Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,068
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

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#293814 Apr 26, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
800 thousand.. 800 thousand lives extinguished.
And nearly that many in the state foster systems, labeled as 'unadoptable' for so many reasons, nationwide. Every year. Aging out of the system, without ever having known parents other than stand-ins who were took them in for the monthly check, and that's if they got placed in foster care, rather than growing up from toddlerhood to drafting age in a state run facility.

Why won't you give as much concern for those lives???
Not you - you'd like to see that number tripled or maybe quadrupled.

Sadists, all of you.

You aren't fit to teach morality to a hyena.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#293815 Apr 26, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok -I was for abortion rights, even though I don't know why, other then maybe wanting it to be an open.option in case "I" wanted to use it, no not for me, but for whomever was with me.
Make me hippocrite? Maybe, but my change came from within -not somethimg "I" chose to start believing one day.
Without my.God experience I would still believe as I did before, only be more firm in that old way of thinking.
Only one thing has changed in my life.
He that hath the Son hath life -he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.
Yea, they are dead, though they live :(
And thanks to our thoughtfully crafted, and beautifully phrased Constitution, your innate right to worship as you please is recognized in the United States.

Unfortunately for you, that right also belongs to the rest of us...even if we don't believe what you do.

Poor thing.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#293816 Apr 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no other interest than the life of the child.
So why are you ONLY concerned with the life of the fetus??
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#293817 Apr 26, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what my faith is and to imply that because my belief that laws shouldn't be created (based on mostly religious beliefs) banning someone's private health business is pretty arrogant.
You are the very example of why I have the picture of buddy Jesus as my avatar. You know George Carlin was an atheist, I know and get that, I don't agree with him, I believe in God. but the ideal that was behind Buddy Jesus in the movie Dogma I however do believe was a fair and true point.
Buddy Jesus is the prime example of what Christian faith has morph into in America, a commercialized for profit machine designed to entertain and misled people into believing that buying the right things, from the right people, voting the right way for the right things is going to redeem them in the eyes of the lord and get them into heaven all while trying to be cool about it.
It's a scam created by those that want the power of God by claiming they speak for him. And like Lord Jesus went through the temple throwing over the tables of merchants and declaring in KJV Matthew 21:13 "And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!."
So I believe it is so today. My faith hasn't wavier dear brother/sister and however question if yours has. I have submitted myself unto the lord, I know what he sees as sin, and I trust him to judge all when their time comes. For I am not as arrogant to believe that I can do a better job at bring God than God.
Which is why I will never support the passing of laws that force my religion on someone else, least of all a non-believer. As Jesus said in Matthew 22:21 "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
I know which kingdom I serve and it's place isn't on earth, earthly men and earthly governments can make what they want "legal" doesn't change who is really in charge and as a old saying goes "men make plans and then god laughs at them"
I can be faithful without imposing my beliefs on others, I can be a shining light on the hill, the candle in the darkness, a beacon of kindness to others and well of happiness which others can draw upon. I can be all those things and when people ask me why I am so happy or kind or at peace with myself I can share my faith openly as my source and bring others to the faith.
Can you honestly say you have done the same, based off your post you believe that God doesn't know what he is doing. That it is on you to create laws that will impose purity base on religion as you want it.
You would be better serve if you are as faithful as you claim to submit to God in the truest of ways and let him be the judge as it is written in Romans 14:10 "You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before Godís judgment seat.."
We don't have to pass laws banning this or that, we don't have to hate people, judge them as impure, lacking or sinful based on our opinions. That isn't our job, that job post has been filled. It is our job to love, to help, to guild and to share our testaments with others when the chances happen and live our lives as true to the word as we can.
My faith is secure. Don't mistake desire to serve faithfully to my religion to a desire to join you in creating laws based on it.
All of that you wrote is interesting but at the end of the day you are still proabortion and like to have sex in your but. That says everytihng people need to know about your 'faith".
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293818 Apr 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Human beings were never meant to live as long as we do. We circumvent nature to do so. Daily. Yet when a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, and uses available medical procedures, suddenly circumventing nature is a bad thing. Why is that?
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that the world's population is growing too much, and worrying about how the world will sustain life at all if the population grows too much more.
Holding life to be sacred does not preclude taking life. If it did, we wouldn't be able to take antibiotics, or even eat. I know, you mean human life only, but even there, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our communities from criminals, or our country. Personally, I hold all life to be sacred, humans no more than any other life.
"Grandma", being a born person, has civil rights. A fetus does not, and is in no way comparable to a person who has civil rights, AND who has actually lived a life with experiences, thoughts, sensation and emotions.
Bitner..
I know legally they dont..but the post I answered was chilling in its reas.

AS for life expectancy..a long time ago it was a lot longer than now.

The Chinese today use population control to force abortions and have a one child policy.

As I say the poster and the argument creeped me out

First the unbirn. Then the old folks..Then its ags 60 ..50.........then its the handicapped and anyone else inconvenient.

Because of my own experience as a teen I can understand very well one woman in a dire position wanting a way out. Back then we had no birth control or knowledge.
I thank God there was no option..No roe..all was secret. Its a long story and I have told it beford. The thing is thru Gods mercy..I will get to spend mothers day with my son and his child. Even though I spent a lot of time heartbroken. I survivdd and so did he. Thank God.

But the point of my post is I can understand desperation..I abhor using or advancing abortion as population control..its like my eyes just popped open No wonder the PC environmentalist polititions..especially the ones who but carbon credits so others can conserve whike they use private jets DO NOTHING TO MAKS ABORTION RARE..
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#293819 Apr 26, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what my faith is and to imply that because my belief that laws shouldn't be created (based on mostly religious beliefs) banning someone's private health business is pretty arrogant.
My faith is secure. Don't mistake desire to serve faithfully to my religion to a desire to join you in creating laws based on it.
Yet here you are prmoting abortion and having sex in the but. That somes up your so-called 'faith".
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293820 Apr 26, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And nearly that many in the state foster systems, labeled as 'unadoptable' for so many reasons, nationwide. Every year. Aging out of the system, without ever having known parents other than stand-ins who were took them in for the monthly check, and that's if they got placed in foster care, rather than growing up from toddlerhood to drafting age in a state run facility.
Why won't you give as much concern for those lives???
Not you - you'd like to see that number tripled or maybe quadrupled.
Sadists, all of you.
You aren't fit to teach morality to a hyena.
Great arguments for contraception and a change in culture..and yes real public service announcements and tv and internet education teaching especially young people tgat hooking up is uncook for them Hooking up with no contraception is just pkain crazy.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293821 Apr 26, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The way to avoid any of that happening is allowing individuals to determine their own outcomes. If they choose to reject or accept pregnancy should not be a matter for the catholic community, the religious community, or the gov't or doctors.
Roe v Wade keeps the control in the
hand of the person who is most affected; the pregnant woman. And that is how it should be. Otherwise, someone else is making her decision for her.
To repeat something in my last post..the Chinese have great population control..the next step IS FORCED abortion..killing off tge old getting rid of tge handicapped etc

It is a slippery slope that we have been on since Roe.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293822 Apr 26, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
All of that you wrote is interesting but at the end of the day you are still proabortion and like to have sex in your but. That says everytihng people need to know about your 'faith".
Just a request can we please talk serious and stop with the graphic sex barbs.....its rude and does nothing to speak for the God you profess. I know its easy to get upset here but please ..a bit of decorum..
Katie

Seattle, WA

#293823 Apr 26, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner..
I know legally they dont..but the post I answered was chilling in its reas.
AS for life expectancy..a long time ago it was a lot longer than now.
The Chinese today use population control to force abortions and have a one child policy.
As I say the poster and the argument creeped me out
First the unbirn. Then the old folks..Then its ags 60 ..50.........then its the handicapped and anyone else inconvenient.
Because of my own experience as a teen I can understand very well one woman in a dire position wanting a way out. Back then we had no birth control or knowledge.
I thank God there was no option..No roe..all was secret. Its a long story and I have told it beford. The thing is thru Gods mercy..I will get to spend mothers day with my son and his child. Even though I spent a lot of time heartbroken. I survivdd and so did he. Thank God.
But the point of my post is I can understand desperation..I abhor using or advancing abortion as population control..its like my eyes just popped open No wonder the PC environmentalist polititions..especially the ones who but carbon credits so others can conserve whike they use private jets DO NOTHING TO MAKS ABORTION RARE..
I wasn't speaking about population control.

I was speaking of the imbalance you wish to heap upon the citizens of this country. Bitner touched on it above.

None of these things you worry about -- "first the babies, then the old..." -- will be an issue if every single individual continues to make their individual medical decisions without interference by the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parkers who think they mean well.

Really, you might want to watch what you wish for... your fears could be met by self-fulfilling prophecy.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#293825 Apr 26, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat something in my last post..the Chinese have great population control..the next step IS FORCED abortion..killing off tge old getting rid of tge handicapped etc
It is a slippery slope that we have been on since Roe.
I speak more about the imbalance when abortion is criminalized. Medically, legally, personally. When women can't determine their own pregnancy's outcome based on somebody else's moralities. Or on what they think is best without even knowing all the circumstances involved.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293826 Apr 26, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't speaking about population control.
I was speaking of the imbalance you wish to heap upon the citizens of this country. Bitner touched on it above.
None of these things you worry about -- "first the babies, then the old..." -- will be an issue if every single individual continues to make their individual medical decisions without interference by the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parkers who think they mean well.
Really, you might want to watch what you wish for... your fears could be met by self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry and respectfully..it was your pist stating that wighout abortion we could nof sustain ghe birthrate.

Of all tbd arguments for abortion..that shocked me the most.

As I say..no wonded the pols do noghing to make it more rare..and it smacks of the Sanger mindset on eugenics. Most of the posts here are bemoaning it as a boon for poir people. YETmany who could easily affird childre ard also aborting right and left.

Agajn sorry but you shocked me. Fhis is human life we are discussjng.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293827 Apr 26, 2013
Pardon the mispellings worse than usual..havs to get a grip..but this device doesnt help. I see my finger hit the correct keys but like all my h s come out as g s. And it skips letters. Plus I am a bad typist..and this keyboard is sensitive and then rewrites words. Wish I could gef an IPad. But I woulx probably still mess up. Thanks for your patience all.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#293828 Apr 26, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry and respectfully..it was your pist stating that wighout abortion we could nof sustain ghe birthrate.
Of all tbd arguments for abortion..that shocked me the most.
As I say..no wonded the pols do noghing to make it more rare..and it smacks of the Sanger mindset on eugenics. Most of the posts here are bemoaning it as a boon for poir people. YETmany who could easily affird childre ard also aborting right and left.
Agajn sorry but you shocked me. Fhis is human life we are discussjng.
Yes, we are discussing human life. Fetal human life. Wrapped around the fetal life is a girl/woman who is actually living. Her life has value. And she's the boss. What she says goes. Any other way is controlled by another entity. Like when the Comstock Law was in effect.

Eugenics was *the new thing* in its time. It was discussed, studied, and exercised by many people in several countries. For the most part, though, it was abandoned after WWII. To say eugenics violated human rights is an understatement, imo.

But here's a little tidbit for you regarding that self-fulfilling prophecy I mentioned earlier. Eugenics was used on "loose women", too. "The way eugenics was practiced in this period involved "interventions", which is a euphemistic name for the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups ó such as the Roma and Jews ó as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[7] The practice of euthanasia was carried out on hospital patients in the Aktion T4 at such centres as Hartheim Castle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I read that a few times and definitely see a similarity there regarding the "moral" push to criminalize abortion again.

See, your attitude toward your own gender doesn't shock me, it just saddens me to realize there are women who can't or won't see what kind of future will be left to their daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc. And that scares me.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#293829 Apr 26, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> The man is a sick, unethical bastard and deserves the harshest sentence possible. I doubt that the case meets the criteria for a death penalty. I have no idea what Susanm's point was in her comment to me. Misplaced sarcasm, I guess.
Last I read 3 of the charges of murder have been thrown out. There is seldom a point to anything she posts except to be a smartass. Just throw it back in her face and make her look stupid.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#293830 Apr 26, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry and respectfully..it was your pist stating that wighout abortion we could nof sustain ghe birthrate.
Of all tbd arguments for abortion..that shocked me the most.
As I say..no wonded the pols do noghing to make it more rare..and it smacks of the Sanger mindset on eugenics. Most of the posts here are bemoaning it as a boon for poir people. YETmany who could easily affird childre ard also aborting right and left.
Agajn sorry but you shocked me. Fhis is human life we are discussjng.
One more thing --

You say, "YETmany who could easily affird childre ard also aborting right and left."

Reality shows the abortion rate has dropped 5% for the last reporting period of 2009.

You say, "no wonded the pols do noghing to make it more rare..and it smacks of the Sanger mindset on eugenics."

Reality shows that one of the factors slowing the rate of abortion down is the Morning After Pill becoming available over the counter.

You say, "it was your pist stating that wighout abortion we could nof sustain ghe birthrate."

I ask, "Where are the resources to provide for these people going to come from? Who is going to love this child and raise this child to be a productive member of society? How will this child excel and meet his potential in the land of free if even his basic needs aren't met on a daily basis?" I talk about balance, you talk about control.

Maybe it's your slip showing.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#293831 Apr 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
1)The complaints wouldn't have gone to the governor.
2)Casey didn't stop the inspections of abortion "clinics".
1. Yes they would have.
2. Caseys administration did inspect and ignore the conditions.
The department had contact with the Womenís Medical Society dating back to 1979, when it first issued approval to open an abortion clinic. It did not conduct another site review until 1989, ten years later.
Numerous violations were already apparent, but Gosnell got a pass when he promised to fix them. Site reviews in 1992 and 1993 also noted various violations, but again failed to ensure they were corrected.
But at least the department had been doing something up to that point, however ineffectual.
Abortion rates go down when there is a pro choice administration. You want to see lesser abortions don't you?
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293832 Apr 26, 2013
Way back when..before aroe contraception and personal responsibility was touted as the means to get to the Zpg goal. ZERO POULATION GROWTH. It was also seen as the great equalizer fir us womdn. I am all for equality of the sexes..and have been for a long time. BETTER pay for women was something that was a mantra in my home. I think Pp was a great thing for women when its main job was teaching and providing CONTRACEPTION. It may still do tgat but it is a great abortion provider and as a business it is not in the business if cutting down its future business in the ways I suggested before.

Since I was the bread winner for a good part of My daughters life ..i made sure she went to college and became a professional. So please do not think I have little regard for those of my own sex. The thing is womens lib should not be measured by access to do away with her offspring but by a womans value to herself..her career her children her husband and if she believes to her God. Like it or not our bodies are made in a way that we are the ones who carry children. If we do not want to have them we should do anything we can with all that is Now available not to get pregnant.

I empathize with any woman with an unplanned pregnancy..more than you can possibly know..but my rights should not trump my childs that I concieved.

Since this is NOT the law..everything should be done to lower tge number of abortions..and IMHO..not viewing it as a way to sustain a lower birth rate is a start.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293833 Apr 26, 2013
ps if the abortion rate is down and if this morning after pill is not an abortifacient..good.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#293834 Apr 26, 2013
Caio and have a good nights sleep
Gods blessings on all

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) 5 min Grey Ghost 1,155,784
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min KiMare 233,064
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 51 min best bet 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr Earthling-1 2,738
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin For Life 28,455
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 14 hr ivyawe 1
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 20 hr Bently 201,187
More from around the web