Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,952
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. Full Story
Raymond Burr
#323694 Apr 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
He's just a troll who's formed some kind of dependence on me. I never respond to him.
<quoted text>
And let's keep it that way shall we, lardass ?
Now shut up and turn around. Yum.....
Common Sense

Chicago, IL

#323695 Apr 14, 2014
VoteVets Org wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you or anyone else considers sex to be PRIMARILY for procreation or not is irrelevant to your claim.
You said sex was not for procreation. A basic refresher course in anatomy and biology would reveal that to be likely the most imbecilic statement on this or any other forum.
Don't sell this bubble brain Noah short when it comes to imbecilic statements. He also cited childbirth and working for a living as proof that SEX for procreation is a chore. I know when my husband and I were trying to conceive ( read that intending to procreate ) it was great sex. Neither thoughts of child birth or working to support a child changed that.
Has this nitwit yet explained how SEX for procreation must be a chore ?
SassyJerkov

New Britain, CT

#323700 Apr 14, 2014
Christers stink up everything with their sickness.
SassyJerkov

New Britain, CT

#323701 Apr 14, 2014
Frigid old Christards!
Common Sense

Chicago, IL

#323702 Apr 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Baloney.
My parents gave me life. And it certainly wasn't G-d who took Steven Brown's life; it was Marion Rosenstein.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-04-09/n...
<quoted text>
Ever heard of asexual reproduction? Ever heard of the Ameba? Ever heard of IVF? Ever heard of sperm banks and of the many women who go there and buy a sample, insert it, and end up pregnant?
<quoted text>
Probably the best gift G-d gave man, and woman.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. I decided I didn't want to fertilize any more eggs, of any other woman, so I had a vasectomy. I decided. Not G-d.
<quoted text>

Thank you! Proof that sex was primarily intended for pleasure, not for reproduction. If it was primarily intended for reproduction then every sex act would lead to conception. We know that's not true, not only because you've admitted it, but because it's common knowledge.
<quoted text>

Absurd. It proves nothing of the kind. Ever hear of sexual/ejaculatory anhedonia? Rape ? Not every act of sex is pleasurable. Even intercourse that is not pleasurable can result in pregnancy. So by your logic if it was primarily intended for pleasure then every act of sexual intercourse would be pleasurable.

I must admit, I love tearing your dumb logic to pieces.
Common Sense

Chicago, IL

#323703 Apr 14, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
When you were getting f*cked (I'm sorry I meant laid..ooops, sorry again, I mean made love to) by your husband when, as you claim you were "trying to conceive:" were you:
A- concerned more with conception than with the pleasure of sex;
B- concerned more with you having an orgasm (do you know what that is or is your husband a "minute man?"), or better yet, your husband having one; or
C- it did not matter and you moaned and groaned; the pitch of your voice raised a couple of octaves, and you yelled "Oh god," "yes, yes, yes, yes?"
If A, then sex was a chore. If B, then sex could have been for pleasure. If C, then sex was DEFINITELY for pleasure.
You be honest and answer truthfully. I remind you that one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness."
How old are you? Really ? You sound like a 10 year old boy snickering in the back of the classroom while the teacher discusses sex education. Is this what you feel you need to resort to in order to try an explain a totally absurd and indefensible statement as the one you made ?
Grow up.
The fact is my husband and I were ready and wanted to become parents. We were trying to become pregnant. I don't know if it was the fact that accidental/unwanted pregnancy was no longer a concern but the sex we had while trying to become pregnant was fantastic. Certainly not non-pleasurable and not by ANY stretch a chore.
Your original assertion that SEX for procreation would had to have been made a non pleasurable chore was and is ridiculous, as have been all of your subsequent futile and hilarious attempts to explain it. How exactly does the pain of childbirth or working for a living negate a pleasurable sex act being done with the express intent of becoming pregnant ?
Either explain why sex for procreation has to be non pleasurable, with an explanation that makes even the slightest amount of sense. Or admit you made a mistake and move on.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#323704 Apr 14, 2014
Mad taxpayer wrote:
In my personal opinion Abortion is Murder. this terrible law is here to stay though. I just ask the government to consider this; since Invitrofertilization is $20,000 and not covered by most insurance plans , why dont we level the playing field $20,000 for abortion. Why just a co pay to take a life of a baby and a 2nd mortgage for infertility treatments to have a baby? I did IVF twice I wanted a baby and couldnt have one without fertility treatments. Where was my right ? i had to pay 25K to get pregnant with my son, the 2nd ivf failed 20k gone. I have one child. its so easy to kill these babies and so hard for me to have one.
IVF is a much, much more complicated and expensive. Abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure. You don't get to set prices based upon emotion.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323707 Apr 14, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
How old are you? Really ? You sound like a 10 year old boy snickering in the back of the classroom while the teacher discusses sex education. Is this what you feel you need to resort to in order to try an explain a totally absurd and indefensible statement as the one you made ?
Grow up.
The fact is my husband and I were ready and wanted to become parents. We were trying to become pregnant. I don't know if it was the fact that accidental/unwanted pregnancy was no longer a concern but the sex we had while trying to become pregnant was fantastic. Certainly not non-pleasurable and not by ANY stretch a chore.
Your original assertion that SEX for procreation would had to have been made a non pleasurable chore was and is ridiculous, as have been all of your subsequent futile and hilarious attempts to explain it. How exactly does the pain of childbirth or working for a living negate a pleasurable sex act being done with the express intent of becoming pregnant ?
Either explain why sex for procreation has to be non pleasurable, with an explanation that makes even the slightest amount of sense. Or admit you made a mistake and move on.
The only other animals which enjoy sex as much as we (both genders) do, are dolphins, whales, and octopi.

Ask a female cat whether she thinks sex is a chore, or a hobby...

...given that this https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/648660921...
is what she's got to work with. There are spikes on that thing.

God made her too - we're a lucky species.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#323708 Apr 15, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>The only other animals which enjoy sex as much as we (both genders) do, are dolphins, whales, and octopi.
Ask a female cat whether she thinks sex is a chore, or a hobby...
...given that this https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/648660921...
is what she's got to work with. There are spikes on that thing.
God made her too - we're a lucky species.
Youch! That's got to hurt. Oh well, too bad for the female cat. But it's still got to be pleasurable for the male cat or else why would he do it ? And as Noah so expertly points out, unilateral pleasure is pleasure nonetheless. Thanks.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#323709 Apr 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And not every act of sex results in pregnancy. So what's your point?
That you had no point. And the fact that not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy is as relevant to the point that SEX was intended for procreation, as the fact that not every act of sex is pleasurable is relevant to the fact that SEX was intended for pleasure.
Do you need to be kicked in your atrophied, blank shooting nuts with the point in order to see it ?
why are you suggesting that isolated cases, most of which are caused by medical abnormalities, disprove that sex is far more a tool of pleasure than a tool for reproduction?
Because I'm not, genius. I'm suggesting that the fact that not all acts of intercourse result in pregnancy in no way at all PROVES that SEX was not intended for procreation.
What a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal! Just because rape is not pleasurable to the victim, does not mean sex via rape isn't pleasurable. It's, more likely than not, pleasurable for the attacker. So, for all practical purposes, rape is still pleasurable, albeit unilaterally.
No, what's pathetic is being asked to prove your premise that SEX would be a chore if it was intended for procreation, and attempting to prove it by citing scripture references to the pain of childbirth and working hard for a living. As if either of those had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the pleasurability of the SEX act.
Now THAT is pathetic.
You couldn't tear a piece of tissue paper.
And yet I had no problem at all tearing your argument to bits. Doesn't say much for you now, does it ?
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#323710 Apr 15, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
All irrelevant since there is no god. Sex is pleasurable because the continuation of the species depends on it.
Of course it is. But Noah would have us believe that if it were for procreation and continuation of the species, it would be a non pleasurable chore.
He has yet to explain why. Though not for lack of trying.

