Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,956
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

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318843 Dec 21, 2013
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal Pete , there are Christians within both sects you mentioned.
Many lost people in both as well.
A person is either a Christian or not, no matter where they publicly attend worship services.
What's your thoughts on the A@E / Phil R. Topic?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#318844 Dec 21, 2013
RvW was a constitutional decision based on medical and legal facts. There is nothing in either demanding protection of the fetus.
Bless the Child wrote:
The Roe v.Wade law was just a political decision based on neo-liberal ideas. It ignored science. the unborn child must be protected. Reading the comments of the LIBERAL HALF-WITS on this blog are sickening..
Stick to your abnormal sex and witchcraft games.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318845 Dec 21, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Morals are subjective, I understand that, a "moral society" bases its laws on what is considered right, or just by the majority of it's people. In order to make a determination of what is right/just all aspects of the question, and realistic value of those aspects, must be considered. In abortion, some may consider killing the fetus immoral, others may consider forcing a woman to carry to term immoral, to address that question as a society we must consider both arguments and their realistic value. Since I've been posting back here in the last couple weeks all I have tried to address are those that are being unrealistic about the value of a living human fetus, or perhaps the exaggeration of the woman's rights by comparing her to a slave. We cannot base our laws, as a moral society, on anything less than reasonable arguments.
Personally, I believe that aborting a fetus without extreme circumstance is immoral, as I believe imposing my beliefs on a woman and forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term, without myself being responsible or suffering the consequences of that pregnancy, immoral. Abortion is a complicated issue and no law, or ruling, will satisfy both sides, so it has to be addressed realistically. It seems to me that most people here see their side as good and the other side as bad, while neither side even considers the other's arguments. I have not tried to argue what is moral, only that the question has to be addressed as a moral society, seeking what is right/just, intelligently, considering all aspects, and their realistic value.
Okay, fair enough.

But consider this realistic scenario; A woman used birth control, the birth control failed, she does not want want to be pregnant and did take precautions to prevent that outcome, but never-the-less she is now pregnant.

Half of society is saying, "too bad, stay pregnant, don't be a murderer". The other half of society is saying, "don't force that woman to remain pregnant against her will".

The Supreme Court made its decision. The woman prevails over the z/e/f, but the SC says it's not an absolute since elective LTAs are not legal.

That seems like the best compromise we can reach.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318846 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
My take is that free speech doesn't protect you from the discipline of employers if you say something that might affect their business, even if you say it "off the clock".
Can you say Facebook post? Sure you can.
Okay, I'm not quite up to speed on this discussion but I must say that I'm against giving employers too much power. If I go to work and do my job as expected and to the satisfaction of my employers and then go home and write a FB post, seen by my friends there, that my company sucks, then I don't think they should have the power to reach into my "off the clock" personal life to prevent it. I could just as easily be sitting in a coffee shop with a group of friends while airing my grievances and negative opinions against my employer. If a boss should be in there buying coffee and I don't see him/her should he be able to discipline me at work the next day for my remarks? I say, no.

Some years ago I went to work at a pharmacy as a clerk and they had a package of papers for new hires to sign which "forbade" us from speaking negatively about the company outside of work. It also forbade us from drinking within 12 hours of working a shift (responsible people wouldn't drink before work anyway, I hope) and the 12 hours AFTER working a shift. I didn't even really drink much, but c'mon. How much fkn reach into our personal lives do employers want.

When I'm on the clock I do things their way, off the clock my life is none of their business.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#318847 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
<quoted text>
For how long?
Ink

Levittown, PA

#318848 Dec 21, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had heard about this deal ten mins, before my post, but I think it will be another chic fillets deal.:) times ten.
For sure.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318849 Dec 21, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>OMG hahahahhahahhaha I saw this before, I LOVE it. hahahahahhhaha
AWESOME! thanks for the pick me up!
You're quite welcome. I thought it would be a nice break from the arguing, but apparently the bitter hag, Sassy couldn't bring herself to accept it as it was meant to be taken. She just used it to attack. What an ass!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318850 Dec 21, 2013
R C Honey wrote:
LOL, that was great, too. It sounded like the same voice.

Thanks.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#318851 Dec 21, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'm not quite up to speed on this discussion but I must say that I'm against giving employers too much power. If I go to work and do my job as expected and to the satisfaction of my employers and then go home and write a FB post, seen by my friends there, that my company sucks, then I don't think they should have the power to reach into my "off the clock" personal life to prevent it. I could just as easily be sitting in a coffee shop with a group of friends while airing my grievances and negative opinions against my employer. If a boss should be in there buying coffee and I don't see him/her should he be able to discipline me at work the next day for my remarks? I say, no.
Some years ago I went to work at a pharmacy as a clerk and they had a package of papers for new hires to sign which "forbade" us from speaking negatively about the company outside of work. It also forbade us from drinking within 12 hours of working a shift (responsible people wouldn't drink before work anyway, I hope) and the 12 hours AFTER working a shift. I didn't even really drink much, but c'mon. How much fkn reach into our personal lives do employers want.
When I'm on the clock I do things their way, off the clock my life is none of their business.
Nevertheless, they have that power. Ho?w many people have been fired for something on their FB How many states are right to hire (which translates to right to fire?, They don't even have to give a reason) In a country where someone can still fire a person for being homosexual (and I think we can safely assume they are not having sex on the clock), or if they can refuse to hire one based upon a credit rating, they DO have that kind of power. I'm not advocating it, simply pointing out that they already do.

Free speech is not an absolute right, anyway. Anywhere.

And on top of all that is the absolute OUTRAGE over this of people like Caribou Barbie, who just a while ago was trying to get someone ELSE fired for saying something about HER. The hypocrisy is terribly amusing.

And I don't have a dog in this fight, anyway. I don't watch the show, or the network, and I don't give two shits what some redneck (who is all self-righteous now that he's "found God", but was scum before that) spouts, nor does it surprise me to see a redneck who is homophobic. I was just, again, pointing out that one doesn't really have free speech when one's speech is public, and may affect the employer's business.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318852 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless, they have that power. Ho?w many people have been fired for something on their FB How many states are right to hire (which translates to right to fire?, They don't even have to give a reason) In a country where someone can still fire a person for being homosexual (and I think we can safely assume they are not having sex on the clock), or if they can refuse to hire one based upon a credit rating, they DO have that kind of power. I'm not advocating it, simply pointing out that they already do.
Free speech is not an absolute right, anyway. Anywhere.
And on top of all that is the absolute OUTRAGE over this of people like Caribou Barbie, who just a while ago was trying to get someone ELSE fired for saying something about HER. The hypocrisy is terribly amusing.
And I don't have a dog in this fight, anyway. I don't watch the show, or the network, and I don't give two shits what some redneck (who is all self-righteous now that he's "found God", but was scum before that) spouts, nor does it surprise me to see a redneck who is homophobic. I was just, again, pointing out that one doesn't really have free speech when one's speech is public, and may affect the employer's business.
List of Right to Work States

The following states have passed right to work legislation:
•Alabama
•Arizona
•Arkansas
•Florida
•Georgia
•Idaho
•Iowa
•Kansas
•Louisiana
•Mississippi
•Nebraska
•Nevada
•North Carolina
•North Dakota
•Oklahoma
•South Carolina
•South Dakota
•Tennessee
•Texas
•Utah
•Virginia
•Wyoming

And you're correct - these 'right to work' States, ALL provide for 'at - will' employment, meaning that the employer can fire an employee for any reason whatsofreakinever, including that the employer got up on the wrong side of the bed....in other words, they can fire you 'at will.'(Their will, of course.)

You're also correct that it sucks.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318853 Dec 21, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
For how long?
Mr. Robertson has been suspended from the show 'indefinitely'.

So, once again, you'll have to ask A&E....not CPeter.
But of course, you already knew that.
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#318854 Dec 21, 2013
Grown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just curious why folks who scream equality and tolerance the most can betth most intolerant folks.
A@E can do as they wish, and i've never watched DDI, but I do know it is extremely popular .
Also the media tends to want us thinking every other person is gay.
It's simply not true.
A tiny sect of folks are gay, but it's the media"in" thing to fire those who speak against it. Imo
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.

Phil Robertson quoted the Bible as a source for his opposition to homosexual lifestyle. If anything, the left has demonstrated intolerance to his religious beliefs and views.

I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318855 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Valid point. I think that's the type of answer the OP was looking for when he asked her opinion about what the significance of the fetus was relative to the abortion issue.
As it stands, the significance of the fetus, relative to the abortion issue, is whatever significance the woman affords it in the first trimester, with whatever (currently increasing) significance the States choose to individually afford it in the second and third.

Which is perfectly and elegantly handled by RvW, as said ruling neither compels, nor prohibits, States to or from imposing restrictions..........but places no restrictions on abortion at the Federal level.

There are, however, federal restrictions on who pays for it, per the Hyde Amendment.

What's your point?
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#318856 Dec 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A&E enforced its guidelines concerning homophobic speech employees.
<quoted text>
Gay agenda lacks discipline. It's violating others' religious freedoms and will undoubtedly experience societal push-back. It's straight "supporters" are now beginning to see that the "tolerance" horseshit your kind speaks is a manipulative ruse. You morons are going to marginalize yourselves w/ your own intolerance. Keep up the good work!

"A Colorado judge says a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs" http://conservativeread.com/judge-says-baker-...

Oregan baker:“I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them. It’s not so much to do with them, it’s to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer [to] him for"
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/oregon_baker_...

Christian baker faces boycott from homosexuals for refusing to make cake for lesbian wedding reception
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stor...
(Erm, that's exactly what Christian baker wants - for same-sex wedding couples to go elsewhere. Nice move, Vaseline.)

Flower shop owner sued for for refusing gay wedding
http://gnli.christianpost.com/video/flower-sh...

Squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, but the Vaseline.

Keep up the good work estranging society!!

"We are prohibited from donating blood. Boo-hoo......."
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#318857 Dec 21, 2013
"We want a cake and cupcakes shaped like this..."

(__*__)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#318858 Dec 21, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"Progressives" are "tolerant" until you disagree with them.
Phil Robertson quoted the Bible as a source for his opposition to homosexual lifestyle. If anything, the left has demonstrated intolerance to his religious beliefs and views.
I oppose same-sex marriage. Gays preach "tolerance," so I expect them to make an effort to tolerate my views.
Your views are not what the gay population objects to. It's your ACTIONS affecting that population, such as denying them equal rights to the legal benefits of marriage, which are frowned upon.

Phil Robertson's views are still available on News stands everywhere, and the upcoming season's shows have already been recorded - they include Mr. Robertson, and will air with his performances intact. He has not been censored by the government, nor has he been imprisoned....which means his First Amendment rights are intact as well.

The First Amendment does not guarantee one continued employment, in the event your free speech writes checks your responsibility to your employer won't cash. In other words, welcome to 'Right to Work', fella.

Practice your religion on yourself, leave others out of it, and you won't keep having these problems.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#318859 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really ? THAT'S what it is ???
If you hurry you can catch your sense of humor before it gets away.
<quoted text>
For crying out loud if you weren't going to answer the question couldn't you have said that in the first place instead of cutting and pasting all this crap that does nothing but repeat what everybody knows ?
<quoted text>
If I wanted to speculate I would have done so. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing by giving you the opportunity to give your opinion. You of course, declined. But not before wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting a slew of crap that is common knowledge
<quoted text>
I never said they were equivalent. And I never said the pregnant woman should be discounted from the equation. The only thing I DID do was ask your opinion regarding what significance, if any, the fetus had, at any time, relative to the abortion issue.
How does a simple question put to you, come around to the PLM followers and what you think they are trying to do ?
Do you remember writing this sentence? "With respect to the STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN POTENTIAL LIFE, the "compelling" point is at viability."

How about you point out exactly where you found this in the cut and paste I supplied along with the link? Because everything quoted for your benefit was also for the benefit of others. The state does NOT have "important and legitimate" interest in potential life. Just like CPtr said, the state has its interests where it deems it has its interests. Roe v Wade says these interests must be "tailored to the recognized state interests." Not once did I read the state has specific interests in potential life. So, how about you provide the quote and link from Roe v Wade stating it does. Verbatim.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#318860 Dec 21, 2013
Norm Chaney wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really ? THAT'S what it is ???
If you hurry you can catch your sense of humor before it gets away.
<quoted text>
For crying out loud if you weren't going to answer the question couldn't you have said that in the first place instead of cutting and pasting all this crap that does nothing but repeat what everybody knows ?
<quoted text>
If I wanted to speculate I would have done so. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing by giving you the opportunity to give your opinion. You of course, declined. But not before wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting a slew of crap that is common knowledge
<quoted text>
I never said they were equivalent. And I never said the pregnant woman should be discounted from the equation. The only thing I DID do was ask your opinion regarding what significance, if any, the fetus had, at any time, relative to the abortion issue.
How does a simple question put to you, come around to the PLM followers and what you think they are trying to do ?
First, never mind the prior post. I screwed that one up and hit send before realizing it wasn't the one I'd wanted to send. I know where Roe v Wade discussed states' interests in potential life. It's a bit chaotic here, but you probably don't care. Anyway, I screwed up and sent the wrong reply. Sorry.

What I wanted to point out was that BA had asked for my opinion before you came along and made that snarky reply to me. Why are you interested, if not to be snarky?

My answer stands as it did the first time I gave it. If it's not my pregnancy, not my embryo/fetus, it's not my business. Sure, even if the pregnancy is unwanted/unhealthy, if left alone, a baby will be born. How else can an embryo/fetus be relative to pregnancy/abortion? Were you expecting a different answer??

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#318861 Dec 21, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless, they have that power. Ho?w many people have been fired for something on their FB How many states are right to hire (which translates to right to fire?, They don't even have to give a reason) In a country where someone can still fire a person for being homosexual (and I think we can safely assume they are not having sex on the clock), or if they can refuse to hire one based upon a credit rating, they DO have that kind of power. I'm not advocating it, simply pointing out that they already do.
Free speech is not an absolute right, anyway. Anywhere.
And on top of all that is the absolute OUTRAGE over this of people like Caribou Barbie, who just a while ago was trying to get someone ELSE fired for saying something about HER. The hypocrisy is terribly amusing.
And I don't have a dog in this fight, anyway. I don't watch the show, or the network, and I don't give two shits what some redneck (who is all self-righteous now that he's "found God", but was scum before that) spouts, nor does it surprise me to see a redneck who is homophobic. I was just, again, pointing out that one doesn't really have free speech when one's speech is public, and may affect the employer's business.
And this bothers me...employers are gaining more and more power over our personal lives.

Nobody is required to agree with this Duck guy. I don't see "homosexuality is a sin" as hate speech or inciting hate, just an opinion. One I disagree with, but if we tell this guy he can't say that in public then what will be next? Someone is kicked off TV for saying God doesn't exist? Where will it end?

I'm not arguing with you on this, just venting a bit...

:)
Ink

Levittown, PA

#318862 Dec 21, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Mr. Robertson has been suspended from the show 'indefinitely'.
So, once again, you'll have to ask A&E....not CPeter.
But of course, you already knew that.
It was a rhetorical question. If they worry about their pocketbook, he won't be out long.

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) 10 min Emeem 1,153,496
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min ChristineM 232,802
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr KiMare 201,158
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 5 hr Earth inhabited 2,663
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Bruin For Life 28,370
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Dec 16 The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web