Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317632 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

Chalfont, PA

#322495 Feb 25, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, here's a law that has stood for 41 years and the only way it has been "amended," so-to-speak, has been by the individual states legislatures that, like in Mississippi, has almost made it impossible for a doctor to perform an abortion. IOW, not by a legitimate grievance, but by the proverbial "sore loser" childish attitude conservatives are notorious for being.
<quoted text>
So, if they had lots of freedom to be kids; is it reasonable to believe they also had lots of choices, as kids? I thought you said kids should have no choices.
I can't keep up with you taking my words and trying to change them into something I did not say at all.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322496 Feb 25, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>One of your biggest misconceptions about atheists and religion, is that atheists want religion out of the culture altogether. That's totally bogus....atheists want religion out of the LAW. Freedom from religion doesn't mean religion goes away. It means that religion, and the adherence to religious tenets, is a personal choice, rather than a legal obligation.
But I'm fairly certain that is a deliberate misunderstanding on your part, so that you can advance the idea that 'persecution of the religious by the non-religious' is rampant in our society.
It's crap, but it's your story, and you're determined to stick to it.
Next...
Where does it say anywhere,"freedom from religion"?

Who or what law has ever forced you into a religion?
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322498 Feb 25, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
Hey grumpy,
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Given that I am an angel (that's what everybody says)and I can't dance, I guess the answer is -0-.

“Beauty on four legs”

Since: Sep 06

Location hidden

#322499 Feb 25, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Given that I am an angel (that's what everybody says)and I can't dance, I guess the answer is -0-.
Aww, grumpy, you're the best! <hug>

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322500 Feb 25, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Given that I am an angel (that's what everybody says)and I can't dance, I guess the answer is -0-.
Good answer.

:)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322501 Feb 25, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say anywhere,"freedom from religion"?
Who or what law has ever forced you into a religion?
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe as you choose, and to follow the tenets of a religion. That includes the freedom to not believe in any deity, and to not follow the tenets of any religion. I know you don't like that, but it is still the case.

Religious freedom is the right to practice your religion ON YOURSELF.
Religious freedom doesn't give you the right to practice religion on, or against, anyone else.

The new pending law in Arizona, will make it legal without question, for business owners to refuse to sell or provide services to gays and “others” on religious beliefs. In other words, if bigotry is part of the liturgy of your religion, you get to flout the law and violate the civil rights of the 9 million Americans who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender or “other.”

What if “religious conviction” keeps business owners from dealing with “others” such as women, blacks, ethnic minorities, the handicapped and mentally challenged? What about old people, blind people or people of another religion? Would that be OK?

What about civil service and medical jobs? Will your doctors, nurses, and first responders, be legally able to refuse to treat you if they don't agree with your religious beliefs, or the lack of them? Will firefighters be legally exempted from saving your house if they're Muslim, and you're not? How about teachers? Should your kid's math teacher be able to ignore him or her, and 'refuse to do business' with your kid, if he or she doesn't follow your kid's religion, and disagrees with any of its tenets? Or thinks your kid isn't following the tenets of his or her religion?

That's what I'm talking about, re: getting religion out of the law....but of course, you already knew that.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322502 Feb 25, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Religious freedom is the freedom to believe as you choose, and to follow the tenets of a religion. That includes the freedom to not believe in any deity, and to not follow the tenets of any religion. I know you don't like that, but it is still the case.
Religious freedom is the right to practice your religion ON YOURSELF.
Religious freedom doesn't give you the right to practice religion on, or against, anyone else.
The new pending law in Arizona, will make it legal without question, for business owners to refuse to sell or provide services to gays and “others” on religious beliefs. In other words, if bigotry is part of the liturgy of your religion, you get to flout the law and violate the civil rights of the 9 million Americans who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender or “other.”
What if “religious conviction” keeps business owners from dealing with “others” such as women, blacks, ethnic minorities, the handicapped and mentally challenged? What about old people, blind people or people of another religion? Would that be OK?
What about civil service and medical jobs? Will your doctors, nurses, and first responders, be legally able to refuse to treat you if they don't agree with your religious beliefs, or the lack of them? Will firefighters be legally exempted from saving your house if they're Muslim, and you're not? How about teachers? Should your kid's math teacher be able to ignore him or her, and 'refuse to do business' with your kid, if he or she doesn't follow your kid's religion, and disagrees with any of its tenets? Or thinks your kid isn't following the tenets of his or her religion?
That's what I'm talking about, re: getting religion out of the law....but of course, you already knew that.
You said freedom from religion. Again are you being forced to follow some religion? If not then you have freedom from religion.

Gov Brewer will veto the law.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322503 Feb 25, 2014
None. Angels got no rhythm.
not a playa1965 wrote:
Hey grumpy,
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322504 Feb 25, 2014
You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM the religion of others.

Creating legislation based on faith is a de facto forcing of that faith on others.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does it say anywhere,"freedom from religion"?
Who or what law has ever forced you into a religion?
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322505 Feb 25, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM the religion of others.
Creating legislation based on faith is a de facto forcing of that faith on others.
<quoted text>
If it's created by legislation it's de jure.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#322510 Feb 25, 2014
Rioting protesters by doing violence in Ukraine are no democracy, as they have not gone through voting asked all the public and voters in the process.
BY raising all the extreme tearing violences, protesting rioters can only be very serious criminals, but not the democracy representation within the procedure.

US has promoted international disorder and acted wrongly , by promoting and backing the rioters as criminals.
Ukraine rioting is not the democracy by facts and truths.

Whether protesters like to join EU or any others, violent rioting can only be implement against in the judgment, for that is no way of doing to join EU or not.

Protesters are denied and rejected,while the Ukraine parliament as a result must be discredited, by taking advantage the situation instead of acting properly and accordingly within the procedure and system.

US and EU are also being denounced and denied of their acting wrongly with poor views that made the bad case Of Ukraine at the present time.

The democratic elected president of Ukraine has every right right to conduct decision stand by rejecting EU and joining Russia and that is still valid under democratic system and law of rights.

Global recognition of the rights of decision of the stand of Ukraine president by joining Russia and rejecting EU is valid at all time as the democratic elected degree of valid policy and operative views for Ukraine.

Protesting rioters have not been elected to make the decision whether to join EU or not, but they are just criminals to dismantle the democracy (violent rioting is not the democracy), which demonstrates US is out of order and of failure, from Obama making the protesting rioters to have done such large criminal vilolences in Ukraine.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#322511 Feb 25, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts show your fear of death and your inabiliry to accept life on lifes terms more than anything. Life ends. Death is inevitable. Deal with it.
I am not afraid of death at all .. No reason to be ..
I accept life just fine. What I do not accept is the taking of another life born or unborn ..

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322513 Feb 25, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be a number equal to the amount of camels that can fit through the eye of a needle??
Roughly, yes.

(Good one, Noah)
Just have to say

Ardsley, NY

#322514 Feb 25, 2014
No offense Noah, but can you please stop PMing me under my registered name? I asked you politely there but you refuse. Sorry to out you like this but it's annoying. Please stop okay? I'm getting the willies and evidently, you are not moved by my plea.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322516 Feb 25, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you that stupid? But, of course you are.
Freedom from religion and the inability of government to write law regarding to the establishment of religion are the same thing.
And our government doesn't establish a national religion. So you're good.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322517 Feb 26, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And our government doesn't establish a national religion. So you're good.
You must turn a blind eye to the biblically inspired bills that are introduced to congress.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322521 Feb 27, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>If it's created by legislation it's de jure.
The forcing (of one faith over another) would be de facto - the discrimination would be de jure.

Just sayin'.
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322522 Feb 27, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>The forcing (of one faith over another) would be de facto - the discrimination would be de jure.
Just sayin'.
I think you got it reversed. IMO de facto would be the result of the law(discrimination) while not specifically stated in the law.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322524 Feb 27, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
@grupmy and not a playa;
De Jure means "of the law" or "by the law."
De Facto means "in fact" or "in reality."
IMHO, you're both correct.
If there was legislature written that would establish any religion as the "national" religion of the United States, and hypothetically assuming the law mandates the practice of only the "national" religion, the direct effect of the law would be both a result "of the law," thus a de jure, and a factual act of discrimination, thus de facto.
If the law did not mandate the practice of only the "national" religion and was silent about the practice of any other religion, then any discrimination would be de facto. If the law did not mandate the practice of only the "national" religion, but stated that if any religion was to be practiced it had to be the "national" religion, then discrimination would be de jure.
In the absence of such law, when any politician believes one religion over another, and based on such beliefs seeks any form of legislation, he/she is de facto endorsing, or engaging in a pseudo establishment of religion.
Do you think that a belief in God is a religion and what would that religion be?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322526 Feb 27, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
A belief in G-d is not, in and of itself, a religion. Following the teachings of a given group, on certain specific, or interpreted beliefs related to G-d, is.
So are you afraid of people who believe in God or are you afraid of a specific religion?

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) 10 min VetnorsGate 1,604,110
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr LMFAO phartt 34,271
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sun Randy from Wooster 201,882
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sun It s Weather Not ... 11,574
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep 20 The pope 258,485
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep 14 Hellepsoaio 12
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep 12 Love 292
More from around the web