Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,262
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. Read more
katie

Federal Way, WA

#317631 Dec 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
you said he changed roe. he did not. he quoted it verbatim. if you're claiming he did then provide the post where he referenced a definition from roe that was "not" what was written in roe.
find it and then we can debate without the bs accusations as you call them.
No, I said he was adding/subtracting to Roe. And he did. With that last sentence and another post of his regarding something else about Roe.

But it sure is strange having this discussion with you over BA's posts.

What's in it for you?

Or would you just like an ego boost and read "You're right, I'm wrong"? Will that hold you over for all eternity?
katie

Federal Way, WA

#317632 Dec 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
you should talk. you're the one who said legal abortions were not done in the 3rd trimester.
how soon we forget.
I believe I was discussing legal post-viability abortions in the sense of "elective" as in "woman decides she wants to wear a bikini instead of being pregnant". But I've learned long ago context doesn't mean much to people like you.

Or do you just want an ego boost and read "You're right, I'm wrong" to hold you for all eternity?
katie

Federal Way, WA

#317633 Dec 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Point is, our approval is completely irrelevant to any given woman's decision...unless we are the pregnant ones...AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO APPROVE of her stupid little scenario FOR OURSELVES!!!
I love how that works.
And it drives her bugfuck. I love how that works too.
:)
Exactly :)
Gtown71

Tampa, FL

#317634 Dec 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you think that business, organizations or institutions have a right to not be embarrassed by their employees? Pretty soon they won't be able to fire anybody for any reason because the claim will be that they were fired for being black, gay or a woman, not for the real reason.
Yes I do !!!

I was trying to point out that moral clauses does not really help one to stay or be moral. It may to a certain extent , but a man will either cheatit on his wife or he won't. If he knows he could be fired for behaviors deemed immoral, then he. "May" think about it at least, but probably won't be the sole reason he uses to not behave that way.

However if he knows and does it anyway , then yes his. Employers. Can terminate him, and should.

Plus I do know what you're saying about the future.

I can see a day when preacher are imprisoned or worse for "hate" speech.:(
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317635 Dec 6, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, are you brain damaged? Post-viability abortions are only legally done for the life/health of mother or fetal demise. You should know this for the many hundred of times it's been posted. Besides, when have I ever said I was "approving" of abortion?
Clearly, your spoon fed dogma has brainwashed you to the point you cannot separate fact from fiction.
Fact: Women's civil rights of personal privacy and bodily autonomy encompasses all reproductive rights to determine one's own pregnancy outcome. That means antichoicers, like you, will never be mandated to undergo abortion against your will. It also means prochoicers, like me, can undergo abortion if it's determined to be the better outcome based on information and circumstances pertinent to me and offered by my physician; not by the government, the clergy, or nosy parkers like you.
"""No,are you brain damaged""" """

So you DO support restricting a womans "choice"after the first trimester.

LIKE I SAID.

""""" antichoicer,like you"""" """

AND you sweetie ;)
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317636 Dec 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, call your doctor. You're psycho, and need your meds upped.
Haha! Typical Bitler and pro-abort gang.

My point was well taken I see ;)

Yeah,....you sound like an idiota.
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317637 Dec 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I think even you know better than that - she doesn't hate fetuses, and if there was such a thing as a 'pre-born baby', she wouldn't hate them either.
Everything you see from the pro-choice side, you see as hate - what's up with that?
Oh, right...who the hell am I posting to....Miss one-track-brain-cell....
My bad.
Susan Smith wasn't a child hater either. She was a loving mother. She just made a choice that she felt was best for *her*. She,like you proaborts,felt that killing her children was better than giving them away for another to love and raise.

SHE doesn't hate. I wonder why "one-track-brain-cells " didn't believe that-what's up with that?
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317638 Dec 6, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This question? "So you approve of the choice of a 9 month pregnant woman electively aborting her unwanted child? A simple yes or no will suffice."
Okay, for the second time. No clue how you missed it the first time.
No, are you brain damaged?
It's okay Katie. You made yourself PERFECTLY clear for all to see the first time :)

You are anti-choice like I am. Just proabortion in the first trimester.
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317639 Dec 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Someone who worships.
(A definition relatively free of drama, as the entity worshiped is irrelevant...)
<quoted text>"Methinks" is it? I think 'fetus worshiper' is a perfect description of your harpy coven's erstwhile members there, missy.
<quoted text> How 'bout 'long-nosed-guilt-and-shame-hu cksters'? I think not. Too wordy for me...I 'll stick with 'fetus worshipers'. I prefer to be concise.
I<quoted text>Uh, you said 'methinks' a while back, and that one's from the 1200's. Shove it up yerass.
<quoted text>Which must be why you spent an entire post denying your were one.
Fetus worshiper.
Thanks for answering for Bitler but I still expect an explanation from her since SHE was the one who said it.

Oh,btw sweetie? Bitler wasn't addressing me. I just wanted to ask her as question as to what the definition of "worship" was and how it applies to someone who defend anothers life.

So,yeah,no,I wasn't "spending an entire post denying that I was one".

Duh! LOL

I don't need to defend myself at all. I don't worship anyone but God.. Kthanks!!

Have a good night now!
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317640 Dec 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
Oh stop your own bullh*t already Soppy.
<quoted text>In your holier-than-thou harridan's club? Where 'sanity' equals a black and white comfort zone, with no gray areas, and the expectation that everyone else must share it; morality equals women's submission to our ability to gestate, and denial of our enjoyment of sex; and common sense is defined as 'worshiping the fetus to the exclusion of the born'?
God, I hope not.
LOL what a drama queen. You're so cute when your silly.
worships reality

AOL

#317641 Dec 6, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay fine. There should be no restrictions...on anything.
nice try chumlee but there are restrictions on other rights for a reason, because unrestricted exercise of some rights could infringe on the rights of others, ex - the right to freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "bomb" on an airplane.
there is no such issue with the right to abortion, at all. if you believe in the right to abortion based on the premise "a woman's body - her decision" and the "fetus has absolutely no rights" then what about that premise changes once the 3rd trimester is reached?
why should a woman be restricted to a window in which she can legally make her own medical decision that affects no one with any rights at all?

now you want to try and answer this time without using the lame dodge that "every right comes with restrictions"?
sassyjm

Lake Grove, NY

#317642 Dec 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Point is, our approval is completely irrelevant to any given woman's decision...unless we are the pregnant ones...AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO APPROVE of her stupid little scenario FOR OURSELVES!!!
I love how that works.
And it drives her bugfuck. I love how that works too.
:)
Laws change by the "approval" of the people or not. It is not "irrelevent".

Here is where Katie goes wrong. She wants to appear PRO-CHOICE but then she goes and says that she is AGAINST a woman electively choosing to abort after viability.

Playa,my lil honey bunches of oats? Will you PLEASE private message her and tell her to stop? LOL she looks REALLY ridiculous and she makes your side look like a bunch of inconsistent cuckoo's.

I KNOW...RIGHT?(Is what you're thinking)
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#317643 Dec 6, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
Mom: Abortion Dr, I am pregnant and I don't want to be. I am here for you to end my pregnancy because I don't want to mother my child.
Dr: Okay Mom,but it will cost you.
Mom: Okay
((A few hours pass))
Dr: Here's your baby Mom
Mom: what?!?!? I paid you to kill her and yet,here she is. I am now forced to mother my unwanted child. WHY did I go to you and pay you?
Dr: What do you mean mom? You paid me to end your pregnancy. I did. Now have a great day while I go golfing. SEE YA SUCKAAA!
Bhitler: "Abortionist, I want you to end my pregnancy."

Abortionist: "Okay."
________

{ one hour after abortion }
________

bHilter: "Abortionist, I'm going to sue you."

Abortionist: "Why? I did what you said to do."

bHitler: "No you didn't."

Abortionist: "Bhitler, are you pregnant now."

bHitler: "No."

Abortionist: "Then what's your problem."

bHitler: "My baby girl survived."

