Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,565
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

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324030 Apr 21, 2014
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Take a class, join a club or group, volunteer somewhere, etc... there's a lot to do out there. Life is really very interesting.
Ya thanks for the suggestion, but that takes energy. How much energy do I use sitting behind a comp? Thanks elise in burque for the suggestion, I will actually look into something like that. I love playing cards, I love playing pool. Maybe I can join a bridge club or a league of some sort? hmmmmm I was invited to join a pool league.... hmmmm

Your ploy to have me do something else other than be here may have worked my dear! TIA
Jorja Fox

Eagle Rock, VA

#324032 Apr 22, 2014
SORRY DEAR wrote:
<quoted text>but TWO people are responsible for a pregnancy.
You are correct and with any luck the 2 of them will make the right decisions for them and no one else. But all to often the guy involved runs when he hears the word pregnant-then the pregnant woman with help from family makes the right decision for her. But in the end it is HER decision and her decision alone to make the call.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324034 Apr 22, 2014
Since 75% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, "god" is the biggest abortionist of all.
God wrote:
<quoted text>
64,000 posts on abortion and the support of murdering of countless millions of unborn children? Pathetic Bitner.....happy Passover

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324035 Apr 22, 2014
I don't own a Ouija board, so I don't know. I DO know that, while she did not approve of abortion, she believed that what other women did was none of her business.
God wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you asked your mother would any of these babies aborted would be dead if not for a medically induced abortion she would say to you?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324036 Apr 22, 2014
Gay marriage is a good one for polarized debate, or probably anything in the religious forums. Anything involving the tea party's ripe for a little RC magic, too. They won't know what hit'em.:)
R C Honey wrote:
Alright guys, I just don't have any where else to go. I mean, I've tried, I've tried really, really hard, but no one takes me seriously.
I don't want to be funny, I try not to be funny, but I'm not taken seriously! Apparently, I'm pretty funny with a great sense of humour, and they just don't see what I want them to see. They don't see me for me.
At least here, you guys already see it. I don't have anything to prove, because here, I'm not accepted, I'm not considered one of you, and I'm used to it. Over at the other places, it's like,,,, it's like they want me to be one of them, and join in the niceties of everyday how are you guys, and what have you been up to lately? I know you guys have clued in that I'm bored out of my tree, Bitner called it, and it's pretty obvious, but dang guys, I'm a troll without a home. I've been banished, and disgraced (no pun on my name btw)
Is there some other hot topic where it's one side or the other that I can fit in with being on one side with no gray? Any suggestions?
No Chicky, as much as you want to tell me where to go WITH directions, I don't think that place is feasibly possible while alive, and again, as much as you want me to make that possible, that's not really an option, but thanks for the suggestion anyways.
What's a hot topic with two very distinct sides with no gray?
__________
My coveted two cents on this issue.... it's not what it's called, it's how you view it. Lots of gray here. You can be middle of the line as your opinion.
Lame

United States

#324037 Apr 22, 2014
RvW
Common Sense

New York, NY

#324038 Apr 22, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, the actual original claim by Noah the clueless puppet was that if sex were intended for procreation, it would be a chore and NOT pleasurable. It's right there in post 323,390 ( good thing my response is there because that foul mouthed clown got bounced)
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.
<quoted text>
Would you argue that eyes were not intended for sight because some are born blind ? Would you argue that legs were not intended for walking because some are born paralyzed ? Why couldn't nature, or some supreme being, or the Wiccan god of procreation, intend sex for procreation but introduce ovulation cycles and slow sperm, etc as built in population metering methods....hmmm ? The logic that says if sex were intended for procreation then every secco act would result in pregnancy, has no logic at all.
]What part of "unilateral pleasure" flew over your head?
Absolutely none since I referenced it in my response to playa. You grammy, are a fool.
No one but YOU said there was NO pleasure in the act.
You are changing NRS point to suit your false premise. Logical FAIL.
No that would be YOU. You are going to address his original point at some time, aren't you ?
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.
My problem was not his use of scripture but what PASSAGES of scripture he used. Just how does the pain of childbirth and working for a living
make sex for procreation a non pleasurable chore?
Oh, sweetie, that is SO precious. DO let us know when you have reached this lofty goal.*eye roll*
<quoted text>
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.
Duhhh.....which way did he go George ? Which way did he go ?
Common Sense

New York, NY

#324039 Apr 22, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Wrong. I said scripture references to childbirth and work were pathetic attempts to prove his premise. Pay attention you old prune.
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?
Beats me. I never said there were any.
WHERE is it your "god" claims that abortion is a "sin?
"My" god ? Where did I ever say anything about god ?
Or that abortion is "murder"?
I don't believe it's murder.
Or that birth control is wrong?
I support birth control
I'll wait for your answers, Brainiac.
What do you do while you wait.....count the folds in your wrinkly old ass ?
Common Sense

New York, NY

#324040 Apr 22, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that is NOT what he said and NO ONE is required to addresses YOUR logical faliures.
Well uhh.....actually miss purdy.... that's exactly what he said : "Better yet; if what you say is true then sex would not be pleasurable at all; it would be a chore."
DID I "congratulate him? You'll have to cite that post.

My, if you'll pardon the expression you frigid old bat, pleasure....
323,494: "LMAO ! That was great. I love a brilliant mind! Can't wait for a response. I am doubting there will be much common sense in it!"

[QUOTE]LOL. I guess you are just about to find out.
You too granny.
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#324042 Apr 22, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be having some difficulty locating that bible scripture about abortion.
I never said there was one. And you're the only one that said I was looking.
So, hey, while you are looking, find some that say god says that sex is for procreation, and not for pleasure.
Never said he said it. I just said that IF it was intended for procreation, why on earth would it have to be a chore, like the idiot who got banned said ?
STILL waiting.....
Still counting those smelly cheesy folds ?
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#324043 Apr 22, 2014
ChickBrilliance wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's how it's done.
I'm willing to bet "Common" doesn't come back for a while.
:-)
How much did you bet, stupid ?

What do you think the odds are that Noah doesn't come back for a while, eh ?
Common Sense

Brooklyn, NY

#324044 Apr 22, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Ah.
So, from this ^^ I gather you're in favor of the characterization of sex as a 'chore'
("...too bad for the FEMALE cat...")
No you dunce. Can you not read ? It's pleasurable for the male and that's all that matters. As Noah said before the jerk was unceremoniously bounced, unilateral pleasure is pleasure nonetheless.
as long as your OWN gender is able to view it otherwise.
Why am I unsurprised by this?
My own gender ? Forget who were talking to there Stinky ?
Next....
You say something totally stupid and which demonstrates you don't know how to read, and then you say "Next" ? What's up with that ?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#324047 Apr 22, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
My own gender ? Forget who were talking to there Stinky ?
No - I just don't happen to believe you're a female there, Wrinkles.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#324050 Apr 22, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
How much did you bet, stupid ?
What do you think the odds are that Noah doesn't come back for a while, eh ?
Noah who?

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#324051 Apr 22, 2014
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Noah who?
Clearly it's this guy my dear lady, I mean, whom else could they mean...?



;P

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#324052 Apr 22, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
A Fetus is a Human Being
A Newborn is a Human Being
A Baby is a Human Being
A Toddler is a Human Being
A Adolescent is a Human Being
A Teenager is a Human Being
An Adult is a Human Being
An Elderly is a Human Being
This is clear both in the Law and by definition.
Okay, is a fertilized egg a "person" whom, by our Constitution, is granted unalienable "human" rights?
Is a Zygote a person who's granted unalienable "human" rights.
At what point does a biological potentiality become a verifiable "Human Being" whose "rights" happen to "trump" that of the woman gestating her/him...?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#324053 Apr 22, 2014
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly it's this guy my dear lady, I mean, whom else could they mean...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oSomiNeUIfYXX
;P
Whoo! Noah's a hottie.
4life

Chapmanville, WV

#324054 Apr 22, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
How Pro-life are you.....really?
Do you defend the lives of fertilized ova which are daily flushed at in vitro fertilization clinics, because their parents find them extraneous?
Do you defend the right of Nadya Suleman (otherwise known as 'Octomom') and others who have large families they cannot support by themselves, to rely on public assistance to house, clothe, feed and provide medical care to the kids?
Do you defend the lives of children in America, who are starving, abused, or abandoned, by protesting overseas adoptions?
Do you defend the lives of children overseas, who are suffering from depredation and drone strikes?
Do you defend the life of those who commit heinous crimes?
Unless you can answer ALL these questions with an unhesitating YES, then you are not "Pro-Life". You are "Pro-fetus" or "Pro-what-life-you-consid er-to-be-important."
(Thought this deserved a repost. "How Pro-life are you?"
Good question.)
I'm sure a lot of Pro-Lifers value all life, but like everything else a person is passionate about, they cannot possibly have the time or resources to accomplish everything you just mentioned.
If a persons passion is to end abortion, and just get the life here in the first place, then so-be-it.
I'm sure there are animal activists out there who care for all animals, yet they zero in on one, because it isn't possible to save all. That is why you try to get the word out, because you need the help of fellow man. What better way to get that help than to be out there spreading the truth.
Oddly enough, all people would need to do is google a picture of an abortion victim. If it is not yet a "person," then why did the abortionist need to stop it's heart? Why did he or she need to pull it's arms and legs off? Why did he or she need to crush it's skull? You don't need to kill what is not living. That should fall under "duh," but unfortunately, many people like to be "right," so they ignore the facts. There are still millions of people living in the days of "information overload" who still believe it is just a "blob of tissue". Wow. I mean, just wow!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324055 Apr 22, 2014
The woman doesn't want to remain pregnant. It's not hard, for christ's sake. And since most abortions occur in the first trimester, they just use a medical ShopVac, no cutting required.
4life wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure a lot of Pro-Lifers value all life, but like everything else a person is passionate about, they cannot possibly have the time or resources to accomplish everything you just mentioned.
If a persons passion is to end abortion, and just get the life here in the first place, then so-be-it.
I'm sure there are animal activists out there who care for all animals, yet they zero in on one, because it isn't possible to save all. That is why you try to get the word out, because you need the help of fellow man. What better way to get that help than to be out there spreading the truth.
Oddly enough, all people would need to do is google a picture of an abortion victim. If it is not yet a "person," then why did the abortionist need to stop it's heart? Why did he or she need to pull it's arms and legs off? Why did he or she need to crush it's skull? You don't need to kill what is not living. That should fall under "duh," but unfortunately, many people like to be "right," so they ignore the facts. There are still millions of people living in the days of "information overload" who still believe it is just a "blob of tissue". Wow. I mean, just wow!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#324056 Apr 22, 2014
4life wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure a lot of Pro-Lifers value all life, but like everything else a person is passionate about, they cannot possibly have the time or resources to accomplish everything you just mentioned.
If a persons passion is to end abortion, and just get the life here in the first place, then so-be-it.
I'm sure there are animal activists out there who care for all animals, yet they zero in on one, because it isn't possible to save all. That is why you try to get the word out, because you need the help of fellow man. What better way to get that help than to be out there spreading the truth.
Oddly enough, all people would need to do is google a picture of an abortion victim. If it is not yet a "person," then why did the abortionist need to stop it's heart? Why did he or she need to pull it's arms and legs off? Why did he or she need to crush it's skull? You don't need to kill what is not living. That should fall under "duh," but unfortunately, many people like to be "right," so they ignore the facts. There are still millions of people living in the days of "information overload" who still believe it is just a "blob of tissue". Wow. I mean, just wow!
Nobody has ever said a fetus isn't living. It is true that the fetus isn't a person, yet. And, as has been pointed out, on-demand late-term abortions are uncommon and are illegal in almost all states. The "blob of tissue" you're referencing may be what some regard the embryo at early pregnancy. You're getting your developmental stages mixed up. Anyway, if you're against abortion, no one is expecting you to change your mind about that. If someone tries to force you to abort one of your pregnancies, call the authorities.

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) 17 min American Citizen 1,141,869
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 32 min Bruin Nation 28,170
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 37 min dont drink the ko... 2,134
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 39 min Eagle 12 231,830
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 5 hr Schmones 635
Haas Leads Purdue Past Grambling State, 82-30 16 hr ngzcaz 1
Pat Summitt files for divorce after 27 years of... (Aug '07) 22 hr MichaelAB 140

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE