Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,737
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

#310134 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you don't know the history of the USA.
I mean YOU don't know the history of the USA.

The continent was already settled by native peoples, when Europeans (beginning with the Vikings, who were ANYTHING but Christians) got here - whom Europeans slaughtered, enslaved, swindled, infected, and eventually evicted from the land.

The Jamestown colonists were here before the Pilgrims, who pre-dated the Puritans, who pre-dated the Catholics, who pre-dated the Quakers, and so on and so on and so on. Religious persecution was the order of the day. Read a book.

I know you don't like it, but them's the breaks, puddin'.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#310135 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
There you go with that bleeding arrogance again...the freedom to worship as one pleases, includes the freedom not to worship at all.

Sorry about your bigotry, self-righteousness, narrow world view, and deliberate obtuseness.
Ink

Warminster, PA

#310136 Sep 4, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I mean YOU don't know the history of the USA.
The continent was already settled by native peoples, when Europeans (beginning with the Vikings, who were ANYTHING but Christians) got here - whom Europeans slaughtered, enslaved, swindled, infected, and eventually evicted from the land.
The Jamestown colonists were here before the Pilgrims, who pre-dated the Puritans, who pre-dated the Catholics, who pre-dated the Quakers, and so on and so on and so on. Religious persecution was the order of the day. Read a book.
I know you don't like it, but them's the breaks, puddin'.
You are talking about a wilderness. I was talking about the establishment of a country. You may argue about how it came into being but it was the Engish who were responsible for putting together a constitution and declaring independence for, oh yeah, ENGLAND.
Ink

Warminster, PA

#310137 Sep 4, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Deductive reasoning.
LOL
Katie

Kent, WA

#310138 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
He was responding to a post where Rose said she had prayed that she WAS NOT pregnant.
His question was;
Do you believe miscarriage is tantamount to abortion if a woman prays and prays for it and God says "Yes"?
It infers that she prayed for a miscarriage, which she didn't. She has stated that she would never do that.
I know what STO replied to and what he asked. He did not infer any such thing. There was no reason anyone should've inferred anything other than what STO asked. He asked a believer what she thought. Nothing more.

Now that that's cleared up, why don't you respond to these posts that *were* directed to you?
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Would life not be worth living if it all was random? Or do you think there has to be spiritual entities playing us like pawns in a chess game?
Sometimes the dominoes in life line up perfectly for a horrible, disastrous result. Or sometimes they line up for a thing of rare beauty.
Does it make you feel better, safer, to believe there're somebodies behind the curtain making it all happen?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Astrology.
Ancient people looked to the stars and connected the dots to make pictures. They then personified those pictures and created stories, precursors to Aesop's Fables.
Man was not always so kind to each other ... as societies evolved, "being nice" evolved as well.
Unless or until some "god" claimed it was cool to wipe out entire societies... Told this to someone in authority in a dream and then they, the followers, acted on it. All believing they were in the right to do such a thing.
Not much has changed since those ancient days ... Men still believe god is telling them to police some other society regardless of the reality. You are no different in trying to police other women from making legal reproductive decisions and giving your god the credit for it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#310139 Sep 4, 2013
Forever 21 wrote:
Ha! I just love when people expect Christians or religious to be picture perfect. Are you? Then shut up. A person who believes and wants to worship their God is not perfect. How stupid to think they should be angels with no flaws. Do you people think that you're all perfect? WHO is the hypocrite? You are. You're too self centered to see it.
I'm not the one who claims to worship a deity which raped an engaged-to-be-married 13 year old virgin, so she could give birth to a zombie.

I'm also not the one who claims that Jesus was perfect, and that I follow his example by calling myself a 'Christian' whose religious goal is to condemn and castigate everyone who doesn't.

That would be you...hypocrite.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#310140 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they wouldn't. These people have no concept of trusting God because they haven't met Him yet.
Pics or it didnt happen.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#310141 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking about a wilderness. I was talking about the establishment of a country. You may argue about how it came into being but it was the Engish who were responsible for putting together a constitution declaring independence for, oh yeah, ENGLAND.
The United States Constitution declared independence for England?

Wow, you really are confused.
Katie

Kent, WA

#310142 Sep 4, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I had given a long answer to a question asked of ME about prayer ..in my answer I said I prayed to not be pregnant ..then the question about praying to have a miscarriage .
Sorry that is personal. And people kept arguing it ..
I don't blow over anything ..I read a question and sometime s do nit answer in the exact words you want ..hoping to catch me into saying things
I did not mean or say or even think of ..
I'll tell you the same thing I told Ink. STO asked you, a believer, what you thought about a pregnant woman -- NOT YOU -- praying for a miscarriage. Not once in his post did he ask, "Rose, if you prayed for a miscarriage would it be tantamount to an abortion?" Not once.

And you still didn't answer, other than a stand-alone No. So I take that to mean you don't believe praying for a miscarriage is similar to seeking an induced abortion.

FYI -- This is a debate/discussion forum. The only ones pulling punches and making things personal around here are those trolls/clowns who have no ability to actually discuss anything beyond argumentum ad hominem.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#310143 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be later generations of English, not Vikings or natives.
Get real. How do you argue with the facts?
What "facts"?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#310144 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
God loving women trust God. Simple.
There's that arrogance again.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#310145 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said equals? Are you making stuff up again?
Since the discussion was about inviting "into the pack", you were.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#310146 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
You idiot. Freedom of religion INCLUDES freedom from religion, or we wouldn't have the non-establishment clause.
Katie

Kent, WA

#310147 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Yes, freedom *from* religion. "...but was also a consequence of the pragmatic concerns of minority religious groups and small states that did not want to be under the power or influence of a national religion that did not represent them.[12]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#310148 Sep 4, 2013
Minimizing disaster is the way to go, that Obama is creating a crisis as being destructive and damaging in looking into matters and situations handling.
Obama is the wrong way and his views are not the way to go. OBAMA TELLS THAT HE IS THE DISASTER FIGURE.
Obama is the stereotype by keeping saying of chemical weapons (that is not the blueprint so rigid and fixed that any one has to do whatever based on calling chemical weapons--the proof to the convincing evidence would be another Bush case of saying satellite maps showed chemical weapons, and medical evidences cannot prove what chemicals, or ill health or anything of convincing evidence, from what and from who did that, but analysis of the whole Syria is the concern only, because US can never find out the weapons--one must prove the evidence of possessing of weapons and usage, not simply saying few people dying of being poisoned by chemicals--dying FROM chemical poisoning is not evidence nor proof where from, and of and from who) to make crisis and disaster.
But the stand is to deny Obama because using chemical weapons calling is the obstruction of looking into Syria--is Obama saying there is HINI disease that hundreds of millions of all people in cities need to be locked up to check if they are the transmission of HINI?
It is not possible based on the situations and all factors in Syria, to have convincing evidence and proof under all circumstances as positions for facts.

The standpoint of rating and assessment would be the appraisal and the value doctrine besides being right or wrong (it may not be and can be dealing with the number of people dying.)

A lot of people die around the world and inside US, have to do with US from US getting in situations, or doing atrocities.

When so many innocent children and families are killed by US drones lately on earth already, why no one says about Obama?
When more than 800 drones fly across US snooping, and might drone them if they are viewed as bad and wrong people, why don't you say about Obama?
Many Innocents are put in prison and beaten and tortured and some were executed, why don't say about it?
If you talk about people killed, there are many cases US kills too many people for no reason (inside US too) already, why not say about it?

There are millions dying in Africa Congo tribal warfares, why does US not strike there?

When Iraq with Saddam was having no internal fighting, why did US invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people already, why no people would be aware and say about Obama to Syria because it was the same thing on chemical weapons issue that got to this Iraq today then?

Evaluation is To stop using force no matter what, on chemical weapons subject OR not---that US cannot strike Syria even chemical weapon were used, because bombs are very dangerous that will kill innocents, and is too large scale of war that will become no end of too many people being massacred, and will generate another alike Iraq case and situation for unlimited time.

US systematically wants to do regime change and overthrow governments, why can't that be inside US, that people feel suppression under oppression of no free thinking?

Why rebels have no consideration of people of Syria to have people kill then, to orchestrate to invite US in ? If they are upset, they can live somewhere else,instead of letting awful US in.
That is how people choose positions to fight in Syria--Most women IN Syria after seeing all that fighting, organize as forces not to join rebels, but as forces to fight US strike, and invasion and rebels.

_____If you want to talk about the number of people dying, then look at that (more than 250,000 people died, MOSTLY KILLED BY BOMBS)--when Iraq with Saddam was having no internal fighting, why did US invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people (more than 250,000 people died) already, THIS IS THAT MATTERS.
Ink

Warminster, PA

#310149 Sep 4, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what STO replied to and what he asked. He did not infer any such thing. There was no reason anyone should've inferred anything other than what STO asked. He asked a believer what she thought. Nothing more.
Now that that's cleared up, why don't you respond to these posts that *were* directed to you?
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Rose saw the infrence and so did I.

I don't believe that there would be random life.
Was there another question?
Ink

Warminster, PA

#310150 Sep 4, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, freedom *from* religion. "...but was also a consequence of the pragmatic concerns of minority religious groups and small states that did not want to be under the power or influence of a national religion that did not represent them.[12]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...
From your link;

The 1791 text of the First Amendment to the country's Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It guarantees the free exercise of religion while also preventing the government from establishing a state religion. The Supreme Court has also interpreted this as preventing the government from having any authority in religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#310151 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The love is everywhere. You just don't see it.
I see love everywhere...I simply don't attribute it to your 'god'.
Katie

Kent, WA

#310152 Sep 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose saw the infrence and so did I.
I don't believe that there would be random life.
Was there another question?
Yes, I wanted to know your thoughts, your feelings. But there is absolutely no depth to you. None. You fling out one-liners that rarely have anything to do with what's actually being discussed, but tries to alter the discussion to a shallow level where you're obviously more comfortable.

Life is already random, whether you believe it or not.
Ink

Warminster, PA

#310153 Sep 4, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot. Freedom of religion INCLUDES freedom from religion, or we wouldn't have the non-establishment clause.
In England, the people were forced to follow the state religion. They put this in the constitution so that there would be no state religion. They would be free to follow whatever religion they chose. They could choose not to have a religion. It should work well for everyone.

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) 2 min sonicfilter 1,171,879
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 33 min Earthling-1 3,000
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 1 hr squeezers 728
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 hr thetruth 234,482
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 23 hr Trojan 28,700
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Sat RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Fri alanparkcity 1
More from around the web