Abortionist: "You said to end your pregnancy, and I did. You didn't say to kill your baby."

bHitler: "Nice play on words, abortionist. I'm still going to sue you."

Bhitlerb

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317644 Dec 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
nice try chumlee but there are restrictions on other rights for a reason, because unrestricted exercise of some rights could infringe on the rights of others, ex - the right to freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "bomb" on an airplane.
there is no such issue with the right to abortion, at all. if you believe in the right to abortion based on the premise "a woman's body - her decision" and the "fetus has absolutely no rights" then what about that premise changes once the 3rd trimester is reached?
why should a woman be restricted to a window in which she can legally make her own medical decision that affects no one with any rights at all?
now you want to try and answer this time without using the lame dodge that "every right comes with restrictions"?
Lame dodge? Since when is stating a fact a lame dodge?

A woman has the option of obtaining an abortion without restrictions until the fetus is viable. After that it usually comes down to a medical crisis situation. To me it seems like a fair compromise. To you...it's just an issue of licking Sassy's ass by spouting her same desperate (yawn) and pathetic argument, because...all rights come with some restrictions, no exceptions.
katie

Federal Way, WA

#317645 Dec 6, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text> """No,are you brain damaged""" """
So you DO support restricting a womans "choice"after the first trimester.
LIKE I SAID.
""""" antichoicer,like you"""" """
AND you sweetie ;)
Your delusions are showing.

Of course, I coulda answered with, "Pitocin or C-section?" But you threw in the qualifier of "unwanted". At 9mos gestation, chances are delivery of a live birth would take place. And that would end the pregnancy, even though it's at term.
worships reality

AOL

#317646 Dec 6, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if woman's life/health is in jeopardy. Woman doesn't have to subjugate her rights for the fetus under those circumstances. Even post-viability.
i said it was afforded a "level" of protection, not a blanket of total protection. if you are agreeing that post-viability there are certain circumstances under which a woman cannot choose to abort then you agree that in those circumstances her rights are being subjugated.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317647 Dec 6, 2013
katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she cannot. It was a well written post, straight to the point. So she ignores it. After adding that false accusation about Reagan and then diverting to his "beautiful speeches".
No, she can't refute my post. That's why she reacted badly to it.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317648 Dec 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
it already is afforded a level of protection post-viability. like i said before when you must have been out to lunch, it need not be granted rights in order for it to be legally protected.
<quoted text>
she's already been told. and the sc already reconciled it. where have you been?
"Legally protected" does not equal having rights, huh.
No Relativism

Belleville, IL

#317649 Dec 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
How a woman feels after the abortion is not the point. What she decides to do after the abortion is also irrelevant.
Bitnerd:'How a woman feels after the abortion is not the point. What she decides to do after the abortion is also irrelevant.'

For a "feminist," you sound rather cold.

Misogynist much?
_______

What matters to you is that the mother successfully killed her baby. This evil act provides you an opportunity to walk your fat feet into the graveyard and howl at the moon.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#317650 Dec 6, 2013
sassyjm wrote:
<quoted text>
Mom: Abortion Dr, I am pregnant and I don't want to be. I am here for you to end my pregnancy because I don't want to mother my child.
Dr: Okay Mom,but it will cost you.
Mom: Okay
((A few hours pass))
Dr: Here's your baby Mom
Mom: what?!?!? I paid you to kill her and yet,here she is. I am now forced to mother my unwanted child. WHY did I go to you and pay you?
Dr: What do you mean mom? You paid me to end your pregnancy. I did. Now have a great day while I go golfing. SEE YA SUCKAAA!
You're such a drama queen.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 min zion 52,340
News Who says Mormons aren't Christians? (Oct '11) 1 min gladiator76 31,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Chimney1 154,744
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Le Jimbo 175,838
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min red and right 319,795
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min sonicfilter 1,206,864
News The Hoosier Nuremberg Laws 8 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 22
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 20 min Anonymous of Indy 109
News Romney campaign official joins Gov. Scott Walke... 1 hr swedenforever 66
More from around the web