Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,955
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
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290972 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo just proved you wrong on the training, Idiot. Educate yourself, seriously.
Listen carefully, THERE ARE ALREADY WOMEN IN THE MILITARY WHO ARE TRAINED THE SAME. WHY would the standards have to be lowered?
You need to stop being her little minion and find things out for yourself. The Marines don't seem to be aware that women are fighting on the front lines. It is still a big debate for them as to whether or not women will be strong enough for the job requirements.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/02/...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290973 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. As of now they aren't on the front lines and under the same rigorous training.
Yes they are you dumbass, as I've proven.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290974 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it is in the grand jury report.
You believe a lot fo shit with no basis in reality.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290975 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop being her little minion and find things out for yourself. The Marines don't seem to be aware that women are fighting on the front lines. It is still a big debate for them as to whether or not women will be strong enough for the job requirements.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/02/...
Idiot, I never said women are already on the front lines. Learn to read.

And speaking of learning to read, did you miss THIS from your own source?

"As it opens the new fields, the military said it will apply the same standards to men and women and will not lower requirements."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290976 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo just proved you wrong on the training, Idiot. Educate yourself, seriously.
Listen carefully, THERE ARE ALREADY WOMEN IN THE MILITARY WHO ARE TRAINED THE SAME. WHY would the standards have to be lowered?
Women were on the front lines in combat before 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01...

"When Gen. Martin Dempsey, then commander of the 1st Armored Division, arrived in Baghdad in 2003, he jumped into a Humvee, tapped the turret gunner on the leg and asked, "Who are you?" The gunner assigned to protect him replied, "I'm Amanda."

Dempsey, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that was the moment he "realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it."

http://www.ibtimes.com/women-combat-now-its-o...

"Women In Combat: Now It's Official, But They Were Already Fighting"

"Stationed in the Iraqi city of Baiji, about 130 miles north of Baghdad, Army National Guard Sergeant Carolyn Schapper was an outlier: the only woman in a house with 20 men. But that didn’t mean a thing when it came to carrying out her assigned missions.

Schapper went on about 200 combat patrols during the year she was stationed in Iraq, from 2005 to 2006. Her vehicle was twice hit by improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Mortars and rockets struck her army base several times."

"Women in the U.S. military have been putting their lives on the line for decades; they currently make up about 20 percent of the national armed forces. Of the approximately 280,000 females who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 12 years, 152 have died and at least 800 have been wounded."

"Havrilla was deployed in Afghanistan from Sept. 2006 to Sept. 2007, where she was an Explosive Ordinance Disposal Technician.

“I took care of IEDs for a living,” she said.“I saw combat repeatedly. I went outside the wires six or seven days a week. I was in a couple of firefights; I was hit by IEDs multiple times. We spent days on end near the border with Pakistan engaged in missions. If that’s not a front-line experience, I don’t know what is.”

As usual, Inkstain doesn't have a damn clue what she's babbling about.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290977 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I never said women are already on the front lines. Learn to read.
I said they are on the front lines, and HAVE been for years, as I've proven repeatedly.
And speaking of learning to read, did you miss THIS from your own source?
"As it opens the new fields, the military said it will apply the same standards to men and women and will not lower requirements."
She's not very bright.
sasylicious

Jackson, NJ

#290978 Mar 28, 2013
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/27/group-help...

Group helps people with depression whose siblings killed in abortion.

I'm sure most proaborts don't realize that their kids have deep pain when the reality hits them that their sibling(s) was/weree killed by their moms because they were not wanted. How can a child bear the news that mom and dad believe that killing is acceptable?

I would be disgusted to find out that my parents felt that they had a right to kill me "if" they decided that I wasn't wanted. I feel sorry for kids raised with proabort parents.

No wonder so many people have depression, all kinds of disorders,anger,etc..... They have surpressed feelings.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290979 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I never said women are already on the front lines. Learn to read.
And speaking of learning to read, did you miss THIS from your own source?
"As it opens the new fields, the military said it will apply the same standards to men and women and will not lower requirements."
Well that's what we have been talking about. That's what all the conversation about women in the military is, opening them to front line combat. Everyone agrees that they should be allowed to fight for their country.

BTW everybody knows that they are already in the military. Why would that need more discussion?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290980 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop being her little minion and find things out for yourself. The Marines don't seem to be aware that women are fighting on the front lines.
Really? Where does your little article make that claim Inkstain?

Oh wait, it DOESNT. You lied as usual.
It is still a big debate for them as to whether or not women will be strong enough for the job requirements.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/02/...
Again, your article says nothing of the kind. You're full of crap. Clearly you didn't bother to actually read as usual.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290981 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's what we have been talking about. That's what all the conversation about women in the military is, opening them to front line combat. Everyone agrees that they should be allowed to fight for their country.
BTW everybody knows that they are already in the military. Why would that need more discussion?
As I've proven, they're already IN front line combat you MORON.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290982 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, I never said women are already on the front lines. Learn to read.
And speaking of learning to read, did you miss THIS from your own source?
"As it opens the new fields, the military said it will apply the same standards to men and women and will not lower requirements."
Yes you did. You need to do something about your memory.

Judged:
1
1
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. As of now they aren't on the front lines and under the same rigorous training. That's what all the discussion is about, whether or not the standards will be lowered for women. Do you think they should be adjusted for women?

YOU SAID
Foo just proved you wrong on the training, Idiot. Educate yourself, seriously.

Listen carefully, THERE ARE ALREADY WOMEN IN THE MILITARY WHO ARE TRAINED THE SAME. WHY would the standards have to be lowered?

Sorry you let foo talk for you but you are both wrong. I said they aren't on the front lines and you said foo proved me wrong. Want to rethink it?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#290983 Mar 28, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/0 3/27/group-helps-people-with-d epression-whose-siblings-kille d-in-abortion/
Group helps people with depression whose siblings killed in abortion.
I'm sure most proaborts don't realize that their kids have deep pain when the reality hits them that their sibling(s) was/weree killed by their moms because they were not wanted. How can a child bear the news that mom and dad believe that killing is acceptable?
I would be disgusted to find out that my parents felt that they had a right to kill me "if" they decided that I wasn't wanted. I feel sorry for kids raised with proabort parents.
No wonder so many people have depression, all kinds of disorders,anger,etc..... They have surpressed feelings.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOO!!! What a complete crock of shit. Just another pathetic attempt to bring other morons to the fold.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290984 Mar 28, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/0 3/27/group-helps-people-with-d epression-whose-siblings-kille d-in-abortion/
Group helps people with depression whose siblings killed in abortion.
I'm sure most proaborts don't realize that their kids have deep pain when the reality hits them that their sibling(s) was/weree killed by their moms because they were not wanted. How can a child bear the news that mom and dad believe that killing is acceptable?
I would be disgusted to find out that my parents felt that they had a right to kill me "if" they decided that I wasn't wanted. I feel sorry for kids raised with proabort parents.
No wonder so many people have depression, all kinds of disorders,anger,etc..... They have surpressed feelings.
It is also a little unnerving to think that if your mother felt she could kill her child it could have just as easily been you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290985 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's what we have been talking about. That's what all the conversation about women in the military is, opening them to front line combat. Everyone agrees that they should be allowed to fight for their country.
BTW everybody knows that they are already in the military. Why would that need more discussion?
Wrong. I responded to your post about women being able to carry heavy loads, and their training. It was a stupid question given that women are already trained as men are. However, as Foo already proved, they have already been on the front lines. You're an idiot.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290986 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you did. You need to do something about your memory.
Judged:
1
1
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. As of now they aren't on the front lines and under the same rigorous training. That's what all the discussion is about, whether or not the standards will be lowered for women. Do you think they should be adjusted for women?
YOU SAID
Foo just proved you wrong on the training, Idiot. Educate yourself, seriously.
Listen carefully, THERE ARE ALREADY WOMEN IN THE MILITARY WHO ARE TRAINED THE SAME. WHY would the standards have to be lowered?
Sorry you let foo talk for you but you are both wrong. I said they aren't on the front lines and you said foo proved me wrong. Want to rethink it?
I said TRAINED THE SAME, not on the front lines. Learn to read, I'm begging you.
bman

Commack, NY

#290987 Mar 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The fetus is not separate from the woman carrying it. It is part of her body as her body fulfills all requirements necessary to keep fetus alive. Woman dies, fetus usually dies. Woman drinks and drugs, fetus has withdrawals after delivery. Without the woman, there is no fetus. Until the scientists finalize their artificial womb. That day's getting closer, but a different topic altogether.
Not every state recognizes fetal homicide laws. These laws were designed to protect the women who'd lost their wanted pregnancies to a 3rd party. In the past, the lost fetus was not recognized in court and not compensated for if charges were brought up.
You see, women legally have civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. This allows them to accept or reject their pregnancies and determine their own futures from there.
When a 3rd party comes along and assaults or kills the woman and she loses her pregnancy or her fetus is injured, the courts in the past did not recognize this as a loss. Now they do. And the women or their family members left behind can seek compensation while the 3rd party can be tried and, hopefully, convicted for it.
Why don't you go back and read prior posts? These topics get repeated and cycled every few weeks, months, hell every few hours sometimes.
Fetal homocide law is a federal law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims...
If the fetus is apart of the mother, why label it a DOUBLE HOMICIDE?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290988 Mar 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where does your little article make that claim Inkstain?
Oh wait, it DOESNT. You lied as usual.
<quoted text>
Again, your article says nothing of the kind. You're full of crap. Clearly you didn't bother to actually read as usual.
First paragraph

Posted : Sunday Feb 3, 2013 13:53:10 EST

QUANTICO, Va.— The debate over whether women should serve in infantry and other direct ground combat roles has come to this: Are they physically strong enough?

To find out, the military services have launched an extensive effort to verify the specific physical requirements needed to succeed in each of dozens of fields that had been closed to women.

'Been closed to women'

I'm sure bitner can read and understand what the miliatry has to consider for the future.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#290989 Mar 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Women were on the front lines in combat before 2003.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01...
"When Gen. Martin Dempsey, then commander of the 1st Armored Division, arrived in Baghdad in 2003, he jumped into a Humvee, tapped the turret gunner on the leg and asked, "Who are you?" The gunner assigned to protect him replied, "I'm Amanda."
Dempsey, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that was the moment he "realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it."
http://www.ibtimes.com/women-combat-now-its-o...
"Women In Combat: Now It's Official, But They Were Already Fighting"

"Stationed in the Iraqi city of Baiji, about 130 miles north of Baghdad, Army National Guard Sergeant Carolyn Schapper was an outlier: the only woman in a house with 20 men. But that didn’t mean a thing when it came to carrying out her assigned missions.
Schapper went on about 200 combat patrols during the year she was stationed in Iraq, from 2005 to 2006. Her vehicle was twice hit by improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Mortars and rockets struck her army base several times."
"Women in the U.S. military have been putting their lives on the line for decades; they currently make up about 20 percent of the national armed forces. Of the approximately 280,000 females who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 12 years, 152 have died and at least 800 have been wounded."
"Havrilla was deployed in Afghanistan from Sept. 2006 to Sept. 2007, where she was an Explosive Ordinance Disposal Technician.
“I took care of IEDs for a living,” she said.“I saw combat repeatedly. I went outside the wires six or seven days a week. I was in a couple of firefights; I was hit by IEDs multiple times. We spent days on end near the border with Pakistan engaged in missions. If that’s not a front-line experience, I don’t know what is.”
As usual, Inkstain doesn't have a damn clue what she's babbling about.
We know that they drive trucks. For God's sake stop being so stupid.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#290990 Mar 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also a little unnerving to think that if your mother felt she could kill her child it could have just as easily been you.
You two have overactive imaginations. AND you two are the ones being overly emotional, as you accuse US of being.

My mother was pro-choice, and it bothered me not at all. I'm pro-choice, and it bothers my children not at all.
bman

Commack, NY

#290991 Mar 28, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got it backwards. The very same thing that means we cannot own another person's body means that we cannot own another person's reproductive organs.
Really, we can't? So please explain to me why we can't legally allow a woman's reproductive organs removed? Isn't that also controlling her body?

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Rosa_Winkel 232,785
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,153,447
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 31 min JAX 201,155
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr FLORIDA SWAMPER 28,365
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Brian_G 2,661
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web