Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
235,981 - 236,000 of 305,485 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250700 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
My kids grew up on a farm and the work ethic and the sense of responsibility to the animals is priceless. It stays with them their whole life..
Yeah, right down to eating thier roadkill.@@

“Don't kill me mom”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#250701 Jul 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> So, when womens go to work to earn money to feed, clothe and shelter their children, they aren't putting their's kids first? How many families do you know that can live on one adult's salary? Even your "perfect nuclear family" has to have two wage earners, in order to make ends meet. Of course, a family can always opt to be low-income and subsidize their household with government assistance. That way Mom can stay home as you believe she should. Is that okay with you? Make up your mind, hon.
It IS possible to live with one salary until your last kid goes to school. People have done it FOREVER. People live WAY above their means. WAY ABOVE. They then can't pay their bills. Then they claim to "have to" work.

Check out your local fast food places,resturants,recreational places,Disney,etc...etc...and you tell ME if these people are struggling...and then YOU tell ME why they struggle.

Alot of people that I know make ends meet with one salary. They LIVE with restrictions yet manage to have extra's too. MOST working women will be afraid to admit that they wouldn't have it any other way. Some how,many women because of people like lala,chicky(and others)feel inadequate to be SAHM's.

PRO-WOMEN? lol hardly. They are anti-woman. They degrade women who are in good marriages and stay home to raise their families. Lala called it "leaching" off your husband. Seems they have failed marriages and don't want to see other women happy or staying home with their kids.

“Don't kill me mom”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#250702 Jul 31, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. You must not read your bible, G-d COMMANDS killing. Quite often in fact.
Oh wait, you're talking about your jesus who ISN'T many people's g-d. Which of course makes your point moot.
<quoted text> Yeah, because THAT is so more humaine for all concerned.
<quoted text>
Yes they have. And women dont have to take shit your kind dish out anymore. They have CHOICES and those CHOICES include abortion. Deal with it.
Oh so God must have read the bible and saw what you did...where God COMMANDS killing-quite often in fact(like you said).

What a dope.

CHOICES CHOICES.

“Don't kill me mom”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#250703 Jul 31, 2012
CORRECTION:

oops.....the colorado killer must have read the bible and saw what you did..where God COMMANDS killing...etc.

“Don't kill me mom”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#250704 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unfortunate that some mothers have to work while their children are small. It is also unfortunate that some mothers would rather work than care for the kids they gave birth to. It is unfortunate that kids grow up in daycare and not under mom's wing. It is unfortunate that women don't bother to marry the fathers of their children or if they do, decide to divorce them because they have differences, the basis of most divorces. It's unfortunate that dads can so easily be replaced either by another boyfriend or the government.
I really respect the parents who worked through the tough times together to be able to spend enough time with the kids to have some influence over them and show them a personal closeness and love.
What's sad is that people do not take responsibility for their actions. They think of what THEY want,when they want it,then when the consequences come,it's NOT their fault,so they excuse their solutions.

Kids today are living through the results of such people. Couples overspend,live above their means or have high standards that they want to live by, and then the KID pays the consequences. Mom HAS to work therefore,leaving kids to be babysat by EVERYONE under the sun(babysitters,daycares,sport teams,sleep away camps or any other program that will tend to them while mom think she is doing it for *them*).

THAT in my opinion is where the breakdown begins. Of course the root is where they take God out of the picture. We are selfish by nature in our fallen state so it is very easy to fall into the self-centered trap.

It seems that most working moms that I know ALWAYS seem to think that they DESERVE "me" time as a reward. I know many who's in-laws raise their kids WHILE cooking and cleaning for them. The funny part is that these couples can't STAND or have nothing ince to say about their parents or in-laws who are doing all this for them.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#250705 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>No,foo was not right nor are you. Knit and bigsky were having a conversation. What sparked my interested was when bigsky mention his mom in the depression days. I mentioned that MY mom was born in the days of the depression and went on to share my story.
Okay? So my mom was born in the days of the depression. I don't think that you could have mistaken that for the 1950's. Foo however,just jumps into conversation to fight. She doesn't pay attention.
YOU then chimmed in with your negative opinion on how the good ole days weren't so good. Why would you think I was discussing baby boomers or the 50's when discussing my mom OR the fact that she lived in the days of the depression? Do the math.
Every time a conversation is started,you people go so off topic. I was thinking as you started into he conversation about "the good old days" or the Leave it to beaver times..when that was IRRELEVENT to what I was discussing.
Then stop making generalities and exaggerating while accusing me of it. You posted people of the Depression (who do you think was growing up at that time? The Greatest Generation) had values because they stayed together, even when broke, due to a "deep family bond". This is such a blatant falsehood but I didn't address it one bit. What I did was point out your inaccuracy and suggest you research.
=====
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Hey Bigsky ;) What a sweet testimony of true love. Parents in those days seemed to be able to have deep family bonding that I feel today they lack. My parents also have stories from the depression days and while sad,they show such strong family values and love. Today Parents spoil their kids too much. I feel it's done for all the wrong reasons. I feel that they do it out of guilt. Kids are not stupid. They know what's being done and why and I feel that is WHY they don't appreciate all that they have.
Parents are suppose to make their child number one. It doesn't happen much today. It's like their careers,wants and needs come first and as you can see,the results are tragic.
"Parents are suppose to make their child number one. It doesn't happen much today."

It didn't happen much in the past, either. While your post pulls on heartstrings, it is not factually correct. You should research the abysmal conditions children were raised in not too long ago.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250706 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was such a great world now, we wouldn't need so many shelters for women. You obviosly are seeing the results of modern society.
You know Inky, this would be MUCH funnier if I didn't think you REALLY BELIEVE that the NEED for shelters is a "modern socitey" issue.

Are you REALLY this ignorant??

Yes Inky, it was SO much better back in the days when women had to stay with an abusive man - men who were also often abusive to the kids, ALL because the TYPICAL INTACT FAMILY was SO much more important than them getting help.

BTW, it would be nice if you could post just once without lying about what I or others have said. NOWHERE have I said "its such a great world now". HOWEVER, it IS a more modern world where women dont have to sit back and be abused or even simply dissatisfied with their lives because idiots like YOU think they should.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250707 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Sassy, and only Sassy can correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe anything was ever said about lifesaving abortion. It was about an abortion. The PC's added the other part as usual.
Actually, I can (and will) correct you, since I am the one that asked her about the lifesaving abortion you jackass.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/st-paul-mn/TJ... #

Note the question I asked:

"Or dont you want to admit you'd rather have your child die, than save her life with an abortion?"

Of course you WANT the Skank to respond to back up your stupidity.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250708 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Kids not so long ago,had a part in the family functions. They ALL pooled together to make life work. They NEEDED each other. Their labor was this scenerio lala made up about abused,beaten kids who were forced to work long hours. It was called SURVIVAL.
My mom and Dad also had a hand in the family functions. They were abused or forced. Today,kids have NO place in their families. They wouldn't know what it's like to have a chore. Mom ships them off to daycares and endless activities after school to baby sit them in the name of being "educated" and "entertainment". Then they are paid to take their plate off the table because they wouldn't dare do it otherwise.
There is NO sense of family values today. It's all parents shifting their responsibilites on others while under the disguise of preparing for their kids future education.
Barely ANY of my kids friends have relationships with their mothers. They think that it's weird and unusual that they have a close relationship with their mom or dad. NOT ONE eats at a family dinner. They grew up with Mcdonalds as their dinners or chicken nuggets and fries if they actually were home to eat. Kids are not supervised by parents. This is tragic in my opinion. There is ONE friend that has a close relationship with mom but dad is dsyfunctional to the core.
My sons gf has the most clueless mother. She put her career first. Very successful. Put her kids in top colleges. They had to do well in school. This was suppose to be testimony that she did a FAB job of raising her children. Dad left when they were younger. He saw them on weekends. EVERYTHING was good in their minds because they were all educated people.
This woman and man are CLUELESS. They don't know their children. Someone raised them but it wasn't them. They were too busy "providing" for their childrens education. Came graduation time from college..WELL...they were given big parties and paraded around. GOAL accomplished. EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION. ZERO family life. ZERO.
You are SO full of shit, I'm amazed you can sneeze without crap coming out of your ears.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250709 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't mention the fifties either.
THank you for giving me yet ANOTHER opportunity to spotlight what a complete lying sack of shit you are.

