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
241,241 - 241,260 of 305,158 Comments Last updated 39 min ago

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256469
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bitner wrote:
Ah, the table didn't copy right. For those too dumb to interpret, I'll try to fix it.
Agree Disagree Unsure
2/14-20/12 64% 31% 5%
Hopefully it will work this time. If not, the link is still there for anyone who really wants to know.
What link?

If it's what I think it is, that wasn't about wanting RvW upheld. Just about wanting to allow abortion under CERTAIN circumstances. We already had this discussion from you PC using this table, and it's you idiots who are too dumb to interpret it correctly.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256470
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Man has defined himself as supreme over cockroaches! What's next? Why not just declare ourselves as the most vital life forms in the known universe? It's not like our boasting makes any difference.
"That the brain is not developed enough for it to be of the same value."
Is it now brain activity that decides what life is more valuable than another? That's dangerous thinking, OL.
Because we're not sure if life is out there. I'd say if there is,and flying saucers are true,we might change our minds.
It is,ask a number of folks on this forum. You see the danger, I'm surprised. Isn't this the personhood argument?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256471
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Believe as you wish, but you don't have the right to force women to live by your beliefs. It's her body and her pregnancy. You are irrelevant.

The starting point of life is philosophical, not scientific. in science, life is a process, not an event. The parents zre alive, the sperm and egg are alive, the blastocyte is alive, etc. A "life' doesn't start; it's a continuation of previous life.

Again, murder is a LEGAL term. Legal abortion is not murder. Not even when abortion was illegal was it considered murder. You don't get to make up definitions to make your case more empotional.
tomtom wrote:
The real issue is what the pagans keep avoiding.
Human life is a journey. It starts with conception and the human being developes until death. Then the spirit returns to God.
So even if you don't beleive in the Spirit or God, there is the reality of life.
Human existence begins at conception and proceeds until mortal death. If you deliibertly stop it at any point along that journey, you have killed a human.
All the arbitrary times set by poiticans and proabortionists cannot change the science of that fact.
Abortion is murder. If you believe that such murder is justified, you are a proabort. If you do not beleive it is justified, you are pro-life.
Pro-choice is a cowardly fence sitting by mainly proaborts.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256472
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still missing the point. RvW doesn't specify those restrictions. They want RvW upheld. This is not brain surgery here. RvW is clear that a woman may have an abortion on demand up to a certain point for any reason whatsoever, and that they state may impose restrictions after that, if they choose. THAT is what nearly two-thirds of the population want upheld, and that INCLUDES some of those 50% who consider themselves "pro-life". Get it now?
That's not what those stats are about, liar. Pro-lifers do want to allow abortion under "certain circumstances" (mother will die without one), without wanting RvW upheld, as you claim. You're an idiot to try to make that particular claim about the stats.

PROVE your claim with a working link so people can see for themselves what those stats are about, and not just your unsubstantiated and ignorant opinion, based on your inability to read for comprehension, of what it's supposedly about.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256473
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm saying you don't know anymore than I do about it. I'm saying that given there are no such restriction, the approval rates for the decision speak for themselves.
If you want to argue about what so-called pro-life people really want, try Knit. She's the one who swears that NO "pro-life" person would want RvW upheld.
My original point stands.
Good one person's opinion makes you a winner. It doesn't take much to make your day.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256474
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't how I can be more clear. Concentrate. Some pro life folks want RvW upheld so that a woman can get an abortion if her life is in danger or for other very restricted reasons. They think restricting abortion after viability is a step in the right direction. I don't think your strong card is knowing what pro life people think. Better to continue to tell us how a uterus trumps a fetus.
It's not that any pro-lifer wants "RvW upheld". Only to allow abortion if she'll die without one. Some want it for cases of rape or incest, IE: "certain circumstances". But RvW allows for abortion on demand for any reason, and pro-lifers most definitely don't want "RvW" upheld.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256475
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"I don't how I can be more clear. Concentrate. Some pro life folks want RvW upheld so that a woman can get an abortion if her life is in danger or for other very restricted reasons."
You don't know why, because the polls don't specify why. Given that RvW does not place such a restriction, your conclusion is baseless.
"They think restricting abortion after viability is a step in the right direction."
Again, we're talking about the RvW decision. The poll didn't specify anything about restrictions, and still two-thirds have declared that they want it upheld/approve of it. That's as is. RvW doesn't have anything to do with the restrictions.
"I don't think your strong card is knowing what pro life people think."
Your first three words were a complete sentence, Witless. I can obviously read the polls better than you can.
"Better to continue to tell us how a uterus trumps a fetus."
Since I've never said any such thing, or implied it, your point is moot. Obviously another instance of you mistaking me for someone else.
"You don't know why, because the polls don't specify why. Given that RvW does not place such a restriction, your conclusion is baseless."

