Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,230
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
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319674 Dec 29, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Well, my dislike for Chicky begins at her lack of integrity/honesty, so I take what she says with little consideration. But I do agree with you that both sides must understand the entirety of the abortion debate, and that both sides have legitimate and compelling arguments and considerations. My biggest argument the past few weeks have been at those on the PC side that demean the significance of the fetus, but I do agree and understand that the PL are as guilty when it comes to for getting the consequences it wants to impose on woman for their own selfish beliefs sometimes.
I think nobody here on the PC side misunderstands PL arguments or considerations. Your biggest argument regarding the embryo/fetus' "significance" has been met with the belief it is granted by the woman carrying it. One poster referred to that as the host. Another responded that the significance is flexible depending upon circumstance (like being stricken with German Measles). I stated I gave it no significance if it wasn't mine. The reality is no embryo/fetus impacts society as a whole. Only the newborn/child/adult has or can have a tangible impact on society as a whole.

IOW, your claim the embryo/fetus' significance is inflexible might be something you need to rethink. Because, even in your opinion, if it's conceived through rape, its significance is less than that of one conceived consensually. And that's what another poster pointed out to you, even as you argued it.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#319675 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
<snicker> It would contaminate his delicate fundie hands.
I also got my father's Navy issued Mass book when he passed away, and his little book of psalms. And when we were planning his funeral Mass I asked if the organist/vocalist would sing the 23rd Psalm because I knew he would've liked it.
One year a Wiccan acquaintance gave me a Witch's date book for a gift. It had some good recipes in it and I used it for the whole year. Why not, right?
Every year, I receive a calendar from the Armenian Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Every month is a different Byzantine icon. It's pretty and it's free. Ooga booga! Lol
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319676 Dec 29, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie V.: "I equate induced abortion to spontaneous abortion"
Wow.
What a moron.
Do you even read your posts?
Natural death is the same as intentional killing?
You're an imbecile.
"My Grandma is weird."
Spontaneous abortion occurs when the body rejects the embryo/fetus without the girl/woman's consent/control. Induced abortion occurs when the mind rejects the embryo/fetus with the girl/woman's consent/control. Humans have been manipulating nature since they realized they could. Why should pregnancy be any different?

You believe the gov't, clergy, and nosy parkers should have control over women's pregnancies. Roe v Wade and PCers believe women should have control over their pregnancies.

You are focused on the embryo/fetus, I am focused on the woman and her circumstances. To me, you're the weirdo.
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319677 Dec 29, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Gtown," I hope this holiday season finds you and yours well.
My friend, I truly wish you'd give even an eighth of the attention you pay to religion towards science. You'd really "learn" something.
Science isn't just about "guesswork." It's about research, it's about testable, verifiable data. It's about studying observable phenomena and drawing logical conclusions from such. It's not just saying, "Well, this artifact was buried "this" deep, so it must be "this" old.
If I may offer a suggestion, you might find the magazine "Biblical Archaeology Review" worthwhile:http://www.magazine -agent.com-sub.info/Biblical-A rchaeology-Review/Welcome
Admittedly, it's a tad pricey, but I've got a subscription and I've found it fascinating thus far.
Also, I think you'd do yourself a whole world of good if you actually read Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
Best to you and yours for a happy New Year!
John.
Hey John. No secret that I want win any awards for science. I also stand amazed at science. Its just when it crosses over to a belief system is when I break off. No matter how good one is, there's a point where one must take by faith how the world began and how humans supposedly evolved.

Happy new years to you and yours.!!!
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319678 Dec 29, 2013
Shining Brilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
The STINK of arrogance is all over you Gspot!
Yes !!! Kill them babies and save a cat :)
katie

Federal Way, WA

#319679 Dec 29, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>How dare you post that to someone who is really Noam Chomski better known for his expertise in Linguistics.
Oh dear. Definitely did not realize a poster here was the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll. Nor thought "Norm Chaney" was that person. My bad :-/

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319680 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey John. No secret that I want win any awards for science. I also stand amazed at science. Its just when it crosses over to a belief system is when I break off. No matter how good one is, there's a point where one must take by faith how the world began and how humans supposedly evolved.
Happy new years to you and yours.!!!
"No matter how good one is, there's a point where one must take by faith how the world began and how humans supposedly evolved."

