Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310174 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.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254707 Aug 26, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, do you see how fast the pagan proabort witches can turn on you.
I don't know anyone other than Bitner who identifies as pagan. Being pagan does not make one a witch - that's a Wiccan. And as I stated before, I don't know any proaborts.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>When you agree with them they love you. They love your moniker and anyhtng you say that "they' think attacks Christianity, Catholics and motherhood but when you deviate from the pagan "script", watch out.
For what? Do you think these ladies plan to come after me with flaming pitchforks? This is a discussion, not a 17th century trial.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think many like ladlulu have no opinion but just kiss the lesbain leaders arses.
I hadn't noticed that. You'd have to ask that poster, as I will not speak for anyone else, and I don't have an opinion on that matter.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>You are defending a woman who has choosen to love motherhood and doesn't hate pregnanacy like Chaz Ocean. This woman has embraced her right to have children and love having children and love motherhood.
I am neither defending nor castigating Mrs. Duggar. That's my whole point in the "Mrs. Duggar" conversation, which, frankly, I'm getting VERY tired of.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>That drives the old hippie femminist proabort pagans crazy. The fact that you defend her right makes you evil.
Evil? I hadn't noticed that either.
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>They may suspect you are not a true proabort, or even worse--a secret Christian.
Of course I'm not a 'proabort', true or otherwise, and I've repeated this to you several times. Your refusal to cease using this term is one reason why there's no way in hell I'm changing my avatar on your say-so. You haven't answered the question of whether or not you support the nuns I mentioned yesterday either. I doubt I'll change my avatar, even if you do, just so you know.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254708 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>How is that a demand? It was a suggestion, nothing more.
If I had said "LEAVE MRS. DUGGAR'S BUSINESS TO MRS. DUGGAR!!!", now that would have been a demand.
(and a damn silly one, too.)
:)
,,,sigh.

Let's try this again.

My post, the one you are responding to here, is thus:

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

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>To my knowledge, Mrs. Duggar hasn't demanded that the public mind their own business, and frankly, neither am I.
...

LadiLulu wrote:
Sure you did, right here:

"It's her business. Let's leave it to her, shall we?"

??

++++++++++

Okay? So, I said nothing about being demanding. I am merely correcting your inaccurate assertion that you don't expect the public to mind their own business. You do, clearly, from this post and others. Again, it was more than a mere suggestion.

You feel as if it is inappropriate for us to even express an opinion (in spite of the fact that freedom of speech is a Constitutionally protected right) regarding a woman's procreation choices, even though she blasts them all over network television. We're just supposed to smile and nod and say nothing, because it's her *choice*, goshdarnit!

Indeed.
1 post removed

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254710 Aug 26, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure ... 100%- but that doesn't sound like La to me. Could be wrong - happens.
When people do not sign in - I pay attention - sometimes they are on vacation - but in this case - I don't think so.
As far as 19 and counting - she and her tribe were on "Say Yes to the Dress" - wedding gowns - because Michelle wanted to renew vows but she was picky - no strapless for her. I clicked it off. Perhaps she'll make the Guinness Book of World Records - but at this point - I think not. Still! She gave it a really good and profitable try!
Buddy system? Same as day care imo. However one of the regs here thinks that women belong at home to raise kids. No opinion on that - Michelle stays home and still had no choice but to implement the "buddy system". What pray tell is the difference?
It was me. I can't always sign in.

I just don't care for the way she asserts her questions, then denies that she doesn't. It's peculiar. We are having an exchange of ideas here, but are considered of "low intellect" and "judgmental."

Suppressing freedom of speech is a scary thing, IMO.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254711 Aug 26, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
My opinon on Mrs. Duggard or whatever the hell her name is, of course she's going to be judged and ridiculed... HELLO.
Put your ass out there on such an issue, expect it to get kicked! Kissed, kicked, both apply.
I always said, if you're going to become a celebrity, prepare for the fact, that there is a small chance you'll make it and actually become a celebrity. Don't like it, drop out, and maybe end up on the cover of a magazine that reads,,, whatever happened to...
(doesn't apply to Royalty or tight connections to said celebrity) feel bad for them..
I happen to agree.

