is a bit of math which we must visit to enable us to recognize just who is doing what and what god's children should then think of the attesting apostates. The math is for each member of congress and for each senator who is married there should be a child for each year of that marriage or an explanation should be forthcoming as to just HOW HAS THIS (smaller number of live births) BEEN MADE TO PASS?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301235
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say such a thing? You quoted me saying "consent to sex does not equal consent to carry and have a child".
Get back to me when you have removed your head from out of your gaping bungh@le.
The consent to sex would have to be unprotected in order to conceive a child. Unprotected sex is the cause of most abortions.

You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301236
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You will find few people who advocate sex ed than I, and I have no problem with medical videos and pictures--IF they are accurate and factual. Using "over the top" visual aids creates a "reefer madness" reaction, turning revulsion to derision. Abortion videos are a problem, because the ones the PLM want to show are NOT of the typical 1st-trimester abortion, but of late-term abortions (performed for medical reasons).

I also believe that if you show abortion and childbirth pics, you also need to include pictures of women who die in childbirth.

Abstinence takes 30 seconds to teach. What kids need are practical ways of preventing pregnancy and disease. Kids are entering puberty as early as 9 or 10; they need to understand the biological aspects of what is happening to them and why. It's not the school's job to impose morality, but to present facts.
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to disappoint Peter.
I am very much on the pro life side.
No I don't picket ..But I would try to counsel an alternative if given the chance with someone I know. I think. It's horrid. For both baby and woman.
But I think Roe is too much entrenched in politics to ever be. Overturned..
So barring that........ education. for PEOPLE WHOSE PARENTS CAN'T OR WON'T GIVE IT..the nastier the videos the better. I woukd have PSA s all over the. Place like the smoking ones on M T V and the net. People with diseased..saying be careful ..use condoms.
I'd have vids of birth and ABORTION( would the PC activists allow THAT)
And have birth control education in high school like that.
And if parents don't want this in the class..have it mandatory on the school web. They can watch with their kids kids and have a test on it.
And also let them know the only way to be totally safe is abstinence .
Throw all of it at them in parts easy to understand. And then educate on being as safe as possible .
BC and yes respect for self..HOOKING up is plain uncool ..get celebrities to push this..They live the likelike.
So I guess I'm probably more into this than mom ..But fir heaven sake in this day and age ..having so many pregnancies unwanted and ABORTION in these numbers is the worst news in the women's dept.
It's harder on the moms than using safety and it ends human life.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301238
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you said;
"Maybe you'll understand what I am saying when this country is told it's Catholic. And that you have to follow the Catholic faith. Or their version of it anyway."
Again I ask, what is the 'Catholic version' of the Catholic faith?
Yes, Ink? It's what I said. It still has nothing to do with what you asked. Do you know what a theocracy is? Did you read the posts regarding the Religious Right and its quest to create a theocracy in the USA?

That sentence was a "what if" example for Rose. If you'd like, you can answer.

What if you were told America is now Catholic and you have to follow the Catholic faith? Not the faith you've followed throughout your life, but their (meaning the Religious Right's) version of it anyway?

How would you, Ink, respond to something like this in the future?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301239
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

What if the numbers Fitch?

Has madame kindle been shopping?
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree that if the numbers Abercrombie good news.
Playa. Each and every abortion done ...still ending a human life
Maybe more women and men are being safe..
Still thinkthink celebs coukd do a great public service with the message,HOOKING UP IS NOT GOOD..

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301240
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She was concerned that the US would become a Catholic country. Maybe you think she has a point that only you and she sees.
Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.

Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301241
Jun 19, 2013
 
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Ink? It's what I said. It still has nothing to do with what you asked. Do you know what a theocracy is? Did you read the posts regarding the Religious Right and its quest to create a theocracy in the USA?
That sentence was a "what if" example for Rose. If you'd like, you can answer.
What if you were told America is now Catholic and you have to follow the Catholic faith? Not the faith you've followed throughout your life, but their (meaning the Religious Right's) version of it anyway?
How would you, Ink, respond to something like this in the future?
No I didn't read the posts. Was there anything factual to read or just your fears?

I can't believe that the religious right is taking over the country and I didn't know about it. Please fill me in.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301242
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You're going to need the 55-gallon drum of febreeze.
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
We get it already...you're better and smarter than everyone else and you know everything about everything, so can we open some windows now and finally clear the stench of your arrogance out of the room?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301243
Jun 19, 2013
 
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.
Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
You're joking, right?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301244
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I was saying that there were exceptions and there are.
Those being imminent death of the pregnant woman, and for SOME women who report rape or incest within 24-48 hours. Not all. Just some. Which ones??

The fact remains that exceptions protecting the continued health of the mother, or respect for her personal feelings regarding a severly/profoundly compromised fetus, are not included in this bill. And those are the exceptions Rose and I were discussing.

Your two cents added nothing to the discussion.
As per usual.
Next...
Katie

Federal Way, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301245
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She was concerned that the US would become a Catholic country. Maybe you think she has a point that only you and she sees.
No I wasn't. Try to follow along.

I gave a "what if" to Rose for consideration.

How come after the first time I mentioned that it's not what I said, you continued to insist it was? Shouldn't you be trying to understand what was said and seeing if you can add anything productive to conversation of the Religious Rights' quest for creating a Christian theocracy in America? You do understand it's founded by Presbyterians, right? Perhaps it would be *their* version of Catholicism the USA would be following.

