Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310343 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

Levittown, PA

#312458 Oct 2, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The words you are ignoring (or possibly misunderstanding as dumb as you are) are "some leaders", and "in our community". Meaning SOME rabbis, and applying only to Jews.
I never said there was no objection to homosexuality by anyone other than Christians. I said it's the Christian bigots who expect to dominate in the public sphere, and for everyone to live by their beliefs.
Are you living by my beliefs? I didn't think so.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312459 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you living by my beliefs? I didn't think so.
Are you a Christian bigot who thinks Christianity should dominate our laws, and are working/voting to make it so? If not, then I wasn't talking about you, Witless.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#312460 Oct 2, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a Christian bigot who thinks Christianity should dominate our laws, and are working/voting to make it so? If not, then I wasn't talking about you, Witless.
Christians for the most part make all the laws even the ones you like.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312461 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians for the most part make all the laws even the ones you like.
You've missed the point again. No surprise.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#312462 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been redefined. Do you have a mental block?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/2...
Yes it was redefined when they added that it is between a man and a woman. The original phrase in various cultures did not specify such a thing.

Stop pretending that the word has only had one meaning in it's entire existence. You continue to ignore facts and instead stomp your little feet when the world doesn't yield to your opinion.
Katie

Kent, WA

#312463 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the meaning of marriage from, say twenty-five years ago which includes same sex.
why don't you look into on Wiki? It goes further back than 25 years ago.

"Definitions

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[7]

Legitimate sexual access

Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]

Drawing on Westermarck, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers.(See Nuer "Ghost marriage")[7]

However, the necessary connection between marriage and sexuality is being questioned by asexual marriages.[10]

Legitimacy of offspring

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[11] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the Ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[12]

In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[13]

Bell criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Ink

Levittown, PA

#312464 Oct 2, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
why don't you look into on Wiki? It goes further back than 25 years ago.
"Definitions
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[7]
Legitimate sexual access
Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]
Drawing on Westermarck, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers.(See Nuer "Ghost marriage")[7]
However, the necessary connection between marriage and sexuality is being questioned by asexual marriages.[10]
Legitimacy of offspring
The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[11] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the Ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[12]
In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[13]
Bell criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
So you have three people rejecting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. How nice .
Ink

Levittown, PA

#312465 Oct 2, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it was redefined when they added that it is between a man and a woman. The original phrase in various cultures did not specify such a thing.
Stop pretending that the word has only had one meaning in it's entire existence. You continue to ignore facts and instead stomp your little feet when the world doesn't yield to your opinion.
Really when was it changed to a man and a woman?
Katie

Kent, WA

#312466 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have three people rejecting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. How nice .
That's what you got of the info provided to you at your request?

Did you bother to read the link? The history?

Will you at least concede it goes back further than the 25yrs you requested?

Why don't you, just for fun, look up the Greeks' idea of "love".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312467 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
if it really happened as the scientists say, who told us about it? Decendents of the people who survived it.
Uh huh...and how many centuries ago did this flood allegedly take place? And how many generations have been passing this story down? And what was the knowledge of the Earth's size and topography back in Noah's day? How would these people know the whole world was flooded? They didn't know what the whole world looked like, or how big it was, and it's more likely old climates drove regular flooding just as our modern climate does now, and those ancient people didn't know what to make of it. And usually the most popular explanation for things the ancients didn't understand was that some unseen god did it.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312468 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know but the 'lore' does seem to have some basis in fact as well as a lot of other things in the bible that we wouldn't otherwise know of.
The only "fact" in the story is that floods are common on this planet and chances are a few happened a long, long time ago.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#312469 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know but the 'lore' does seem to have some basis in fact as well as a lot of other things in the bible that we wouldn't otherwise know of.
If you saw a neighbor working hard day and night for several weeks building an ark in his back yard, and you went and asked him what he was up to, and he told you God spoke to him and instructed him to build said ark because God was planning a huge flood that would wipe out most of the planet, you would probably think the guy is a nut.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#312470 Oct 2, 2013
Hoses can't marry at all.

BTW--if you have two male hose ends of different diameters, they can join together just like a male/female coupling.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you can marry a female hose end to a male hose end but you can't marry twos ends that are the same.
feces for jesus

Rockville Centre, NY

#312471 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Really when was it changed to a man and a woman?
You even quoted that it comes from old French. Trace the history. Go do your own research instead of making more incorrect claims.
feces for jesus

Rockville Centre, NY

#312472 Oct 2, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "fact" in the story is that floods are common on this planet and chances are a few happened a long, long time ago.
She still refuses to acknowledge that there is no evidence of the noahs arc flood... Story,which we should just call a myth or a fable.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#312473 Oct 2, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me a dictionary that isn't recent that includes same sex relationship as a 'marriage.'
The meaning has been changed. Why not just accept it and be 'Gay Power Proud'
I accepted the fact that sexual orientation should have nothing to do with a person's rights, a long time ago.

When you accept the fact that gays can marry, without whining that they're getting 'special rights', get back to me.
worships reality

AOL

#312474 Oct 3, 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?
first off, stop lying. i never said gays do not face murder. what i said is that 100% of embryos/fetuses also do. and that is a fact. in fact, the threat embryos/fetuses face is even greater because killing them is legal. at least born gay people have laws protecting them.
Wow.
you're shocked that i would side with those who state facts?

wow.
worships reality

AOL

#312475 Oct 3, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming abortion is "an issue of basic fudamental human rights," is a form of Christian dogma.
so is the belief that stealing is wrong. it doesn't mean that belief is exclusive to christians however. one need not be christian to hold the belief that taking someone else's property is wrong.
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...
the belief that abortion is an issue of human rights is not a belief that is exclusive to christians. there are atheists who are opposed to abortion based on the very premise that the fetus is a distinct "being" and a member of the species homo sapien. ever hear of robert price ? christopher hitchens ? nat hentoff ?
you have no idea what you're talking about.
but then again look who i'm trying to explain this to, a birdbrain who doesn't believe that pregnancy can be a direct result of a willful act.
worships reality

AOL

#312476 Oct 3, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there some law that states I have to be pro-Catholic?
none at all. same as there are no laws saying you have to be pro white, or pro black, or pro jew,et al. doesn't make you any less of a bigot.
worships reality

AOL

#312477 Oct 3, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
When it suits you fundies you attribute things to "God's will" and when it suits you fundies you attribute things to "nature".
Whichever way the wind blows, eh?
you fundies? i am no fundie. not even close.
you're a one trick pony. when you cannot refute a point you always fall back on your "fundie" accusation. arguing the merits of your position based solely on facts leaves you a quivering, stumbling mess.

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
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Earthling-1 6,473
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Grey Ghost 1,263,857
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr thetruth 244,893
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) 13 hr bernarlyn 33
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 16 hr tom wingo 29,852
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 29 RiccardoFire 201,846
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
More from around the web