Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309948 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.

Mr payson Victor

Ashburn, VA

#311168 Sep 15, 2013
ARE YOU IN NEED OF LOAN SERVICES?
If so I put it to you that you are in the right place
were that
is done.
so if you are really in need of this service
offered by this company just enter the form below
and get it back to
us immediately.
LOAN APPLICATION FORM, BORROWER'S
INFORMATION
First Name:_________
Last Name:_________
Gender:_________
Marital status:_________
Contact Address:_________
City/Zip code:_________
Country:_________
Nationality:_________
SEX:_________
AGE:_________
Date of Birth:_________
Amount Needed as Loan:_________
Loan Duration:_________
Monthly Income/Yearly Income:_________
Occupation:_________
Purpose for Loan:_________
Phone:_________
Fax No:_________
Enter this form with current and correct data and
send
back to us through our company email as,
teresalawrence07@gmail.com
regards
Mr payson Victor

Ashburn, VA

#311169 Sep 15, 2013
Mr payson Victor | 1 min ago
ARE YOU IN NEED OF LOAN SERVICES?
If so I put it to you that you are in the right place
were that
is done.
so if you are really in need of this service
offered by this company just enter the form below
and get it back to
us immediately.
LOAN APPLICATION FORM, BORROWER'S
INFORMATION
First Name:_________
Last Name:_________
Gender:_________
Marital status:_________
Contact Address:_________
City/Zip code:_________
Country:_________
Nationality:_________
SEX:_________
AGE:_________
Date of Birth:_________
Amount Needed as Loan:_________
Loan Duration:_________
Monthly Income/Yearly Income:_________
Occupation:_________
Purpose for Loan:_________
Phone:_________
Fax No:_________
Enter this form with current and correct data and
send
back to us through our company email as,
teresalawrence07@gmail.com
regards
Mr Payson Victor.
frank

Russia

#311170 Sep 15, 2013
God
Ocean56

AOL

#311171 Sep 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
When you say "ANY" you mean all. Is that right?
No, it is NOT right. I said that ANY religion that treats women like mindless baby factories and forbids all forms of contraception is a backward religion.

I know the Catholic Church is only ONE such religion, but there are quite a few other backward religions that treat women this way. Still, I know that NOT all religions have that archaic view of women, so no, I DON'T mean "all." Get it now?

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Ocean56

AOL

#311172 Sep 16, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
Every Christian I know,sent their kids,to college ..or is being to do so..this guy is a throwback.
True, this guy Alleman is a throwback, but he isn't the ONLY one. I think that idiot Rick Santorum is another throwback, his public "contraception is not okay" statement being proof of his backward mindset. Mitt Romney is yet another one, one of the main reasons why I and many other women DIDNT' vote for him.

Personally, I think a lot of religious conservative guys, including Republican politicians, believe the same nonsense as Alleman, even if they don't state it publicly. IMO any person who seriously believes women should NOT go to college, who believes women should ONLY be wives and mothers, is a person who should never be trusted with power that the office of Congressman, Senator, Governor, and President would give him.

As someone (I don't remember who) said, a woman with NO rights is a slave. I'll take being an "angry feminist" over being a slave every day of the week.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Ocean56

AOL

#311173 Sep 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
Good morning "Ocean."
I would normally say that that idiotic article should never be reposted anywhere for any reason whatsoever because its extremist viewpoint will make some readers think that this is the basic doctrine that all Christians, or all Catholics subscribe to--which they don't. However, I do think some of the statements that are made in that article should be pointed out simply because they represent an extremist point of view.
One of my personal favorites from it is this gem:
"Getting a college degree often makes a young lady feel an “obligation” to use it, to make money. Often her husband doesn’t want to see it go to “waste.” So the degree is what actually traps her. Not having a degree frees her to enter into a marriage with proper roles in which her husband will provide for her and their children. Christian marriage by definition does place her in a submissive role to her husband, but no one forces anyone to marry anyone."
Clearly the author wants the reader to feel as though this is not an extremist point of view--which is implied by the tacked on, "but no one forces anyone to marry anyone." It's fairly obvious that the author is taking a jab at cultures that have pre-arringed marriages like those in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, or some Christian sects, while trying to say "It's normal and just for a woman to have her freedom...until she's married."
Yet the author manages to "twist" this around to mean that she's not "free" until she enters marriage. Why else would he say, "So getting the degree is what actually "traps" her. Not having a degree "frees" her to enter into a marriage..."
A thoroughly repellent, but oddly insightful view into religious fanaticism.


Hi John, thanks for replying. While I have to respectfully disagree with your saying that this author's extremist views "should never be reposted anywhere for any reason whatsoever," I do agree with your last statement about it being a "thoroughly repellent, but oddly insightful view into religious fanaticism."

IMO such extremist and fanatical views SHOULD be exposed, because many conservatives would have us believe that such extremist views are only held by "a few." And honestly, I'm not so sure that's true. Personally, I think MANY political and religious conservative guys hold these regressive ideas, including Republican politicians.

IMO those are the guys who are doing their best to legislate their extremist beliefs into LAW. So we aren't doing the American public any favors by keeping such extremist views a secret. So I think these extremist views DO need public exposure, so we can all denounce it as such.:-)

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

Ocean56

AOL

#311174 Sep 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
However, I do think some of the statements that are made in that article should be pointed out simply because they represent an extremist point of view.
One of my personal favorites from it is this gem:

"Getting a college degree often makes a young lady feel an “obligation” to use it, to make money. Often her husband doesn’t want to see it go to “waste.” So the degree is what actually traps her. Not having a degree frees her to enter into a marriage with proper roles in which her husband will provide for her and their children. Christian marriage by definition does place her in a submissive role to her husband, but no one forces anyone to marry anyone."
Yep, that's bad enough. But the way I see it, this "gem" is even worse:

"3. She will not learn to be a wife and mother. Nothing that is taught in a college curriculum is geared toward domestic homemaking. On the contrary, it is training in a very masculine role of a professional career. So there becomes a severe inner conflict in a woman when she starts trying to be a homemaker and juggle a career alongside it. Often when a career woman discerns the possibility of giving up her career, she faces the reality that she has had no training in homemaking and often has the thought “What would I do at home all day.” Stay-at-home mothers are actually very busy industrious women and do absolutely beautiful marvelous things. Surely the business world severely undervalues those things they do, but the value to a family is beyond monetary compensation. These abilities cannot be learned in any college."

I think that given HIS way, Alleman would like nothing better than forcing women back to the 1830's, forget about the 1950's, and for women to STAY there. This guy wants women to be nothing more than totally dependent, uneducated, and of course UNPAID domestic servants, just as women were pretty much through the whole 19th century, little more than SLAVES really. The scary thing is that I believe a lot more guys "think" just like him, even if they don't state their regressive views publicly.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311175 Sep 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi John, thanks for replying. While I have to respectfully disagree with your saying that this author's extremist views "should never be reposted anywhere for any reason whatsoever," I do agree with your last statement about it being a "thoroughly repellent, but oddly insightful view into religious fanaticism."
IMO such extremist and fanatical views SHOULD be exposed, because many conservatives would have us believe that such extremist views are only held by "a few." And honestly, I'm not so sure that's true. Personally, I think MANY political and religious conservative guys hold these regressive ideas, including Republican politicians.
IMO those are the guys who are doing their best to legislate their extremist beliefs into LAW. So we aren't doing the American public any favors by keeping such extremist views a secret. So I think these extremist views DO need public exposure, so we can all denounce it as such.:-)
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
I have to say that I also believe that while few will express such views, more hold them.
Ocean56

AOL

#311176 Sep 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
I have to say that I also believe that while few will express such views, more hold them.
I totally agree, and of course Republican politicians will be a lot more careful and avoid, if they can, expressing these regressive views publicly. We all know what happened to Romney, Akin, and Mourdock (to name just three), who did precisely that in the last national election; they LOST. Thank goodness, right?:)

