Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,249
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
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312189 Sep 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Okay, here is C's post from Monday.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
"Who said that it did? Are you telling me that a Catholic priest would be willing to marry Baptists, Protestants, Muslims or Atheists in a Catholic Church? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they do."
She did not specifically ask about two non-Catholics, but it seems that was what she was asking, from her words. If she was not, she can correct me.
"I'm not a former Catholic, nor did I ever claim to be. I had no idea a Catholic could marry someone not of their faith in the Catholic church. Can another Catholic, other than Knit, confirm this?"

“Changing your thoughts”

Since: Sep 09

will change your world

#312191 Sep 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. I stand corrected :)
Looks like we were reading the same book but on different pages.
:-)
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#312193 Sep 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but I believe C's question was can TWO non-Catholics marry in a Catholic church. She can correct me if I'm wrong.
Non Catholics are baptized, make first communion,
and are confirmed before they can receive the Sacrament
of Marriage. There adult classes.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312195 Sep 25, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Non Catholics are baptized, make first communion,
and are confirmed before they can receive the Sacrament
of Marriage. There adult classes.
Are you sure?

•A Baptized Christian

Both partners do not have to be a Catholic in order to be sacramentally married in the Catholic Church, but both must be baptized Christians (and at least one must be a Catholic). Non-Christians cannot receive the sacraments. For a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic Christian, express permission is required from his or her bishop. A Catholic can marry an unbaptized person, but such marriages are natural marriages only; they are not sacramental marriages. The Church, therefore, discourages them and requires a Catholic who wishes to marry an unbaptized person to receive a special dispensation from his or her bishop. Still, if the dispensation is granted, a non-sacramental marriage is valid and can take place inside of a Catholic church.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312197 Sep 25, 2013
Like it or not, a woman has the right to determine if a pregnancy will continue or not. If she perceives that pregnancy to be a threat, then it is.

Your friend is a doormat. NOBODY can stress you out without your permission. Doesn't she know where the door is?
sassy jm wrote:
<quoted text> Of course. For instance, if you were going to hit me, I have a right to stop you by putting up my fist. I wouldn't stab you though or shoot yohr head off.
Okay let's have it grumpy. Go and tell me that a baby is threatening his/her mom while inutero and that she therefore has a right to kill that child.
My 10 month old threw her glass bottle at me one day. Should i have the rigt to kill her in self defense?
My friend was telling me just about a half of an hohr ago that her husband is a pain in the ass and that the stress is killing her. She feels like shes going to have a stroke. What do you suggest grumpy? A bullet between his eyes or should she choke him.
Out of self defense, of COURSE ;)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312198 Sep 25, 2013
You're delusional. I don't need validation from any other person for anything. I support a woman's choice, period.
sassy jm wrote:
<quoted text>You spending your life on an abortion forum doesn't bother me at all. IMHO, you proaborts are all here to hear truth. Obviously, your conscience is bothering you. You NEED validation for what your supporting as choice.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312199 Sep 25, 2013
Wash your fu**ing produce, idiot. As for meat, animals eat all kinds of horrible things when free-ranged. But the reality is that, regardless, their digestive systems filter out most objectionable compounds regardless of origin. After that, cooking further breaks down any compounds left, and finally OUR digestive process takes care of the rest.

The fact is that not one case of human disease has been traced to "non-organic" meat. Fish, in fact are safer if farmed instead of free.
sassy jm wrote:
<quoted text>Sooooooo....eating animals that have been forced fed junk while caged that have been injected with hormones, and eating chemicals and pesticides on fruit and veggies or using products that have all kinds of God knows what in them,....is just as good as NOT.
LMAO!
What a puppet fool you are.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312200 Sep 25, 2013
The fates were implacable, but hera was glenn close-level scary!
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
And Hera fixed his wagon a lot, too.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#312201 Sep 25, 2013
Husker Du wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus is God.
You had a mispelling there..

jesus is gone
The Weimar Republic

Cummington, MA

#312202 Sep 25, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
You had a mispelling there..
jesus is gone
Jewish Psychological and Political Warfare (Part II)

by editor Jonas Alexis of Veterans Today dotcom

A compelling article by Jonas Alexis who never seems to disappoint.

Subtitles:

WHILHELM REICH TAUGHT PRIESTS HOW TO BE TITILLATED
LIBERATE THE JEWISH BOY’S LIBIDO!
THE ZIONIST BURDEN
ROUHANI VS. NETANYAHU
POPE FRANCIS AND THE JEWS

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/24/jewis ...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#312203 Sep 25, 2013
sassy jm wrote:
<quoted text> First of all, your assumption that condom use equates to no pregnancy, is totally ignorant.
God forbids sex outside of marriage. It was meant to be used within a marriage for the procreation of children(first and foremost). Promoting a sinful act is wrong, participating in a sinful act is wrong and suggesting a false sense of avoiding the natural result of that act is sinful. You went from giving into a sinful temptation to dismissing that sin and oping to rid yourself of the natural result of that act.
It's not a temptation sin anymore, it's a completely mind made up 'I'm going to do this regardless of offending our Lord and that's that". It becomes premeditated .
It's equates to giving into "a one time"temptation to cheat on your wife with your neighbor vs the attitude of "oh well I cheated already on my wife, what's one more romp in the back of my car as if it makes any difference".
At the temptation to sin(tegardless of that sin) we ought to go to God to give us graces and strength to avoid it and if we give in to the temptation, we should ask for forgiveness...not premeditate the next occurance.
So I'm right.

According to your belief, fornicators are forbidden from using condoms. Instead, they are ordered to accept any consequences that may have been avoided by using a condom -- pregnancy and/or STDs.

I'm glad I wasn't raised in your f*cked up religion.

I don't get why you'd want to exacerbate the risks that lead to unwanted pregnancy. Because, as you know, it's the unwanted ones that are aborted.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#312204 Sep 25, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
So I'm right.
According to your belief, fornicators are forbidden from using condoms. Instead, they are ordered to accept any consequences that may have been avoided by using a condom -- pregnancy and/or STDs.
I'm glad I wasn't raised in your f*cked up religion.
I don't get why you'd want to exacerbate the risks that lead to unwanted pregnancy. Because, as you know, it's the unwanted ones that are aborted.
She wants unmarried women to sew their legs shut until properly united to a man, by the RCC, and to attempt gestation of each and every resulting pregnancy, regardless of circumstances. She doesn't give a damn what the guys do, married or not.
Katie

Kent, WA

#312205 Sep 25, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
even if it wasn't a possibility that she would choose to abort, her pregnancy would still be subject to miscarriage which is still an abortion and still at the behest and whim of the deity who "allows' it, as you screwballs are always pointing out. so yes, 100% of embryos/fetuses are subject to death at someone's whim.
"you" are going to dumb something down? lol
So you're going to side with Ink and believe that 100% of Gays do not face murder, but that 100% of embryo/fetuses do?

Wow.
Pot meet Kettle

United States

#312206 Sep 25, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>She wants unmarried women to sew their legs shut until properly united to a man, by the RCC, and to attempt gestation of each and every resulting pregnancy, regardless of circumstances. She doesn't give a damn what the guys do, married or not.
If she gives a damn what married women do then it's self evident she gives a damn what married men do since married women can't get pregnant alone. As far as non married men are concerned, there's no need for her to give a damn as any possible mate has already got their legs sewn shut.
You know those non stop stupid things you say? You need to think them all the way through first.

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#312207 Sep 25, 2013
"sassy jm" brayed
you're a man now?
LOL

always have been....have you always been stupid? i'll bet you have
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312208 Sep 25, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're going to side with Ink and believe that 100% of Gays do not face murder, but that 100% of embryo/fetuses do?
Wow.
Let's be clear. I said everyone is subject to death at someone else's whim. Everyone who goes to work or school or the movies or the mall. Everyone.
Katie

Kent, WA

#312209 Sep 25, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"my" dogma? what is my dogma? abortion is not an issue of god or religion. it's an issue of basic fudamental human rights. stop trying to justify conscious intentional killing by equating it to nature's biological rejection of a pregnancy, or disease caused by mutated bacteria. would you cease bitching about cold blooded murder or call for the abolishing of laws against murder beacause god "allows" thousands of others to die due to accident or disease?
you sound stupid. in addition to your bigotry.
Claiming abortion is "an issue of basic fudamental human rights," is a form of Christian dogma.

Human rights are premised on those already born.

"From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century.[6]

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

—1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

3.2 Rights of Women, Minorities, and Groups
(this entire section is informative and contains several other links)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-huma...

"The Court’s conclusions of violations contrary to the American Convention on Human Rights followed from its ruling that, under the Convention, in vitro embryos are not “persons” and do not possess a right to life. Accordingly, the prohibition of IVF to protect embryos constituted a disproportionate and unjustifiable denial of infertile individuals’ human rights. The Court distinguished fertilization from conception, since conception—unlike fertilization—depends on an embryo’s implantation in a woman’s body. Under human rights law, legal protection of an embryo “from conception” is inapplicable between its creation by fertilization and completion of its implantation in utero."
http://reprohealthlaw.wordpress.com/2013/09/1...
Katie

Kent, WA

#312210 Sep 25, 2013
godless by choice wrote:
"sassy jm" brayed
you're a man now?
LOL
always have been....have you always been stupid? i'll bet you have
She's under the delusion that you're Chicky.
Who knows why?
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312211 Sep 25, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming abortion is "an issue of basic fudamental human rights," is a form of Christian dogma.
Human rights are premised on those already born.shttp://plato.stanford.ed u/entries/rights-human/http:// reprohealthlaw.wordpress.com/2 013/09/19/human-rights-to-in-v itro-fertilization-iacthr-deci sion/
From the above link It gives children no rights just like the unborn children. I guess it is assumed that the parents will protect them and insure their safe keeping.

Once one takes seriously the question of whether some norms that are now counted as human rights do not merit that status and whether some norms that are not currently accepted as human rights should be upgraded, there are many possible ways to proceed. One approach that should be avoided puts a lot of weight on whether the norm in question really is, or could be, a right in a strict sense. This approach might yield arguments that human rights cannot include children's rights since young children cannot exercise their rights by invoking, claiming, or waiving (Hart 1955, Wellman 1995). This approach begs the question of whether human rights are rights in a strict sense rather than a fairly loose one. The human rights movement and its purposes are not well served by being forced into a narrow conceptual framework. When we look at human rights documents we find that they use a variety of normative concepts. Sometimes they speak of rights, as when the Universal Declaration says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement”(Article 13). Sometimes these documents issue prohibitions, as when the Universal Declaration says that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile”(Article 9). And at other times they express general principles, as illustrated by the Universal Declaration's claim that “All are equal before the law”(Article 7).
Katie

Kent, WA

#312212 Sep 25, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear. I said everyone is subject to death at someone else's whim. Everyone who goes to work or school or the movies or the mall. Everyone.
I could not find this post you're alluding to, please provide it for the forum. In fact, you did not answer Bitner beyond these posts, save one to Grumpy. Bitner responded to your response to Grumpy and you gamely told her it was a response to Grumpy :-|

==========
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
How many gays have to deal with possible death due to the whims of someone else like an unborn baby does?

[QUOTE who="Bitner"]<quo ted text>
There is no such thing. You mean an embryo/fetus? Have you noticed what's going on in Russia RIGHT NOW, you brainless thing?
Here's your answer....100% of LGBT person's face such a possibility.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_viole...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/25/judge-l...
Open your eyes, Witless.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

==========
Bitner wrote:
Here is your question....
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
"How many gays have to deal with possible death due to the whims of someone else like an unborn baby does?"
grumpy then asked you this....
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
"You never hear of homosexuals being killed because of sexual orientation?"
And here is your response.....
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
"In this country rarely. In other countries, Jews, Christians and gays are killed. Abortion on the other hand is rampant."
Now, I'll ask again, are you trying to pretend that your original question wasn't about women having elective abortions?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a question, merely a comment about civil rights and persecution. I guess the point would be that more babies in the womb are killed that gays. You I assume would disagree with that.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

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) 8 min NTRPRNR1 1,125,951
Old UK WildCat Picture Signed by Adolph F.Rupp+... (Apr '07) 17 min Local man 40
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min Anon 230,093
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr R TRUTH 27,917
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr litesong 1,520
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) 7 hr Geoscientist 50
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 11 hr Some Parents Dont 453

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE