Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310327 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.

Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288866 Mar 14, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
There are two questions I've been asked recently.
One from Gtown and one from Ink. Gtown asked what I think happens to non-believers when the die. Ink asked me if I believed the earth was created in 6 days.
I would love to tell them what I know, but it's pointless.
Kinda like debating with someone about whether Christ resurrected or not -- if you don't accept the premise that He existed, then what is the point?
I understand, STO. I honestly don't think they're interested in what we say, anyway. Just because we focus on women's civil rights rather than the embryo/fetus.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288867 Mar 14, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>She's trying to rationalize her behavior by accusing everyone else of being like her. It's not working.
Ink has picked like this at me before. When I asked then, as now, she didn't respond. She's all bark, no bite.

The majority of the ACers just don't understand how PCers can be fighting for women's civil rights rather than for the "innocent" embryo/fetus.

(i think they've personified the embryo/fetus to the point of believing they're equivalent to infants)
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#288868 Mar 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What priests?
Do your own research you lazy, racist scum.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#288869 Mar 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen God is not some fictional character in a movie. You either believe in Him or you don't.
If you don't, I can't discuss what He would be if He was real. That's a waste of time conversation.
People and ideas change. You might think of the world as only being black or white, but life is not as rigid as your baseless beliefs.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288870 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink has picked like this at me before. When I asked then, as now, she didn't respond. She's all bark, no bite.
The majority of the ACers just don't understand how PCers can be fighting for women's civil rights rather than for the "innocent" embryo/fetus.
(i think they've personified the embryo/fetus to the point of believing they're equivalent to infants)
You have your rights, it's the unborn babies that need someone to stand up for them.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288871 Mar 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your rights, it's the unborn babies that need someone to stand up for them.
That is the job of the woman who is gestating. Not the gov't's, not the clergies, and certainly not nosy parkers like you.

Haven't you read the links supplied regarding the countries where embryo/fetuses have equal rights to the women gestating these? When pregnancy is unwanted/unhealthy, terminating it may be the healthiest option. This is denied in those countries. Then women turn to illegal means. Or they die.

But I guess that's exactly as you want it, here, in America!
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288872 Mar 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen God is not some fictional character in a movie. You either believe in Him or you don't.
If you don't, I can't discuss what He would be if He was real. That's a waste of time conversation.
You've been discussing verses you say don't exist. What's the difference?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288873 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, STO. I honestly don't think they're interested in what we say, anyway. Just because we focus on women's civil rights rather than the embryo/fetus.
I'd say you're absolutely right.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288874 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink has picked like this at me before. When I asked then, as now, she didn't respond. She's all bark, no bite.
The majority of the ACers just don't understand how PCers can be fighting for women's civil rights rather than for the "innocent" embryo/fetus.
(i think they've personified the embryo/fetus to the point of believing they're equivalent to infants)
Unless the embryo is frozen. That confuses the sh^t out've'em.

Their argument is a zef has the "right" to be gestated, if it is inside a person. If it is frozen, then...?

Can never get a straight answer on that one.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288875 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the job of the woman who is gestating. Not the gov't's, not the clergies, and certainly not nosy parkers like you.
Haven't you read the links supplied regarding the countries where embryo/fetuses have equal rights to the women gestating these? When pregnancy is unwanted/unhealthy, terminating it may be the healthiest option. This is denied in those countries. Then women turn to illegal means. Or they die.
But I guess that's exactly as you want it, here, in America!
But, but, but Katie! Life threatening pregnancies don't exist! Didn't sjm and Nr already tell you that!??

If women turn to illegal abortion, they get what they deserve -- haven't you heard?? Death is the least of their troubles, since they're going to hell! Ask Ink! She'll tell ya!
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288877 Mar 14, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless the embryo is frozen. That confuses the sh^t out've'em.
Their argument is a zef has the "right" to be gestated, if it is inside a person. If it is frozen, then...?
Can never get a straight answer on that one.
What was it that op said? Not made in the usual way? Needed for science? Like the frozen embryos weren't really real...? Talk about discrimination! Wonder why NR didn't jump all over that??
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288878 Mar 14, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
But, but, but Katie! Life threatening pregnancies don't exist! Didn't sjm and Nr already tell you that!??
If women turn to illegal abortion, they get what they deserve -- haven't you heard?? Death is the least of their troubles, since they're going to hell! Ask Ink! She'll tell ya!
Yeah, they're so full of ... something not resembling wisdom. Why do they seem so eager to see America become like Brazil or Nicaragua or Venezuela?
Gtown71

United States

#288879 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Because she's a bored housewife with not enough to do. And making up screen personas has become a pastime for her.
You can't claim an abortion isn't used in the Law of Jealousies to determine a woman's guilt or innocence of adultery. Otherwise you're just cherry picking what you believe is true. The translation for thigh rot is abortion. STO didn't make that up. It's a translation with credibility behind it.
Haven't you ever read all of Hosea? I cried the first time I read it.
Lets look at this outside the bible -the man "jewish man " becomes jealous of his wife. He takes her to the priest, and does all required. Notice if she is telling the truth, nothing rots, and its all good. She can accept seed, which means she's not pregnant. If she lies, her thigh rots, and etc etc. It still goes to show, that if a man becomes jealous, it must mean that either, his wife is not only cheating, but pregnant with another mans child, or the jealous man is being jealous for no reason at all.

The bible makes perfect seens, if one reads it as is, but to try and add to it makes no sense.