How do you like them apples?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301246
Jun 19, 2013
 
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Those being imminent death of the pregnant woman, and for SOME women who report rape or incest within 24-48 hours. Not all. Just some. Which ones??
The fact remains that exceptions protecting the continued health of the mother, or respect for her personal feelings regarding a severly/profoundly compromised fetus, are not included in this bill. And those are the exceptions Rose and I were discussing.
Your two cents added nothing to the discussion.
As per usual.
Next...
You originally said---

"Then why are there no exceptions to the ban on all abortions after the 20th week, which passed in the House of Representatives YESTERDAY???"

I pointed out that you were in error and you later posted those exceptions. It is important to be accurate.
feces for jesus

Hicksville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301247
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The consent to sex would have to be unprotected in order to conceive a child. Unprotected sex is the cause of most abortions.
You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion
.
More astounding BS from you. You seem hellbent on making shttt up. Where did I even mention protected or unprotected sex??

Please explain how you get:
"You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion"

From

"consent to sex does not equal consent to carry and have a child"
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301248
Jun 19, 2013
 
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No I wasn't. Try to follow along.
I gave a "what if" to Rose for consideration.
How come after the first time I mentioned that it's not what I said, you continued to insist it was? Shouldn't you be trying to understand what was said and seeing if you can add anything productive to conversation of the Religious Rights' quest for creating a Christian theocracy in America? You do understand it's founded by Presbyterians, right? Perhaps it would be *their* version of Catholicism the USA would be following.
How do you like them apples?
I didn't realize that you were just being silly. Now I see the humor.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301249
Jun 19, 2013
 
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps it is a point that you refuse to see.
Your obliviousness to reality is a long-standing consistency around here, after all...
She was just joking. There is nothing to see. She made it up but you fell for it too.
feces for jesus

Hicksville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301250
Jun 19, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The consent to sex would have to be unprotected in order to conceive a child. Unprotected sex is the cause of most abortions.
.
You can't really be this stupid to claim that "sex would have to be unprotected on order to conceive a child".

I stand corrected, you might be that stupid.

You've yet to remove your head from your arse. Dont reply until you do so, thanks.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301251
Jun 19, 2013
 
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
More astounding BS from you. You seem hellbent on making shttt up. Where did I even mention protected or unprotected sex??
Please explain how you get:
"You seem to defend unprotected sex and the resulting consequence, abortion"
From
"consent to sex does not equal consent to carry and have a child"
You sound a lot like bitter tangled up in precise words instead of intent.

To me your comment means that if you agree to have sex and put yourself in a position of becoming pregnant with child then having an abortion and killing the child is perfectly acceptable.

Am I wrong?

I on the other hand would expect a woman consenting to sex and not wanting a child to have enough personal responsibility to use protection and avoid causing the death of a conceived human.

“Greatest Love”

Since: Aug 08

For His Creation

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301252
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Then why are there no exceptions to the ban on all abortions after the 20th week, which passed in the House of Representatives YESTERDAY???
Apparently, Congress has something other than a brain. That bill will waste countless taxpayer dollars, in defending against rulings of its blatant Uncontstitutionality, should it ever pass in the Senate...which is highly unlikely, given that even the old white Republican Congressmen who WROTE the filthy thing, describe it as 'symbolic'.
But what it doesn't do, is protect the health of women who discover their pregnancy is toxic after the 20th week, or whose fetuses are diagnosed as severely / profoundly compromised after the 20th week...or who don't even discover they are pregnant until after the 20th week, Rose.
Tough luck for them, eh?
The whole purpose of even PROPOSING this legislation, is to make a point: namely, that the lives of women are secondary to the Religious Republican Right's agenda, regarding the intensely personal issue of abortion. To show the old white Republican base that its elected leaders take controlling a woman's reproductive function more seriously than her economic status, or her job prospects.
All I can say is, 2014 cannot come soon enough to vote these pasty faced rape-apologists out of office.
The bill addresses,abortion ..Not emergency care fir a,mom in dire,straights..

If a woman is in a hospital they are not killing a baby..They are,saving both my ex if possible..if not possible they will deliver..the baby and mom woukd hopefully survive..they are not killing moms..That would be stupid in the first place..besides inhumane.

They ars saying at a certain point going fir an ABORTION in and if itself.with a healthy mom... Would be illegal..

Delivering a baby who dies nit survive is nit the same as killing it in the womb..then taking it out ...I know you understand this.

Also removing an ectopic pregnancy (not applicable in the ban obviously) 2779or a dead baby is not the same as the willful deliberate act if ending the life of the child in the womb.
For purposes of distinction which you all like to limp together..one is an abortion which woukd be banned. One is the care of the mom in which the baby may die.

Again plays you know there is a difference

And you are correct it won't be law...
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#301253
Jun 19, 2013
 
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't really be this stupid to claim that "sex would have to be unprotected on order to conceive a child".
I stand corrected, you might be that stupid.
You've yet to remove your head from your arse. Dont reply until you do so, thanks.
Do I need to show you charts on the efficacy of the different contraceptions. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she has any number of ways to protect herself. Or she can just have an abortion when needed.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 282,801 - 282,820 of304,940
|
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.

Other Recent Wethersfield Discussions

Search the Wethersfield Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min sonicfilter 1,072,872
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 28 min voice of peace 67,547
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 30 min SpaceBlues 45,571
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr Stuart Cudahy 68,163
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 17 hr Chet Booswahnicki 18,495
FBI at Carabetta Office Building on Center and ... (Jun '11) Jul 8 Cahoots 15
Bliss Market In Wethersfield Closes Jul 5 Witness 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••