Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310329 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.

Gtown71

United States

#278400 Jan 20, 2013
Katie wrote:
One thing, Gtown, thank you for your courtesy. It is appreciated. Mine is lacking. Sorry.
Thanks, but I fall short on waay to many things to pat myself on the back.

You should've known me before I was saved.

I would've made the most vile folks on topix seem like a saint. Lol
Gtown71

United States

#278402 Jan 20, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, but who is going to enforce it all the time every time? Really, if someone has a felony and is not allowed to own weapons, and has a restraining order served on them, nobody is going to confiscate his weapons. Especially if he lies. I think one thing that needs to go down the archaic road is the concept of "Good Faith". There is too much manipulation involved for it to have any merit, imo.
Here is something just as disturbing, imo.
"Pennsylvania girl, 5, suspended for threatening to shoot girl with pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pennsylv...
Well you're right! There is no way, no matter how much we study people, to know their true intent.

A person could go to the doctor and say I'm depressed, and it be ok in a little while, then another could go home and kill their fanily, so "good faith ",is about all we have.

Plus, since we live in an imperfect world, people drop the ball.

The guy that shot up the collage, in which I can't remember the details, but was killed by a female officer.

He had been to mental doctors, and atleast one of the people he talked to had wrote down that he was a serious threat! Yet it was never taking serious by others.

People can say anything.
Like the verse "if you will confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, etc... you shall be saved.

The mouth part is easy, the heart part can only be true or false.

God knows our heart.
This is the only part of us that is really who we are.
Gtown71

United States

#278404 Jan 20, 2013
Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember about that poor little boy. Absolutely mind boggling that a parent would allow a child to handle a gun at all, let alone a gun like that. I hadn't heard about the little girl. Chilling.
And yet, here are these complete morons screeching that this is a gun grab,(it isn't), for NO REASON,(smh), and if only responsible people owned guns no bad things would ever happen (bullshit).
And get this. I got an email last night from the family I nanny for stating there is a guy from NJ lurking the neighborhoods trying to prove that the shooting never happened. He is a blogger trying to prove it is all a conspiracy to grab guns! The police told him to leave or face arrest. Some people are SO effing sick.
I've heard people where I live try and say, it was all a fake, or it did happen, but the government set it up.

A man told me the other day, that he believed the government set it up, in order to take away guns.

He said both guys from the last two shootings had fathers on the "bad list " with the government.

Very stupid for people to believe.

It did happen!
It is sad!
the guy did use a gun!

If one of the first two ladies that ran to see who was shooting had a gun, and knew how to use it, He may have never made it down the hall.

Just my opinion on last statementn

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#278408 Jan 20, 2013
The medical term is cranio-rectal inversion...:)
Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO.
I think it is called Head up Ass disease.
Chick Brilliance Returns

Southbury, CT

#278409 Jan 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
The medical term is cranio-rectal inversion...:)
<quoted text>
Ohhh. Thank you! I always learn so much from you!:)

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#278410 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality is a great thing!
When two people get married "a pink one and a blue one ",they become one.
My wife didn't want to be a stay at home mom.
She loved her job, and who she worked with, and didn't want to give it up.
I have only a sister living, and her family lives way to far to help with our baby.
It is just us.
PpI nor my wife wanted our girl dropped off at the daycare or babysitters.
Being the head of the house the way God intended doesn't mean to be a dictator.
It means my wife and I make all decisions together.
If we just can't make up our mind on what to do, or what's best, then it is left up to me.
Maybe many men use this for their own selfishness. I know I did before I met God, but done correctly, the husband will make choices that our in his families best intrest.
So I (YES I)
Chose to stay at home with our little girl, and do all that I stated, that is involved with a stay at home parent.
My wife went back to her job, and I stayed home with our baby.
my wife's clothes were washed, and sheets cleaned, and her supper cooked every night. Unless she didn't want very much.
So I understand equailty, and I am probably not anywhere near the type of man you think, or ocean thinks I am :)
How very selfless of you. Lovely. The fact remains that you think you have a choice of whether your wife has a career outside of the home. What if the two of you didn't agree on her having a job? What if she decided that she wanted to remain in the public sector and advance her career? Would you step up and take 50% of the household/family responsibilities for the rest of your marriage? Would you stop thinking of it as a favor and accept it as an equitable obligation?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#278411 Jan 21, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Did he watch "Cheers" and refer to himself as Cliff Claven?
He's the Claven dumbest progeny.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#278412 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree!
I was "baiting " elsie to call that a great man. Lol
Although, it wasn't easy for me to be a stay at home dad. IT IS ALOT OF WORK!!! Women are the only ones that did this in the past mainly, and with all the work involved I don't know why they wanted a world where now they are just about forced to work outside the home.
I am a proud dad, and love my little girl with more love then can be expressed :)
I will addmit, that I watched a program about stay at home dads, And thought wow -I'll Never do that. Yea -I'm learning to never say never. Lol
It was what my WOMAN wanted, and what was best for the happiness of my family :)
Who the hell is Elsie? The point is, my friend, is that you being a stay-at-home dad isn't any more of a magnanimous act than is being a stay-at-home mom. The fact is, most families cannot afford to live on one income. Therefore, the domestic workload should be split equally between the woman and the man. Unfortunately, men are really taking a loooong time transitioning from the old school to the new school. Poor shlubs are trying to rationalize not doing half the household tasks while having the advantage of their wife's income. Lol.
Kenose

East Meadow, NY

#278413 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to even show the numbers. It's a gimmy
Your abortion rate is one fourth or 25%
So, in other words only 75% of babies make it past the war zone you call the womb.
If 25% of all gun owners in America was to start shooting people, then we would really notice.
From what I've read, 1 in every 4 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Does that mean that a womb is a "warzone" because God almighty chooses not to allow each and every pregnancy to come to term?

Spare us your useless opinion.
Kenose

East Meadow, NY

#278415 Jan 21, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Uh... yeah, silly rabbit. 1 in 4 prenancies ends in miscarriage. Maybe you ought to focus your angst towards your God for ending the lives of all those fetuses.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#278416 Jan 21, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The exclusion is for a LEGALLY performed abortion by a licensed medical practitioner. The death of a fetus caused by an illegal assault can ( and should )still be prosecuted, whether the fetus was wanted or not.
<quoted text>
I don't have to. All I need to do to refute your assertion that that is the ONLY reason for their existence is show that they exist for another reason. Which I did. And you continue to ignore the fact that if your assertion was true, the same could have been accomplished by passing the " Unlawful Termination of a Wanted Pregnancy Law". There would have been no need to designate the fetus as a separate victim. The fact that they did not do this is evidence that the purpose of the FHL go beyond your SOLE reason.
And you continue to sidestep the fact that if the sole reason for FHL's were what you claimed, the pro choice movement would not have opposed them as they did. They would have embraced them.
To claim as you have that the pro choicers did not oppose these laws, is engaging in revisionist history.
Pay attention.
<quoted text>
Strictly punitive. Pay attention.
<quoted text>
No, that is NOT the only way. See above.
Thank you. Cd loves to post his arrogant and self-serving epistles.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#278417 Jan 21, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>
Parsing is the tactic of strict interpretationists. I'm using their logic against them.
1)Where does the Constitution say that a felon cannot bear and keep arms.
2) Where does the Constitution say that a state cannot enact laws infringing on the rights to bear and keep arms.
You're a defender of states rights. Yes or no?
3) Where does is say that people can't buy a cannon?
Bingo, you are beginning to understand.
Tom Tom

Phillipsburg, NJ

#278418 Jan 21, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think real men whine about real life the way you do? Ummm, nope, they sure don't. There's room in a real partnership for each half to be fulfilled and to be supportive of each other. It's all about loving each other enough to help each other succeed... equally. Equality... look it up. It's an amazing concept!
Why not ask kathy and cd, they whine constantly.
Ocean56

AOL

#278419 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
You say I'm stuck back in time?
I geuss your idea of the ideal family would be the powerful smart woman goes out to work, and the dad stays home, and takes care of the baby -cooks meals -cleans house -washes chlothes -has supper waiting for his wife when she gets home, and all else included in being a house mama???
Would that be ok with you, if A MAN did all of this womans work??
Yes, I do say you're STUCK IN THE PAST, but thankfully that's not MY problem to live with on a daily basis.

There's nothing wrong with a family in which the woman goes to work with the high-paying job and the dad stays home to care for the kids, by the way. Obviously YOU would probably find it "beneath you" to do housework, but I believe there are some more progressive men who don't.