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

Post 2503 in this thread from last night.

You lying.

Again.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250710 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I can understand having your personal feelings about abortion which she says she is against and believe that other have a right to do what they want but she says she guides women through praying pro lifers to make sure women can kill their babies. That has to be against Judaism.
I said I help women get to clinics to avoid harassment from idiots like you. And no, that's NOT against Judaism. Espeically when the women are not Jewish. I was introduced to this work many years ago by my fathers ORTHODOX rabbi.

I've NEVER taken anyone anywhere to "kill their babies".

One would think you lying incessently about others would be against Christianity's beliefs.

But hey, its one standard for you and your lies, and another standard for others huh Inky?

That's called HYPOCRISY dear. You are the queen of it. Are you proud?

AGAIN for the stupid thing: Judaism doesn't presume to tell those of other faiths how to live their lives or what decisions they should make for themselves.

But keep lying about it Inky, if that's what gets you through the day.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250711 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Deception is the name of the proabort game.
The original converation regarding this "what if" scenerio came up and I was questioned if my daughter wanted an abortion,would I still love her.
My response was I would LOVE my children no matter what they did. I specifically said that I would NEVER support her aborting no matter what. In fact, the topic being discussed too was if one of our kids told us that they were gay,would we accept that. My specific answer was NO. I would LOVE my children but in no way,shape or form,would I EVER condone what we believed went against God. No more or less(I said)then if my child became involved in drugs. I wouldn't ACCEPT or CONDONE it.(neither the drugs of homosexuality would be a cause that I would rather my child die than to do that though,but KILLING is permanent) I would LOVE my child no matter what especially since I was a sinner too.
Then,it went off into this spiraled out of control garbage. Interestingly,every time the topic got regurgitated,I mentioned that I even explained this conversation to my daughter when she was near me during one of these such conversations. She said "I WOULD NEVER KILL MY CHILD NOR WOULD IT EVER ENTER MY MIND". She even said that if she was so insane to do so,that she'd wish she be dead first before she ever had a chance to kill her child.
I also added another scenerio where I'd rather my son be dead(peacefully in his sleep of course)then to find out he raped,tortured and killed women.
It was ALL rhetorical questions.
It doesn't matter if they were rhetorical or not, it says volumes about how sick you are, that you'd rather your children DIE than find out they did something you didn't like.

You're pathetic.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250712 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>The links to my answer proved what I said. I will say it again.
I would rather my daughter die first then to EVER kill her child in or out of the womb.
Now go ahead with your dishonest self,and tell me that I wish my daughter dead .
You just said you'd wish your daughter dead IF she did something you dont approve of you MORON. Nothing dishonest about it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250713 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't the baby have a soul at forty days as Judism teaches?
Do you think you should perform a medical procedure that kills a fetus with a soul?
Just for interest
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/1...
You're really dumber than dirt Inkstain. You take some idiots 6 year old blog and believe it with NO factual information to back it up SIMPLY BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR AGENDA?

Why am I not surprised?

If you ACTUALLY want to know when full ensoulment happens, read the actual Jewish law: PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAST SENTENCE INKSTAIN.

http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/defau...

