Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311906 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.

grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322813 Mar 12, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nope. The only rights involved in RvW are the mother's and, in the 3rd trimester, the state's. At no point is the fetus granted rights, explicit or implied.
<quoted text>
But once RvW includes states rights, it accrues to the fetus when states put restrictions on abortion.
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#322814 Mar 12, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nope. The only rights involved in RvW are the mother's and, in the 3rd trimester, the state's. At no point is the fetus granted rights, explicit or implied.
<quoted text>
BTW, I posted "de facto", not "implied".
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322815 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No it had to do with reproduction. A very important goal in those days. Don't you get tired of being wrong?
People are not obligated to reproduce, married or not. You have nothing but your own opinion to fall back on as "evidence" for your biased reasoning. Sad you cant admit that and instead want to paint me as wrong. Take your arrogance and shove it, kitty killer.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322816 Mar 12, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say anything about endorsement, and no, that was NOT the only time the author said anything about same sex marriage.
See, you just proved me right. You ignore any evidence that refutes your claims. You always have.
One gay leaning opinion isn't 'evidence'. Find a real historian and I will listen. Every real historian will tell you that no culture has ever embraced 'gay marriage'. The Greeks and Romans flirted with homosexual acts but they 'married' women. Gay marriage is a 21st century happening.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322817 Mar 12, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
People are not obligated to reproduce, married or not. You have nothing but your own opinion to fall back on as "evidence" for your biased reasoning. Sad you cant admit that and instead want to paint me as wrong. Take your arrogance and shove it, kitty killer.
Can't you follow anything? This is so tiring. We were talking about 'early cultures ' and reproduction was the only way to maintain the numbers to contiue the cultures and peoples.

How you find it biased to try and educate you on why having children was important is beyond me.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322818 Mar 12, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
What precisely is that "good reason?"
<quoted text>
Good reason was that it was important to produce children in order to continue the peoples and culture. It was also important to have enough population to protect the group, tribe or city.

Isn't that just common sense?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322819 Mar 12, 2014
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She did. YOU are the one who doesn't, as proven by your last post to me, you lying sack of sh*t.
Your potty mouth is an example of how you cope with an opinion different than your's. How tolerant.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322820 Mar 12, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes she does. Good to see you, Pb.
(do I need to mention your tiniest toenail holds more compassion and empathy than her entire being?)
That's a pretty damning statement considering that you don't know me. BTW how can you tell what's in her toenails unless you spend a lot of time with your face close to her feet?

What you think is empathy could be fungus.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#322821 Mar 12, 2014
pbfa wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the "people of faith" who have eviscerated food stamps, cut VETERAN's benefits, reduced medical help for the poor, slashed unemployment? How do you think those measures help the needy? All those fat, old white boys would sure claim they were people of faith, Inkstain. Just ask them.
Where to begin with this convoluted, misguided mess ?

First of all if we polled elected officials on the liberal/democratic side, most would also likely classify themselves as active "people of faith".

The positions of politicians on the issues you mention above are NOT based on their faith but rather on their belief in fiscal conservatism. In fact, since one of the basic tenets of Christianity is to help those less fortunate than oneself, I could probably make a strong case that liberal democrats' position in favor of these programs is more faith based than any conservative opposition.

The fact is you oppose their opposition to the waste and inefficiency in these programs and attack their religion, when in fact their religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with their position on these issues. You are just an anti-religious (more specifically anti-Christian) bigot.

You're also a racist. What's with the "fat old white boys" comment ? You mean to tell me that there are no black.....or middle eastern.....or Asian elected officials that support and promote fiscal conservatism ?

It would appear your grey matter has been eviscerated.
Bigot.
VoteVets Org

New York, NY

#322822 Mar 12, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need permission from no one to state facts. You believe I made this up? Take it up with the legislature.
<quoted text>
The legislature ??? Provide me with one statute that conveys equal legal culpability upon those who fail to prevent a murder as those who actually commit it.
I'll wait.
Of course. Then again, she's the one who calls abortion "murder," when it's not.
<quoted text>
Regardless of whether or not it's murder you acknowledge that that it would only apply to those abortions she is aware of and which she is in a position to prevent. Your statement implied her culpability with every abortion that takes place.
When it refers to abortion, you're correct. Abortion isn't murder. With regard to your statement above, again, go ahead and argue that with the legislature.
<quoted text>
See above. And provide me with a statute that supports your position that failing to prevent a murder is as terrible as committing one.
Today? None so far.
I didn't think so.
Then again, I'm not a police officer,
That's just an excuse. Neither is she.
so the likelihood I'll be in a position to prevent a murder, is rather slim.
Bullshit. You don't need to be a police officer to be able to prevent a murder.
But, in my lifetime, I have prevented two people from being killed,
So have many of us. A mother who prevents her toddler from entering a busy street does.
We're talking about murder here, genius.

in addition to having killed many people. Whether my preventative actions classify as preventing a "murder," in it's legal definition, is a whole other story.
<quoted text>
OK tough guy.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#322823 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't be cherry picking the Bible again, would you?
The chapter goes on to say:
"Yet neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man in the Lord. For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman, but all things are from God."
All it (what you put) means is that God created both man and women. But with the scripture I cited it goes on to fully mean that women must be obedient to men (husbands). I cited four varying verses to show this. So who is cherry-picking, you or me?

Btw, in the old testament did you know Moses, due to not having enough money (gold) to pay his army, paid his soldiers by giving them teen girls captured in towns they conquered? He gave them sex-slaves.

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

At Shiloh (a town friendly to him) Moses had his soldiers kidnap young girls that went to a vineyard to dance in a festival.

A father also had the right to sell his daughters into slavery. But my favorite is the instructions on what to do if a man on his wedding night finds out his bride isn't a virgin …..

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die."

There’s a lot more if you want me to put it.

Why do all monotheistic religions to varying degrees require men have dominance over, or be a step above, women? Because it drew in male followers. A lot of people are raised by the bible. Take another look at the scriptures I cited in my post before this one. There's even more than those about women must be obedient to men, how we must dress, act, & more. Does the traditional church wedding ceremony have a vow that the groom will obey the wife? No. But the bride's part has her saying she will obey the husband. You don't think all those things doesn't have an influence or subconscious affect upon boys that grow into men? Do these things contribute to things like discrimination in the workplace? A lot of religions, even here in America, ban women from being preachers, pastors, bishops, etc.

I for one don’t want this stuff taught to my future daughters (not even taught to future sons).

This is why they (churches) fight against things like birth control pills (covered by insurance for example). The pill, and abortion, let women choose our own path in life. It empowers women to be on the same level as men. Religions don't want that. You can see that throughout the Bible. You can also see it in all the anti-women bills and bill blackages being done by Republican leaders that are catering to the religious movement.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#322824 Mar 12, 2014
bill 'blockages', not blackages. I goofed a word. My bad.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322826 Mar 12, 2014
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
All it (what you put) means is that God created both man and women. But with the scripture I cited it goes on to fully mean that women must be obedient to men (husbands). I cited four varying verses to show this. So who is cherry-picking, you or me?.
No it means that even though woman was created from man, man cannot exist without woman. It shows the healthy co-dependance of women and men. It actually makes women more important because without them there would be no life at all.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#322827 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you follow anything? This is so tiring. We were talking about 'early cultures ' and reproduction was the only way to maintain the numbers to contiue the cultures and peoples.
How you find it biased to try and educate you on why having children was important is beyond me.
Considering that you can't remember what you post from day to day, I don't read all of your inane posts. It still doesn't matter what "reason" you want to cite... It's only your biased opinion.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#322828 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No it means that even though woman was created from man, man cannot exist without woman. It shows the healthy co-dependance of women and men. It actually makes women more important because without them there would be no life at all.
Then explain the other passages I put. Go for it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322829 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
One gay leaning opinion isn't 'evidence'. Find a real historian and I will listen. Every real historian will tell you that no culture has ever embraced 'gay marriage'. The Greeks and Romans flirted with homosexual acts but they 'married' women. Gay marriage is a 21st century happening.
See, I KNEW you'd ignore evidence. That is what you typically do. I don't know why you bother to ask for it.

You are wrong. You've been shown that you are wrong. And still, you just bury your head in the sand.

No, same sex marriage is NOT a 21st century happening. You just want to believe it is.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#322830 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Your potty mouth is an example of how you cope with an opinion different than your's. How tolerant.
Lies don't have to be tolerated. Who told you they do? I'm not "coping" with a differing opinion, I'm pointing out your lies. There is a difference.

To quote one of my favorite women, Judi Dench "One of the benefits of being a mature, well-educated woman is that you're not afraid of expletives. And you have no fear to put a fool in his (or her-parentheses mine) place. That's the power of language and experience. You learn a lot from Shakespeare."
katie

Federal Way, WA

#322831 Mar 12, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty damning statement considering that you don't know me. BTW how can you tell what's in her toenails unless you spend a lot of time with your face close to her feet?
What you think is empathy could be fungus.
So, did you just out yourself as SJM, Ink?

What you show of yourself here is a closed-minded intolerant nosy parker who prefers to play dumb and hides her head in the sand all while playing the one-up insult game with those you know as little about as you claim they know you.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322833 Mar 12, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering that you can't remember what you post from day to day, I don't read all of your inane posts. It still doesn't matter what "reason" you want to cite... It's only your biased opinion.
It is a biased opinion that if you want the population to grow or even maintain you need to produce children? How in your biased opinion, would you grow the population without children?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#322834 Mar 12, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So, did you just out yourself as SJM, Ink?
What you show of yourself here is a closed-minded intolerant nosy parker who prefers to play dumb and hides her head in the sand all while playing the one-up insult game with those you know as little about as you claim they know you.
LOL Did I insult you? I don't have my head in the sand or sniffing anyone's toes.

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) 2 min sonicfilter 1,433,207
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 hr Joe Fortuna 257,132
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 10 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 10,110
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 19 hr Chosen Traveler 32,404
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Sep 18 Go Blue Forever 1
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sep 10 yess 201,881
News UCLA Basketball: Grad Transfer Octeus to Bruins (Jun '14) Aug 31 Trojan 2
More from around the web