Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311489 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.

sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323025 Mar 14, 2014
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your subjective reasoning applies only to you. No one else. Yet you want your subjective reasoning legislated for all to follow. Nobody cares you think induced abortion is evil. Nobody cares if someone else thinks induced abortion is morally wrong. These are your personal opinions and you're entitled to same. It is dysfunctional to think everyone else should believe the same as you do.
You are not entitled in forcing everybody else to live by your subjective reasoning by mandating these. Yet that is exactly what the PLM is trying to do. And you follow along blindly because you don't know how to think for yourself. And is why you'll never understand PC doesn't support abortion, PC supports people legally retaining their civil rights to exercise personal privacy and bodily autonomy.
""""" """"PC supports people legally retaining their civil rights to exercise personal privacy and bodily autonomy""" """"" "

Then YOU my dear Katie,are not PC because you agree with RESTRICTING a woman from exercising personal privacy and bodily autonomy after viability. NO elective abortion for the woman who CHOOSES after viability for whatever reason.

Please stop and think before you try to sell me such nonsense. You only make a total fool of yourself.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323026 Mar 14, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a bit unfair to scream NOOOOOO--when you don't have a clue what else she does. Since those issues appear to be very important to you I would like to know what you have done to address them. Have you set up a fund of any kind to help?
I don't give a freaking damn what "else" this anti-life,anti-woman crazy B does.

Well? Does she or does she not help women who want to keep their babies? Did she set up a fund for them? Did she set up a fund for the women who suffer from their previous abortions? Is she actively helping women who are dumped by their bf's and abandoned by loved ones when she is pregnant?

Pfft...you and I BOTH know the answer to THAT,don't we ;)
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323027 Mar 14, 2014
DAVID27 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, EXACTLY. You need to get a better set of reading glasses or practice reading comprehension. You've been told over and over and over again that we KNOW there are life/health exceptions post-viability. We acknowledge that so I hope this is the last time you lie by saying we've forgotten that fact.
The fact is that post-viability, and IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY HEALTH OR LIFE RISK ( is that better?) you support the restrictions on abortion that RvW allows.
My claim is NOT null and void. You support restrictions post viability ( and last time I checked, after viability the fetus was still inside the woman's body) and therefore do NOT support a woman's right to full personal autonomy.
Nosy parker.
Oh no no no,Katie is ALLOWED to be a nosy parker in those circumstances. Seems suddenly the woman DOESN'T have rights to full personal autonomy or privacy after her given *dead*line(pun intended). MOST those who call themselves pro-CHOICE feel the same.

@@ they are anti-choice to kill as choice after viability. What "phony Atheists".
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323028 Mar 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's unnatural to have a written language, much less use silicon, wire, and plastic to transmit it. So stop posting.
Being gay is not unhealthy any more than being straight is.
<quoted text>
Being straight is not unhealthy. It is natural. People can be unhealthy tho.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323029 Mar 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, because the believers I know don't try to impose their beliefs on me.
<quoted text>
Pretty funny coming from someone who support IMPOSING death sentences on others lives via abortion.

Oh but how DARE someone impose ANYTHING of poor lil you?

Unreal.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323030 Mar 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Being gay isn't just about sex or "behavior", and clearly you haven't a frigging clue what bisexuality is. There are plenty of gay couples who have lived together for decades, far longer than most hetero marriages. It's neither unnatural or unhealthy; those are just buzzwords homophobes like to use without understanding the entire concept.
Do you think denying gays marriage will cause them to go straight? Are you really so stupid?
<quoted text>
No,I don't think denying gays marriage will make them go straight. Never said such a thing.

