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 (Page 11,293)

Showing posts 225,841 - 225,860 of305,065
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239966
May 22, 2012
 
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>That's so true.
Except its not true. Jewish law DEMANDS abortion if a woman's life is at stake and PRACTICING Jews will follow that law if its necessary.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239967
May 22, 2012
 
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR "popeye?@@
Skank, the ONLY "popeye" image you bring to mind here is YOUR pop-eye's as you choke on a boner and make that nasty sound.
But keep trying to justify it. Its amusing to watch you try and fail.
As usual.
LMAO!!!
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239968
May 22, 2012
 
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text> You're lying again Skankdawg. Why? Cant you make a point WITHOUT outright lying?
<quoted text>
And AGAIN, you're wrong. Shocker.
http://violence.de/ajc/ajc.pdf
Dear Friends,
Did you know that abortion can be a religious requirement? Not just
permitted, but required!
In some religious traditions, if the fetus endangers the life of the
mother, abortion is not a matter of choice; it is mandatory!
The conflict over abortion is not between "secularists" and "religionists,"
between "moral" people who value life and "immoral" people who do
not, but between different moral traditions, different understandings of
the sacredness of life.
According to some religious traditions, the sacredness of life can be
diminished far more by callousness to those already born than to the unborn,
however precious their promise.
These religious traditions believe that the sacredness of life requires
in some circumstances that the woman's well-being takes precedence over
that of the fetus.
Legislation that denies a woman's choice is objectionable not because
it limits some abstract notion of unrestrained freedom, but because it may
inflict irreparable damage to the human dignity of the woman who is carrying
the fetus.
Judaism affirms that nascent life has great value.
But it is not the only value.
In the face of the kind of desperation that drives women to risk their
lives and mutilate their bodies rather than carry the fetus to term, no one
has the right to say that other conflicting values do not exist.
When faced with such conflicting values, individuals should be able
to turn to their own moral traditions or religious faith for guidance.
Government has no business preempting that very personal process,
leaving women trapped without a choice.
We do not propose that a particular religious view of abortion find
expression in legislation. That would be violating someone else's religious
freedom. And many people's moral choices regarding abortion are deeply
personal, and not determined by any particular religious tradition.
In the face of such great moral and religious diversity, the proper role
of government in a free society is to allow different traditions to advocate
their respective views, and to leave the decision to the woman, answering
to God and to her conscience.
WTH is this? As if some nobody has anything meaningful to say?

Thanks for the laugh!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239969
May 22, 2012
 
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>Again your religion is AGAINST abortion and yet YOU support a woman choosing that"if" that's what she decides.
Stop lying.
My religions laws DEMANDS abortion at times, so no, they are NOT "against" it in a way that would demand legislation that would affect women that would have to have one.

Perhaps its YOU that should stop lying Skankdawg.

Heck, you dont represent or speak for your OWN faith, you sure as hell dont speak for mine.
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239970
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have written out the truth that Chicky presents and still don't understand the meaning behind it.
Take a moment or two to consider she was considered nonviable because she hadn't reached the stage of viability yet. Once viable, life support is unnecessary.
You guys have used the words VIABLE and VIABILITY in error. Every attempt at correcting you (for your benefit) has been met with one stubborn brick wall after another.
Amelia WAS viable. THAT'S the point.

Name ONe Viable preemie that didn't need life support to survive?

Kthanks. I'm waiting. PROVE chicky right dear.

Chicky scurried away because she knew that she was wrong and couldnt back up her claims. Poor embarrassed dear. LOL

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239971
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now JM, when are you gonna ride K&P's ass for writing such an ugly fantasy of Chicky's lovely grandkids?

And when are you going to point out to her how wrong it was for her to sit there and claim such foulness against preschoolers and a newborn?

Some of you expect all of us to babysit each other. Well why aren't you out there babysitting your fellow PLer? Nothing like leading by example.

Chicky's grandkids? These are the products of conception, y'know? Live births, somebody's offspring... that offspring you're so concerned about when a stranger decides not to follow through with a pregnancy. Look at how you let that offspring be treated once out of the womb.

This just proves you don't care for women or children. You only care about pregnancies and fetuses. And then, only those you think will be legally aborted.