The other you ask about, is an example of how no matter how good God is to people, people will always go another way, yet He is merciful and long suffering and takes us back again and again. It is sad enough to make any cry.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288880 Mar 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at this outside the bible -the man "jewish man " becomes jealous of his wife. He takes her to the priest, and does all required. Notice if she is telling the truth, nothing rots, and its all good. She can accept seed, which means she's not pregnant. If she lies, her thigh rots, and etc etc. It still goes to show, that if a man becomes jealous, it must mean that either, his wife is not only cheating, but pregnant with another mans child, or the jealous man is being jealous for no reason at all.
The bible makes perfect seens, if one reads it as is, but to try and add to it makes no sense.
The other you ask about, is an example of how no matter how good God is to people, people will always go another way, yet He is merciful and long suffering and takes us back again and again. It is sad enough to make any cry.
"The bible makes perfect seens, if one reads it as is, but to try and add to it makes no sense."

Agree. Wonder why you're trying to do just that by saying this, "Lets look at this outside the bible -the man "jewish man " becomes jealous of his wife."
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288881 Mar 14, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been discussing verses you say don't exist. What's the difference?
These would be my feelings and understandings.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-ab...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288882 Mar 14, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not according to me. The fact is it CAN'T be reconciled. It is a blatant contradiction and only one of the reasons RvW was a terrible decision. How can you consider a SC decision that includes such contradictory statements to be acceptable let alone good constitutional law ?
<quoted text>
I never said they should be. When the same rights of each are compared and are in conflict, the woman's rights should always prevail.
<quoted text>
So what ? So you define the point at which a human life is due legal protection to be some arbitrary point of separation from it's mother ? That logic doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.....legal, moral or otherwise. Besides, an unborn fetus is ALREADY afforded legal protection post-viability. You disagree with RvW ?
<quoted text>
Ridiculous. We're back to talking about sperm and individual cells being considered as life. This is NOT what the SC was referring to when they spoke of "life".
<quoted text>
That would be a good start. But even now though no BC method is 100% effective, proper use of two forms of BC used in conjunction with each other would reduce the risk of pregnancy to an extremely small percentage. No educated person today need ever become pregnant if they don't want to. The incidence of abortion today just illustrates the fact that it is still being used as a back up form of birth control on a massive scale by the lazy, careless and the indifferent. To deny that is to deny reality.
"How can you consider a SC decision that includes such contradictory statements to be acceptable let alone good constitutional law ?"

Because a woman's rights have to supersede and embryo's.

"So what ? So you define the point at which a human life is due legal protection to be some arbitrary point of separation from it's mother ? That logic doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.....legal, moral or otherwise."

Born citizens get legal protection.

"Ridiculous. We're back to talking about sperm and individual cells being considered as life. This is NOT what the SC was referring to when they spoke of "life"."

I said it wasn't the best analogy, so your little tantrum to Prince Tommy was a waste of time.

"That would be a good start. But even now though no BC method is 100% effective, proper use of two forms of BC used in conjunction with each other would reduce the risk of pregnancy to an extremely small percentage."

Tell that to all the men who don't want to wear a condom. "Oh it doesn't feel natural boo hoo hoo!"

"No educated person today need ever become pregnant if they don't want to."

Tell that to all the rape and incest victims. Tell that to all the women who are not that well educated (like in the Bible belt where some ignoramuses think sex ed promotes sexual promiscuity). Tell that to the poor people who can't afford healthcare services or OTC birth control.

"To deny that is to deny reality."

I don't deny it.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288883 Mar 14, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"The bible makes perfect seens, if one reads it as is, but to try and add to it makes no sense."
Agree. Wonder why you're trying to do just that by saying this, "Lets look at this outside the bible -the man "jewish man " becomes jealous of his wife."
Barnes' notes on the Bible

Bible
Of itself, the drink was not noxious; and could only produce the effects here described by a special interposition of God. We do not read of any instance in which this ordeal was resorted to: a fact which may be explained either (with the Jews) as a proof of its efficacy, since the guilty could not be brought to face its terrors at all, and avoided them by confession; or more probably by the license of divorce tolerated by the law of Moses. Since a husband could put away his wife at pleasure, a jealous man would naturally prefer to take this course with a suspected wife rather than to call public attention to his own shame by having recourse to the trial of jealousy. The trial by red water, which bears a general resemblance to that here prescribed by Moses, is still in use among the tribes of Western Africa.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288884 Mar 14, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at this outside the bible -the man "jewish man " becomes jealous of his wife. He takes her to the priest, and does all required. Notice if she is telling the truth, nothing rots, and its all good. She can accept seed, which means she's not pregnant. If she lies, her thigh rots, and etc etc. It still goes to show, that if a man becomes jealous, it must mean that either, his wife is not only cheating, but pregnant with another mans child, or the jealous man is being jealous for no reason at all.
The bible makes perfect seens, if one reads it as is, but to try and add to it makes no sense.
The other you ask about, is an example of how no matter how good God is to people, people will always go another way, yet He is merciful and long suffering and takes us back again and again. It is sad enough to make any cry.
If I lived then and had cheated on my husband and I believe the 'curse' There is no way in hell that I would drink anything.

I have to believe that women were not stupid back then.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288885 Mar 14, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen God is not some fictional character in a movie. You either believe in Him or you don't.
If you don't, I can't discuss what He would be if He was real. That's a waste of time conversation.
Oh okay, you can't discuss God with an atheist. But an atheist can discuss God with you.

I'll move on to converse with other people then.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288886 Mar 14, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
People and ideas change. You might think of the world as only being black or white, but life is not as rigid as your baseless beliefs.
I guess only Christians are worthy of her conversation. She can't be bothered with anyone who doesn't think just like her. Oh well, that fundie self-righteous superiority rears it's head once again...<shrug>.

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) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,262,677
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min Anon 244,762
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Randall L 6,460
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 8 hr RiccardoFire 201,854
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 19 hr tom wingo 29,848
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Jul 25 xxxrayted 1,714
More from around the web