Even though I'm a low-intellect, judgmental hypocrite!

@@

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254712 Aug 26, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>There's a difference between judging someone's reproductive choices and denying someone one of those choices. I may judge a woman who has several abortions in a country where she can acquire condoms free of charge or cheaply, as irresponsible. However, I uphold her right to have as many abortions, as she wants. It isn't my business but, privately, I may judge her. Who cares?
Thank you, elise. That is precisely how I feel.

Bearing in mind that the only reason I castigate people who are judgmental is when they profess to be so-called "Christians", then turn around and behave entirely un-Christian. I ahve never claimed to be non-judgmental. No hypocrisy here :)

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254713 Aug 26, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
There is something that is often referred to as the authority of the media; it means that what we see in papers, on the internet, on tv, etc, bears more weight than what we discuss among ourselves. Should it? Not really, but it does. It's why charities compete for celebrity spokespeople instead of using their own people, and why a telethon is more productive than mail fundraiser.
The duggers used the media as a cash flow, using their family and their belief system as the selling point. That has impact, and I would guess it has lot of impact on young women who already romanticizes motherhood. They likewise opened themselves up to criticism, and it is up to them to decide how much it lets them affect their family.
(in all this, the kids are the ones who I believe are suffering. Can you imagine always having cameras around, lighting equipment, etc? There is a reason so many child stars are so fu**ed up later in life, and I despair when I think about these kids' futures.
<quoted text>
Now, now Peter. Don't go and speculate on the well-being of those kids. You're not permitted to judge the impact the Duggar's choices have had on their children.@@

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#254714 Aug 26, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to agree.
Even though I'm a low-intellect, judgmental hypocrite!
@@
Nah,,, we don't refer to it as low-intellect or judgmental hypocrite, those terms fall under Gracie certified!

Pat yourself on the back, you're Gracie certified! lol

“Born Genius, Slacker by Choice”

Since: Mar 12

Oyster Bay, NY

#254715 Aug 26, 2012
Not an ounce of intelligence is posted in here.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#254716 Aug 26, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Nah,,, we don't refer to it as low-intellect or judgmental hypocrite, those terms fall under Gracie certified!
Pat yourself on the back, you're Gracie certified! lol
Hey, Rachel!

For a couple of minutes there I saw that, "Lovely, Leering, Lass O' Mine."
What didja go and yank her away for?

You're an awful tease...

;P

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#254717 Aug 26, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to hear from you again.
First very few incidences would require that call. But in the true case of the mother's survival and she can't be monitored and managed to the point of having a viable child I would expect the mother to take actions that would save her life whether it would be to have an etopic pregnancy ended or be treated with chemicals that could kill the fetus.
Good evening "Ink."

Your response is interesting but not entirely unexpected.
There are some folks on your side of the proverbial "aisle" who are so uncompromising in their stance against abortion for any reason whatsoever, that they'd prefer to let both die rather than to live with the guilt of having tacitly agreed to an abortion.
I didn't think you were one of those but obviously I was curious enough to ask. I know you've alluded to your faith guiding many of your positions especially with regards to abortion, but I can't recall you being overly, or overtly didactic in your explanations, nor have you attempted to force your religious views down the throats of anyone else that doesn't happen to share them.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254718 Aug 26, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
,,,sigh.
Let's try this again.
My post, the one you are responding to here, is thus:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>To my knowledge, Mrs. Duggar hasn't demanded that the public mind their own business, and frankly, neither am I.
...
LadiLulu wrote:
Sure you did, right here:
"It's her business. Let's leave it to her, shall we?"
??
++++++++++
Okay? So, I said nothing about being demanding. I am merely correcting your inaccurate assertion that you don't expect the public to mind their own business. You do, clearly, from this post and others. Again, it was more than a mere suggestion.
You feel as if it is inappropriate for us to even express an opinion (in spite of the fact that freedom of speech is a Constitutionally protected right) regarding a woman's procreation choices, even though she blasts them all over network television. We're just supposed to smile and nod and say nothing, because it's her *choice*, goshdarnit!
Indeed.
You judge your way, I'll judge mine. Let's leave it at that - or not, whichever you prefer. Free country. Blah blah blah.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#254719 Aug 26, 2012
tomtom wrote:
<quoted text>
The crux of the proabort pagan social engineering agenda. If she loves having children and being a mother that much, there must be soemthing wrong with her. Lets take her children from her becaue it is obvious a loving mother must be bad for children.
The blunteged chickey has the right approach, you can only love so many grandbabbies, so kill off some of the unborn children you don't want or need, for their own good of course.
You pagan proaborts are more and more transparent with every post.
Social engineering agenda?

She may be a great mother, and she can have all the kids she wants, but is it about having children, or a reality show about having lots of children?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#254720 Aug 26, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, now Peter. Don't go and speculate on the well-being of those kids. You're not permitted to judge the impact the Duggar's choices have had on their children.@@
The Duggers are millionaires were before they started the show. They can afford to have nineteen kids. They trust in God and not what society dictates. You know God never gives one more than they can handle. We do not need artificial birth control. So trust in Him and you will be free and a lot happier.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#254721 Aug 26, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>The Duggers are millionaires were before they started the show. They can afford to have nineteen kids. They trust in God and not what society dictates. You know God never gives one more than they can handle. We do not need artificial birth control. So trust in Him and you will be free and a lot happier.
I wish them all the best.

I hope their money doesn't run out when the show peters out, as shows always do.

Of course G-d gives people more than they can handle, hun. Unfortunately, that's why some people commit suicide :(

By the way, if they use NFP they don't "trust in G-d." If they truly trusted in G-d they would use no birth control whatsoever.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254722 Aug 26, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, and privately I would!
(smack xoxox, you like that baby? MMMMMMMMMMMMM) kissing yer ass
Please, may I have some more?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254723 Aug 26, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
"I also believe if a woman wants an abortion at 35 weeks and 6 days, she should be able to get one legally - if she's that determined not to be a mother, she'd make a terrible one"
I would hope that she would come to the determination that she didn't want to be a parent long before 35 weeks and 6 days....
You know, I have to agree that I worded that statement poorly. But what I was really getting at was that abortion should either be a 'no questions asked' situation regardless of length of gestation, or it shouldn't be allowed at all. Most (I would think nearly all) women who obtain a late term abortion, do so because to continue gestation threatens their lives, or because their fetus is profoundly compromised. However, it would seem to me that if a woman was THAT insistent that she no longer wanted to be pregnant, she would get a caesarian section - not an abortion. And trust me - I personally would find it abhorrant to end the life of my fetus that close to term - but I don't think it should be my call if it's not my fetus.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position on this.

:)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#254724 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You judge your way, I'll judge mine. Let's leave it at that - or not, whichever you prefer. Free country. Blah blah blah.
Good evening "Sister,"

Hmmm, forgive me for not fully understanding where your ultimate argument is "going," but from what I've been able to glean from your earlier posts was that you were taking those folks whom were "judgmental" of the Duggar's to task for being "judgmental" of them.
Now I may be completely off-base here--and please feel free to correct me if I am--but what I was taking away from your earlier posts was that while we're always quick to point our collective fingers at those whom we feel are being judgmental, we have a far more difficult time recognizing when we ourselves are being judgmental.

If anything I've said above is on-target I find it a tad odd that you'd say, "You judge your way, I'll judge mine..."

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254725 Aug 26, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>

Let's try this again.
By all means.