Sshhh. Can you hear that? It's Cyndi Lauper singing about True Colors.
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239973
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah
ga
ga
ga
All together now....ah ga ga ga ga ga
@@
Gross. Seriously bitch, SPIT. STop trying to swallow.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239974
May 22, 2012
 
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> yep, I know.
They post porn..
And you choking on the Popeye's chicken ISNT?@@ Knutbar's wishing Chicky's grandkids would be raped ISNT? You and Knut are a match made in hell, so its appropriate that you're sucking up to each other again. Perhaps THAT'S what you're choking on actually, the two of you are so foul, it would make sense.
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239975
May 22, 2012
 
sassy does knit wrote:
strap-on action
"gagagagagagagagaga!! ahhhhh! gagagagagagagagaga!! ah!!! GAGAGAGAGAGAAGAGAGAG!!
GAG!!!
sassy and knit old ladies in lez love!
ah gagagagagagagaga!!!
Oh no no no. Lesbians (according to foo and cpeter) Don't use strap ons.

LOL

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239976
May 22, 2012
 
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> WTH is this? As if some nobody has anything meaningful to say?
Thanks for the laugh!
"Some nobody"?? You moron. Its the offical statement of the American Jewish Congress to the American people and to legislators.

Its amusing to watch you try, and FAIL miserably, to demean and invalidate other faith's views.

But then, its not like anyone takes you seriously anyway. As the Skanky joke you are here, you're not even good for much of a laugh anymore as all you seem to know how to do is regurgitate the same shit over and over.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239977
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> Amelia WAS viable. THAT'S the point.
Name ONe Viable preemie that didn't need life support to survive?
You're a moron Skank. If they were viable, they wouldn't NEED support. Pay attention to # 2B you dolt. "UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS".

vi·a·ble&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;va&# 618;&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology .
a. physically fitted to live.
b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239978
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

realkatie wrote:
Now JM, when are you gonna ride K&P's ass for writing such an ugly fantasy of Chicky's lovely grandkids?
And when are you going to point out to her how wrong it was for her to sit there and claim such foulness against preschoolers and a newborn?
Some of you expect all of us to babysit each other. Well why aren't you out there babysitting your fellow PLer? Nothing like leading by example.
Chicky's grandkids? These are the products of conception, y'know? Live births, somebody's offspring... that offspring you're so concerned about when a stranger decides not to follow through with a pregnancy. Look at how you let that offspring be treated once out of the womb.
This just proves you don't care for women or children. You only care about pregnancies and fetuses. And then, only those you think will be legally aborted.
Sshhh. Can you hear that? It's Cyndi Lauper singing about True Colors.
When am I going to? When you start telling the truth about abortion. You're a Mother who carried her developing child and delivered them. YOU know the truth. Abortion kills your developing child /offspring.

Hypocrite.

You people abort and /or support this evil act ....a crime against himaniy...ones own..and YOU have the audacity to point out what someone else said?

Don't make me laugh.

Dispicable!
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239980
May 22, 2012
 
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> ....a crime against himaniy...
"himanily" huh?@@

Skanky, clearly, choking on that boner has affected the blood supply to your one functioning brain cell. Or maybe that sepsis did that first huh? ROFLMAO!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239981
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not Chicky refusing to back her claim.
You and your buddies are refusing to look at this with the same perspective medical personnel do.
Really ? We are ? Fascinating.
Here's a REAL medical dictionary's take...with "medical personnel perspective".....

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...

"viable infant
Neonatology An infant who is likely to survive to the point of sustaining life independently, given the benefit of available medical therapy."

As an added bonus for you dunderheads, here's the definition of "non viable"....also from a REAL medical dictionary....

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...

nonviable fetus
Obstetrics An expelled or delivered fetus which, although living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with support of the best available medical therapy.

According to stupid chicky....and you....an otherwise healthy infant born at 8 months that might need some temporary artificial assistance to breathe......is non viable.
I'd say medical personnel would disagree.
The 22wk preemie would be determined likely able to reach viability with life support. This does not mean the newborn is already viable -- which is what you and your buddies continually claim.
Yes it does. You are simply.....W-R-O-N-G.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239982
May 22, 2012
 
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> When am I going to? When you start telling the truth about abortion. You're a Mother who carried her developing child and delivered them. YOU know the truth. Abortion kills your developing child /offspring.
Hypocrite.
You people abort and /or support this evil act ....a crime against himaniy...ones own..and YOU have the audacity to point out what someone else said?
Don't make me laugh.
Dispicable!
So you do support what knutter wrote.. Your hypocrisy has just hit a new low, skanky..

And you justify this by your own warped desire to control other women Choice concerning their pregnancy..

Despicable? That is all you and your fellow antichoice freaks.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239983
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a moron Skank. If they were viable, they wouldn't NEED support. Pay attention to # 2B you dolt. "UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS".
vi·a·ble&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;va&# 618;&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology .
a. physically fitted to live.
b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
Remember that often silly discussion that took place on here regarding what is considered normal/natural ?
Would not available neonatal ICU medical methods and support be considered normal ?

They are absolutely and positively wrong on this. I'm surprised you saw fit to hitch your wagon to such an absurdity.
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239984
May 22, 2012
 
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Some nobody"?? You moron. Its the offical statement of the American Jewish Congress to the American people and to legislators.
Its amusing to watch you try, and FAIL miserably, to demean and invalidate other faith's views.
But then, its not like anyone takes you seriously anyway. As the Skanky joke you are here, you're not even good for much of a laugh anymore as all you seem to know how to do is regurgitate the same shit over and over.
Go to Torah.org and any other REAL,AUTHENTIC Jewish site and they ALL prohibit abortion even its earliest stages.

Yout "feel" good breakaway group is fake. REAL religious value ALL human life and prohibit abortion/killing of humans.
sassychic

Jackson, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239985
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a moron Skank. If they were viable, they wouldn't NEED support. Pay attention to # 2B you dolt. "UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS".
vi·a·ble&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;va&# 618;&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology .
a. physically fitted to live.
b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
"if they were viable, they wouldn't NEED support"

Name ONE young preemie that didnt NEED support.

Kthanks.

“YEAH, read it and weep Knit”

Since: Apr 12

Love animals more

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239986
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi pups. She lies. Sad.
Hiya Chicky ..
Yeah, she really is a piece of work ..

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239987
May 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>Go to Torah.org and any other REAL,AUTHENTIC Jewish site and they ALL prohibit abortion even its earliest stages.
Bullshit. They do NOT prohibit it at even its earliest stages.

From your favorite site and the link you gave above:

What is the Torah view on abortion?

The Torah holds human life to be of the utmost value; this applies also to fetal life. Hence abortion is basically forbidden.****However*****, the Torah differentiates between born and unborn life, and when only one of them can be preserved, the former is preserved. Thus there are situations in which abortion is permitted, for example to save the mother's life. But since preservation of life is of the utmost importance, in any such situation a qualified Rabbi must be consulted.

What are the Biblical, Talmudic, and halachic sources about abortion?

The Torah speaks in one place (Ex. 21:22-23) about accidental abortion. The Talmud discusses abortion in a few places: Mishnah Arachin 7:1 and Ohalos 7:6; Tosefta Gitin 3:13 and Bava Kama 6:6; Gemara Sanhedrin 72b. The material on the subject in the halachic literature (including the Shulchan Aruch) is widely scattered; extensive references can be found in vol. 2 of the Encyclopedia Hilchasis-Refuis, article on Hapalah, and in the collection Nishmas Avraham (medical halacha, arranged according to the Shulchan Aruch; see the index volume, under "Hapalah".)

**********

AGAIN Skanky, stick to bastardizing your own faith, because you're NOT doing it to mine unchallanged.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 225,841 - 225,860 of305,065
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

9 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min Quirky 243,488
Jon Stewart to Hillary Clinton: No one cares ab... 4 min Cordwainer Trout 51
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min WAKE UP DEM VOTERS 1,078,385
Columbus mayor to DNC: Pick us or lose Ohio 16 min Reality Speaks 3
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... 26 min Abdurratln 508
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min Kong_ 112,796
US believes Russia provided separatists with mi... 40 min Cordwainer Trout 102
•••
•••