Is bisexuality something one is born with? or is it a "behavior" in your opinion? According to you,Either one is attracted to the opposite or their own and they are born that way. Explain bisexualtiy where they are attracted to both. TIA
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323031 Mar 14, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
Being gay is not a choice, and I get really, really frustrated with people arguing that it is.
Here's a question I have posed several times to 'straight' people.
Change it up.
Ya, I thought so. If being gay were the norm.... I know, I know.....
A person with blue eyes can change their eye colour with contacts, but their eyes are still blue.
Stop getting so frustrated trying to explain something that you are giving your opinion about. There are former or unactive homosexuals who will attest to the fact that they were not born that way. They claim it was enviromental(family circumstances,etc..)that led them to their own sex. They may always have the tendencies though even if they don't practice per sey. I suppose no diffferent than a man or woman having sexual tendencies or feelings for others while in committed relationships or marriages.

Are they liars in your opinion?

Tell me,God forbids homosexuality. HE called it an abominiation. WHY then would he created someone homosexual then? Does this even add up? Keep in mind thought that God LOVES the sinner,not the sin.

Again, I understand(I've read stories and even saw a move ,etc...on the lives of homosexuals) where MANY of the attractions begin or reasons why they continue or are drawn to their own. NOBODY but NOBODY is saying that they are bad people for it. It's just not natural or the way God intended. So,call me whatever you want.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323032 Mar 14, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Well a homosexual couple is not able to produce because you need sperm, and an egg. Two females can't naturally produce because of two eggs, and just the same, two males aren't able to reproduce naturally with just sperm.
I hope I cleared that up for you.
Being gay doesn't necessarily mean you can't have children naturally.
Now I could go philosophical on you, and state that a homosexual couple can reproduce, but not with each other, but that might be going over your head.
I noticed you had another 'incorrect' assumption in that you didn't think ANYBODY would reply.
You're welcome
A homosexual couple can NEVER produce a biological child together.EVER. It takes a man and a woman the way God intended it.
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323033 Mar 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? If the love of "christ" calls for truth, then it should be renamed as the "truth of christ" and not the LOVE of "christ."
I thought the "love of christ" calls for forgiving 70 time 7; loving your neighbor as yourself; blessing those who curse you; doing good to those who seek to do you harm; cyring with those who cry; rejoicing with those who rejoice...
Where does it say the love of "christ" calls for truth?
BTW, please produce the document that charges you with defending the weak, vulnerable and innocent. I'd like to see where does it say that your duty to defend those who are weak, vulnerable and innocent is above the law.
Pay attention dear. The LOVE OF CHRIST or TRUTH OF CHRIST (whatever you want to call it),calls us to defend the innocent,defenseless among us. What in heavens name does "forgiving 70 times 7" have to do with what I said?

It is GOD who forgives you(if you ask and are sincere about it). He calls us to forgive others too as we would want to be forgiven and the rest of what you wrote above. Again,something totally different than what was said about what you originally said.

""""I'd like to see where does it say that your duty to defend those who are weak, vulnerable and innocent is above the law"""" "

Then go open your bible OR google it. Google is your friend :) You will find what you are looking for. I would do it for you but I don't have my bible with me. We BOTH have google on our computers,so I think that you are capable of looking?
grumpy

Central Islip, NY

#323034 Mar 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite a case that says that.
Roe v. Wade.
Obviously by putting restrictions on abortions, there are fetuses that don't represent a need for medical action needing an abortion concerning the mother.
Was Roe v. Wade citing Article XXXIII?
sassyjm

Cresskill, NJ

#323035 Mar 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
An angry teenager, huh? Funny. Are you scheduled to perform at the Improv next weekend? I'd love to go, just to see you make a bigger a$$ of yourself.
<quoted text>
I have no issues with paying no mind to christianity. But, I just can't ignore the amount of christian hypocrites there are in the world, who say, and commit atrocities against other people in the "name of jesus," simply because they engage in some conduct the christians do not believe in, or their religion forbids. Now, if you all were to die, or be wiped off the map by flood, or some disease similar to leprosy, then it would be so much easier. But, since I'm not that lucky, I suppose you'll just have to deal with my expressed and highly vocal despise of you people. For the record, I don't hate all christians; only with sanctimonious, self-indulging, I have more balls than the Pope or my minister, attitudes.
<quoted text>
No tattoos on my body, and actually, I happen to like Disco. I'm old enough to have burned the soles of a few pairs of Capezios doing the hustle, probably while your mommy was still changing your diapers.
""""" simply because they engage in some conduct the christians do not believe in, or their religion forbids""" "

