Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311597 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.

Ink

Narberth, PA

#311569 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't believe marriage is a civil right?
Why did laws against interracial marriage change?
I believe that it is considered a civil right. Although not all marriages are allowed.

The laws concerning interracial marriages changed because they were unfair.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311570 Sep 19, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>You never hear of homosexuals being killed because of sexual orientation?
In this country rarely. In other countries, Jews, Christians and gays are killed.

Abortion on the other hand is rampant.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#311571 Sep 19, 2013
Husker Du wrote:
<quoted text>You sound like a national socialist.
You sound like an ignoramus.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311572 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain to us all HOW the "pursuit of happiness" does NOT include marrying the person you love (and before you go there, I'm talking about consenting adults, not minor children)?
The pursuit of happiness means within the law.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311573 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
In this country rarely. In other countries, Jews, Christians and gays are killed.
Abortion on the other hand is rampant.
I see you ignored my post on the subject. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because you'd have to pull your head out of your ass?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311574 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The pursuit of happiness means within the law.
If that was true, then interracial marriages would still be illegal, Witless. And just by the way, you moron, that wasn't just a matter of rights for blacks, but whites as well.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311575 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The pursuit of happiness means within the law.
And, you Idiot, it did NOT mean "within the law". Don't you realize you are quoting a document written to announce to the King of England that we would no longer be under HIS laws, written BEFORE we were a country and had our OWN laws?

You are so stupid, I have to wonder how you have lived so long. Do people have to remind you to inhale and exhale too?
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311576 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>They don't offer that service to the public. Churches offer that service only to their members. Two Bapists cannot currently get married in a Catholic church, unless they convert to Catholicism.
As it should, and will always, be.
One person has to be Catholic and other churches have more lenient views. If some pastors like Sharpman do gay marriages should every pastor have to. If one person will provide a cake or take pictures at a gay wedding shouldn't everyone have to?
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311577 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you ignored my post on the subject. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because you'd have to pull your head out of your ass?
I was responding to Grumpy.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311578 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp...
From the article:

"The fact that many Americans cannot explain why churches are tax exempt, indicates a forgotten history and is emblematic of a society that has systematically devalued the church as a beneficial societal institution."

And then goes on to explain, "Because charity. And because morality."

Yet morality is not only a result of religion, and charity begins at home. So the theory that without churches we wouldn't have either one, is ludicrous.

Churches remain untaxed, because they are not supposed to be political organizations, just as the State is supposed to be free from government by religion. Government is public. Church is private.

Thus, the separation of church from state.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311579 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>And as citizens, they have the right to sue their moms. They DON'T, however, have criminal cases against them.
If they did, what do you think the legal consequences should be for a mother convicted of attempted abortion?
<quoted text>Your answer to the question I asked. What do YOU think should happen to doctors who perform abortions, and women who abort, or attempt to abort, once a fetus is recognized as a person?
And for you to grow some semblance of a brain.
Since you say the damaged person can't sue criminally then I guess she could get monetary compensation. I guess theoretically she could sue the doctor too. He would be complacent in her injuries.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311580 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was true, then interracial marriages would still be illegal, Witless. And just by the way, you moron, that wasn't just a matter of rights for blacks, but whites as well.
Why, is it still illegal for blacks and whites to marry? I thought the Supreme Court addressed that years ago.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311581 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If abortion was illegal women should not be prosecuted after all the poor woman just lost a child. That should be pnishment enough.
What about the ones who aren't properly penitent or emotionally destroyed? I mean, even if it's ILLEGAL, there shouldn't be any legal consequences?

You didn't mention the doctors.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311582 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that it is considered a civil right. Although not all marriages are allowed.
The laws concerning interracial marriages changed because they were unfair.
Ok, Spapeggy, yes, it is considered a civil right by the courts. Do YOU consider it a civil right?

The laws concerning restriction of marriage to heterosexuals, are also unfair.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311583 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The pursuit of happiness means within the law.
Current and changing laws, are allowing more people to pursue happiness. Winning!!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311584 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to Grumpy.
Yes, I know. You skipped over my post entirely so that you wouldn't have to admit you were wrong.

After all, your post wasn't about how much it happens, but about the possibility.
Ink

Narberth, PA

#311585 Sep 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And, you Idiot, it did NOT mean "within the law". Don't you realize you are quoting a document written to announce to the King of England that we would no longer be under HIS laws, written BEFORE we were a country and had our OWN laws?
You are so stupid, I have to wonder how you have lived so long. Do people have to remind you to inhale and exhale too?
Well being a serial killer makes some folks happy, kidnapping children makes some folks happy and shooting people in the streets makes some folks robbing stores makes some folks happy but they aren't allowed to pursue this happiness because it is outside the law.

Damn, why do I keep forgetting that I have to spell out every little thing for you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311586 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, is it still illegal for blacks and whites to marry? I thought the Supreme Court addressed that years ago.
Damn, you're dumb. I said WOULD, and WAS, didn't I, Witless?

Again, if your (stupid)statement was true, then they WOULD still be illegal.

It's time to inhale and exhale again, Witless.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#311587 Sep 19, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, is it still illegal for blacks and whites to marry? I thought the Supreme Court addressed that years ago.
They did. And now, the SCOTUS has addressed marriage again.

WASHINGTON -- "The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote."

Why WAS it illegal for blacks and whites to marry?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#311588 Sep 19, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>What about the ones who aren't properly penitent or emotionally destroyed? I mean, even if it's ILLEGAL, there shouldn't be any legal consequences?
You didn't mention the doctors.
You know what she reminds me of?

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) 15 min My New Alias RULES 1,417,353
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 15 hr Into The Night 10,059
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 20 hr Trojan 32,323
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Tue Rosa_Winkel 256,538
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web