There are elections coming up next year, and I know I don't want to see more Republican extremists elected to positions of power over others. So the way I see it, the more public exposure of such extremist views, the better for those of us who DON'T want such regressive ideas imposed on all of us.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311177 Sep 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree, and of course Republican politicians will be a lot more careful and avoid, if they can, expressing these regressive views publicly. We all know what happened to Romney, Akin, and Mourdock (to name just three), who did precisely that in the last national election; they LOST. Thank goodness, right?:)
There are elections coming up next year, and I know I don't want to see more Republican extremists elected to positions of power over others. So the way I see it, the more public exposure of such extremist views, the better for those of us who DON'T want such regressive ideas imposed on all of us.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
You know what, though, I don't think they WILL be more careful. Because these kinds of sentiments tend to slip out when they are pressed/pissed. It's not like any politician is thinking clearly in the first place.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311178 Sep 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to say that I also believe that while few will express such views, more hold them.
And I have to say that it's not just men who hold those views; there is a large contingent of women who hold them, as well. Some are so invested in the patriarchal system, that they are willing to give up all the ground women have gained in the last 150 years...not just for themselves, but for their daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends. Some of them hold public office...Jan Brewer comes readily to mind.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311180 Sep 16, 2013
HuskerDu wrote:
A quote from Girl Scouts CEO, Kathy Cloninger,“We partner with many organizations. We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the country, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.”
How much more evidence do you need? We must remove ourselves from such evil. We cannot allow ourselves to participate “from within.” We must get out. We must stand up for truth, with a clean conscience and clean heart. lifenews.com
Evidence of what? That youth organizations are stepping up to the plate, and putting their money where their mouths are, re: sex education???

Yes, I know: we can't have young girls getting "information" about sex, from their youth organizations...sex education is EEEEEEEE VIL. Much better for our little flowers of womanhood to stay ignorant...you still think they'll retain their virginity longer that way...

Pffft.

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#311183 Sep 16, 2013
Timely manner wrote:
<quoted text> Evidently, after making such a post,Junket isn't a very loving person. I hope that she doesn't have children. Can't imagine a woman being so unwomanly. Children need a compassionate mother who would not be turned off by dirty diapers. A mother who is loving will love her baby even with stinky diaper.
I said either a loving person or a paid person willingly changes diapers. What makes you think that all mothers love their children? If that were true, DCF would not exist.

Unwomanly? What a bizarre word choice. There are many women without children that would object to that term.

Fully agree that children should have a compassionate caregiver. Not necessarily a mother or father, just someone that cares.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#311186 Sep 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
True, this guy Alleman is a throwback, but he isn't the ONLY one. I think that idiot Rick Santorum is another throwback, his public "contraception is not okay" statement being proof of his backward mindset. Mitt Romney is yet another one, one of the main reasons why I and many other women DIDNT' vote for him.
Personally, I think a lot of religious conservative guys, including Republican politicians, believe the same nonsense as Alleman, even if they don't state it publicly. IMO any person who seriously believes women should NOT go to college, who believes women should ONLY be wives and mothers, is a person who should never be trusted with power that the office of Congressman, Senator, Governor, and President would give him.
As someone (I don't remember who) said, a woman with NO rights is a slave. I'll take being an "angry feminist" over being a slave every day of the week.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
It's not as wide spread as you think..

And any woman in power who is conservative gets a trashed too. Do do black conservatives,..by the liberal side ..it's disgusting how theses people are trashed if they don't follow party lines..

People make a,living off race mongering ...And sex mongering exploiting differences on both sides, ITS AN INDUSTRY ..

As,playa said we are divided on every thing ...I don't like all conservatives ..But I find in talking points the libs,stand up for anything other libs do NO MATTER HOW far out there ..with a few exceptions who speak honestly. On camera,..
Katie

Kent, WA

#311187 Sep 16, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember when Katie said it takes a fetus 48 hours after birth to become a baby ("...because the brain needs time to adjust, see?")
She also claims that a fetus does not become a baby until after the umbilical cord is cut (which often takes place 5 minutes or so after birth).
Klueless Katiekins.
You are lying, twisting what I said so it no longer resembles what I said. Which was: After live delivery, the newborn brain can take up to 48hrs to awaken. It's neurology. Look it up.

Oh, that's right. You don't read or think much. Unless it's the spoonfed propaganda provided by your church and politicians.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#311188 Sep 16, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And I have to say that it's not just men who hold those views; there is a large contingent of women who hold them, as well. Some are so invested in the patriarchal system, that they are willing to give up all the ground women have gained in the last 150 years...not just for themselves, but for their daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends. Some of them hold public office...Jan Brewer comes readily to mind.
But just because a woman is not in favor if Roe ..dies not mean she is a throwback or wants to see uneducated women with no say in their lives .

We who were THERR for the lib movement ...And wanted equality ..jus draw the line and mothers killing the offspring in their wombs .

That's dies not make US an less equal ...I BELive in taking control of our bodies ...by NOT conceiving ...

But a female conservative IS trashed ...

And I was appalled at how Palin's daughter was trashed and made fun if for actually having her baby ...But anything is ok thrown at a conservative ...

Palin ..however you feel about her..embodied a woman who DID NOT stay t home barefoot and pregnant ..so did Condie Rice and others ..But if they aren't libs and pro-choice they are called traitors .

Well we are not ..most of us educated our daughters to HSVE a,better place in the world than we did...which to.me is the ULTIMATE IN FEMINISM or what it once stood for ...

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON to Save us

#311189 Sep 16, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to say that I also believe that while few will express such views, more hold them.
Seriously most conservatives want the same upward mobility for our MSKE and female children

We just don't include abortion in the equation ...
Ocean56

AOL

#311190 Sep 16, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
And I have to say that it's not just men who hold those views; there is a large contingent of women who hold them, as well. Some are so invested in the patriarchal system, that they are willing to give up all the ground women have gained in the last 150 years...not just for themselves, but for their daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends. Some of them hold public office...Jan Brewer comes readily to mind.
You're right, there are more than a few women who hold these backward extremist views, Phyllis Schlafly being one of the worst. Then there are the idiots like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and all the silly women in that group Concerned Women For America as well. If they had THEIR way, women wouldn't have advanced beyond the 1950's.

These regressive women are just as bad as the anti-suffragists of the 19th century who kept insisting "women don't want the vote," as if they spoke for ALL women. I find it unbelievable that there are so many who would VOTE for those idiots, regardless of their gender.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311191 Sep 16, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously most conservatives want the same upward mobility for our MSKE and female children
We just don't include abortion in the equation ...
I believe that many share the views expressed in the article. I'm sorry, Rose, but you can't tell me it's otherwise with any authority, as you can only speak for yourself.
Ocean56

AOL

#311192 Sep 16, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
It's not as wide spread as you think..
REALLY. Well, sorry Rose, but again, I have to strongly DISAGREE. I think the backward and regressive mentality is VERY widespread among conservatives, contrary to what you want me to believe.

For me, the evidence of that backward "thinking" is very clear in the actions of Republican politicians in the red states who are pushing through draconian legislation to severely limit women's access to both abortion AND contraception. That tells ME that a lot more conservative men and women in public office DO hold those archaic views about women being fit for nothing more than just being wives and mothers. Not only do they hold them, they want to IMPOSE them on everyone else by legislating those toxic views into laws.

As far as "trashing" conservative women goes, I think any woman who sells out other women by helping to roll back women's rights, including reproductive rights, doesn't deserve respect, she deserves women's contempt. And contempt is all such women (like Schlafly, Bachmann, Palin, etc.) will ever get from me, because I think that's all they deserve.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

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) 7 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,234,370
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 50 min ChristineM 239,387
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr Pietro Armando 201,811
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Earthling-1 5,640
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed tom wingo 29,767
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... May 25 Timotion 7
Jayhawks dance team #1 May 24 Jeff 1
More from around the web