In any case, motherhood is still OPTIONAL, and women are free to choose career over marriage and/or motherhood. Thankfully, women don't have to settle for the title of "Occupation: housewife" and nothing else. The 1850's and 1950's are OVER.
Ocean56

AOL

#278420 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
What kind of man would put his career off for 2 or 3 years, and stay home with his baby, changing diapers, making bottles, cleaning up after his baby,and all that goes with having a baby, not to mention all the toys and playing with the baby, on top of cooking all meals, washing all chlothes, and having home in order, so when his WOMAN comes home, she can just relax, and eat, and play with her baby??? I geuss you would want the man to run the womans bath, and wash her sheets every couple of days to keep them nice and fresh for her????
All this, so the woman can go to her job, and not have to start all over after the child is old enough to go to school?!?!?
Do you know how much pride a man would have to swallow, in order to let his wife bring home the bacon, just becouse she really likes her job???
How the man would have to be seen by all others around him, that would be thinking, what??? What kind of man would that be? I mean for real?!?!?
As I said before, and your BACKWARD idiocy posted above proves, you're STUCK IN THE PAST, by at least a few decades and possibly two whole centuries. You may call yourself "conservative," I would describe you as ARCHAIC.

This is why I believe women really need to find out ALL they can about the men they're thinking of marrying long BEFORE the wedding, not afterward. After the wedding it is too late for a woman to find out that she married a guy who is stuck in the 1950's or worse, the 1850's, and expects her to "know her place." Ugh. The very idea of that gives me the shudders. By knowing these important facts about a guy before she's even thinking of marriage, she can decide whether to marry this backward-thinking dude or dump him. I know I would choose Option 2.
Ocean56

AOL

#278421 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
I just asked "WHAT KIND OF MAN WOULD THAT MAN BE? "
A PROGRESSIVE man, obviously, one who doesn't consider housework and care of his child(ren) "beneath him" and one who doesn't constantly worry, "what will people think." THAT kind of man, which I think is a lot better than your kind.
Ocean56

AOL

#278423 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Equality is a great thing!
When two people get married "a pink one and a blue one ",they become one.
My wife didn't want to be a stay at home mom.
She loved her job, and who she worked with, and didn't want to give it up.
I have only a sister living, and her family lives way to far to help with our baby.
It is just us.
I nor my wife wanted our girl dropped off at the daycare or babysitters.
Being the head of the house the way God intended doesn't mean to be a dictator.
It means my wife and I make all decisions together. If we just can't make up our mind on what to do, or what's best, then it is left up to me.
Riiiiiiiiight, "then it is left up to me" because according to YOU, the man is always the "better" decision maker.@@ Personally, I think such an UNequal arrangement is a BAD DEAL for women, which is why I avoid it.

If the little story about you being "Mr. Mom" is true, which I seriously doubt, by the way, then why did you whine incessantly about it in a different post?
Ocean56

AOL

#278424 Jan 21, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
So your wife got to choose how to manage her life when she became pregnant right?
My guess; she "managed her life" according to HIS way of management, which was that she become a stay-home mom.

I seriously doubt his little story of him cheerfully doing the housework and caring for their child is true, judging by the way he pissed and moaned about men doing housework in another post.
Ocean56

AOL

#278425 Jan 21, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
She didn't look at her pregnancy as a choice, but rather a blessing.
Then she obviously WANTED to be a mother, which is fine. Many women don't ever want kids, and that is also fine. They just have to make sure they don't ever marry a guy who wants them. As long as both partners are on the same page when it comes to NOT having kids, that probably won't be a problem, for them at least.

Personally, I think that the "kids or no kids" question needs to be raised within two or three months of any dating relationship. If a woman knows she doesn't ever want to be a mother, she needs to find out where her partner stands on the issue. If her not wanting kids is a serious problem for him, she can end the relationship sooner, rather than waste her time with a guy who is constantly pressuring her to have kids.
Ocean56

AOL

#278426 Jan 21, 2013
Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:
No. We don't. There is no such thing as sin. It is all a nice fairy tale, but a fairy tale just the same. There is nothing wrong with abortion.
Exactly. Here is the way I think of the faith-based "sin" invention.

S.I.N.= Self-Inflicted NONSENSE

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.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 16 min Brian_G 220,255
News Planned Parenthood seeks fed study of fetal tis... 56 min Le Jimbo 36
News Planned Parenthood broke no abortion laws, Indi... 2 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
News Indiana clears Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing... 2 hr Cordwainer Trout 9
News Pat Robertson: I'm not sure why God didn't smit... 8 hr Drama Central 4
News Ad targets Romney on abortion, Planned Parenthood (Jul '12) 9 hr Rasta 74
News Republican-led House panel seeks interview with... 9 hr Cat74 26
More from around the web