++++++++++
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>Okay? So, I said nothing about being demanding. I am merely correcting your inaccurate assertion that you don't expect the public to mind their own business. You do, clearly, from this post and others. Again, it was more than a mere suggestion.
If you took my suggestion that we hold true to our personal assertions that we do not judge women for their reproductive choices as a demand, I have to wonder why.

Granted, I don't know which post it was in which you asserted that you judge no one for their reproductive decisions - but I distinctly remember reading it. But because I cannot pinpoint that post from you, I'll defer to your current assertion that you feel you have the right to judge CERTAIN women (namely Mrs. Duggar) because the woman in question is on television promoting her fertility, and therefore you were not being hypocritical.
Fair enough?
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>You feel as if it is inappropriate for us to even express an opinion (in spite of the fact that freedom of speech is a Constitutionally protected right) regarding a woman's procreation choices, even though she blasts them all over network television. We're just supposed to smile and nod and say nothing, because it's her *choice*, goshdarnit!
Indeed.
Since I cannot recall informing you of your own feelings, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't do the same. I feel that it is inappropriate for ME (that's ME, no one else) to judge Mrs. Duggar, or any other woman, on the basis of her reproductive choices, and I'm disinclined ever to do so. If you want to take out ads in the local paper, expressing your feelings about Mrs. Duggar's reproductive choices, Please Please PLEASE feel free to do so, completely unfettered by my opinion.

Whatever fries your chicken is fine with me.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254726 Aug 26, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good evening "Sister,"
Good evening to you, Sir.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmm, forgive me for not fully understanding where your ultimate argument is "going," but from what I've been able to glean from your earlier posts was that you were taking those folks whom were "judgmental" of the Duggar's to task for being "judgmental" of them.
That's pretty much it - which, in retrospect, indicates that I myself was being judgmental of them for being judgmental of another woman's reproductive choices. Since it's been pointed out numerous times that we ALL judge others,(and rightly so, as that's absolutely a true statement) I will say that the lack of judgment I'm prepared to pass on Mrs. Duggar, I did not extend to the posters who were judging her. A function of the fact that I reserve the right to be judgmental about some things, but not others. Reproductive choices are in the 'not my place to judge' column. Again - these are just my opinions, and do not necessarily apply to anyone else on the planet.

:)
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>Now I may be completely off-base here--and please feel free to correct me if I am--but what I was taking away from your earlier posts was that while we're always quick to point our collective fingers at those whom we feel are being judgmental, we have a far more difficult time recognizing when we ourselves are being judgmental.
Not off base in the slightest, and I took that assertion to heart. Please see above.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>If anything I've said above is on-target I find it a tad odd that you'd say, "You judge your way, I'll judge mine..."
Mine being 'declining to judge'........does that make sense?

Really enjoyed chatting with you, and look forward to doing it frequently!

:)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254727 Aug 26, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I think that the fact that girls take their rights for granted means that the women who fought for them were successful in their efforts. I believe that we need to teach our kids the histories of all of the civil rights movements in this country and the world, but I certainly don't want kids feeling that they should have to earn what every person has an inherent right to have.
Neither do I - but if they are inherent rights, why are they constantly being called into question? Could it be an effort to encourage us to call them into question also?

The Republican party (and many individuals) certainly don't seem to consider the right to bodily autonomy, to be inherent to both genders.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 3 min PolakPotrafi 2,233
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min THE LONE WORKER 1,251,912
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? 7 min Knowledge- 25
News Activist takes down Confederate flag outside So... 7 min californio 153
News Huckabee: 'Redefinition of love' threatens marr... 9 min Rainbow Kid 9
News Hillary Clinton delivers first presidential cam... 10 min Synque 176
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min Agents of Corruption 333,081
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min woodtick57 186,444
News Donald Trump surges, and Democrats cheer 1 hr yourown 92
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 1 hr WasteWater 720
More from around the web