Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310235 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.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247013 Jul 3, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be wrong, Chicky, but I think the difference between the two is that Rachel isn't actively claiming she's PL and wanting to see abortion illegal. Just my unnecessary $.02.
I'm in the middle,, you could say I'm pro-choice with a big gray area or pro-life with a big gray area... so really, it's how you look at it I guess. But at some level I believe most people to have a gray area... I said MOST people not all

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247014 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Oh, poor little homophobe. So limited.
<quoted text>
Yeah, I feel kinda bad for it too! How he was raised and all, with all that denial and hate festering inside him..(((shiver)))

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247015 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't know of anyone RC has reported; that's blueboy's scam. And there is a difference between them--RC is very open about her game; also, she does occasionally address the topic. BB is just here to support his fragile ego and can't debate squat.
<quoted text>
Thank you Cpete,, a tear is rolling down my face at this very moment... wait,,, wait,,, oops,,, same tear that was from Foo,,, can't let you take credit for it.... sorry,,, carry on....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#247016 Jul 3, 2012
Nope. 100% gay male here.
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>This goes to my post where I suggest you and Cpet are both women.
You place women in bed on a higher level than men in bed.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247017 Jul 3, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree with you. When she first started posting to me it was an off-the-wall strange kind of rambling that I ignored so she sent me a private message and was shrieking out demands that I respond to her. Now RC is avidly defending someone who came here and wrote anti-semitic slurs.
hahahhahah like I actually care enough to read the posts that are more than a sentence long,,, thanks for the credit, but it is undeserved...

BTW - nope, no pm's from me,,, unless that was that time I asked people to ban me... but really, if it wasn't that, it wasn't anything.....

shrieking out demands???!!!! hahahhahahahah

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247019 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nope. 100% gay male here.
<quoted text>
new tear rolling down my face,, just for you Cpete! My hopes squashed, my future uncertain.... I feel like writing a poem now!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247020 Jul 3, 2012
Gotta go,,, troll you all later,,, Leonine, I haven't forgotten about you! You will be served! Bwhahahahahhaah

Chicky? Bite me
Moon thingy,,, take a nibble too!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#247021 Jul 3, 2012
Zack? Suck an egg! Suck anything round and big,,, you know you wanna/like to.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#247023 Jul 3, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>I've reported you,, sue me! HAHAHAHHA
Go ahead and deny that you didn't me! Hypocrite....
How many of your posts are you just flinging crap? Ahhh Chicklette,, I think your comments to suit your agenda is flippin adorable, keep up the good work/denial!
Chickensh!t is just mad because she's been banned more than anyone else.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#247024 Jul 3, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"You've already agreed that medical assistance isn't a requirement for viability, so why are you being so ambivalent and asking for explicitly when you know the lack thereof does not mean medical assistance is inferred?"
Probably because PC pinheads keep trying to claim that viability EXCLUDES medical assistance. The same PC pinheads who tried to claim that we've been saying that viability means all fetuses need medical assistance to be considered viable. That perception of what we've said was way out there, far, far away from the reality of what we've said.
Which PC "pinheads?" Have you graduated to pinheads from boneheads?
lil Lily wrote:
Just because medical assistance is not a requirement for a fetus to be considered viable, it does not amount to being the same thing as a fetus needing medical assistance being non-viable.
Why are you arguing this with me?
lil Lily wrote:
Just because some definitions don't mention medical assistance, does not mean medical assistance is EXCLUDED for a fetus to be considered viable. Just like some definitions that mention medical assistance, does not mean medical assistance is REQUIRED for a fetus to be considered viable.
There are some definitions, and terms that require all that's applicable to that definition, or term, to be stated. The opposite is also true; if a definition, or term does not require a particular qualifier, such must be stated. Example; if a Judge dismisses a case, pursuant to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and it is the Judge's intention to allow the Plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit, the Judge must state "without prejudice." To not state "without prejudice," will mean the suit is dismissed WITH Prejudice, and the Plaintiff would be barred from EVER re-filing the lawsuit.

This principle applies to viability as well. And here's why; the reasonable presumption is that if viability is being questioned, a severely premature new born is the subject of the matter. Before any medical assistance is applied, the preemie must demonstrate its ability to live is 50% or greater. Medical tests and experts' estimations are used for that "demonstration" to take place. So, for a severely premature newborn to be considered viable, it must, on its own, demonstrate it can live outside the womb WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. If medical assistance helps developt the preemie to achieve full maturity, which more often than not happens to be the case, then it will be applied. So, if the definition comes from a medical source, and does not include medical assistance as a qualifier, who are you, or Doc, to say medical assistance is a part of viability. Because by arguing the definition does not explicitly prohibit it, youre being inapposite.
lil Lily wrote:
Intelligent people know how to look at all definitions of the same word and apply the ones that apply to a specific topic, and use all that apply to understand what the word means. Viability is the potential (the possibility) of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, with OR without medical assistance.
Intelligent people do not argue with those who know more on any given subject than they do. You're not a doctor, so your argument on viability is obtuse at best, plain ole dumb at worse.
Katie

Kent, WA

#247027 Jul 3, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>dammit,,, CYNDI???!!!!...
and no, they're me, but whatever....
Funny, RC! I remember conversations where you said your avatars were Cyndi Lauper and that YOU resembled Crystal Bernard. But whatever... And how is Leslie these days?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004751/

:p

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#247029 Jul 3, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
How does this make sense to you? IF I were saying to you that John Doe murdered Jane Smith because I have "faith" that he did it, you would laugh in my face. Even the law required *evidence* of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chicky, if you told me John Doe murdered Jane Smith, I wouldn't question faith; I'd question why you're saying that.
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
CD as a man of science and logic you know that I do not have to prove or disprove the existence of any god. The burden of proof lies with you that claim he exists. The best that you can do is say that you choose to believe in something that has never been proven to exist and for which there is no evidence of existence. You can not positively claim he does exist.
But, I'm not making that statement Chicky. It was you who stated "there is no god." I only stated you can't prove, or disprove that statement, so I'm justified to say the opposite as you are to make your statement.
If I told you that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; would you believe it, or ask for proof?
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
Until that proof occurs, there simply is no god. That absence of evidence has been on going ever since man invented their gods. ALL of them, most of which are NOW referred to as mythology. Why is one god mythical but others aren't? Because there is NO PROOF of the existence of the mythical gods??
There is also no way to disprove it, so again, I'm justified in making the factual statement to the opposite of yours and will have no need to prove it, because you can't prove there is no G-d either.
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
Unless there is proof of his existence I CAN positively claim he does not exist. Just like you all positively claim there is no monster in the closet or unicorn driving your car.
Wrong. Until someone can prove there is no G-d, or disprove that there G-d exists, I can positively claim G-d exists.
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
I am sorry if this bothers your personal beliefs but I can't help that.:-)
It doesn't bother me at all. We can agree to disagree on this subject.

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247031 Jul 3, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
Pathetic double standard.
I'm sure there is a double standard, one that I'm certain those of the prochoice ilk seek to impose regularly!

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247032 Jul 3, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is so witty and funny about that kind of strange behavior? What am I missing?
I don't know, perhaps a disinclination towards self-criticism?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#247033 Jul 3, 2012
bluestreak prime wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure there is a double standard, one that I'm certain those of the prochoice ilk seek to impose regularly!
Absolutely!!

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247034 Jul 3, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps because you could avoid making an ass of yourself.
Again.
<quoted text>
Since he made bigoted comments to me in this thread, the answer is HERE if you bothered to read them Lynne you fkin MORON.
<quoted text>
Lynnie, I made you a promise a LONG time ago, and reiterated it many times, that I would take EVERY opportunity to spotlight your ignorance and stupidity on every occasion I could.
And you make it SO easy after all. And speaking of "A Confederacy of Dunces", this quote fits you PERFECTLY:
"'It's not your fate to be well treated,' Ignatius cried.'You're an overt masochist. Nice treatment will confuse and destroy you." Pg. 367
<quoted text>
So that makes overt racism okay?
Jesus Lynne you're as stupid as he is. The two of you sound like children "WELL HE STARTED IT FIRST....."
<quoted text>
Yet not ONE person here has resorted to personal insults based on racism. Nobody has "dished out" ignorant comments about people's race BUT him.
But its not shocking that you're trying to justify it. You'll justify ANYTHING as long as you can suck up to someone you think is on your "side".
<quoted text>
Then perhaps its YOU that should take your OWN advice and "refrain from posting anything if you don't have an answer."
ROFLMAO You idiot.
<quoted text>
I have no problem with people asking questions "toots", but I DO have a problem with assholes like you who admit you can't be bothered to read the posts, then ask STUPID questions that a simple reading would have answered.
And I say again: Wow, buddy, you sound mad. Just remember, you got off into that Irving shit, pushing a boundary, I just took the ball and ran with it a bit.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#247035 Jul 3, 2012
It would never have worked out...I'm a gay man, and you;re canadian. Our worlds (and zip codes) are too far apart.

But please, when you speak of this in the future...and you will...be kind.
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>new tear rolling down my face,, just for you Cpete! My hopes squashed, my future uncertain.... I feel like writing a poem now!

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247036 Jul 3, 2012
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely!!
I mean, here you have Moonie, she can dish it out, but when it appears as it does that she has been called out by the mods here, she gets all indignant. You got Foo, he'll test a limit or two, and when someone gives it back to him, he's ticked because someone decides to push back a little harder. You have Chicky, who insists that others play by rules she has no intention of playing by so as to gain the upper hand. For them, it's not about what's right, it's about winning. I'm not unreasonable for me to play within their particular perspectives on how the game is conducted.

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247037 Jul 3, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't know of anyone RC has reported; that's blueboy's scam.
<quoted text>
Ya know, that's been alleged by more than one person around here, but nobody seems to be able to substantiate it.
grumpy

Garnerville, NY

#247038 Jul 3, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicky, if you told me John Doe murdered Jane Smith, I wouldn't question faith; I'd question why you're saying that.
<quoted text>
But, I'm not making that statement Chicky. It was you who stated "there is no god." I only stated you can't prove, or disprove that statement, so I'm justified to say the opposite as you are to make your statement.
If I told you that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; would you believe it, or ask for proof?
<quoted text>
There is also no way to disprove it, so again, I'm justified in making the factual statement to the opposite of yours and will have no need to prove it, because you can't prove there is no G-d either.
<quoted text>
Wrong. Until someone can prove there is no G-d, or disprove that there G-d exists, I can positively claim G-d exists.
<quoted text>
It doesn't bother me at all. We can agree to disagree on this subject.
Because scientific law is proven by statistical evidence, intelligent design must have been overwhelming proven by our intelligent understanding of nature.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Teaman 1,278,744
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min Knowledge- 247,796
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 19 min Earthling-1 6,973
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 47 min Trojan 29,963
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 1 Pastor Pete 201,864
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Aug 20 Jcrombie67 282
Hoophall Invitational - Miami Aug 17 Hoophall 1
More from around the web