Oh cut the crap already! YOU support killling humans in the womb as choice. It is wrong to kill anothers because they are unwanted by their mom. It is gruesome,evil and barbaric practice. It is a money making business. An innocent little life doesn't deserve death because they are unwanted.

Go boo- hoo to someone who feels sorry for you because you hate Christians who defend life.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#323036 Mar 14, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> John,sweetie,just how DO you do it? Be so perfect,I mean? You manage to go along in life thinking that you can support killing developing humans in such a barbaric way,and yet be such a WONDERFUL,civilized,moral person who goes about his business.
You're a legend in your own mind. Oh,I get it. You are not a phony XTIAN like I am,who goes about my business,but REFUSES to allow people to discriminate against the innocent among us who's only "crime" is to be unwanted by his or her mothers. How FREAKIN DARE I defend those little lives. Ugh! No WONDER you think that I am a hypocrite,phony Xtian.
Oh,btw,...who are these people who I hold contempt for that have "fallen-by-the-wayside "? Interesting. Can't wait to hear who they are.
Good evening my dearest "Sassafrass,"

Darling, I've never claimed to have attained "perfection," nor to even have striven for it. Likewise, I've never claimed to be beholden to a system of beliefs that I declare to be totally, absolutely, irrefutably "true," and acted in a manner that seems to be completely at odds with that system of beliefs.
As I said before, and I'll say again, I don't believe you care one whit about "those little lives."
You care about "control."
If you really simply "went about your business," you wouldn't be on here actively scolding, lambasting, or condemning, everyone who doesn't happen to believe exactly as you do.

As for those whom you hold in contempt for "falling by the wayside."

Are you sure you want to go there luv...?
Okay, I'll start with the most recent..."Rose."
:)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323037 Mar 14, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously the courts have ruled that normal pregnancy is not a medical condition, as do I.
So why is there a need for a Doctor's DIAGNOSIS of pregnancy, when applying for WIC, AFDC, or Food Stamps?

Next....
Nina

Clifton Park, NY

#323040 Mar 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> A homosexual couple can NEVER produce a biological child together.EVER. It takes a man and a woman the way God intended it.
yes and why have two dads or two moms..I would take one of each
Nina

Clifton Park, NY

#323041 Mar 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Why don't you astonish me by pointing out the particular era when marriage was important to society, why, and how?
who wants to be conceived by artificial means....why wish this on our kids esp when parent had the luck of being brought into the world naturally
Nina

Clifton Park, NY

#323042 Mar 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Why don't you astonish me by pointing out the particular era when marriage was important to society, why, and how?
i will point it out to you...relationships are transient....marriage is a commitment...our kids are dying by suicide and drugs.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#323043 Mar 15, 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.
Yeah, without us womenfolk the men would be eating from cans, wearing filthy clothes, using filthy toilets, and raping each other.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#323044 Mar 15, 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.
Don't forget to add in about her hypocrisy. Ink can insult people when it suits her but when she gets it back suddenly she becomes the poor victim of "intolerance".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#323045 Mar 15, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> A homosexual couple can NEVER produce a biological child together.EVER. It takes a man and a woman the way God intended it.
So... post-menopausal women shouldn't get married? Is marriage only about having kids?
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323046 Mar 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't. I was addressing your contention that marriage was important because if the ability to procreate.
And it simply isn't so.
Past tense. It was.

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) 5 min Grey Ghost 1,404,453
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr thetruth 256,000
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 12 hr 2all 9,990
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 23 Trojan 32,307
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web