Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311864 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.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#323247 Mar 17, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see it that way. Again statistics, believe them or not will tell you that much of the abuse comes from mom's boyfriends, Girlfriends of single male parents don't seem to pose the same risk to children. I believe that what they mean is that a home with the stable influence of a father and his love for the mother is a solid guard against abuse. Not to say that none of the reverse happens, it does but not to the same extent.
Good evening "Ink."

My friend, you and I see things through very different prisms and, as such, we're going to come to completely opposing conclusions.
Yes, statistically speaking, children of single mothers seem to be more likely to be the victims of abuse by the mother's latest "love-interest" than vise-versa. However, even though that's an "anecdotal" truism, that's no reason to introduce legislation that, at its heart, is meant to target, or penalize, single mothers, and claim that it's simply targeting "Single-Parenthood" as being its raison d'etre.
Here's an example--a thoroughly sappy one admittedly--of a single mom in a "trying" situation that got her unexpected results...

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story...

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323249 Mar 18, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't what it says. All the add ons are yours.
Aww, can't answer any of those questions, without looking like a dork?

"Non-marital parenthood is a contributing factor to child abuse."
That's EXACTLY what it says.
Next....
Jorja Fox

Lexington, VA

#323251 Mar 18, 2014
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> 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 ;)
The questions get to hard for you? Refer to post #3223053 to refresh your memory. Or perhaps your "other" identity would care to address my questions. LOL
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#323252 Mar 18, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>......
The facts are that children born to girls without marriage or a father in the picture are more at risk for being abused......
Do your "facts" account for other variables? Race, gender of the child, residency, history of mental illness, criminal history, Social status, etc....

Being born into a single or two parent household likely has an affect on a possibility if abuse, but what evidence shows it to be the overriding factor?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323253 Mar 18, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
More great news for American citizens.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
I would certainly hope a Federal Judge would come down on the side of viability, rather than heartbeat - however, it sickens and saddens me that the Arkansas Legislature has the gall to suggest that pregnant women don't realize what they're pregnant with.

Shoving the fact that the clump of cells within her, has a beating heart, does NOT change the circumstances under which she decided to obtain an abortion.

Unless the State of Arkansas wishes to provide a sterling safety net for the born children of parents who would otherwise have terminated the pregnancy, it has no business restricting the ability of a woman to make her decision legally, especially before the fetus could survive outside the womb. This would include the obligation of the State to foot the bills for each of these born children, to be given EVERY CHANCE for survival outside the womb. If the State proclaims it has an interest in the survival of a 'child' rather than simply a fetus, it ought to have to prove that it's really interested.

I don't think Arkansas can afford that, do you?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323254 Mar 18, 2014
"...shoving in her face, the fact...."

(Topix really needs an edit feature.....)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323255 Mar 18, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Or pay cradle to grave welfare. Who knows if she will ever make enough money to pay taxes or volunteer for the armed services.
The fetus is being protected from it's mother, just as her born children would be.
If the State is going to claim an 'interest' in the survival of a fetus, that survival includes survival beyond the fetal stage. "Cradle to grave support" is the obligation of an entity that insists on making the decision of whether or not to gestate....or do you not believe that parents have an obligation to nurture, support, and encourage their children?

If the State insists that it has the discretion where pregnancy is concerned, the People should insist the State follow through on its responsibility to the born.

On the other hand, if the State has no say, then the responsibility falls squarely on the parent - as it should - including the responsibility for deciding whether or not to give birth in the first place.

I know - I know...you always did want it both ways.

Tough.
Ink

Chalfont, PA

#323256 Mar 18, 2014
KatieKatieKatie wrote:
<quoted text>Why did society insist women be placed in a paradoxical role that all things good can fall her "behind the scenes" feet and all things bad can be dropped at her feet with nobody pointing fingers at the men involved? Got an answer for that?
I'm not sure maybe because women are the more rational, stable, and reasonable in many cases. Women are just stronger and wiser than men.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#323257 Mar 18, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure maybe because women are the more rational, stable, and reasonable in many cases. Women are just stronger and wiser than men.
Then let them make up their own minds. Spare us your never ending, irrational claims.
gonnertwit

Pittsburgh, PA

#323258 Mar 18, 2014

Abortion is a fate of life nothing can stop abortion

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323259 Mar 18, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure maybe because women are the more rational, stable, and reasonable in many cases. Women are just stronger and wiser than men.
Except for the single mothers you now know are NOT letting their boyfriends abuse their kids?
A PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT

Dover, OH

#323260 Mar 19, 2014
Just Another Typical Hillary Clinton “Ban Bossy” Supporting Feminist in 2014….

