Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311496 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

#285031 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, emotions (in humans, at least) drive the behavior. I was attracted to other guys long before I acted on it. Just like heteros.
<quoted text>
Well no doubt everything we do starts in the mind.
Adultry starts in the mind not the motel, by the time a person cheats on their spouse physically,they have already cheated as far as God is concerned.
Gtown71

United States

#285032 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
So jesus couldn't have just exorcised the demons and left the pigs alone? His actions drove the pigs over the cliff. But it's cute you think pigs think things through and can consider committing suicide.
<quoted text>
Perhaps instead of being so concerned with the pigs, you should've noticed what happened to the man that had all those demons in him?

After they left him, he put on some clothes and was in his right mind.
The same Jesus that pulled the demons out of him, is the same one thay does it to men today.
No matter how many demons they may have.
He is the only one that can take a drunk, sex addicted, drug head, and change him "instantly ",without a 12 step program.
Kinda like the guitar player of korn.
He said as he walked by the windows of a small church and seen all the people inside with their hands raised, that he thought they were nuts!

He got back to his hotel, and started thinking, that either those people in that little church was crazy, OR they had something he needed.
When he went back he found his answer.
zach

Phoenix, AZ

#285034 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Still fixated on anal sex, I see. Just go ahead and do it, and maybe you won't fantasize about it or use me as a proxy for your desires.
Or catch a train with your teeth; either way's fine with me.
<quoted text>
A sick homo like you can only have sex in the azz or licking another man's tool you idiot.....LMFAO

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#285035 Feb 19, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, is yours?
Pete - you won't answer my question. Why not? What do you have to hide?
It's ok, it's just me, you have nothing to worry about. I'm not like the rabid raccoon, Goo-Goo.
Is it coincidence, that there is one gay guy and one gay girl on here? What are the odds?
How do you know there's only two gay people posting here? You're obsessed with homosexuality. That must mean that you are a closeted lesbian, using your convoluted "logic."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#285036 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
No offense, but it's pretty simple.
If pregnancy isn't prevented, abortion is an easy and convienent alternative.
Maybe we're just splitting hairs now.
Oh please @@

That is not the claim you made previously.

Maybe you're just being dishonest now.
Gtown71

United States

#285038 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
We can dance around the issue until our feet get tired. But you cannot deny that abortions are a primary service of Planned Parenthood. And even though it is against the law for our our tax dollars to fund these abortions, there is no way to keep track of it.
Well said!!

An Organization like PP, who devotes much time energy and money into keeping it legal to snuff out the life of the unborn, is not someone you could trust to be ethical with taxpayers money.
Even if they didn't use any tp money to pay for abortions, how much do you think they use fighting to keep it legal?

Those of us who oppose abortion are FORCED to pay folks who advertize for abortion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#285039 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought I did.
Anyway, believers will always be compelled to witness when an opportunity presents itself.
But arguing about is not helpful or necessary.
You did not. And if you really thought so, then obviously I'm giving you more credit for intelligence than you deserve.

You spoke of missionaries in remote corners of the world, when I was asking about here on Topix, where we all obviously have access to that information on the internet.

What is the point of preaching at people who already know, and don't care? None of what you said addressed this question.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#285040 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
You're arguing for argument's sake now.
These concepts and definitions are not that complicated.
No, you're deflecting from the fact that you have no basis for that statement other than your personal belief.

The definitions you are attempting to deflect with are actually irrelevant, since they are not your source.
Gtown71

United States

#285041 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
And the entire point in bringing it up was to show the LAW, a LAW given by YHVH. The LAW of Jealousies. Because it was a LAW implemented by GOD, Himself, means HE gave one set of circumstances in which abortion was justified.
Yea sto I would agree with you, if ANY OF THE VERSES said ANYTHING ABOUT A BABE IN THE WOMB, but the say. absolutely NOTHING ABOUT ABORTING A BABE.

Your whole argument was based on what happened to the guilty wife, which was her belly SWELLED "inflated " NOT "deflated ".

Her thigh would ROT.
and all would shun her. Which YOU said happens when a woman has an abortion.

Instead of trying to make verses condone a sinful act, and trying to see how much "world " you can have in you, and still have God, why not overshoot the other way.

I can promise you the bible clearly says abortion in wrong, compared to your sad attempt to make it right.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#285042 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you did say programs. My mistake. Waterboarding was enhanced interrogations. Three bad guys got water up their noses.
I wouldn't call that a program.
Do you condone the accelerated drone program?
Wow. You don't read well. I just wrote that I hate the drone program. How could you have missed it? Btw, I call water boarding or "enhanced interrogation, " a program, since Dick Cheney calls it a program. That's his own vernacular in an interview I recently viewed... I think it was on 60 minutes. Complain to him, okay.

You asked a question. I answered, directly. You're wandering off. Come back, come back!

:-)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#285043 Feb 19, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't ask for a comparison you dumb thing - you asked what our taxes go to that we dont like.
Funny how you keep trying to change the discussion to reach YOUR desired goal.
Exactly. She asks a question. She gets a direct answer. How audacious of us!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#285044 Feb 19, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea sto I would agree with you, if ANY OF THE VERSES said ANYTHING ABOUT A BABE IN THE WOMB, but the say. absolutely NOTHING ABOUT ABORTING A BABE.
Your whole argument was based on what happened to the guilty wife, which was her belly SWELLED "inflated " NOT "deflated ".
Her thigh would ROT.
and all would shun her. Which YOU said happens when a woman has an abortion.
Instead of trying to make verses condone a sinful act, and trying to see how much "world " you can have in you, and still have God, why not overshoot the other way.
I can promise you the bible clearly says abortion in wrong, compared to your sad attempt to make it right.
Where does it say abortion is wrong? Where, exactly? Chapter, verse. I do believe you've been asked this before, and not answered.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#285045 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wrong about the intellect side.
It's really a Physical, Mental and Spiritual Triangle.
Or mind, body, spirit.
Some substitute social for spiritual.
Only three sides. Physiology isn't considered one of the sides necessary for well-being.
Physiology would be the body side,,Sapph.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#285046 Feb 19, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does she have to be pregnant to have sole decision-making powers over her own body regardless of what her parents want? Why isn't she given tht ability when she isn't pregnant?
"But the rights and responsibilities come with teens being able to make their own medical decisions at an early age -- which includes mental health such as counseling. So it's not all rainbows and sunshine when the same teen can refuse treatment and/or refuse pregnancy against the parents' wishes. It does go both ways when these become law."

See this above paragraph? It basically says that young teens have decision-making powers regarding their medical care including counseling and refusing treatment. This begins as early as 14 years old and can be as innocuous as dental care.

So to answer your question, I wasn't saying this law only applied to pregnant teens. Hope that answers your question.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#285047 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't posting to Foo or you, but to Doc. You're not relevant to what I said to Doc, and neither is Foo. She's already explained herself and I still disagree that she had a point because her point made was made based only on artificial wombs, and not the entire hypothetical you and Doc had been discussing.
My point was ONLY on the comment Doc made, AGAIN - which was the statement:

"But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.~

I was not talking about the hypothetical AT ALL LYNNEKINS. I was addressing that statement ONLY.

A statement Doc himself already conceded the point to me on.

Whether YOU disaree is what's irrelevant dear.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#285048 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Spreading the gospel goes back as far as 33 A.D.
Believers are in every part of the world - some still face persecution and/or have to worship in secret.
We just take our freedoms for granted.
As long as you folks don't push yourselves on us, you may practice your religions all you like. BTW, we're all believers in something, so we all get to use the term, "Believer." Just sayin.....

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#285049 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Post 284403
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.
Doc wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
KEYWORDS **and the words I was responding to**-

"But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability."

Doc has MOVED ON in the discussion - and is THOUGHTFULLY opining on a NEW concept - what could or would change if an artifical womb was a reality.

His NEXT sentence "Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore." is what I responded to. SOmething you'd know if you could 'read for comprehension'.

Abortion would STILL be an issue, because there would be women that simply wouldn't want to UTILIZE the artifical womb. I then conceded the point back to HIM by saying that it would open up a new - as yet unavailable - choice for women, but NOT all women would take it. Thus, abortion WOULD still be an issue.

He conceded the point in his next post to ME.

YOUR bullshit trying to twist what I said and what I was responding TO is what's irrelevant Lynniekins.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#285050 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, as usual. None of you can read for comprehension.
That's pretty funny coming from the dumb bitch that's trying to twist what I said and what I was responding TO, because SHE can't "read for comprehension".

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#285051 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming you mean all those with lung cancer are smokers, they only kill themselves.
MORE stupidity. All people with lung cancer are NOT smokers, and that's NOT what was said to you.

Once AGAIN - WHY DO YOU LIE?

Why do your kind NEVER answer this question?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#285052 Feb 19, 2013
Eddie M wrote:
<quoted text>
The Golden Rule.
You mean from the 70's?, "Do unto others.........then split...." LOL

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump bounces into the lead 2 min Thats Right 221
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min woodtick57 1,404,998
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min An NFL Fan 391,415
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Jacques in Orleans 219,588
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min Jonah1 14,864
News The Latest: First lady calls out Trump, - hatefula 7 min WelbyMD 59
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 8 min Frankie Rizzo 198
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Cornelius Scudmister 233,325
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 32 min NotSoDivineMsM 298
More from around the web