Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 308,060
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
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304499 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie
Actually He has never answered if he is even a believer at all.
And I have asked many times..
I think his job here is to stir up trouble ..And development FROM GOD
NR claims to be a practicing Catholic. Has claimed it here for years.

I agree with what you say to him and JM about LaLa.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304500 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the flaw in their premise, from your link, "It has long been settled by science that in sexual reproduction, the new human organism, a human being, begins to exist and to grow and mature into an adult. On the other hand, individually, neither a sperm nor an oocyte has the capacity to do the same. Logically, therefore, the human zygote is already a living human being," she said."
In the scientific community, there IS NO consensus of when life begins. Therefore, to keep it simple, legally life begins at birth and civil rights are established.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_b...
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_13559.asp
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
That is the entire point of the prolife movement, Rose. Is to claim life begins in utero, remove women's civil rights established at their births, and transfer it to unknown and unknowing embryos and fetuses. It is insidious when other women work to remove their own civil rights along with strangers all while claiming to care and love women and their babies. jmo
The point of the post was NOT science ..
And science changes according to the latest theory..sorry but they are tiny humans in there ..Babies.

The point is...It's nit only religious people who are pro life.

Who knew..

Take away our right to exist in the public forum...as being religious..

As some want to..there will still be PRO LIFERS in this country

Thank God

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304501 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
NR claims to be a practicing Catholic. Has claimed it here for years.
I agree with what you say to him and JM about LaLa.
Well fir the past two weeks I have been asking. And no answer

People who believe in Jesus usually are quite vocal.

I was curious..and no answer at all to that

Nor what he Had personally done to help one single preview life.

Squawking in heRe and berating Ladi. Does not help one pregnant woman keep her baby

And certainly won't impact the choice of any woman searching fir an answer who might peek in this forum !!!

And again he will not say he is a BELIEVER .
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304502 Jul 11, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
NR & stupid sassy want to force women to gestate and bear children. It's pathetic, controlling and downright screwed up.
It is downright screwed up, pathetic, and controlling. It's despicable!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304503 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you misunderstood. At no time did I ask about adoption. The point all along was women who miscarry. Maybe they adopt later, but that was a side issue. Since the point made by the op "Forum" and NR was that women who miscarry are already mothers, even if they've never experienced a live delivery, that was the point I was addressing. Adoption had nothing to do with it except as a side issue.
Fine but it did get mixed in with adoption.
Lol thought I was imagining things or confused yet again
Katie wrote:
Rose, Sue --
So all those women who've not brought their pregnancies to fruition, but had to adopt, were all Moms before their adoptions were final?
They all were celebrated on Mother's Day? Their husbands celebrated on Father's Day?
Because that's the other side of this belief... if a childless woman is pregnant and you consider her a Mom, then her husband must already be a Dad.
On page 14279
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304504 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of the post was NOT science ..
And science changes according to the latest theory..sorry but they are tiny humans in there ..Babies.
The point is...It's nit only religious people who are pro life.
Who knew..
Take away our right to exist in the public forum...as being religious..
As some want to..there will still be PRO LIFERS in this country
Thank God
Yes, am aware this is what you believe.

The entire point of the prolife movement, Rose, is to claim life begins in utero, remove women's civil rights established at their births, and transfer it to unknown and unknowing embryos and fetuses. It is insidious when other women work to remove their own civil rights along with strangers all while claiming to care and love women and their babies. jmo

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304505 Jul 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Intentionally killing a preborn baby is wrong.
And are you a believer in Jesus ..They say you are Catholic

Why on earth not answer that simple question .

Seriously..you drive people away from believing. Because t h st think you do and then act mean

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304506 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So what makes an expectant father a Dad if he's not carrying said fetus?
Well I think the term expectant would apply if they have the baby

If she antitrust then he was still the Father if the baby she aborted.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304507 Jul 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, my youngest will be 20 at the end of the year. We were going through older home movies on VHS the other day, in preparation for converting them to DVD, and I was thinking it doesn't seem that long ago that the kids were that young :)
And it won't when they 're forty either lol.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#304508 Jul 11, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Preaching to the choir. The decision should be made by the woman making the choice and her physician. Oth, once born, it seems to me that there is a societal interest in making sure that the new citizen receives care.(Adoption.)
true.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#304509 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of the post was NOT science ..
And science changes according to the latest theory..sorry but they are tiny humans in there ..Babies.
The point is...It's nit only religious people who are pro life.
Who knew..
Take away our right to exist in the public forum...as being religious..
As some want to..there will still be PRO LIFERS in this country
Thank God
No one wants to take away your right to be here, or to be religious. However, many posters argue using their religion as though it applies to those who don't follow it. And they want the law to reflect their religious beliefs, binding everyone in a country where we have freedom of religion. A freedom that INCLUDES not having others' religious beliefs forced on us.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304510 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this what you're recommending?
http://www.christianbook.com/tilly-frank-pere...
Yes it's beautiful..No finger pointing ..No judgement ..just wonderful.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304511 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine but it did get mixed in with adoption.
Lol thought I was imagining things or confused yet again
<quoted text>
On page 14279
Yes, thanks for quoting my post showing the side issue of adoption, Rose, when the main point was about women who miscarry and whether or not they were mothers.
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304512 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I think the term expectant would apply if they have the baby
If she antitrust then he was still the Father if the baby she aborted.
The above is your answer to how an expectant father is Dad when he is not carrying the pregnancy?