When Life Begins, Grossman HM425:2:2003 3
One of the most important distinctions between Catholic canon law and rabbinic law is that the rabbinic view of ensoulment (when the soul enters the body) does not translate into a juridical definition equating an ensouled fetus with human life.10 R. Meir Abulafia (d. 1244) perhaps best explained it in his comment on the Gemara that nishmat ruach hayim, the soul of the spirit of life, enters at conception but a fetus is lav nefesh hu, is not considered a human life, until it is born.11
If the fetus is not human life, what is it?
Rabbinic law views the fetus as part of its mother’s body, ubar yerekh imo12 (the fetus is [like] the thigh of its mother), and it is to be treated as such.13 So, for example, the rabbis ruled that if a pregnant slave is freed, so is any progeny she is carrying.14 Similarly, when a pregnant woman undergoes religious conversion, no additional or separate ceremony is required for the fetus she carries either at the time of the mother’s conversion or at its birth.15 Neither gestational age nor viability serves to grant the fetus a legal or religious identity independent of its mother prior to birth. Similarly, Rabbi Yair Bachrach reasons that the Sabbath cannot be violated to save a fetus in distress, since it is not a person, arguing instead that the Sabbath could only be violated for the sake of the mother’s health, to which a miscarriage could present a danger.

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life... 17
While the death of the woman would be a capital offense according to the Torah, the destruction of the fetus is not, for clearly the fetus is not a person under the law. The Rabbis agreed, as, for example, in the Mekilta which explains that “yet no other damage ensues” refers to harm to the woman (i.e., her life) while “he shall be fined,” refers to compensation for the loss of the fetus.18 This position was affirmed by later Talmudic commentators.19 Some commentators understood the verse to teach that until birth, the fetus remains potential life rather than a ben kayyama, a viable living being.20 However, even if the fetus had been carried full term, it still would not be considered a ben kayyama until it was actually born.

According to rabbinic law, then, the fetal life is not granted the rights and protections due human life until birth.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#250714 Jul 31, 2012
Here's a prime example of what's been discussed. A biography about the guy who wrote and sang "This Land Is Your Land". Born in 1912, he is part of the Greatest Generation. Bet his life was pretty typical, too.

"Early life: 1912–30
Woody Guthrie's Okfuskee County, Oklahoma, childhood home as it appeared in 1979

Guthrie was born in Okemah, a small town in Okfuskee County, Oklahoma, the son of Nora Belle (née Sherman) and Charles Edward Guthrie.[4] His parents named him after Woodrow Wilson, then Governor of New Jersey and the Democratic candidate soon to be elected President of the United States.

Charles Guthrie was an industrious businessman, owning at one time up to 30 plots of land in Okfuskee County. He was actively involved in Oklahoma politics and was a Democratic candidate for office in the county. When Charles was making stump speeches, he would often be accompanied by his son.[5] Charles Guthrie was involved in the 1911 lynching of Laura and Lawrence Nelson. His son wrote three songs about the event and said that his father was later a member of the revived Ku Klux Klan.[6]

Guthrie's early family life was affected by several fires, including one that caused the loss of his family's home in Okemah. His sister Clara later died in a coal-oil (used for heating) fire when Guthrie was seven, and Guthrie's father was severely burned in a subsequent coal-oil fire.[7] The circumstances of these fires, especially that in which Charley was injured, remain unclear. It is unknown whether they were accidents or the result of actions by Guthrie's mother Nora, who was afflicted with Huntington's disease, although the family did not know this at the time. It leads to dementia as well as muscular effects.[8]

Nora Guthrie was eventually committed to the Oklahoma Hospital for the Insane, where she died in 1930 from Huntington's disease. Judging from the circumstances of her father's death by drowning, researchers suspect that George Sherman suffered from the same hereditary disease.[9]

When Nora Guthrie was institutionalized, Woody Guthrie was 14. His father Charley was living and working in Pampa, Texas, to repay his debts from unsuccessful real estate deals. Woody and his siblings were on their own in Oklahoma; they relied on their eldest brother Roy for support. The 14-year-old Woody Guthrie worked odd jobs around Okemah, begging meals and sometimes sleeping at the homes of family friends. According to one story, Guthrie made friends with an African-American blues harmonica player named "George", whom he would watch play at the man's shoe shine booth. Before long, Guthrie bought his own harmonica and began playing along with him. In another interview 14 years later, Guthrie claimed he learned how to play harmonica from a boyhood friend, John Woods, and that his earlier story about the shoe-shining player was false.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250715 Jul 31, 2012
Y'know, its pretty amusing that the Skank and Inkstain are SO determined to re-write Jewish law in their Catholic image - but they're both pretty lousy christians.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250716 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Tragic circumstances CAN be avoided..
No Skanky, in real life, it often CANT be avoided.

Its called human frailty.

You truly are a very stupid person.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250717 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Oh so what do you do miss "I'M TOUGH AND WILL WARD OFF THE BIG BAD PROLIFERS WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO HELP GIVE WOMEN AN ALTERNATIVE"?
What do you do for women who FEEL forced to abort but have no choice? Do you GIVE THEM ANOTHER CHOICE? No,you don't. You escort them to kill their child and disappear when the emotional or pysical consequences emerge.
You're an anti-woman people please who only cares about killing. How about you offer her TRUE help.
I do Skanky. I make sure these women are fully educated in their choices, and allow them to make their OWN choice unencumbered by idiots like you who would only tell them what you WANT them to know.

The core difference between you and I is I'm not afraid to allow women to learn about ALL of their options, then TRUST them to make the right choice for themselves.

YOU on the other hand, would like to keep them stupid, so you could sway them to do what YOU want.

I DO offer true help. I offer education. I offer support. I offer anything and everything they need to help themselves make the best choices FOR THEM.

MOST of all is what I DONT offer.

I DONT offer phony religous rhetoric. I dont offer them threats of eternal damnnation, and I dont offer them outright lies about what their choices entail. That's YOUR kind's offerings.

You dont want to offer anything really. MOST important you dont want to offer them the power to make their own choices as fully educated women.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250718 Jul 31, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Read about post-abortive women and their failed marriages and relationships due to their deep rooted,unresolved,unrepentant abortion guilt.
@@ Only in your wet dream does such bullshit exist.

I'll never understand why you have such a burning desire for women that do something against what YOU want them to do, to suffer forever.

THANKFULLY, MOST dont suffer. If they're suffering long lasting guilt that affects their marriages and relationships years later, they have a LOT more mental issues than guilt over an abortion, and they SHOULD be in long term psychiatric care.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#250719 Jul 31, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor kids have no set standards.
Sure they do. They're simply not standards YOU happen to approve of. That doesn't make their standards wrong.

YOUR approval isn't a requirement for someone's standards to be perfectly fine.

Before my daughter went to college, she was seeing a guy (who she's now engaged to) that lived in Virginia. When he could get to Baltimore, he would stay over with us.

He stayed in a pull out bed in the other room, and to my knowledge, they respected our request that they not fool around under our roof. He was happy to be able to see her and spend time he othewise would have missed out on, and he respected our wishes.

COULD they have fooled around and we didn't know it? Sure. But here's the thing: at some point you have to trust your kids. I knew this boy and his parents well enough to know that I believe he could be trusted, and to this day, he's NEVER given me a reason to NOT trust him.

Again, different standards. I would understand why your daughter would say no, especially if she doesn't trust your grandchild or the boyfriend, and maybe doesn't know the parents of the boy. Doesn't make her wrong, but your grandchild certainly SHOULD know the standard of her mother. She set it and is standing by it. Good for her.

But for YOU to claim that there's no set standards for kids is COMPLETE bullshit.

WHat's a set standard for one isn't the standard for another. ANd there's NOTHING wrong with that.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Dance Moms Season 4 Episode 21 Recap: Christy H... 41 min jenniferzara 2
Women Hid Stolen Watches in Their Vaginas in Bi... 4 hr wichita-rick 28
Catholic Charities refuses to place children wi... (Jun '11) 6 hr nOgOd 711
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 7 hr DanFromSmithville 224
UFO Memo Tops FBI's Most-Viewed List (Jan '14) 8 hr Itistrue 15
You have options to keep KOLD 8 hr Amethaul 1
Response to Bill O'Reilly: Jesus Didn't Start a... 9 hr woodtick57 193
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Television People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••