Same can be said to you about your OPINION as to what the majority wants. It does NOT specify that it's wanting "RvW upheld" as you claimed and couldn't prove, liar. Don't state opinions as facts or you'll be proven a liar. What you claimed about the majority of people, including some pro-lifers wanting RvW upheld was only your opinion of what was wanted by the majority, which you claimed as fact, and it's not fact. You lied in claiming it as fact.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256476
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what those stats are about, liar. Pro-lifers do want to allow abortion under "certain circumstances" (mother will die without one), without wanting RvW upheld, as you claim. You're an idiot to try to make that particular claim about the stats.
PROVE your claim with a working link so people can see for themselves what those stats are about, and not just your unsubstantiated and ignorant opinion, based on your inability to read for comprehension, of what it's supposedly about.
She doesn't want to understand the reasons behind anything. She just wants to be comfortable in her narrow minded view.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256477
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean it's not "wanting RvW to be upheld"? Just where do you think the exception to mother's life/health comes from anyway?
That exception equals "Most pro-lifers want to allow for a woman to have a right to abort if she'd die without one."
This is why I've been saying for years, all y'all are working against your own best interests. Being manipulated to hand over your civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy. That you want to hand mine over as well is what's infuriating. And is why people repeat over and over "If you don't like abortion, even the exception for life/health, then don't have one." Nobody will force you but now with all the restrictions, they sure as hell can refuse you. And that's the world you're working towards. The one you want to leave behind for all of our daughters and granddaughters, nieces, cousins, friends, and their families.
Your editorial aside, you didn't prove your claim that the majority "wants RvW upheld".

RvW doesn't just allow for a woman to abort if she will die without one, but for abortions on demand for any reason, so no, the majority isn't talking about "wanting RvW upheld". Allowing so a woman doesn't die without one isn't about "RvW". It's about something altogether different.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256478
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try and concentrate on this one answer of your's.
The polls don't specify why. True.
I am saying that being on the pro life side, I have a better understanding of why people on that side would poll to uphold R V W than you do comming from the other side. Our reasons for upholding R V W would be very different than abortion rights people. The main logical reason not to overturn is because it would be impossible to effectively enforce an anti abortion law.
Ink, did you see the link and what's on it? Does it say wanting RvW upheld? I haven't seen any link from Bitner. Obviously if a pro-lifer wants a woman allowed an abortion if she'd die without one, THAT's the ONLY part they're wanting to uphold from RvW. I have to wonder about the wording of the question on Bitner's link.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256479
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Science doesn't really say we are the last rung on the evolutionary ladder, just the most advanced. That is debatable.

Scientific laws, like the laws of evolution, either are inviolable or violable. We are not forced to live by evolutionary laws because evolution concerns adaptation to the environment; man is the only animal that can deliberately adapt its environment to them. Doing so, actually, affects the evolution of other species.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>This culture has declared man, in our present state, to be the last rung on the evolutionary ladder. That man is under no obligation to live by the laws of evolution under which every other species on earth is obliged to live.
We are woefully wrong about both.
JMO

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256480
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She doesn't want to understand the reasons behind anything. She just wants to be comfortable in her narrow minded view.
Of course not. The truth doesn't work for them, so they'll twist and lie to make their points.

No pro-lifer would want RvW "upheld". If the question asked, "Would you like RvW abolished and allow abortions only for certain life threatening circumstances...", what do you suppose the numbers would have been then? If the numbers were high, what would her argument be then?

The question obviously didn't include specifics, so desperate PC idiots like her will use it as some sort of verification of whatever they make up in their own mind.Not realizing it also leaves it open for PL to turn it around and do the same. Her so-called proof isn't proof of anything at all.

Since: Nov 10

Breckenridge Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256481
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The numbers prove you wrong.
Didn't your momma ever teach you that the most popular thing isn't always right?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256482
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
What link?
If it's what I think it is, that wasn't about wanting RvW upheld. Just about wanting to allow abortion under CERTAIN circumstances. We already had this discussion from you PC using this table, and it's you idiots who are too dumb to interpret it correctly.
The links in the previous post. I directly quoted just one of them in the post you just responded to. And yes, the question asked WAS about RvW being upheld. You just have to scroll until you find the poll. Yes, there were other posts in the first one, but the RvW was among them.

But thank you, for proving your dishonesty so well, LynneD.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256483
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
The main logical reason not to overturn is because it would be impossible to effectively enforce an anti abortion law.
You're so right!!! No one of these people arguing back and forth has presented a doable workable plan to implement terminations except in case of........ Anti-abortion laws would require a board in every town,county,and state to hear and review a request and the woman would have to open her life up to total strangers. On top of that there would have to be a appeals process. What,how, and where? What would be the boards qualifications? Would they be nominated or elected? What be the liability ramifications if a termination was denied and the woman died as she was warned? The only thing limiting abortions does is push women to back alleys,kitchen table procedures, or the do-it-yourself method. Then there's no paper trail,no proof,unless something goes wrong.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256484
Sep 5, 2012
 
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>What I 'want' doesn't matter - what I'm talking about is what 'worked' for 3 million freaking years.
We are consigning ourselves to extinction, and I think it will happen within the next 20 years. Can you even imagine what 12 BILLION people will look like? How about 24 BILLION by the year 2030? 48 Billion by 2035?
We gotta do something - outlawing abortion on demand, ain't it.
My sister-in-law think this year will be bad, especially food prices. So bad,she is frightened something will give,like chaos,among people all over the united states. I do hope she is wrong.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256485
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Other species in fact do defend their food supplies and do their best to wipe out competing species. Ants alone can obliterate every living thing in their paths for their own benefit. Social insects or various kinds engage in warfare. Chimpanzees make our urban gangs look like sewing circles. The only real difference between us and our evolutionary brethren is that we can deliberately change our patterns of activity on the basis of choice instead of instinct.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>The six Billion (well, 7, maybe encroaching on 8 by now,) are those who insist on using totalitarian agriculture as an evolutionary strategy - that's most of the world, east, west, north, and south. Totalitarian agriculture is pursued by waging war against every competing species which we perceive as a threat to our food supply:
Bugs in the grain? DDT.
Coyotes on the ranch? Extermination.
Folks on the other side of one, politically? Genocide.
No other species has ever done this.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256486
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink, did you see the link and what's on it? Does it say wanting RvW upheld? I haven't seen any link from Bitner. Obviously if a pro-lifer wants a woman allowed an abortion if she'd die without one, THAT's the ONLY part they're wanting to uphold from RvW. I have to wonder about the wording of the question on Bitner's link.
I didn't see it. Just going by what she said. I have also been trying to explain to her and it's not ever going to sink in, that a pro life woman might want RVW upheld to protect a woman from dying in the case of a pregnancy that could be fatal to her.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256487
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what those stats are about, liar. Pro-lifers do want to allow abortion under "certain circumstances" (mother will die without one), without wanting RvW upheld, as you claim. You're an idiot to try to make that particular claim about the stats.
PROVE your claim with a working link so people can see for themselves what those stats are about, and not just your unsubstantiated and ignorant opinion, based on your inability to read for comprehension, of what it's supposedly about.
I just clicked on all three links, and they worked just fine. And they proved my point. I TOLD you that you would have to scroll down. Instead, you just looked at the top of the page, didn't you?

All YOU'VE proven is that you can't be honest, LynneD. But we know that already.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256488
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
My sister-in-law think this year will be bad, especially food prices. So bad,she is frightened something will give,like chaos,among people all over the united states. I do hope she is wrong.
Me too.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

15 Users are viewing the Television Forum right now

Search the Television Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Kelly Hyland: Abby Lee Miller, Dance Moms Screw... 11 min dmw 2
Blasphemy against Christ is allowed since it is... 57 min never learn 40
Sen. Ted Cruz blasts 'True Blood' episode 3 hr Le Jimbo 24
Eliot Shapleigh: Rick Perry border-troops order... 5 hr Joe 13
Sources: KTVK drops 'Good Morning Arizona' pers... (Mar '09) 6 hr MorninBone 603
T.V, Is Junk 7 hr aceofspades 1
Robertson's latest advice is on stomachaches, a... 8 hr The Equalizer 2
•••
•••
•••