Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Jan 22, 2008 Read more: Newsday 309,598
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. Read more

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322725 Mar 9, 2014
Atheist Perspective wrote:
<quoted text>The touchstone for my social/"family" policy is: NO THEOCRACY! I assert that we live in one. And that we need regime change now!
I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.

Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.

And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....

:)
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322726 Mar 9, 2014
Right Wing Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
What Church were you forced to join by the government?
Hopefully the religously intolerant never become too powerful. They seem way too eager to take all freedom of religion away from US citizens.
The Church with God on the money and prayer in the Congress and at the White House. The Church of Manifest Destiny. The Church of continual holy wars across the Earth.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322727 Mar 9, 2014
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.

We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.

If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322728 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.
Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.
And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....
:)
Scary! But, Yeah...we've had so many screwball Presidents -- who knows what's coming up next!:P
Atheist Perspective

United States

#322729 Mar 9, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.
We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.
If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
Thank you. I forgot to mention the tax shelter. You're right. What a ginormous scam! It's a real entanglement of Church with State!
Ravianna

Coos Bay, OR

#322730 Mar 10, 2014
Roe v Wade basically said a human being has no rights when they are in the womb. Does that no sound familiar? The Dred Scott case said that if you are black you have no rights. Roe v Wade is just like the Dred Scott case and will be remembered in the same light. Dred Scott led to the American Civil War and Roe v Wade has led to the murder of 50 million people+how ever many people that have been murdered in abortion clinic bombings.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322731 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>My parents were married...MARRIED mind you, by a judge, in an anteroom of the courthouse, reserved specifically for that purpose. Theirs was what used to be termed 'civil marriage', and with it came all the rights and benefits which accrued to those couples married in church, or by a pastor anywhere.'Civil Unions' have always meant something different, and did NOT come with said rights and benefits. It's ludicrous that this is so, still today.
"Marriage" has meant MANY things, across cultures, and has only been 'reserved' to the union of one man and one woman, by certain religious sects, for a few hundred years.
Marriage predates Christianity. Native Americans have revered homosexuals as the "two-spirit" people for centuries, and have, from time immemorial, married them to each other. Don't be so quick to claim ownership of a term that's far older than you. Your religion just co-opted it, changed it to suit, and now resents those who want to 'change' it again.
Tough.
Since you brought up Native Americans this is how they handled marriage. It worked for them so why not follow the practice now?

In Indian cultures marriage was neither religious nor civil. There was usually no religious ceremony involved, only a public recognition of the fact of marriage. In most cases there was no formal ceremony: the couple simply started living together.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322732 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I could say I disagree with you on the former. I cannot. With the latter, I am completely in agreement - but we'll have to wait until 2016 to see, and even then, I doubt it will actually occur.
Given that the current President's policies are interchangeable with his predecessor's, I see no future President for whom the (relatively newly) vast Executive Power, isn't a temptation to reserve more.
And our next one, mark my words, WON'T be a "democrat". He/She will be a theocrat. The rabid religious right will get their numbers out in force for this one. Hide and watch. They pretty much have to, before the pendulum can swing the other way....
:)
Hillary is projected to be the next pres.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#322733 Mar 10, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
....Not to mention, the Church of the Religiously Exempt - from things like paying taxes, selling contraceptives, providing basic health insurance to one's gestationally-capable employees, and filling combat positions in wartime....yeah, the Church gets TONS of support from our illustrious 'government'.
We're not a democracy, by any means....we're certainly no longer a republic...Hell, the 'United States' are about as politically divided as it's possible to get.
If we're not a theocracy now, we're absolutely headed in that direction.
You aren't headed anywhere different than were you have been. Nothing has changed in 250 years. Why is it now bothering you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322734 Mar 10, 2014
Ravianna wrote:
Roe v Wade basically said a human being has no rights when they are in the womb. Does that no sound familiar? The Dred Scott case said that if you are black you have no rights. Roe v Wade is just like the Dred Scott case and will be remembered in the same light. Dred Scott led to the American Civil War and Roe v Wade has led to the murder of 50 million people+how ever many people that have been murdered in abortion clinic bombings.
It's clear that you have never even read Roe v Wade, because it says no such thing. It's our Constitution, actually, that says only citizens have civil rights, and foreign nationals (citizens of OTHER countries) have rights some rights. One must be BORN to be a citizen of this, or any, country.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322735 Mar 10, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you brought up Native Americans this is how they handled marriage. It worked for them so why not follow the practice now?
In Indian cultures marriage was neither religious nor civil. There was usually no religious ceremony involved, only a public recognition of the fact of marriage. In most cases there was no formal ceremony: the couple simply started living together.
And yet, it was still a marriage.

Marriage has meant different things to different cultures over the course of history. It is not YOUR religion's to define. Especially considering that even your church didn't consider it a sacrament until the 13th century, and didn't insist it be done by a priest in public before witnesses until the 16th century. That means the religious aspects of it have only been "traditional" for the RCC a fairly short amount of time. For people to claim it's always been the same over time is ludicrous.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322736 Mar 10, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Hillary is projected to be the next pres.
Not by me. Are you convinced it's enough of a 'done deal' that you plan to vote for her?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322737 Mar 10, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't headed anywhere different than were you have been. Nothing has changed in 250 years. Why is it now bothering you?
We've been headed toward overt theocracy since the Government changed 'E Pluriubus Unum' to 'In God We Trust', and began funding 'faith-based initiatives.'

We're still headed down that road, and the mile markers say we're getting closer all the time. I mentioned a few of those markers already....but of course, with your usual obtuseness, you decline to see them.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#322738 Mar 10, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Well they obviously aren't paying enough because Pelosi is still pro choice.
I would like to know who the Catholic lobbiests are because I believe that would be illegal.
The field of religious advocacy has mushroomed on Capitol Hill in recent decades, a new survey shows, with the number of groups growing fivefold since 1970 and hundreds of millions spent each year to influence issues from school vouchers and immigration to the right of women overseas to have abortions.

The report, released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, appears to be the most extensive research ever done on D.C.-based lobbyists and advocates on faith matters. It documents the widening range of domestic and foreign issues religious groups push and fight and shows the entrance in recent years of religious minority groups, such as Muslims, Sikhs and secular organizations, into the field.

The survey identifies the work of 212 faith-oriented groups, which spend about $390 million per year. That is up from less than 40 such groups in 1970.

The biggest spenders, the survey says, include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and established social conservative groups focusing on abortion, same-sex marriage and home-schooling. The report’s authors said that the science of identifying “religious” advocates was imprecise but that they picked groups that said they were driven by faith convictions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/religious...

Google is your friend....embrace the digital age, Ink.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#322740 Mar 10, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and 85% or more of Americans would like to win the Powerball as well.
The correlation between the two; more often than not, we want what we can't have.
There are Powerball winners all the time. While the odds may be slim, in this case one certainly "can" have what one wants. Your correlation sucks.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#322741 Mar 10, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Failing to prevent a "murder" is just as terrible as committing a murder.
No it isn't. This isn't even remotely accurate. Who gave you permission to just make things up and pass them off as fact ?
I assume this refers to only those "murders" she is aware of and is in a position to prevent ?
And even in those cases no one is ever, by any stretch, morally or legally as culpable of murder as one who actually commits it.
How many "babies in the womb" have you prevented from being "murdered" today?? In your lifetime?
And how many born humans have you prevented fro being murdered today ? In your lifetime ?

Just as I thought.

Go build an ark.
grumpy

West Haverstraw, NY

#322742 Mar 10, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Ink!"
Always a pleasure to "see" you Milady.
Ehh, I'm getting by, but I have to admit that this winter's brought out the worst in me to date...
Yeah...
I re-read that post three times, and all three times that sentence in particular has bothered me.
I can't deny it, that sentence is a reflection of my personal prejudice--which is wholly unwarranted since I wasn't raised in that faith--against the Catholic Church.
I think my perception of Catholicism has been colored by my father's experience. He's an ex-Catholic, and there's nothing worse to a Catholic than an ex-Catholic, just as there's nothing worse to a smoker than an ex-smoker.
Pretty poor analogy I'll admit, but you get the general idea.
There's a side of me that actively wants to think the worst of the Catholic church, and even as I intellectually, and in my heart of hearts, know that that's wrong, there's that part of me that just won't let go of that.
Like everyone else, I too have traits I wish I didn't possess...
I put your post to the test. In this post, you used the first person singular 15 times.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322743 Mar 10, 2014
Marriage is just as unisex as civil unions--which were created originally for hetero couples, btw. Why a new word? Do heteros not feel special enough if gays invade their clubhouse?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No marriage has never been unisex. That is a new concept and it needs a new word. Is it just the 'word' that is important to you or is it the equality regardless of what it's called?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#322744 Mar 10, 2014
Fetuses have never had any rights, and cannot be given rights that supersede the woman's own rights to her own body.

RvW had nothing to do with clinic bombings; that was the work of people who sought to deny women's rights.
Ravianna wrote:
Roe v Wade basically said a human being has no rights when they are in the womb. Does that no sound familiar? The Dred Scott case said that if you are black you have no rights. Roe v Wade is just like the Dred Scott case and will be remembered in the same light. Dred Scott led to the American Civil War and Roe v Wade has led to the murder of 50 million people+how ever many people that have been murdered in abortion clinic bombings.
Raymond Burr
#322745 Mar 10, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Fetuses have never had any rights, and cannot be given rights that supersede the woman's own rights to her own body.
RvW had nothing to do with clinic bombings; that was the work of people who sought to deny women's rights.
<quoted text>
Shhhhh ! Every time you open your uninformed trap you ruin the moment. Just let me savor the image of your untoned, flabby buttocks.
Yummm...

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 237,680
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 37 min Quirky 1,216,673
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr OzRitz 5,225
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr tom wingo 29,516
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Apr 16 ocean 201,862
News Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) Apr 14 tom wingo 73
Should child beauty pageants be banned? (Sep '14) Apr 13 Da King 777
More from around the web