Posted on March 18, 2014

Amanda Marcotte - Sexism - feminism - clinton supporter(Newsbusters) Lest there be any doubt, Amanda Marcotte really hates pro-lifers.

In a two-part rant posted March 14 and 17 on Raw Story, the morally challenged feminist writer attacked pro-lifers as “consummate liars,”“anti-choice kooks” with “boring,”“half-baked nonsense” and “schit arguments.”

But Marcotte’s hate doesn’t stop at pro-lifers. It extends to the babies they want to protect.

“Either way, what she [the woman] wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.”

Did she just compare an unborn child to a cavity?

Marcotte then goes on a seriously mature rant about the reasons she does not want a child:“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness.”

On the topic of adoption, Marcotte sums up her feelings simply:“Adoption? F-you, seriously.” That’s a heck of an argument.

MORE:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/03/1...
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#323261 Mar 19, 2014
http://prospect.org/article/stopping-domestic...

Others take issue with small provisions in the new bill extending coverage to LGBT victims, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been holding the bill up in the House because he objects to a provision that would allow Native American tribal authorities to use their own justice system to prosecute non-Native men who rape or beat Native women on tribal lands.
The question about the sudden opposition to VAWA is: Why now? It’s likely for the same reasons the Republicans have doubled down generally on the war on women, turning up the volume on attacks on abortion, contraception, and equal-pay legislation: A combination of the influx of hard right politicians in recents elections tipping the party further to the right and over-the-top outrage at the very existence of Obama that encourages mindless obstructionism of any Democratic legislation. The conservative base has grown more vocal in its demands that Republicans demonstrate fealty to the hard right cause, and voting against VAWA has, sadly, become an excellent way for politicians to demonstrate their conservative bona fides.

Once again republicans showing everyone how much they really care about women. I guess if it doesn't pertain to a woman's "private parts" they don't give a damn who beats the crap out of them.
FIGHTING THE DEMS WOW

Dover, OH

#323262 Mar 19, 2014
As she did in the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly, an activist of the Christian right who rose to prominence as an anti-feminist leader in the 1970s, is leading the charge to kill VAWA. She claims the law is not about stopping violence so much as “promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” She employs the same strategy as she did in the fight against the ERA—lying—to support her arguments, claiming that under VAWA, men can be jailed without trial. She also said that men can be jailed merely for yelling at a woman and that the bill doesn’t offer help to male victims of violence—both outright lies. She also objects to laws that make it easier for prosecutors to proceed in cases where victims retract, even though research shows that guilty men persuade victims to retract in a substantial number of domestic-violence claims.

Other conservative lobbying groups have picked up the charge. As reported at Talking Points Memo, FreedomWorks, the super PAC led by Republican and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey until recently, echoed Schlafly’s claims adding that “supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims—this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.” The implication: Simply refusing to call raped or battered people “victims” makes the whole problem go away.

THANK YOU MS SCHLAFLY!

Exposing just another progressive 'victim' scam by keeping woman just like minorities dependent on big brother, this time it's BIG SIS.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323263 Mar 19, 2014
FIGHTING THE DEMS WOW wrote:
As she did in the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly, an activist of the Christian right who rose to prominence as an anti-feminist leader in the 1970s, is leading the charge to kill VAWA. She claims the law is not about stopping violence so much as “promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” She employs the same strategy as she did in the fight against the ERA—lying—to support her arguments, claiming that under VAWA, men can be jailed without trial. She also said that men can be jailed merely for yelling at a woman and that the bill doesn’t offer help to male victims of violence—both outright lies. She also objects to laws that make it easier for prosecutors to proceed in cases where victims retract, even though research shows that guilty men persuade victims to retract in a substantial number of domestic-violence claims.
Other conservative lobbying groups have picked up the charge. As reported at Talking Points Memo, FreedomWorks, the super PAC led by Republican and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey until recently, echoed Schlafly’s claims adding that “supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims—this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.” The implication: Simply refusing to call raped or battered people “victims” makes the whole problem go away.
THANK YOU MS SCHLAFLY!
Exposing just another progressive 'victim' scam by keeping woman just like minorities dependent on big brother, this time it's BIG SIS.
Not sure if you realize it or not, but you've just thanked "Ms. Schlafly" for lying through her dentures.
Gtown71

United States

#323264 Mar 19, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure maybe because women are the more rational, stable, and reasonable in many cases. Women are just stronger and wiser than men.
To many here's dismay I must agree with you here, atleast in many cases.:)

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323265 Mar 19, 2014
A PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT wrote:
Just Another Typical Hillary Clinton “Ban Bossy” Supporting Feminist in 2014….
Posted on March 18, 2014
Amanda Marcotte - Sexism - feminism - clinton supporter(Newsbusters) Lest there be any doubt, Amanda Marcotte really hates pro-lifers.
In a two-part rant posted March 14 and 17 on Raw Story, the morally challenged feminist writer attacked pro-lifers as “consummate liars,”“anti-choice kooks” with “boring,”“half-baked nonsense” and “schit arguments.”
But Marcotte’s hate doesn’t stop at pro-lifers. It extends to the babies they want to protect.
“Either way, what she [the woman] wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.”
Did she just compare an unborn child to a cavity?
Marcotte then goes on a seriously mature rant about the reasons she does not want a child:“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness.”
On the topic of adoption, Marcotte sums up her feelings simply:“Adoption? F-you, seriously.” That’s a heck of an argument.
MORE:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/03/1...
Oh waaaahaahaa, we can't recind the constitutional rights of women. Boo hoo hoo. We can force women to submit to our belief in myths against her will. Sob hiccup WHY oh WHY can't we force other people to to do what we demand no matter how stupid it is? This ia Murica after all and WE have special RIGHTS because we are MYTH BELIEVERS and since gawd makes us bettee WE get to do what WE WANT. Libtards are NAZIS!!! Sniffle, pout.
WHO ARE WE

Dover, OH

#323266 Mar 19, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
http://prospect.org/article/st opping-domestic-violence-radic al-feminist-idea
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT

What's your bent?

We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it.

When was the Prospect founded?

1990

By whom?

Robert Kuttner, Paul Starr, and Robert Reich. ROBERT REICH another CLINTON confidant who's 'progressive'/SOCIALIST just like Shillary! OOPS there's my War On Woman moment...hahaha

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323267 Mar 19, 2014
FIGHTING THE DEMS WOW wrote:
As she did in the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly, an activist of the Christian right who rose to prominence as an anti-feminist leader in the 1970s, is leading the charge to kill VAWA. She claims the law is not about stopping violence so much as “promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” She employs the same strategy as she did in the fight against the ERA—lying—to support her arguments, claiming that under VAWA, men can be jailed without trial. She also said that men can be jailed merely for yelling at a woman and that the bill doesn’t offer help to male victims of violence—both outright lies. She also objects to laws that make it easier for prosecutors to proceed in cases where victims retract, even though research shows that guilty men persuade victims to retract in a substantial number of domestic-violence claims.
Other conservative lobbying groups have picked up the charge. As reported at Talking Points Memo, FreedomWorks, the super PAC led by Republican and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey until recently, echoed Schlafly’s claims adding that “supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims—this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.” The implication: Simply refusing to call raped or battered people “victims” makes the whole problem go away.
THANK YOU MS SCHLAFLY!
Exposing just another progressive 'victim' scam by keeping woman just like minorities dependent on big brother, this time it's BIG SIS.
TEATHUGLICANS SUCK.

LMAO. Thank you Mrs. Schlafly! I love it when deluded lunatics that believe in fairytales expose their misogyny and self loathing. It reminds real women of what generations of strong independent brilliant women were up against in the fight for equality. It shows young women, who takes these freedoms for granted because theyve ALWAYS had them, that hateful, self righteous, liars, worked hard, demonizing, slut shaming, and even jailing, as they are doing right now, to keep women as second class citizens, dependant on men, and subservient to a system that ridicules and controls them based on their anatomy. Women like Mrs. Schafly, hate their own gender and want to force all women to submit to her sickness because she can't get out from under the psycological damage done to her by her weak minded myth belief. Sorry, Sister. Not happening. Women are not going backwards. We won. We will keep our rights, thank you. We will keep winning against your hate and deception and bloviating nonsense. We are smart. We don't need you to tell us what is good or right for us. WE have EQUAL RIGHTS. Deal with it.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323268 Mar 19, 2014
WHO ARE WE wrote:
<quoted text>
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
What's your bent?
We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it.
When was the Prospect founded?
1990
By whom?
Robert Kuttner, Paul Starr, and Robert Reich. ROBERT REICH another CLINTON confidant who's 'progressive'/SOCIALIST just like Shillary! OOPS there's my War On Woman moment...hahaha
Those are also the people who will be advisors to the next Presidental Adminisrtation of Clinton/Warren and the American People.

Its gunna suck for you extremeist righties for the next 16 years or more. RIP GOP.

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) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,431,585
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr Bruin Nation 32,399
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 7 hr Brian_G 10,074
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Joe Fortuna 257,121
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