Wait a second. I remember you. You're the one that congratulated him for his brilliance when he made that stupid statement.
Do you even bother to read what you just blindly applaud ?

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323711 Apr 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
And the fact that not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy is as relevant to the point that SEX was intended for procreation,
No dear. You're wrong. It is perfectly relevant. As has been explained to you repeatedly, dense, is that if sex were intended for procreation,(the original claim), every sex act would result in pregnancy. What part of that are you not getting?(Oh sorry.... the sex. No pun intended)

Just because you can not grasp the logic does not mean it isn't perfectly logical AND correct.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
as the fact that not every act of sex is pleasurable is relevant to the fact that SEX was intended for pleasure.
What part of "unilateral pleasure" flew over your head?

No one but YOU said there was NO pleasure in the act.

You are changing NRS point to suit your false premise. Logical FAIL.

Straw man. Now, go ask the wizard for a brain.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm suggesting that the fact that not all acts of intercourse result in pregnancy in no way at all PROVES that SEX was not intended for procreation.
"NoahRS:

Look who's talking about being ignorant!!

We're talking about sex and sassyjm's claim that G-d's intention for sex was procreation. We're not talking about procreation only idios.

Sex is NOT needed for procreation to occur ya dope."

http://www.topix.com/forum/tv/the-national/T8...

THIS is the argument.

You being so smart and all, why are you pretending he said something else? Why do you need to change NRS original argument?

Why don't you dispute his actual claim???

Sex is NOT NEEDED for procreation.

DO try to focus. It only makes you look stupid or dishonest when you don't stick to the actual argument.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what's pathetic is being asked to prove your premise that SEX would be a chore if it was intended for procreation, and attempting to prove it by citing scripture.......
Well, I have to agree with you here. Since the bible is a fairy tale, it really can not be used to proved anything at all. Well, I suppose the bible can be used to prove what the bible claims, but not what "god intended" because there is no "god".

SO following *YOUR* "logic", scripture can not be used to prove what a non-existent entity intended, either way. Procreation or pleasure. Chore or not.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet I had no problem at all tearing your argument to bits..
Oh, sweetie, that is SO precious. DO let us know when you have reached this lofty goal.*eye roll*
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't say much for you now, does it ?

Well, Dearie, FACT is, your delusions say nothing about him. They sure do say a lot about YOU, though.

I am finding it endlessly amusing that you are so busy trying to prove how smart you are, you keep missing the points, and logic, by miles.

NRS is right, it really is pointless addressing you. You are either incapable, or being deliberately obtuse. But thanks SO much for playing along. I love educating women like you. Your thought process is so much like Swiney's its spooky.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323714 Apr 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what's pathetic is being asked to prove your premise that SEX would be a chore if it was intended for procreation, and attempting to prove it by citing scripture references to the pain of childbirth and working hard for a living. As if either of those had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the pleasurability of the SEX act.
Now THAT is pathetic.
One final point here.(and this is how you can tell stupid people who are making sh!t up as they go along, from truly smart people, with well thought out arguments, and FACTS, and the ability to tell a logically valid point from BULLSH!T.)

You JUST SAID that:

1. Being asked to prove a premise that sex would be a chore and using "scripture references" to prove it is "pathetic".

2. AND that NRS used an unrelated bible verse (about child birth and hard work) in an attempt to show that sex would be a chore and not pleasurable if it were only intended for procreation, "As if either of those had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the pleasurability of the SEX act."

SO......

Where are the bible verses that are against abortion?

WHERE is it your "god" claims that abortion is a "sin?

Or that abortion is "murder"?

Or that birth control is wrong?

I'll wait for your answers, Brainiac.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323715 Apr 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is. But Noah would have us believe that if it were for procreation and continuation of the species, it would be a non pleasurable chore.
He has yet to explain why. Though not for lack of trying.
Actually, that is NOT what he said and NO ONE is required to addresses YOUR logical faliures.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a second. I remember you. You're the one that congratulated him for his brilliance when he made that stupid statement.
DID I "congratulate him? You'll have to cite that post.
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even bother to read what you just blindly applaud ?
LOL. I guess you are just about to find out.

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323716 Apr 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I think her dose of intelligence comes from when her husband deposits his "seed" inside her. It doesn't only not happen enough, most of it falls out when she jumps out of bed to wash off. Assuming, of course, he has a long enough tool to make a deeper "deposit."
What do you think?? ;-)
I think that poor "common sense" picked the wrong name.

I also think those deposits stopped long ago and the intelligence contained in them was limited. Or perhaps the receptacle is just too defective to process it?? Let's give her credit for her great imagination though! Everybody needs one.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#323717 Apr 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious; from which university did you graduate? i wonder whether they still have a course on mind reading. I may want to enroll, just to take that class. My having a third college degree would not hurt any, especially one that offers mind-reading credentials. Just think how much more effective I would be in court.
<quoted text>
So why is it then that the number of conceptions from sex does not equal the number of times people have sex? G-d made it pleasurable so we would to it? Why didn't he make working pleasurable? I tell you; because of the betrayal of a woman.
<quoted text>
Is not what don't I get, but what don't you get. And the answer is, enough sex. I get more sex than you do, and that's a fact. See, neither my wife, nor I, have a reason to abstain, since we're both surgically incapable of procreating.

Which, brings up a point. If G-d invented sex for procreation; why did he give men the wisdom to medically transform sex into a purely and unadulterated form of pleasure?
Man didn't "transform" sex as you so stupidly put it. The sex act itself remains unchanged. Man only prevented or blocked ( surgically or through barrier or chemical forms of birth control ) the reproductive aspect of sex, for which it was clearly, anatomically and biologically intended.
Why is it your attempts at explaining your absurd premise only serve to refute it ? Are ya senile ? Devoid of any sense ? What ?

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323718 Apr 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Man didn't "transform" sex as you so stupidly put it. The sex act itself remains unchanged. Man only prevented or blocked ( surgically or through barrier or chemical forms of birth control ) the reproductive aspect of sex, for which it was clearly, anatomically and biologically intended.
Why is it your attempts at explaining your absurd premise only serve to refute it ? Are ya senile ? Devoid of any sense ? What ?
You seem to be having some difficulty locating that bible scripture about abortion. So, hey, while you are looking, find some that say god says that sex is for procreation, and not for pleasure. STILL waiting......

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323721 Apr 15, 2014
NoahRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo retard!!!
The reproductive aspect of sex. What remains unchanged, is the pleasure aspect of sex. Given that such remains unchanged, it's axiomatic that sex was primarily intended for pleasure, not for reproduction.
And that's how it's done.

I'm willing to bet "Common" doesn't come back for a while.

:-)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#323722 Apr 15, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Youch! That's got to hurt. Oh well, too bad for the female cat. But it's still got to be pleasurable for the male cat or else why would he do it ? And as Noah so expertly points out, unilateral pleasure is pleasure nonetheless. Thanks.
Ah.

So, from this ^^ I gather you're in favor of the characterization of sex as a 'chore'

("...too bad for the FEMALE cat...")

as long as your OWN gender is able to view it otherwise.

Why am I unsurprised by this?

Next....

“Troll Be Gone.”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#323724 Apr 15, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
I am not sure where the Law came up with the idea that it is legal to murder a baby?
I suppose some "educated" Judge can convince himself of anything.
With that being said it really takes a cold heart to pull the trigger
Ok.

1. It is against the law to murder a baby.

2. An educated judge knows that women have rights. Thank education and the Founders!!

3. If you see anyone shooting a baby, dial 9-1-1.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Realtime 1,153,219
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr polymath257 232,713
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr Pietro Armando 201,150
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,659
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr Bruin For Life 28,359
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue The Real Daniel S... 281
More from around the web