Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 336709 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309452 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Motherhood is far and away the most important jobs a mom will ever have. The priority would be to have your own life on track before you have children either with a career or a husband to father your children. Something to sustain children and offer them a stable home.
I'll ask you the same question that Sue wouldn't answer. How do you know they DIDN'T have a husband and a stable home life when their children were born? You've never met a stay at home mother who was widowed, or whose husband abandoned her?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#309453 Aug 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "the rest of my post" did you NOT understand?
This coming from the person who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "may"........LOL
Ocean56

AOL

#309454 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
I would say if you don't want children, don't get pregnant.


Ah, the typically STUPID anti-choice response. Why am I not surprised, inky, since this is your usual moronic comeback. I guess you're still not educated enough yet to know that ALL birth control methods can and DO fail occasionally. How sad.

But guess what, if a woman has an abortion simply because she doesn't EVER want pregnancy or children, that still comes under the "none of your business" category.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309455 Aug 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still ALL part of his plan, then, the good AND the bad.
LOL, sorry, but your mythological version of Deity has nothing to do with me. I'm merely pointing out that you people try to have your cake AND eat it, too.
Your thinking is stuck on this world and that is not what it is ultimately about.
The plan is for all God's children to spend eternity with Him. How you love God and others will determine if that happens. Your choice.
I'm sorry that you don't get it.
Ocean56

AOL

#309456 Aug 26, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
That's not true . Many conservatives are BELieve it or not ..just like other women in their goals
Applauding the advent of ways to limit or not have husbands or families
And taking the means to PREVENT pregnancy .
Just because we do not believe it necessary yo do away EITH ones offspring
Does not MaKE conservatives necessarily fall into lock step
The aforementioned. Controversial Ann Coulter has no husband or children That I know of ..can't get more conservative.
Rose, we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues, including this one.

As far as I'M concerned, conservative women like Ann Coulter are some of the WORST hypocrites ever. They often condemn women who are feminists, for example, while enjoying the advantages that feminism gives them.

So I'm sorry, but I have ZERO respect for conservative women like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and all other women who "think" like them. They pretend to "support women" while at the same time are on the side of those actively seeking to REMOVE women's reproductive rights.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#309457 Aug 26, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Sue is a great big fan of cake. She likes having it, and eating it, and bouncing her heels on the floor for it.
Having their cake and eating it, too, was the push behind Welfare Reform in the late '90s. What a lot of people don't realize is that the reform was not about removing people off the rolls; it was about privatizing. For all the right reasons, people were led to believe privatizing is the answer to get gov't out of our personal lives. Reality has shown, however, the companies holding the contracts remain an invisible middleman because the contracts are held by the federal gov't.

Before reform, the federal gov't worked with the state gov'ts and things ran (almost) effortlessly. There was some fraud and some families who remained on the rolls their entire lives, but these numbers were small compared with the rest who did use it for temporary means. Welfare was never meant to provide needy people comfortably. Never. It was designed to leave people wanting more with the firm belief they would seek to improve their lives. And most did. Not all, but a higher number than those who abused it.

I, personally, think bringing in the middleman and labeling it "reform" was slim-shady. It was wrapped up nicely in WI (the test state) and covered in colorful ribbons, but it was not altogether forthcoming about its true goals. And the true goals have shown to be creating corporations who, themselves, receive "corporate welfare" and are the money behind the politicians who in turn do what the corporations want, not what the people need.

Here's an example.

http://www.edsincorporated.com/workforce-solu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#309458 Aug 26, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Because every woman on earth should be a nurse.
Good grief.
Why don't you just admit that you believe all welfare is wrong, except for the corporate kind, and that anyone on food stamps or TANF is a lowlife who shouldn't have kids?
Whatever that program was THAT FOO worked with was either requiring or looking to require those seeking aid to be on some form of contraception .

The government should help ..But there,should be limitations,
And having a woman behave responsibly is not amiss,IMO.

If she cannot feed two Kids..or three ..why not prevent more ..or at least say ..You will get NO AID for more ..I think she said
Done sex education was included in the program

And why not have online classes,..then regular classes when the kids,are,in school ..at least encourage,GEDS if they did not graduate

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#309459 Aug 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The concept of free will evades you. If he were to prevent it regardless of how pwerful he was it would negate free will.
Being omnipotent and knowing what choices will be made does not mean he mean those choices made from free will were part of his plan.
Your intelligence and ability to grasp even the most basic of philosophical concepts is laughably limited.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309460 Aug 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll ask you the same question that Sue wouldn't answer. How do you know they DIDN'T have a husband and a stable home life when their children were born? You've never met a stay at home mother who was widowed, or whose husband abandoned her?
Sure, those aren't the women that I am talking about. Everyone needs help at one time or anoter but we were discussing women who were raised on welfare as children, continue to raise their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in the same sad environment. Just some of my thoughts on how to change it.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#309461 Aug 26, 2013
I cannot believe that these women WANT TO BE TRAPPED st poverty level

With just enough to get by ..ad infinitum .

May be they had dreams too aside from bring moms,to kids,in poor situations,..

May be some grew up this way and thought this,is all there,is for them .

Why NOT encourage them ..a further stipend fir training or education .

