Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 320175 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.

CDII

United States

#324333 Apr 30, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>Tiller the Baby Killer got what he deserved

Call it vigilante justice
I bet you're really pissed off it wasn't you who pulled the trigger. Ain't ya, ya fetus worshiper?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324335 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say you've never mentioned her name here, then how is it that there are some people here who are privy to that information?
It's called Facebook, and you're not a Facebook friend. I never mentioned her name here, but you knew it, and you're not a Facebook friend, which means you're creepy. You went out of your way to let me know that you knew who she was, and again, you did it in a disgusting way. Man up, and own it you creepy, creepy, little man.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324336 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try and play that card if you want Grace. But, your bluff has already been called.
Here's the point you're missing babe, if you want something kept private, don't spill the proverbial "beans."
What bluff? What bluff did I make? Tell me that (you'll avoid it of course, cause you can never man up, so one more time because I can see you're probably not good at your job.

Why did you want me to know you knew my daughter's name, and why did you use her in that way?

And

What bluff?

You're a Lawyer, if you bring something up, defend it. You can't twist this CDII.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324337 Apr 30, 2014
KatieKatieKatie wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some weirdoes right here on this thread who were dancing with the news of Dr. Tiller's Death. Some, apparently, still are. Nut jobs indeed.
They should dance when hearing the news about a Death Row inmate that deserves to die, getting it. I do. Tiller did the job he believed in, and what he did wasn't illegal. It may not have been too liked with certain people, and heck, like I've said before, after a while, that ship has sailed. If the mom's healthy, and the baby (whatever you want to call it) is fine, leave it be. That's my take. But killing the guy in his own church? Yeah, nooo
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#324338 Apr 30, 2014
"Women across the state will be plunged back into the dark days of back-alley procedures that Roe was supposed to end" if HB 1390 goes into effect, Julie Rikelman, the attorney for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said Monday. "The devastating impact of this unconstitutional law couldn’t be clearer."

Mississippi May Become the First State Since Roe v. Wade to Be Without a Single Abortion Provider

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/missi...

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324339 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try and play that card if you want Grace. But, your bluff has already been called.
Here's the point you're missing babe, if you want something kept private, don't spill the proverbial "beans."
If I had a dime for every time you used the word "proverbial", that's getting so old.

Anyways, I didn't bring up my daughter's name (AGAIN) you did. You wanted me to know you knew who she was.

There isn't a way I could have got a hold of you to say, "hey, please don't use my daughter's name, especially in that way" but you're banned, and I wouldn't want to private message you anyways. I'm calling it on you, and you don't have the balls to answer, and one more time..

Why?
and
What bluff did I make?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324340 Apr 30, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
"Women across the state will be plunged back into the dark days of back-alley procedures that Roe was supposed to end" if HB 1390 goes into effect, Julie Rikelman, the attorney for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said Monday. "The devastating impact of this unconstitutional law couldn’t be clearer."
Mississippi May Become the First State Since Roe v. Wade to Be Without a Single Abortion Provider
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/missi...
No access doesn't mean it's not going to get done, all it means is that it won't be done safely.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324341 Apr 30, 2014
BTW, if you're going to come back with if you don't want your daughter's name being used, then stop saying it, don't bother. This is now more than that, and I'm calling you on it.
You said it FIRST, you wanted me to know you knew who she was, and why did you use that disgusting example of her to let me know
and
What bluff?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324342 Apr 30, 2014
Jorja Fox wrote:
"Women across the state will be plunged back into the dark days of back-alley procedures that Roe was supposed to end" if HB 1390 goes into effect, Julie Rikelman, the attorney for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said Monday. "The devastating impact of this unconstitutional law couldn’t be clearer."
Mississippi May Become the First State Since Roe v. Wade to Be Without a Single Abortion Provider
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/missi...
That article, I just read it, a tad upsetting (to say the least)

Since: Apr 12

Willcox, AZ

#324343 Apr 30, 2014
Did everyone read the UPDATE on Adoptees NJ new laws.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/04/28/n...

No abortion rates do not go up because adoption records are not sealed. They aren't open to the public. But they aren't sealed to the parties involved.
CDII

United States

#324345 Apr 30, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>It's called Facebook, and you're not a Facebook friend. I never mentioned her name here, but you knew it, and you're not a Facebook friend, which means you're creepy. You went out of your way to let me know that you knew who she was, and again, you did it in a disgusting way. Man up, and own it you creepy, creepy, little man.
Gracie; why do you harbor this morbid desire to volunteer information about you and your family to strangers or to those whom you, expressly state, are not your friends?

Must be a Canadian thing.

Man up to whom; you? You're a nobody to me. Why should I "man up" to someone the existence of whom is completely irrelevant to my life?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#324346 Apr 30, 2014
Which is peachy as long as women who put kids up for adoption have a right to block their identity if they choose to. There's a constitutional right to privacy.
joanNYadoptees wrote:
Did everyone read the UPDATE on Adoptees NJ new laws.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/04/28/n...
No abortion rates do not go up because adoption records are not sealed. They aren't open to the public. But they aren't sealed to the parties involved.
CDII

United States

#324347 Apr 30, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>What bluff? What bluff did I make? Tell me that (you'll avoid it of course, cause you can never man up, so one more time because I can see you're probably not good at your job.
Why did you want me to know you knew my daughter's name, and why did you use her in that way?
And
What bluff?
You're a Lawyer, if you bring something up, defend it. You can't twist this CDII.
Defend what? What of mine is at stake on Topix?

This is the bluff I'm talking about Gracie; but for your inability to keep your private matters private, no one would have known who Alexandra is. I expressly declined to make that disclosure. And you're trying to make it sound as if I mentioned her with some sort of ulterior motive, or with the intention of letting others know anything about your private life, when all along it was you who disclosed a private fact that no mother I know would have.

You can keep trying all you want, but you'll only end up banging your proverbial "head" against the wall.

I have nothing to defend, because I have nothing at stake on this forum and most certainly, from you.
CDII

United States

#324348 Apr 30, 2014
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>If I had a dime for every time you used the word "proverbial", that's getting so old.
Anyways, I didn't bring up my daughter's name (AGAIN) you did. You wanted me to know you knew who she was.
There isn't a way I could have got a hold of you to say, "hey, please don't use my daughter's name, especially in that way" but you're banned, and I wouldn't want to private message you anyways. I'm calling it on you, and you don't have the balls to answer, and one more time..
Why?
and
What bluff did I make?
Wow Gracie, do you nag your husband this much as well?

What bluff did you make? Simple; you're accusing me of using your daughter's name on this forum, when all I did was bring up A NAME. I did not state the relationship of that name to you. In fact, I expressly stated I would not. YOU DID. You're the one who stated Alexandra is your daughter. Not me, YOU. And now your bluff has been called, not only by me, but also by Not A Playa 1965:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Now, do I need to draw you a picture in crayon so you can understand it dear?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324349 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
Gracie; why do you harbor this morbid desire to volunteer information about you and your family to strangers or to those whom you, expressly state, are not your friends?
Must be a Canadian thing.
Man up to whom; you? You're a nobody to me. Why should I "man up" to someone the existence of whom is completely irrelevant to my life?
It doesn't matter if I know you or not, it's your character. Your character doesn't matter? Fine that it doesn't matter what I think, but in general, you're definitely hurting in the character image. You look like a really creepy, creepy little man. Man up and admit what your intentions were. It's not hard yet you continue to dance.

Must be a Lawyer thing.

I'm not anyone to you? So. You're not anything to me but a creepy little man that wanted it to be made clear that you know who my daughter is? And to top that up, your using her in that way.

Don't give yourself too much importance, you're not. You're annoyed because I'm calling you on your character. Proving your irrelevance (which you have) isn't what I'm calling you on.

Why did you want me to know you knew who my daughter was?

And

What was the bluff I made that you called me on?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324350 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
Defend what?
Why you wanted me to know that you knew who my daughter is, and why you used her in that way.
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
What of mine is at stake on Topix?
The same as everyone else's stake. Not anything, but your word.
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the bluff I'm talking about Gracie; but for your inability to keep your private matters private, no one would have known who Alexandra is. I expressly declined to make that disclosure.
No, you wanted me to know you knew her name, and used a disgusting example involving her. YOU brought her into existence here, and I called you on it.
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're trying to make it sound as if I mentioned her with some sort of ulterior motive, or with the intention of letting others know anything about your private life, when all along it was you who disclosed a private fact that no mother I know would have.
Wrong, you brought it up, you used disturbing example, and I am calling you on it. Do you actually believe she would have been brought up any other way if you hadn't have done it yourself?
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
I have nothing to defend, because I have nothing at stake on this forum and most certainly, from you.
Yet you continue to dance.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324351 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow Gracie, do you nag your husband this much as well?
What bluff did you make? Simple; you're accusing me of using your daughter's name on this forum, when all I did was bring up A NAME. I did not state the relationship of that name to you. In fact, I expressly stated I would not. YOU DID. You're the one who stated Alexandra is your daughter. Not me, YOU. And now your bluff has been called, not only by me, but also by Not A Playa 1965:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Now, do I need to draw you a picture in crayon so you can understand it dear?
I don't really care if people know her name or her attachment to me, I'm sure there are a few here that do. I just want to know why you felt it necessary to let me know that you knew who she was. Why did you want me to know that you knew about my daughter, and why did you attach a disgusting example? Do you need a crayon?

Are you really that simple? Seriously?

Now dance some more. You're not really good at it, and I know your job depends a lot on it, so practice.

Answer me then why you wanted me to know that you knew who my daughter is, and why that sorry example you used.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#324352 Apr 30, 2014
CDII wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow Gracie, do you nag your husband this much as well?
When I try to call him on something, and he dances around a lot.....He doesn't really, so I don't need to.
LTT

Prestonsburg, KY

#324353 Apr 30, 2014
I'm speaking to someone, maybe more than one of you readers, here, about your baby that is inside you. I am asking you, please, in the name of love, to spare your baby and let it live. Please let your heart turn toward your baby, and love it. Ask God to help you to love it. He will. Your baby may well do something necessary for others, in this life. Whatever it will do, it will do what it was intended to do. It will make a difference in the life of someone. That someone needs to be loved by your baby. Save your child and do not abort it---in the name of love. If for some reason you can't keep it, I know you can find someone who will adore it. Nevertheless, there is a purpose for your child. Save it in the name of love, and love for it. Please!

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#324354 Apr 30, 2014
"LTT"
I'm speaking to someone, maybe more than one of you readers, here, about your baby that is inside you. I am asking you, please, in the name of love, to spare your baby and let it live. Please let your heart turn toward your baby, and love it. Ask God to help you to love it. He will. Your baby may well do something necessary for others, in this life. Whatever it will do, it will do what it was intended to do. It will make a difference in the life of someone. That someone needs to be loved by your baby. Save your child and do not abort it---in the name of love. If for some reason you can't keep it, I know you can find someone who will adore it. Nevertheless, there is a purpose for your child. Save it in the name of love, and love for it. Please!

==========
you sound like some tv preacher,fleecing the flock in the name of an imaginary friend.....don't like abortion? don't have one,its really that simple.so simple that even an xtain can do it.

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) 30 min Rattlesnake Pete 1,642,915
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 34,838
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 18 hr Poor performance 11,802
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 9 Randy-From-Wooster 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep '17 The pope 258,482
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web