Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313705 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#309401 Aug 25, 2013
I hear it's in Republican studies--you know, herpetology.
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess, it's in "Woman's Studies", right?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#309402 Aug 25, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Heart of Jesus.
Have mercy on us.
Lamb of God
Jesus
Have mercy on us.
You have given us bread from heaven.
One God forever and ever.
Amen.
May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
RaMen

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#309403 Aug 25, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it awesome that we live in a country where we can all believe, or not believe, in anything, or nothing? It's equally awesome that we live in a country where we can fight to change, or preserve, laws that we do/don't agree with.
íSi, es verdad, mi hermana!
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#309404 Aug 26, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>
May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
RaMen
Do the teachers of Carlsbad know how to
read and write in English?
Or were all of you in Special Ed.?
Cave people, right.
Ocean56

AOL

#309406 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
Maybe she should get her priorities straight.
Riiiiiiiiiiight, inky, and what would you say about the woman who chooses to be childFREE (no kids by choice) and does very well financially in her job/career as a result of NOT having children? Women like Oprah Winfrey, to name a perfect example?

Oh that's right, such childfree women are called "selfish," primarily by far-right political and religious conservatives, the ones who think a woman's ONLY valid functions in life are marriage and motherhood.@@

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309407 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
In your case I could definitely entertain the possibility of slithering out from under a rock.
Slither on, then. I'm certainly not going to stop you. You can start from under the rock in your head.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309408 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
You are creating an argument just to have an argument.
No, I'm debating a legitimate point with you. You just don't want to because you know those things you want to insist we need to "start" with may already exist.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309409 Aug 26, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
LMAO!!!!
I just had to share this....
Ink posted this on June's thread...
"It is always worth your time to make statements that are true and if that takes a little research, so be it.
It is hard to have an honest conversation if one person makes stuff up and throws it out as fact."
Oh, the irony!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309410 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I said.
Yes, Witless, and it was a strawman argument. That is my point, Idiot.

Damn, you're dumb. Really, really dumb.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309411 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy He is all knowing and all powerful. That doesn't mean that humans cannot make their own good or bad decisions. As you know, we don't even have to believe He exists.
If he's all knowing, he knows what will happen ahead of time. If he's all powerful, and doesn't prevent the things he doesn't like, that he knew about ahead of time, then it has to be part of his plan.

Again, you can't have your cake AND eat it too.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309412 Aug 26, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You mean the way the teabaggers keep stirring up their inbred base by claiming the government is going to take away all guns, force abortions on christian women, and make everyone marry someone of them same sex?
For every sharpton on our side (and I'm no fan of his), you people have a limbaugh, a robertson, a coulter, etc. So you might want to notch down the self-righteous rhetoric.
<quoted text>
You're asking her to leave her comfort zone. That's completely against the foundations of her quasi-conservative principles. If she toned down the self-righteousness, she couldn't hear herself talk.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309413 Aug 26, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Heart of Jesus.
Have mercy on us.
Lamb of God
Jesus
Have mercy on us.
You have given us bread from heaven.
One God forever and ever.
Amen.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309414 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
Oh, Ye Gods, you are SO f*cking gullible!

One, he is NOT buying gourmet food everyday on just $200 a month, you Moron.

Two, because someone Joe Schmoe, who could very well be an ACTOR says so, is not proof.

Three, I find it very interesting that they mention that in NINETEEN NINETY-SIX, there were more regulations, but that Obama got rid of those in TWO THOUSAND AND NINE. What happened to the intervening years? If it were a legitimate claim, they'd have been able to say that in TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT it was different.

Use some damned logic for a change, and stop believing everything you see from a source just because you agree with them in general politically.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309416 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think moms with young children should stay home and care for them no matter what their finances are.
Perhaps during those years they could apply for grants and loans and get some schooling. There is always a way to better yourself abiet hard.
Okay, so she's getting loans and grants for school, yet she's supposed to stay at home and take care of her kids?

You DO realize that not ALL programs allow you to take classes online, right? Do YOU want a nurse taking care of you who has never been in a lab or clinical setting?

And what, in the meantime, is she supposed to do to feed her children, clothe her children, have a roof over her head?

And how many people like you would rant and rave over the fact that she's getting assistance, yet can pay for the internet in order to DO classes online, IF she can?

You people just don't think things through.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309417 Aug 26, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Love your fallacies tonight, Sue. Hilarious!! You took a general comment about women and made it personally about NAP. Good thing she's thick skinned.
Oh, another thing, you're citing philosophy society as a whole follows (such as blaming the victim {this is a legal strategy defendants use to get out of taking responsibility for bad behavior}) but contributing it all to one group you distance yourself from, falsely believing you've remained separate.
And the whole time, you're blaming those very women you insist carry their unwanted pregnancies to term for being un or underemployed while raising those children you insisted they had.
Like I said, f'n hilarious!!!
They want to HAVE their cake AND eat it, too. There are absolutely NO shades of gray in their narrow-minded little worlds, everything is a black/white extreme.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309418 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe she should get her priorities straight.
You mean she should adopt YOUR priorities.

Maybe availability to her children is her top priority. I have no problem with women treating their motherhood, as the most important job there is.

Why do you?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309419 Aug 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
They want to HAVE their cake AND eat it, too. There are absolutely NO shades of gray in their narrow-minded little worlds, everything is a black/white extreme.
Reminds me of the ones who declare the Old Testament the 'Jewish' part of the Bible...that the 'old laws' no longer apply, because Jesus brought the New Testament to Christians...but cling fitfully, crab-like, to one verse in Leviticus for the basis of their homophobia.

(All the while exempting themselves from prohibitions against those other things Leviticus found so abominable....eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, cutting one's beard....you know....the gooshy stuff they do themselves.)
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#309420 Aug 26, 2013
++++++++

Syria: U.N. chemical weapons team comes under sniper fire
By Frederik Pleitgen, Hamdi Alkhshali and Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 7:14 AM EDT, Mon August 26, 2013


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
An explosion occurs near the site U.N. inspectors want to visit
Ban Ki-Moon: chemical weapons use is crime against humanity
Syrian government to allow U.N. inspectors access to site after long delay
U.S. bulking up naval presence near Syria

Damascus, Syria (CNN)--[Breaking news update 7:13 a.m. ET]
Sniper fire hit a vehicle used by a U.N. chemical weapons investigation team in Syria multiple times on Monday, according to the United Nations. The team "returned safely back to the government checkpoint," a U.N. statement said. The team is replacing the vehicle and will return to the area, it said.

U.N. chief: Chemical weapons use in Syria must be punished

++++++

==========
Related to the above report, it is useless for UN inspectors to be in Syria.

UN chief could be disposed and asked to step aside immediately, as people worldwide do not want any harms and destruction imposed on them.


Because there are those who fall in the prey and scheme of chemical weapons usage, the Muslim rebels already have chemical weapons usage and stage orchestration of using chemical weapons to poison others to make the show, so that others would go for falling into the trap, in order that western forces might get into the prey.
The number of people who really die from chemical weapons is just a number as how they make it up and call such number, yet it is small make-up number RANGING FROM 100 TO A FEW HUNDRED, compared to the overall larger number of tolls

THIS IS HAZARDOUS when UN inspectors are in Syria, as rebels might/would further poison others behind inspectors' back, so that they can stage further falsehood.
If Syria regime would use chemical weapons before, there is no case that they could come up with substantial facts and evidences to prove it.
If few die in the internal civil unrest for so long in Syria due to chemical weapons, one does not expect that many people would die from chemical weapons if the unrest goes on.

But the bottom line is that if any military action were into Syria, the large scale of devastation warfare to a lot more civilians being killed would be very destructive from the beginning to the final end. The important factors are that Western forces might not be capable of overcoming the unpredictable damages if military action were taken, facing world non-allowance and disputes. Yet, the course for this very large scale of action might lead to making another troublesome current Iraq-like situation of bigger than Iraq with very high costs of US lives and resources for long, but definitely world tension and antagonism toward US would rise, with disputes and bickering among UN members and global backlashng, as this must be rejected and deterred.

There are no merits but all damages by falling into the trickery prey of insurgent rebels and others in orchestrating to start with--it needs to stop those by now.

THEREFORE, UN IS DESTRUCTIVE IN ITS ENDEAVOR SO FAR BY FALLING INTO THE TRAP. It is better for UN inspectors to leave Syria at once, so that rebels can no longer make up falsehood. As Long as people do not get tricked by rebels, then the constructive way is to view and deter rebel groups as they cause lots of people destruction and damages by making people of the world doing very destructive things to themselves, and UN as well, and this is destroying global people's lives and resources worldwide.

UN chief must be disposed and asked to step aside immediately if he still puts inspectors in Syria and continues with the jargon of chemical weapons, as people worldwide do not want any harms and damages imposed on them.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#309421 Aug 26, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Love your fallacies tonight, Sue. Hilarious!! You took a general comment about women and made it personally about NAP. Good thing she's thick skinned.
Oh, another thing, you're citing philosophy society as a whole follows (such as blaming the victim {this is a legal strategy defendants use to get out of taking responsibility for bad behavior}) but contributing it all to one group you distance yourself from, falsely believing you've remained separate.
And the whole time, you're blaming those very women you insist carry their unwanted pregnancies to term for being un or underemployed while raising those children you insisted they had.
Like I said, f'n hilarious!!!
Sue is a great big fan of cake. She likes having it, and eating it, and bouncing her heels on the floor for it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309422 Aug 26, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Reminds me of the ones who declare the Old Testament the 'Jewish' part of the Bible...that the 'old laws' no longer apply, because Jesus brought the New Testament to Christians...but cling fitfully, crab-like, to one verse in Leviticus for the basis of their homophobia.
(All the while exempting themselves from prohibitions against those other things Leviticus found so abominable....eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, cutting one's beard....you know....the gooshy stuff they do themselves.)
Yep, exactly right :)

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) 3 min flack 1,510,488
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr WherePhart 32,834
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar 25 BuzzerPhartss 2
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,478
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web