Get them out of UNCLES,POCKET ..we encouraged all this,with the,Great Society of the sixties .

Free stuff if there was,NO DAD .

But Uncle wants them in the pocket with JUST ENOUGH.

like the woman on tv yelling for free,Obama,phones,..

They make better voters .

It's cruel to NOT encourage BC and education.

A,permanent s e t of generations,with JUST ENOUGH .

AND those without kids ..You work at something ..look for work or get in a JOB training program ..period

The,whole idea behind illegal immigration ..they do jobs,AMERICANS, don't want yo do..why nit for able bodies young people

Our own people have no jobs..why encourage hiring of illegals,.

And there ate,LEGAL immigrants who want jobs ..And citizens...

We have allowed an awful mess ..But do we,secure the border as we could ..no
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309462 Aug 26, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the typically STUPID anti-choice response. Why am I not surprised, inky, since this is your usual moronic comeback. I guess you're still not educated enough yet to know that ALL birth control methods can and DO fail occasionally. How sad.
But guess what, if a woman has an abortion simply because she doesn't EVER want pregnancy or children, that still comes under the "none of your business" category.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Your key word here is "occasionally".

That doesn't account for the nearly one million abortions a year performed in this country alone.

That "none of your business catagory" doesn't apply after 24 weeks anymore. Then it is someone else's business. Progress.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#309463 Aug 26, 2013
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of free will evades you. If he were to prevent it regardless of how pwerful he was it would negate free will.
Being omnipotent and knowing what choices will be made does not mean he mean those choices made from free will were part of his plan.
Your intelligence and ability to grasp even the most basic of philosophical concepts is laughably limited.
I keep trying but the depth of thinking just isn't there.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#309464 Aug 26, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues, including this one.
As far as I'M concerned, conservative women like Ann Coulter are some of the WORST hypocrites ever. They often condemn women who are feminists, for example, while enjoying the advantages that feminism gives them.
So I'm sorry, but I have ZERO respect for conservative women like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and all other women who "think" like them. They pretend to "support women" while at the same time are on the side of those actively seeking to REMOVE women's reproductive rights.
They are against abortion ..absolutely

I'm not extremist anything ..I brought her up only because she has no kids and hubby .

Thing is we are for our daughters having opportunities..just being responsible enough not end the life if your offspring in the process.

What's wrong with women using her brains..her opportunities,..contraception ..to be successful ...NOTHING

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309465 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahaha, this post proves that your post yesterday:
Bitner
“Blessed Be”
Since: Jun 07
60,556
Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#309283 23 hrs ago
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
We can start by requiring that anyone who is physically able to work either:
1) be employed
2) seeking employment
3) going to school to train for employment
4) accept any job that is offered (they can seek a more desired job while they are working)
Do you have proof that 2 and 4 aren't required for anyone on Food Stamps?
was nothing more that creating an argument just to have an argument. Numbers 2 & 4 are not required.
The requirements didn't mention whether or not "seeking employment" was required, just that being CURRENTLY employed or in training may not be, depending on state. Which ALSO means, of course, that it MAY be, depending on state. But, it doesn't mention seeking employment at all.

Try again?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309466 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you like me to address?
What part of "the rest of my post" do you NOT understand?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309467 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"May" is not a requirement.
"May" was only used in relation to being currently employed OR in training. The requirements didn't say anything about "seeking employement" one way or the other, Dishonest One.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309468 Aug 26, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
This coming from the person who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "may"........LOL
LOL, THIS coming from the person who can't be honest enough to acknowledge that not requiring someone to CURRENTLY be employed is NOT the same as not requiring them to "seek employement".

If you don't want to answer, just say so. This sidestep of yours is fooling no one.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309469 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Your thinking is stuck on this world and that is not what it is ultimately about.
The plan is for all God's children to spend eternity with Him. How you love God and others will determine if that happens. Your choice.
I'm sorry that you don't get it.
What the final part of the plan is, is not relevant to my point. Everything is part of the plan, good and bad. You can't have it both ways.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309471 Aug 26, 2013
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of free will evades you. If he were to prevent it regardless of how pwerful he was it would negate free will.
Being omnipotent and knowing what choices will be made does not mean he mean those choices made from free will were part of his plan.
Your intelligence and ability to grasp even the most basic of philosophical concepts is laughably limited.
"The concept of free will evades you."

No, it does not. But it's ALSO irrelevant to my point, and does not negate said point. Which is that for an omniscient, omnipotent being that created everything, everything is part of their plan, or it wouldn't exist. What we choose to do about things has nothing to do with it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#309472 Aug 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, those aren't the women that I am talking about. Everyone needs help at one time or anoter but we were discussing women who were raised on welfare as children, continue to raise their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in the same sad environment. Just some of my thoughts on how to change it.
And how do YOU know which women those are? So far you've given nothing to show, just a link to one MAN without children who was obviously, at least partially, lying.

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) 4 min Yeah 1,744,845
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 hr Chosen Traveler 35,800
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mar 28 Lonnie Peters 201,480
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 24 Wisdom of Ages 12,331
News Purdue and IU? On Valentine's day? Not anymore (Feb '07) Mar '18 Painter Phartse 73
News Walker IV hits 5 3s, scores 19, Miami beats Not... Feb '18 ScoresPhartse 2