Why?
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319681 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. You are the epitome of self-righteousness. It oozes from your every post.
I'm going to assume from your post that i"you"think being self-righteous is a bad thing. ;)

Its all so hard to keep up with, now that I know how we each get to set our own standards as to what is good or bad.

Can we change our mind depending on people , places, circumstances?:)
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319682 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"No matter how good one is, there's a point where one must take by faith how the world began and how humans supposedly evolved."
Why?
Becouse no one was there when the world began and6000,6 million, or do6billion years ago, and there's no way man can measure how old something is billions of years ago. Even scientist disagree by billions of years.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319683 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to assume from your post that i"you"think being self-righteous is a bad thing. ;)
Its all so hard to keep up with, now that I know how we each get to set our own standards as to what is good or bad.
Can we change our mind depending on people , places, circumstances?:)
I'm going to assume that if someone directs their self-righteousness at you, you also consider it a bad thing.

And, you've hit on the point of WHY laws should not be based upon morals, but enumerated civil rights, as was Cpeter's point.

Yes, we do get to decide for ourselves what is moral and what isn't. And yes, we CAN change our minds depending upon new info, or circumstances. We do NOT, however, get to break the law, and act on those opinions, when doing so will infringe on the civil rights of other people, without running afoul of the law.

You, apparently, are having trouble with the difference between believing something is moral, and believing it's not moral, but doing it anyway. Not my problem.

AGAIN, just because you and I agree on whether or not something is moral/immoral, doesn't make us "right", or "wrong" for that matter. It just means that we happen to agree. And just because we DISagree on whether or not something is moral/immoral, doesn't make one of us "right", and the other "wrong". It just means we disagree.

Get it now?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319684 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Becouse no one was there when the world began and6000,6 million, or do6billion years ago, and there's no way man can measure how old something is billions of years ago. Even scientist disagree by billions of years.
As John pointed out, science is not guesswork. We're talking about measurable, testable phenomenon. There is no "faith" involved. And, there should be no reason to ignore science just because of mythological stories that were created by men to explain things they didn't have the science for at the time.

And no, scientists don't disagree. Where are you getting that idea from?
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#319685 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
God says in his word that one must come to him by faith not by proof
Mini believe in evolution which says the earth is either millions or billions of years old pending on who you ask
Yet there is no proof of that either.
All they can do is dig something up and try to say how old it is.
This earth and always say it was either created by a creator or it just appeared.
I say it takes way more faith to believe in the second option.
"God says in his word...."

Like I told Inky, until you can back up your claim that you know what "God says", you're just another fundie talking out of your behind.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#319686 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
To late on the lying thingy. The first time I lied I became a liar in the eyes of God.
As far as self righteousness I'm a sinner saved by grace.
I'm a come across as self righteous and arrogant but when it comes right down to it I am neither.
I have imputed righteousness.which is the only righteousness that's worth anything
Your imputed, self righteous arrogance is pathetic. Let us know when you get your head out of the clouds
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319687 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
As John pointed out, science is not guesswork. We're talking about measurable, testable phenomenon. There is no "faith" involved. And, there should be no reason to ignore science just because of mythological stories that were created by men to explain things they didn't have the science for at the time.
And no, scientists don't disagree. Where are you getting that idea from?
Ok I see now. I Googled it.
The earth is billions4.54 billion years old.
Our moon however is only 4.52 billion years old, and has been with us ever since.
Must have been neat for that time with no moon.:)
Smart men out there bit.
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#319688 Dec 29, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Every year, I receive a calendar from the Armenian Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Every month is a different Byzantine icon. It's pretty and it's free. Ooga booga! Lol
I would love to see some of those places and things.
Even catholic cathedrals would be neat.

HAPPY NEW YEARS :)
Khan the Great

Phillipsburg, NJ

#319689 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Thank you :)
Hells bells, you are so far up that qu@@rs a$$, are you sure you aren't a long haul trucker?
Mike

Belleville, IL

#319690 Dec 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You keep bringing up science, and scientific terminology is not subjective. A fetus is a potential member of a species, not a member until successfully born.
Why do people like you keep arguing scientific principles while clearly not comprehending them?
<quoted text>
I am arguing scientific principles. My logical argument is
P1 It is wrong to kill homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens that have done nothing wrong.
C Abortion is wrong.

You have still not told me what you think about my first premise. It does't say It is wrong to kill a member of the species homo sapiens or person or human or unborn child or anything like that. All those things are subjective opinions that people personally have. There is no objective definition of person. Someone in a persistent vegetative state is called a vegetable rather than a person. Some people say homo sapiens in a persistent vegetative states are still people some don't. So is whether or not a fetus is a person. I think all homo sapiens are people but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. So I just use objective scientific criteria to base my arguments on. You say a fetus is not a "member" of the species Homo sapiens that is an example of you basing your argument on arbitrary ideas on what makes someone human. I would like you to acknowledge that you are not the authority (neither am I) on what makes someone a "member" of the species Homo Sapiens, a person, a child, a baby or any off that. You don't get to make that determination for other people. I don't get to make it for you either. So once again I will ask. Do you think it is ok to kill Homo Sapiens that have done nothing wrong? I already know your answer and so do you. Just admit it and we can move on and stop with all this subjective terminology. The more you avoid answering a clear straight up question just makes me think that you are embarrassed about your position.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#319691 Dec 29, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to see some of those places and things.
Even catholic cathedrals would be neat.
HAPPY NEW YEARS :)
All you have to do is find your local Orthodox Church or any cathedral, temple, synagogue... whatever...and walk in. Step out of your safety zone. There's an amazing world out there. Go be in it.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#319692 Dec 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
As John pointed out, science is not guesswork. We're talking about measurable, testable phenomenon. There is no "faith" involved. And, there should be no reason to ignore science just because of mythological stories that were created by men to explain things they didn't have the science for at the time.
And no, scientists don't disagree. Where are you getting that idea from?
bHitler: "Science is not guesswork. We're talking about measurable, testable phenomenon."

You mean like the time you conceded that "a human" (noun) exists in the womb?

Mike

Belleville, IL

#319693 Dec 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you going on about? Your attempts to make yourself look intellectually superior are failing miserably. I'm pretty sure most women have a very clear understanding of female reproductive biology and don't need your help on that, Mikey. Biology is not the ultimate point here, and we all know how pregnancy occurs and that a fetus is human. This is about women having the right to choose what is best for themselves, and not being forced to give birth against their will...something nobody will ever do to you, Mikey.
Bitner is in an honored profession of caring for women and infants after birth. You Lifers simply loose interest in what happens after birth has occurred since your only interest is forcing women to gestate and raise children.
It's all about the embryo with you lifers, but women (and babies once born) are the ones with the rights...as it should be.
You assume way to much about me. I am a consistent liberal. I don't believe in discriminating against any Homo Sapiens based or any reason. It doesn't matter if they are gay or straight, white black brown or purple, atheist buddist or catholic, disabled mentally physically or healthy, male or female, tall or short, fat or skinny, born or unborn. It is clear that something weird is going on when conservatives are citing the equal rights amendment and big government liberals are talking about limited government. I laugh when my fellow liberals say I don't believe in legislating morality. Other than the issue of abortion we are the party that believes in legislating morality/ethical treatment of people. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and elderly even ensuring equal rights for homosexuals is legislating morality. No matter how much these anti-gay rights people try and pretend like its not. These are all examples of how democrats want to legislate morality. I'd also be willing to bet that I donated more money/knocked on more doors for President Obama than 95% of the people on here that argue with me about abortion. Everyone likes to make fun of me and dismiss my opinion because I'm male (which is sexist). My opinion on any issue still matters despite what ever gender I may be. If all of you care so much about abortion rights then why am I doing more for the pro-abortion rights party than most of you are. Don't just assume that all pro-life people are conservatives around 33% of democrats are pro-life as well.

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) 4 min Tony Rome 1,125,474
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 22 min tool 450
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 56 min Adam 230,011
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Earthling-1 1,512
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin For Life 27,914
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Oct 17 Mary Downformore 201,187
Get your Gator Jamberry Nail Wraps Oct 16 jambycatherine 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE