Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.

Comments (Page 15,248)

Showing posts 304,941 - 304,960 of305,071
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325829
Sunday Jul 13
 
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
But "Who tempted who" , mr chooselife?
Go back to supporting your child molesting church, you inhuman scum.
What is so important about flying to th moon?
Sn thm som mony.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325830
Sunday Jul 13
 

Judged:

3

1

1

No, he's not. He's simply not. If anyone is, it's the kids' parents--if they even have parents.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's responsible for the piles of children's corpses trailing from Tegucigalpa to Texas. We're living in 2014, welcome to Obamaville.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325831
Sunday Jul 13
 
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
What is so important about flying to th moon?
Sn thm som mony.
I don't get this about you, why do you 'write' like a freaking idiot? Do you honestly think that people take you seriously when you 'write' like this?

You can pretend to ignore me, I don't care, the important this is, I know you read this.

Go text talk with people that will actually take the time to read you, and decipher your meaningless crap . I stopped trying to make sense of you ages ago.

Keep up your awesome work by showing people what you believe, because that way they can go the opposite route. If I were on the fence with this issue, you would sure push me over to the pro-choice side. Who wants to side with an idiot?
(the few sentences that I did get from you, I think you're pro-life, but I could be wrong)

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325832
Sunday Jul 13
 
You can pretend to ignore me, I don't care, the important thing (not this) is, I know you read this.

edited for the special.... that should read thing, not this. Most people would get that, but I feel I have to make special allowances for you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325833
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Junket wrote:
Go get'em Katie! GF, you rock.
I want to revisit the question that is always on JM's alleged mind. Do PC'ers limit choice by advocating a cut-off time frame (viability).
Yes.
This has been asked, answered by a few, and yet continues to come up.
When viability has been reached and there is no danger to the gestating woman or some horrible fetal abnormality - the momma ship has sailed.
I fail to see how anyone with a lick of common sense can not understand the difference between viable and a cluster of forming cells that may or may not come to term.
We DO see the difference. Open your eyes. You can still call yourself pro choice, that is if you define pro choice as supporting a woman's right to all choices pre-viability. It simply depends on how you define it.
Frankly I don't care what you call yourself. But the fact is you do NOT support a woman' right to FULL personal autonomy. It's still her body post viability.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325834
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

2

1

1

katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AJ :)
For some reason, my first response isn't showing. PCers don't limit choice by advocating restrictions at viability,
Yes they do.
After viability the choice to electively abort in the absence of danger to the mother or severe fetal abnormality, is OFF the table. If you remove choices, you are restricting choices. It doesn't matter when.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325835
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Junket wrote:
Ice cream would be good, Katie! May I have vanilla with a little caramel sauce, no nuts? Or just plain vanilla. Actually a hot fudge sundae would be nice. Who is paying? Am I paying? If you are paying I want a banana split with all the toppings.
Later can we go to a movie? Are you paying? If that is the case, I want popcorn (you bet, buttered and assaulted) and a super duper sized soda. Action films are nice, but I like romantic comedies the best - just sayin...
**********
Whatever you posted earlier is caught in the "twilight zone". I dislike when that happens, but I've learned it was not meant to be.
Dr. Spin (JM) when she shows up (which she will eventually), will pick ferociously at our (or at least my) posts. Sometimes I just speed read past her "blather". I'm the self-proclaimed something or an other - I forget - it was JM's post and not noteworthy.
Can I have some of that imaginary ice cream ? While I'm eating I can use sketches and diagrams to show how you don't support a woman's right to full personal autonomy.

Now all of a sudden it's not WHERE the human life is ( still in mom ) but WHAT the human life is. Which is what we've been saying all along.
Maybe we ARE closer in position than you really want to believe after all.

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325836
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

No ice cream for David today. Sorry pal.

Limiting discretionary abortion to 24 weeks has nothing to do with personal autonomy. It has plenty to do with common sense.

You can certainly pluck an example of a time limit from your intelligent head.

US citizens have more freedom than most, but there are still laws in place to protect us and protect us from others. A post-vi abortion might just as well be considered delivery of a premature neonate. The risks of that procedure far outweigh personal autonomy unless there are compelling factors.(Strictly my opinion.)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325837
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Advocating a mother kill her own unborn baby is always wrong unless her life is at stake or it was non consensual, even if your motives are good and you only want individuals to make their own private reproductive decisions. Abortion isn't contraception.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325838
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No, it isn't, and nobody said it was. You know what else isn't contraception?
Rhinoplasty
S'mores
The 1984 World Series
Guam
Junk drawers
Mastodons
Wafer-thin mints
The Volga
The Mayan Calendar

Lots and lots of things aren't contraceptives...really. They're still legal choices and actually exist.
Brian_G wrote:
Advocating a mother kill her own unborn baby is always wrong unless her life is at stake or it was non consensual, even if your motives are good and you only want individuals to make their own private reproductive decisions. Abortion isn't contraception.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325839
Monday Jul 14
 
Junket wrote:
No ice cream for David today. Sorry pal.
No harm. It was imaginary anyway.
Limiting discretionary abortion to 24 weeks has nothing to do with personal autonomy.
Of course it does. As long as that fetus resides in and is feeding off it's mother, whether it's viable or not, then it is ALL about that mother's personal autonomy. You may think restrictions after 24 weeks makes "common sense" sense, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that those restrictions are placed on a woman's autonomy.
As skin crawlingly despicable as she is, not a playa is the only one of you who is consistent in the support of a woman's full personal autonomy, at ANY time during pregnancy.
Why don't you ask her why she doesn't see the difference at viability, since as you said, any reasonable intelligent person would ?
It has plenty to do with common sense.
You can certainly pluck an example of a time limit from your intelligent head.
US citizens have more freedom than most, but there are still laws in place to protect us and protect us from others. A post-vi abortion might just as well be considered delivery of a premature neonate. The risks of that procedure far outweigh personal autonomy unless there are compelling factors.(Strictly my opinion.)
Restrictions after viability protect no one. The fetus is a non person with no rights remember ? A woman is still free to assess the risks and choose not to abort.

Your position in support of post viability restrictions recognizes that it is no longer where the fetus resides, but WHAT the fetus is that matters.
On that much we agree.

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325840
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

1

1

David, I'm about to surrender. Label me a pro-abort, anti-choice, or whatever label you deem applicable.

But it may have crossed your mind that where the fetus resides, is indeed the crux of the matter. There is simply no way to ignore that fact and if she (whoever she is), wants to terminate her pregnancy, she will find a way. Legal and safe. Illegal and likely very unsafe.

(The imaginary ice cream was delicious, just sayin...)
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325841
Monday Jul 14
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why the gay slur? What do you have against homosexuals?
Who do you think you are writing to? I've never posted on the threads you cited above.
Here : Find this. Listen to it. Then come back.

City Arts & Lectures

Science & Scripture: Inside the Vatican Observatory

George V. Coyne, SJ is director emeritus of the Vatican Observatory and currently holds the McDevitt chair in religious philosophy at Le Moyne College where he is teaching astronomy and developing a lecture series regarding the science and religion dialogue. He is an observational astronomer of international stature and has been widely recognized for promoting the dialogue between science and religion. He pioneered the series of conferences on "Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action" which bring together scientists and theologians from around the world. He has also been active in the continuing debate about the religious implications of scientific evolution. As a priest and an astronomer, Father Coyne bridges the worlds of faith and science. He appeared in conversation with Ryan Wyatt, director of the Morrison Planetarium and Science Visualization studio at the California Academy of Sciences on June 9, 2014.
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325842
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, science can't disprove God. Religion is about morality and science can't help us judge morality.
Meant to reply to this ^^^ post.
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325843
Monday Jul 14
 

Judged:

1

1

1

feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
sASS claims to be paying $1000 a month for her insurance through her employer. I call BS. Why bother talking with someone so stupid and full of crap?
Killin' time. Also highlights the incredible ignorance out there. Sjm is a reminder of just how extreme the Regressives I wonder is she's related to Michelle Bachmann?
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325844
Monday Jul 14
 
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> My comment wasn't regarding two consenting adults having sex,it was regarding your statement that the pedophile gets off while terrorising his victim and that women who go through abortion don't get off. OBVIOUSLY the fate of her existing,developing child is in her hands if she has casual sex without caring if she gets pregnant or not. Which,btw would lead to her killing her child. Her orgasm is more important than anything to her. Sounds like a control freak.
If a woman doesn't want to create a child during sex,she would do EVERYTHING possible to avoid having sex while fertile. And like I pointed out,many today use birth control of all sorts so that leads to me the conclusion(after looking at our abortion stats)that she is selfish. There have been times that I had to abstain for the better good of not getting pregnant( like when I had upcoming surgery for instance). Todays proaborts don't care about self-control.
" OBVIOUSLY the fate of her existing,developing child is in her hands if she has casual sex without caring if she gets pregnant or not."

Well, if "existing developing child" means pregnancy, then she's pregnant, and any casual sex wouldn't change it whether she cares or not. Do you ever read your words before posting?

"My comment wasn't regarding two consenting adults having sex,it was regarding your statement that the pedophile gets off while terrorising his victim and that women who go through abortion don't get off."

They don't...unless they got pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. Ya know, abortion on the bucket list -- check it! Done!
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325845
Monday Jul 14
 
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> Uh no. I said that abortion was evil. YOU said that a child rapist was worse. I responded that BOTH were evil after YOU added in a question to me regarding if a Pedophile was in that group. I said ABSOLUTELY as in they are just as evil. I own what I write but let's not take things out of context.
A woman saying that she supports killing as choice (abortion) is a premeditated killer. When she ends up with a crisis pregnancy or one where she just can't be bothered,she ends up aborting. MANY of them are moms and they teach their children that abortion is acceptable as a choice.
""""" ""You think child rapists suffer? You think they are misled and scared and deceived and if they just had some help they'd stop?"""" """
I have no clue if a child rapist suffers. Maybe sometime after the rape he might. I don't know. I am sure his or her conscience kills them with guilt. No,I don't think that they are misled and scared and deived and if they had help they'd stop. I NEVER said that. I don't know the mind of a rapist. Sorry.
I do however,know the mind of MANY women who have aborted(friends,strangers alike who have shared their stories with ME and others). There was guilt from the very beginning. In an attempt to cover up ,they killed their conscience-temporarily and it came back to bite them.
There is no comparison. Women who have terminated a pregnancy are not evil. Child rapists are evil. No comparison. None. Zilch. Zero.

That you think there is a comparison is in no small part why I think you are nutty.

Terrorizing a toddler is the lowest of the low. Pure evil. And you think abortion ranks right up there with child rape. I just don't get it. Never will.

You seem to think you can separate the act from the actor. If that's the case, then 1. you'd have to believe women who have had abortions should be locked up right next to child rapists OR 2. child rapists deserve to walk freely in your community so they can share their stories with you and you can guilt them into changing their ways. Which is it?
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325846
Monday Jul 14
 
Sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't deliberately leave out "based on religious beliefs". I think that it works either way-with or without personal beliefs. Either way,the insurance companies cover what THEY want to. THAT was my point.
I don't know if I am not covered because of religious beliefs. What difference does it make as to the reason.
Pregnancy means "with child". It means that a woman has conceived her offspring whether in a dish or in her body. A woman going through IVF will wait for CONCEPTION and then,the process of carrying and nurturing her child once the new life enters her OR anothers body(surrogate).
Do me a favor and don't declare something a *fact* if it isn't. It's deceptive.
You want to force others to go against their religious beliefs and principles. You are discriminating and being intolerant.
"Pregnancy means "with child". It means that a woman has conceived her offspring whether in a dish or in her body."

It's not a pregnancy if the fertilized egg is in a dish. That's a fact. But you don't deal in facts. You deal in religion. Have your religious beliefs and principles. So long as those beliefs do not extend into other people's health care.

Answer this question -- just for fun: If a lab has successfully fertilized 10 eggs, would you tell the woman from whom those eggs were harvested that she had 10 pregnancies? Even though, in the biological sense of the word, she is not pregnant with any of them -- cuz they're , ya know, in a lab and not in her body?

lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325847
Monday Jul 14
 
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Without fertilization there is no implantation. Fertilization in man only occurs when male and female gametes fuse, making it the first process resulting into birth. It is already alive before it is implanted. This has nothing to do with religion,nor pregnancy. It has to do with the beginning of a human life,as we know it. An ectopic pregnancy grows outside the uterus,it doesn't implant,is that a pregnancy?
Before the 70's conception was always considered when life begins. Now,"conception" no longer mean"fertilization.” It was redefined to mean implantation of a blastocyst on the uterine wall, typically occurring 1-2 weeks after fertilization. Now you tell me why was it changed,was it a scientific break through? There was no scientific evidence to validate the change,that I know of. Me thinks it was political.
"It is already alive before it is implanted."

And when it's frozen? What would you call that? Alive? Not alive? On "pause"?

"An ectopic pregnancy grows outside the uterus,it doesn't implant,is that a pregnancy?"

An ectopic pregnancy does implant. In the fallopian tube. Correct?

Don't know about the politics, but biology class taught me that fertilization is not a pregnancy. That pregnancy occurs at implantation. Otherwise the fertilized egg goes out with the monthly period. Never causing a pregnancy. And I've been told by posters on this thread, completely unbeknownst to the woman.
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#325848
Monday Jul 14
 
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep,Biology is biology. Ethics is ethics. And politics is politics. Each is its separate issue.
The Defining “human” is easy based on the organism cellular genetic makeup. The argument can be made that at the moment of conception, the process is in place for the actualization of a human life. This is biology. An ectopic pregnancy,is still a pregnancy,outside the uterus. It grows,that's why it's so dangerous. I'm not arguing if abortion is right or wrong(ethics),or a women has a right to an abortion(politics).I'm arguing the process of pregnancy.
Always a pleasure to talk to you C.P.,have a good day.
" the process is in place for the actualization of a human life."

Agreed. But there are no guarantees that that human life will be actualized. It is indeed potential. But it sure as hell is not an infant.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 304,941 - 304,960 of305,071
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Buroc Millhouse Obama 1,078,561
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 min PEE PEE PETE 26,641
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min Thinking 224,006
urgent loan needed apply now (Sep '13) Jul 20 Danny 2
loan needed (Dec '13) Jul 20 Danny 4
Hairston's bounceback game highlights big day f... Jul 16 Go go d 1
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- (Jan '14) Jul 15 AnnCarter 8
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••