I asked because you claimed pregnant woman was Mom because it was her responsibility to properly nourish her embryo/fetus and properly care for her pregnancy.

(I would have worded a pregnant woman is responsible for properly caring for and nourishing herself while pregnant.)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304513 Jul 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so out of touch with reality!
La has posted her a bazillion times she regrets her abortion. She hates abortion. She would focus on lowering the number of annual abortion to zero with comprehensive sex education in all public schools and affordable/free birth control available to all.
All the crap you posted above is nothing but your deranged fantasy. Including the sex and name of the embryo La regretfully aborted in order to finish her college degree so that her parents' hopes and dreams were not dashed -- as they had been with La's sibling.
ALL OF THIS INFO is located right in this forum, on this very thread. Study up. Or keep showing us what a failure you truly are... Your choice.
::::))))))APPLAUSE BRAVO:::::::::)

And judgemental garbage on this ..And her is not just nuts..It's CRUEL

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304514 Jul 11, 2013
sassy JM wrote:
<quoted text> Rose didn't have any other children in the household. Point is that once you create your child, you are a biological mother. Whether that child is one day old in utero or one day old outside the womb ...or...whether or not you mother that child or someone else does..
Having other children is irrelevent. A mother who miscarries or has an abortion IS still a mother because they have produced a biological child. Mothering that child when born is a different subject.
A woman can be pregnant with another womans child even. THAT is when you can consider a pregnant woman not a mother.
Yes I have always been my son's mother in the womb ..as I talked to him.

Through all the years he grew up .....

And now
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#304515 Jul 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"You want the temporal pleasure w/out the responsibility attached."
Just like you men.
So taking an innocent life is your way of trying to be like men? Women were created to give life, not kill it. You're becoming less who you are....to the point of executing innocents. All for the sake of becoming like men?

"I'm going to kill this baby! I wanna be more like a man and less like a woman! I'll show them! If I have to kill my own baby girl to prove I'm as "powerful" w/out a penis as a man who w/ a penis, I'll KILL her!! This is about me and my make-believe power struggle! We'll use defenseless babies to prove our make-believe point! KILL THE BABIES! EVEN THE FEMALE ONES! FEMALE POWER!!"
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#304516 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of the post was NOT science ..
And science changes according to the latest theory..sorry but they are tiny humans in there ..Babies.
The point is...It's nit only religious people who are pro life.
Who knew..
Take away our right to exist in the public forum...as being religious..
As some want to..there will still be PRO LIFERS in this country
Thank God
If the point of the article was not science, the claim that the scientific community establishes that life begins at fertilization with a whole and complete human being would not have been made.

"When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues, surrounding the start of life the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn't have an answer for us, and that "when does life begin?" is, in fact, a meaningless question.

Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises that:

”The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_b...

"No consensus on when human life begins

03 November 2008

By Alison Cranage
Appeared in BioNews 482

An international poll has shown a range of opinions about when human life begins biologically. It comes ahead of a proposed constitutional amendment in Colorado, US, which could confer legal rights to embryos at the point of fertilization."
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_13559.asp

"Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

(2) The biota of a particular region

Supplement

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:
•with an organized structure performing a specific function
•with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
•with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
•capable of adapting
•with an ability to germinate or reproduce"
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

==========

This is serious business, Rose. Removing civil rights from grown women and half-grown girls will lead to what happened in Ireland last Fall when the dentist was allowed to die instead of receiving a life-saving abortion. I do not want that for America's child-bearing women nor for my daughters and granddaughters.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/11...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#304517 Jul 11, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>You are welcome to your opinion as it applies to your own pregnancies, Rose. Please do not attempt to tell me mine.
Thanks.
I believe I said someplace that how a woman feels on her miscarriages is different each woman.

And also changes once she has a child.

Even on my own kids feeling

But if I did not make that clear ..I know your feelings are different ..

Mine too..I don't spend my days mourning my lost grandchildren.

But as each one was lost ..I mourned them but knew they were with God ..
No Relativism

West Lafayette, IN

#304518 Jul 11, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
And you know she did not mourn ..HOW??
She regrets it..said so many times.
lets please leave her alone ..not dig up an imaginary child and mock her
You are awful
1) Lala's child is not imaginary.

2) Lala has been very clear that she has no regrets for what she did. She said, "I knew what I had to do, and I did it."

If Lala regretted her abortion, how could she possibly have posted this?:

"Heck, the way I see it, if anything abortion increases the value of the living." - Lala
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

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) 3 min red and right 1,174,628
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 min Trojan 28,757
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 30 min LonePalm 3,214
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 hr thetruth 234,703
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Thu HitMan 201,321
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Jan 27 Pinoyboyguy 733
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
More from around the web