Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,851
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. Full Story
STO

Vallejo, CA

#243194 Jun 12, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "I gave you a perfect example, frozen embryos. You're understanding of "viable" would have to extend to frozen embryos, as they are "viable" outside the womb, given current or future medical technology."
Doc: "No they're not you wack job. Detail for me the current medical technology that would allow for the further development of a frozen embryo outside the womb ?"
Holy shit! Did he just try to claim a frozen embryo as being " 'viable' outside the womb"?! Clearly these nuts don't have any ability to understand meanings of words in the English language (let alone [in context]), and then they create arguments from sheer insanity.
Try to comprehend, Lynne. Try harder! Try harder!

Eh...it was worth a try, wasn't it?

Ya had my quote right there and everything, and you still don't get it. Hint: STO wrote, " You're understanding of "viable" would have to extend to frozen embryos, as they are "viable" outside the womb, given current or future medical technology."

Here's another hint: See the word, "You're". That means Doc. Cuz that's who I was replying to. I know you talk about yourself in the third person, but we're not all crazy like you. Take an aspirin. I know facts make your head hurt.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#243195 Jun 12, 2012
sorry about the double post..
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#243196 Jun 12, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
You know today the catholic church wont go near Penn state.. but before the scandal. The catholic church was as much a part of Penn State as to make one wonder if the college was not in fact a catholic one.
That is not dishonest you dolt, but a real fact.
As for your other contention. By your own source it was shown that the clinic did no such thing...And the only ones contending that Planned Parenthood is abusing children is anti abortion sites.. No surprise. Just more of the dishonesty I expect from your side of the aisle.
Deal with it you little fool. As those are facts whether you like it or not make no difference.
Nothing you said is a fact.
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#243197 Jun 12, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
You know today the catholic church wont go near Penn state.. but before the scandal. The catholic church was as much a part of Penn State as to make one wonder if the college was not in fact a catholic one.
That is not dishonest you dolt, but a real fact.
As for your other contention. By your own source it was shown that the clinic did no such thing...And the only ones contending that Planned Parenthood is abusing children is anti abortion sites.. No surprise. Just more of the dishonesty I expect from your side of the aisle.
Deal with it you little fool. As those are facts whether you like it or not make no difference.
http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02...

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#243198 Jun 12, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>The mass is not a church service. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CJtRXzyWul8XX
A ritual by any other name..
Ostara Ritual
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#243199 Jun 12, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Weak.....even by your woeful standards.
But I digress....
<quoted text>
Hardly. In fact I want to see every rapist behind bars and the key thrown away. This is in direct contrast to you who'd rather see rapes go unreported and the guilty swine therefore free to ply their trade on the next unsuspecting
female(s).
How are you able to live with yourself ???
Up for the challenge today?

Okay, this makes 30x...

Explain how a state sanctioned abortion, obtained with explicit permission by the state due to a specific exception, and provided for by a licensed medical professional is illegal

You made the claim. Shouldn't take that long to explain. No need for a lengthy reply. Bite the bullet and get it over with, wouldja?

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#243200 Jun 12, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there. I don't think it was the purpose of Mel Gibson to make a critically acclaimed film. His purpose was to bring reality to the final hours of Christ's life. When Pope John Paul was asked about it, he said "it is as it was". Pretty succinct.
I have never taken the Old Testament literally. Job, in my mind may just represent the faith everyone is supposed to have in God.
Although I do believe that God does test us.
On another note that can be debated. The Shroud of Turin which has some controversy as to it's authenticity, do to carbon dating does reveal, if real, that Christ suffered excruciatingly.
Last I heard the dating was done on the edges of the Shroud which were repaired after the fire.
Evening "Ink."
Well I certainly think that Gibson's film was made with a specific audience in mind--other believers, namely, other Catholics so the Pope's opinion wasn't terribly surprising to me. However I, like many others, wondered how he, unless he was a clairvoyant, could possibly have "known" how it "was." It did take me two viewings to realize that Gibson's goal was not to "tell the story" of Jesus, but to paint, in ultra-graphic fashion, the details of the suffering Jesus was to have endured. I'm not sure I'd say it was "realistic" though. The term "exorbitant" comes to mind, though I don't doubt he was aiming for a "gritty" sense of "realism." Nothing else seemed to explain to me the use of ancient languages.
Yeah I've seen the Shroud of Turin stories and while I'll admit they're interesting, I can't help but be rather skeptical about them. Of course it doesn't help that the title of the article you linked for me was a tad misleading; it seems to suggest that "all" scientists have concluded the Shroud is "real."
I find it interesting that you say you don't take the Old Testament literally but I'm guessing that you do take the New Testament at "face-value?"
If that is so why and where do you draw the distinction?
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#243201 Jun 12, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Evening "Ink."
Well I certainly think that Gibson's film was made with a specific audience in mind--other believers, namely, other Catholics so the Pope's opinion wasn't terribly surprising to me. However I, like many others, wondered how he, unless he was a clairvoyant, could possibly have "known" how it "was." It did take me two viewings to realize that Gibson's goal was not to "tell the story" of Jesus, but to paint, in ultra-graphic fashion, the details of the suffering Jesus was to have endured. I'm not sure I'd say it was "realistic" though. The term "exorbitant" comes to mind, though I don't doubt he was aiming for a "gritty" sense of "realism." Nothing else seemed to explain to me the use of ancient languages.
Yeah I've seen the Shroud of Turin stories and while I'll admit they're interesting, I can't help but be rather skeptical about them. Of course it doesn't help that the title of the article you linked for me was a tad misleading; it seems to suggest that "all" scientists have concluded the Shroud is "real."
I find it interesting that you say you don't take the Old Testament literally but I'm guessing that you do take the New Testament at "face-value?"
If that is so why and where do you draw the distinction?
Scientists who have examined the Shroud say that if it is real Jesus suffered enough brutality to kill most men.
As far as the Old Testament or the Torah is concerned, it was written after hundreds of years of oral retelling. I think much is true but I also believe that some circumstances were used to symbolize God's insistance on adherence to the Commandments for the Hebrew society.
The New testament is mostly about the ministry of Jesus and written probably within forty years of His death and in some cases we know the authors.
From wikipedia;
"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D."[
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#243202 Jun 12, 2012
For John K
I should have said The brutality that he received before He was executed on the cross.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#243203 Jun 12, 2012
Considering that jesus's trial would have been comparable to OJ's for its time, the lack of any written account or mention is pretty unlikely.

As for atlantis...well, I've always had a crush on aquaman...:)
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
That is always been my contention that with everything else that happened at the time one would think one letter (private or public), graffiti scrawled on a wall, even an equivalent to a hand bill of the time announcing a great speech on a hill.
Yet, nothing? Seems incredible that all is left is a series of books that are really copy of copies. Yet that is all we are left with to ponder just what if anything did happen. I have more proof that Atlantis was really an island off the coast of Spain.
"Lost city of Atlantis believed found off Spain"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072469/ns/techn...
Go figure.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#243204 Jun 13, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Call it what you want doesnt make it right.
Actually, I am not "calling it what I want". I am reiterating *law*. I don't make the law.

I didn't say it was "right", either. I merely corrected your misstatement.

You are most welcome :)

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#243205 Jun 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nah...La has +6 armor (as my dweeb friends tell me) and they just have +1 blunt arrows.
<quoted text>
Indeed!

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#243206 Jun 13, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink, the Church my parents now attend do not have kneelers. There is no kneeling ever... not in that one and trust me when I say, it's a full house on Saturdays. Not sure about Sundays...
As far as the reading of the Gospel - I don't remember. You know best, being a regular, but there is kneeling (prolonged) during the giving/receiving of the sacrament in many RC churches. Is there not? Iirc, there's an earlier session involving kneeling. No?
Not sure what the point is... Bibles were never supplied (bulky), but I always assumed the Priest was reading from something holy.
Please tell me you remember "Limbo"? It's where a person who wasn't good enough for heaven, but not bad enough for hell would end up until the final judgment. Unbaptized when to Limbo, for example. Holy Ghost became the Holy Spirit. Confessions were no longer held in closets. Lots of changes.
Many changes, indeed. Which is precisely the point I was making to Nit when she stated that the church was "unchanged". She needs to learn to use qualifiers. Heck, she needs to learn how to read/write past the 2nd grade level, first.

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

#243207 Jun 13, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Many changes, indeed. Which is precisely the point I was making to Nit when she stated that the church was "unchanged". She needs to learn to use qualifiers. Heck, she needs to learn how to read/write past the 2nd grade level, first.
I remember when we moved to CT. We trooped into Church wearing mantillas. All other heads were uncovered. We were quite a "curiosity" during that Mass. Not sure what the parishioners thought - perhaps we were Spanish or perhaps grieving or who knows. I was not so young that I didn't feel mortified.
pbfa

United States

#243208 Jun 13, 2012
Breakfast for the knuttypredator:
http://www.stupid.com/Gummy-Fetus_p_2327.html
(thanks, cpeter!)
Kenose

Westbury, NY

#243209 Jun 13, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets try some honest here..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/crime/2011/11/15/...
"If the reports are correct, the initial reaction of those in charge was to follow the Catholic Church model of circling the wagons, protecting the institution from scrutiny by not notifying authorities and, therefore, allowing the abuse to continue. The cause, according to the expert opinions being bandied about, is a culture that puts protecting the corporation (in this case, the university and church) above the welfare of the individual (the victimized children)."
As for your other..
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4740...
"CINCINNATI — A lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood was recently found to have violated an Ohio informed consent law has been “resolved and dismissed,” according to the Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney who filed the suit. ADF-allied attorney Brian Hurley represents the parents of a girl who, at age 14, was brought to a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion by the 22-year-old soccer coach who impregnated her."
Thanks for proving that Planned Parenthood does not abuse children.
It's absolutely pathetic that Ink-stain wants to claim that PP covers up sexual abuse of children within their organization.

It's total BS and nothing more. What else should we expect from a fundie christard?
Kenose

Westbury, NY

#243210 Jun 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
Not one thing in your link shows PP is

1. sexually abusing children
2. covering up the sexual abuse of children within PP

you lying piece of cr@pola.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#243211 Jun 13, 2012
Ink wrote:
What a shock a prolife site..
http://www.aul.org/about-aul/
"About AUL
Our mission at Americans United for Life is to defend human life through vigorous legislative, judicial, and educational efforts, on both the state and national level.

Founded in 1971 as the first national pro-life organization in the United States, Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law."

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that the only ones making this accusation is the antichoicers, so called "prolife".

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#243212 Jun 13, 2012
STO wrote:
You misconstrued my post.

I did not claim frozen embryos are viable. Given your understanding of the word "viable" in this context, you would have to extend it to frozen embryos. They are "surviving" outside the womb. And medical professionals have the technology to implant them in a womb. If that womb were artificial, wouldn't the frozen embryo meet your criteria for "viable"? Of course it would. No different than 10 weeks gestation you already agreed met your criteria, if the technology existed.

You know what the point is, and that's why you're dodging it.

Embryos are not viable, nor are fetuses at 12 weeks, etc, and an MD would tell a woman that, if she, for example. decided to have her fetus removed in hopes of using an artificial womb. It would meet your criteria for the word "viable", but it wouldn't be truely viable.

Do I have to read more of your corny insults, or are ya gonna address the point this time?
You are brilliant STO!

It's funny to watch these extreme ACers squirm when you force them to face the reality of their idiotic positions. I'm glad you're exposing this for what it is. I don't have the patience for this crap anymore. When people ignore reality and factual information it doesn't make sense to me. Their nonsensical thinking will be the demise of our society if this blatantly willful ignorance continues in important matters. Used to be people understood that their religion was personal. They knew it wasn't factual and was important only to them. Even the most fervent bible bangers knew where "faith" ended and science, reality, began. There was very little "not accepting" FACTS or SCIENCE, or they were at least smart enough not to embarrass themselves. They were polite and "christian" enough to know not everyone thought as they did and they didn't demand anything from anyone else.

Unless the sane folk, like you and other PC religious and the few AC that aren't babbling fools, stand strong and shout these buffoons down, we are ALL screwed.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#243213 Jun 13, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember when we moved to CT. We trooped into Church wearing mantillas. All other heads were uncovered. We were quite a "curiosity" during that Mass. Not sure what the parishioners thought - perhaps we were Spanish or perhaps grieving or who knows. I was not so young that I didn't feel mortified.
How funny. You poor things! Nothing like not fitting in to make you feel special, eh?

We always had our hats on, and, on holidays such as Easter Sunday, our white gloves and matching outfits. I remember my 7th grade English teacher mortifying me by announcing, on the very first day of school, how beautiful all the children in my family looked in our Sunday best at church, and how incredibly well-behaved all six of us were.

I wanted to dissolve, right then and there.

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.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Bachelorette' Emily Maynard and Jef Holm break up (Oct '12) 2 hr friv 3 61
Jim Bakker is back and trolling for new suckers (Mar '08) 6 hr LordismyTemple 524
Arrested Muslim Cleric Faces Hannity Again to B... 6 hr Rusty Tin Can 12
Big smile in Denver bank robbery suspect mug shot 7 hr Denver 1
Obama: US misjudged Iraqi army, militants' threat 9 hr the Light 43
Ashton Kutcher is not playing Walter Isaacson's... (Apr '12) 9 hr Walter Harold Marlin 83
Response to Bill O'Reilly: Jesus Didn't Start a... 12 hr yehoshooah adam 378

Television People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE