Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 20 comments on the Jan 22, 2008, Newsday story 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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312228 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong as usual.
No, not "as usual". Just occasionally. AND, I freely admitted it, though I doubt you'll be honest enough to acknowledge that I did.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312229 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm not a former Catholic, nor did I ever claim to be. I had no idea a Catholic could marry someone not of their faith in the Catholic church. Can another Catholic, other than Knit, confirm this?"
And yet, no acknowledgement for the fact that I realized I was wrong, and admitted it. It's more than YOU would do, Dishonest One.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312230 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear. I said everyone is subject to death at someone else's whim. Everyone who goes to work or school or the movies or the mall. Everyone.
After days you did. But your original question indicated otherwise, Witless. And when you were talking about someone else's "whim", you were talking about abortion.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312231 Sep 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not "as usual". Just occasionally. AND, I freely admitted it, though I doubt you'll be honest enough to acknowledge that I did.
Yes you did. You shouldn't doubt my honesty like that.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312232 Sep 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
After days you did. But your original question indicated otherwise, Witless. And when you were talking about someone else's "whim", you were talking about abortion.
I thought you were talking about gays being killed at someone else's whim. I say everybody can be killed at someone else's whim. That means everybody including unborn children in their fetus stage.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312233 Sep 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, no acknowledgement for the fact that I realized I was wrong, and admitted it. It's more than YOU would do, Dishonest One.
just getting back to the computer now. I have other things I have to do in my life and sometimes you just have to wait for me to see the post. Why do you keep calling me dishonest, because I'm busy somewhere else sometimes?

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312234 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I can.
Ok. Wow! I had no idea. I have friends who had to do several weeks worth of classes to get married in the church and they were both practicing Catholics. Learn something new every day. Thanks!

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312235 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I can.
Wait a minute, though. Wouldn't this be going against their faith? How would marrying a Catholic to an atheist be different than marrying two homosexuals or two non believers? I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312236 Sep 26, 2013
sassy jm wrote:
<quoted text> Why would she need to show you proof of something that was not said?
She was agreeing to a "Catholic" marrying outside her religion in a Catholic church. Cham denied it and asked knit for proof of another Catholic confirming it.Ink did just that.
URWelcome!
No, Sassy, my original question was whether or not a catholic priest was willing to marry Baptists, Protestants Atheists, etc. in the Catholic Church. See post #312006. The last person I need putting words in my mouth is you.

Ink confirmed that a priest will marry a Catholic and a person of another faith -- she DID NOT confirm that a priest would marry two Baptists, Atheists, Protestants, Muslims, etc.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312237 Sep 26, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but I believe C's question was can TWO non-Catholics marry in a Catholic church. She can correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct and just provided Sassy w/the post #.

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312238 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong as usual.
Actually, it was my original question (although I see how it became confused in my response to your post).

“CRITICAL THINKING -- try it.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#312239 Sep 26, 2013
Husker Du wrote:
<quoted text>It used to be someone could not get married if the other spouse was not Catholic, I have been to several weddings where one is protestant. sometimes they even have the minister there too, they sometimes don't have the mass, just the ceremony, but it is still a valid marriage. Any marriage that includes Christ is a valid marriage and if the couple are protestant and join the church, they do not have to redo the wedding ceremony. If a Catholic wants to marry a Jew or Muslim , they have to get permission from the local bishop.
Thank you.....this answers the original question. No, two atheists cannot get married by a priest in the Catholic church. You seem to imply that if a Catholic IS NOT one of the participants in the marriage, the marriage cannot take place in the church. Am I understanding correctly?
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312240 Sep 26, 2013
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute, though. Wouldn't this be going against their faith? How would marrying a Catholic to an atheist be different than marrying two homosexuals or two non believers? I'm not sure I understand the distinction.
Joke question? The church isn't going to marry two people of the same sex.

Why would two atheists want to marry in a religious ceremony?
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312241 Sep 26, 2013
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you.....this answers the original question. No, two atheists cannot get married by a priest in the Catholic church. You seem to imply that if a Catholic IS NOT one of the participants in the marriage, the marriage cannot take place in the church. Am I understanding correctly?
yes
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312242 Sep 26, 2013
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>No, Sassy, my original question was whether or not a catholic priest was willing to marry Baptists, Protestants Atheists, etc. in the Catholic Church. See post #312006. The last person I need putting words in my mouth is you.
Ink confirmed that a priest will marry a Catholic and a person of another faith -- she DID NOT confirm that a priest would marry two Baptists, Atheists, Protestants, Muslims, etc.
Post #312006 was in response to what Huska said. You had said that only Catholics could marry in a Catholic Church. Huska said that you had to be studying to be Catholic. She was wrong about that.

If you were really asking if people of other faiths can marry without one being Catholic, the answer is no but your meaning was lost because who would want to marry in the faith of another church. The question didn't make sense. Who would do that. It is a long and ritualistic celebration that would mean nothing to you.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#312243 Sep 26, 2013
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it was my original question (although I see how it became confused in my response to your post).
You were responding to Husk Du who was responding to a previous comment from you about the exclusiveness of the Church.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#312244 Sep 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Joke question? The church isn't going to marry two people of the same sex.
Why would two atheists want to marry in a religious ceremony?
Perhaps to appease their families?
sassy jm

Lake Grove, NY

#312245 Sep 26, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sASSy, you can keep telling yourself such nonsense if that's what makes you happy. Obviously, YOU need to do so, since it really DOES seem to bother you that prochoicers can post here whenever we want. I have no doubt that you would prefer we not post here at all, but we're staying whether you like it or not. Get used to it.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
I am very glad that you post here. You are seeking validation for the evil that you support as choice. That tells me that your conscience is bothering you. The truth will set you free one day when you're ready. I promise you. I feel very sorry for people like you who obviously live in the darkness. What a dark cloud you have over YOUR head. You support killing humans as choice. Ugh!
sassy jm

Lake Grove, NY

#312246 Sep 26, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
OR:
No Gods, KNOW PEACE
Yeah, I like that MUCH better. It's wonderful how much freedom people have when they AREN'T mentally chained to regressive and oppressive ideologies and religions.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
But Ocean you obviously don't have peace in your life. You support killing innocent humans because of their location and vulnerability. That's pure evil.

What's interesting is that abortion is legal, yet, you proaborts are here STILL trying to justify it. You want to join in with others as if their is safety in numbers. A guilty conscience will never rest.

You seem to have lived a life of dysfunction. You foam at the mouth when discussing your hate for the RCC which you clakmed to have left over 20 years ago. AND you support kklling as choice.

Ocean ...there is no sign of peace about you. A peaceful person isn't constantly on edge like you are. You want desperately to prove something to the world...but you seem frustrated that you can't even convince yourself of it.

Just my opinion.
sassy jm

Lake Grove, NY

#312247 Sep 26, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>But if a fetus is a human being, doesn't a woman have the right to protect herself from the damage the fetus will cause?
The woman has no other defense against the fetus.
You could have dodged the bottle. Your friend could have left her husband. But the woman has no other defense against the fetus.
Of course, if the fetus is not a person.....
You act like pregnancy is a disease. Other than an ectopic pregnancy (which threatens the womans life),what are you discussing? Pregnancies can cause complications and if need be(worst case scenerio) the baby can be delivered after viability.

You're making a woman a victim of her own pregnancy. Her developing child is a bully now?C'mon now.

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 The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Fed Up Again 324,593
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Calvin_Coolish 179,281
News Conservative Media Rallies to Scott Walker Afte... 5 min wild child 1
News Republicans back bill letting illegal immigrant... 5 min Responsibility 12
News Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in... 6 min goonsquad 71
News Thought We had a Deal: Iran leaders blast Us, m... 9 min Silent Echo 334
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min say what 1,220,494
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min ACTUALLY 160,981
News Biden: 'Guys a you have to step up' to fight vi... 1 hr californio 106
More from around the web