Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,952
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. Full Story
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#290648 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean? You are incpable of giving a straight answer.
Cotton candy for a brain. Proven again.
Her non-answers speak volumes. As do the others who claim to be pro-woman who ONLY fight for a right to kill their unwanted child. It's not about "women",it is about wanting to continue with their selfish agenda's.

Not ONE will fight for equality when it comes to the draft.

This is about being PRO-ABORTION,not PRO-WOMAN.

<<<CUE foo to enter and start with the name calling and attacks to cover up the truth>>>>
Gtown71

United States

#290649 Mar 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is that they won't.
Kinda like the naacp -they show up and make their demands if it suits their agenda.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290650 Mar 27, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> This world is a flippin mess. One in two marriages end in divorce, millions of womens offsprings are killed via abortion,1-4 teenagers have an STD, morals values are a thing of the past, women dump their children in daycares to be raised by employees(and they wonder why the bond between mom and child is not there),women and men use each other for sex,etc...
THAT'S progress?
((sassy shakes her head)))
That is progress from their point of view.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#290651 Mar 27, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet I AM a woman and a mother, and I certainly do have compassion for those that deserve it.
Idiots like you dont deserve it.
If a mother wants her offspring then the baby "deserves" compassion and protection but if not,then according to you,"it" doesn't "deserve" compassion. You then proudly march mom in to kill that undeserving offspring.

You think that you're a good person. You're not.You're demented.

It's ALL about what YOU say. You don't have a compassionate bone in your body.

Keep pretending that you do,one of these days,you just MIGHT start to believe it.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290652 Mar 27, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the draft isn't set up by Congress to draft women. It would take an ACT of Congress to change that you moron.
Do you ignore EVERYTHING you dont like just because its factual?
The bill drafted by Rangel includes women but I would expect you to be aware of that.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290653 Mar 27, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Her non-answers speak volumes. As do the others who claim to be pro-woman who ONLY fight for a right to kill their unwanted child. It's not about "women",it is about wanting to continue with their selfish agenda's.
Not ONE will fight for equality when it comes to the draft.
This is about being PRO-ABORTION,not PRO-WOMAN.
<<<CUE foo to enter and start with the name calling and attacks to cover up the truth>>>>
I see you know the routine by heart. LOL

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290654 Mar 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
But if men and women are ever to be considered totally "equal" don't you think that it should?
Should it? In a perfect world, yes it should, becuase you're 100% right - without it happening automatically, there's no true equality.

Will it happen? I honestly dont believe it would. Since the draft isn't anything ANYONE likes to begin with, I can't see Congress ever even bringing it to a vote. Can you imagine the outrage of middle American constituants if it was even SUGGESTED women be included in the draft?

The reason it works in other countries such as Israel, is because the countries were FOUNDED that way, with both women AND men being drafted, and being in the active military being manditory.

I believe what will happen is they'll leave women fighting in active military units to where it stands now - as a volunteer military basis where if they qualify and WANT to fight in battle, they will.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#290655 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
My husband used to be a little jealous of the time I got to spend with friends and family, persuing anything I wanted and generally having a good life with my kids. I was also able to develop my own business which I still have.
Couples in healthy,normal,stable marriages understand that we are all equal. We have different roles in that marriage(including parenting)and that is how life works. We are all individuals who nuture our marriages and family life. Nobody is above the other and lack of a paycheck or the higher incomed one,doesn't change that.

It's very sad that people like Ocean feel like second class citizens. She and others feel the need to degrade women to make themselves feel better. She might be victimized but most women who are secure,won't allow it.

She's not alone though. Many women feel that they must abandone their children in order to become "worthy". Who is making them feel that way? I don't get it. Women must be proud of who they are and their role in their family. If someone is making women feel less than human because they forfeit their paychecks to raise their children,then they must stand strong....not attack other women.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290656 Mar 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet men are still required to sign up. In the quest of equality, women should be required as well.
In theory I agree.

Did you know that women were very close to being drafted during WW2 when there was a shortage of nurses? Word got out and there was a flood of volunteers, so it never became necessary.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm

If volunteerism is high enough, there will never be another draft. A draft is only enacted if there's not enough military personel to fight in a declared war.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290657 Mar 27, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Her non-answers speak volumes. As do the others who claim to be pro-woman who ONLY fight for a right to kill their unwanted child. It's not about "women",it is about wanting to continue with their selfish agenda's.
Not ONE will fight for equality when it comes to the draft.
This is about being PRO-ABORTION,not PRO-WOMAN.
<<<CUE foo to enter and start with the name calling and attacks to cover up the truth>>>>
I already made my position clear, Lazy One.

But since you ARE too lazy to read all of the posts for this conversation, fine. I do fight for equality for women and men. I think that if men should register with Selective Service and be drafted, then women should be as well. I don't believe they will reinstitute the draft, but if they do, I will protest it equally for women AND men. No one wants any of their children to be drafted, daughters OR sons. But I do feel that both genders should be allowed to volunteer to fight for their country.

There, Lazy One. Pay better attention next time.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290658 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck with that rational question. I have been beat over the head for the same concern.
Of course, if you are pro choice you will be well treated.
No, you're been beaten over the head because you're a moron. You have NEVER asked a rational question regarding this issue - you've made some seriously stupid blanket comments.

Sue is not pro-choice as you well know, but she's treated with respect because she treats OTHERS with resepct regarding their views.

When shown new information, she doesn't ignore it. She may not AGREE with it, but its not ignored.

Kind of like you implying she's pro-choice when you know better.

You like to ignore the facts that aren't convenient to your agenda.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#290659 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
They hate to have a question posed to them. They always respond with,'you're being obtuse' which serves in place of a legitimate answer that could be discussed.
They aren't on here to discuss anything just to relieve their aggressions with insults and and malice towards people who have a different view.
When you ask a question that is obviously intended as bait for one of your beloved circular "debates," you are being obtuse and it is an appropriate response. Actually, obtuse is a kind term for your comments.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290660 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And the reason for that is because everything is subjective.
Inkstain, stop trying to put words in other's mouths. You're a lying sack of crap, and can't even manage to speak for yourself well.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290661 Mar 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I already made my position clear, Lazy One.
But since you ARE too lazy to read all of the posts for this conversation, fine. I do fight for equality for women and men. I think that if men should register with Selective Service and be drafted, then women should be as well. I don't believe they will reinstitute the draft, but if they do, I will protest it equally for women AND men. No one wants any of their children to be drafted, daughters OR sons. But I do feel that both genders should be allowed to volunteer to fight for their country.
There, Lazy One. Pay better attention next time.
Who is going to fight in all these wars that our elected official deem neccessary? Or do you think the weight should be carried solely by inlisted men who have to serve multible deployments?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290662 Mar 27, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>When you ask a question that is obviously intended as bait for one of your beloved circular "debates," you are being obtuse and it is an appropriate response. Actually, obtuse is a kind term for your comments.
You think it's baiting because they are questions you don't want to answer or discuss.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290663 Mar 27, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're been beaten over the head because you're a moron. You have NEVER asked a rational question regarding this issue - you've made some seriously stupid blanket comments.
Sue is not pro-choice as you well know, but she's treated with respect because she treats OTHERS with resepct regarding their views.
When shown new information, she doesn't ignore it. She may not AGREE with it, but its not ignored.
Kind of like you implying she's pro-choice when you know better.
You like to ignore the facts that aren't convenient to your agenda.
I asked the same question at she did.

You never have any new information.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290664 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
While you and foo were sleeping activist.com
Monday, February 18, 2013Reinstate Military Draft Bill Introduced to Include All Women
Activist Post
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wants all Americans to serve their government,.........bullshit deleted for space.....
Rangle's been introducing the draft bill for decades. Literally. Since 1979, every few years he introduces a bill to reinstate the draft, and it fails every time. The ONLY thing new is now he wants women to be drafted too. He's being shut down on that as well.

He thinks it will make congress and the president stop before getting into military conflict. Yeah. Like THAT worked when he was in Korea or during Viet Nam.

Personally, I get what he's saying, and agree with much of it in theory, but it simply isn't going to happen. His legislation is going nowhere, just like its gone nowhere for the last 30+ years he's introduced it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290665 Mar 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is going to fight in all these wars that our elected official deem neccessary? Or do you think the weight should be carried solely by inlisted men who have to serve multible deployments?
You've just proven you're too stupid to understand what's being said to you. Why should anyone answer one of your dumb questions when you won't understand the answer anyway?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290666 Mar 27, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rangle's been introducing the draft bill for decades. Literally. Since 1979, every few years he introduces a bill to reinstate the draft, and it fails every time. The ONLY thing new is now he wants women to be drafted too. He's being shut down on that as well.
He thinks it will make congress and the president stop before getting into military conflict. Yeah. Like THAT worked when he was in Korea or during Viet Nam.
Personally, I get what he's saying, and agree with much of it in theory, but it simply isn't going to happen. His legislation is going nowhere, just like its gone nowhere for the last 30+ years he's introduced it.
Lot's of things go nowhere for thirty years or more, then 'progress' makes it feasible.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290667 Mar 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So one man introduced a bill. I already knew that. I have no doubt Foo did as well. How does that refute what I said? Foo didn't say, as Sue implied, that women should not be required to register. And neither of us said that it couldn't happen. Foo just said she doubted it would. BTW, introducing a bill still doesn't make it a foregone conclusion. If you were bright enough to know how laws are made, you'd understand that.
Rangle's been in congress since 1971, and since 1979 he's introduced and re-introduced the same bill year after year, and it dies on the floor year after year, just like this will.

The way the draft is set up now, ONLY men can register for the selective service. Women are not allowed to, even if they want to.

However that said, women CAN go ahead and JOIN the military, and if they qualify, they can fight just like men do.

There IS NO DRAFT which makes this whole converstaion moot. As we saw after 9/11, volunteerism was at an all time high - and as long as that happens, there WONT be a draft.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr shinningelectr0n 1,153,060
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 232,701
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,359
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Cowobunga 201,150
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 4 hr budd 2,658
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web