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
239,601 - 239,620 of 305,456 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
details details

Fairfield, NJ

#254663 Aug 26, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry, freak show.. I would never tell a sweet child about the maniacal delusions of a ravening religious lunatic.
If my grandson is gay, he is already gay, and it could only make me love him more and more. Atheists are loving, kind, and accepting like that, you gibbering, hate filled, psycho.
would you tell that same sweet child that you would've supported his death as choice?
You'd love him More and more if he was gay but you'd have advocated killing him as choice if his mom didn't simply want him?
Not adding up chucky. You don't sound too brilliant or sane.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254664 Aug 26, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to hear from you again.
First very few incidences would require that call. But in the true case of the mother's survival and she can't be monitored and managed to the point of having a viable child I would expect the mother to take actions that would save her life whether it would be to have an etopic pregnancy ended or be treated with chemicals that could kill the fetus.
Why did you decide to call the unborn baby, a fetus, all of a sudden? Don't get me wrong, a fetus is the correct term, but you PLs make such a huge point of calling a fetus a baby, when discussing abortion. Hmmmm, interesting...
pomegranate lover

Fairfield, NJ

#254665 Aug 26, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
False equivalent.
An atheist doesn't claim to be following the dogma of a specific cult, like the Duggars, while behaving in direct opposition to that dogma.
Either a fetus is sacred enough to protect from termination or it's not.
Tell that to your side who support restrictions and fetal homicide laws. Can't sit on a fence. Like you said,either you think life in the womb is sacred or its not. Hypocrites will play games. Even Kath lust poster said it.
LadiLulu

Leesburg, NJ

#254666 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>How is that a demand? It was a suggestion, nothing more.
If I had said "LEAVE MRS. DUGGAR'S BUSINESS TO MRS. DUGGAR!!!", now that would have been a demand.
(and a damn silly one, too.)
:)
It was a polite demand, make no mistake.

Whatever.
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#254667 Aug 26, 2012
elise in burke wrote:
<quoted text> Why did you decide to call the unborn baby, a fetus, all of a sudden? Don't get me wrong, a fetus is the correct term, but you PLs make such a huge point of calling a fetus a baby, when discussing abortion. Hmmm, interesting...
I use them interchangeably. A fetus, for me is an unborn baby.
1 post removed

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254669 Aug 26, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree women's civil rights have been hard won after being earned. At the same time, though, I question why women have to earn rights. Men don't. And nobody talks about making legal decisions regarding men's healthcare. Like enshrining their sperm or making laws about what they can do with their sperm.
I've been questioning that dichotomy my entire life. Often my unwillingness to just accept it and shut up about it, has resulted in my being called a 'man-hater', a 'lesbian', a 'feminazi' or a 'whiner, who resents her own gender'. Highly annoying, to say the least.

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>One good thing, though, at least science has shown it is males' chromosomes that decide gender. No more drowning women who only produce girls. Right?
I fervently hope so.....
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>Regarding the Duggars or any female involved in reality TV, I don't think they give up their rights because they take a paycheck for being televised. I do believe society, as a whole, is very judgmental. And while several handfuls of women might cringe at the judgements made, a majority would say, "It served her right!"
JMO
Yes, that's all true, and very sad.
JMO
2 posts removed

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254672 Aug 26, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a polite demand, make no mistake.
Whatever.
We're just going to have to 'agree to disagree' here, I think.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254673 Aug 26, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but you did insinuate that people here expressing an opinion on the Dugars odd behavior had a detrimental effect on their very freedoms and humanity.
Now you are stating it doesn't??
Grammar police, much?
"I am curious to know if you think women who continually try for children after miscarrying, are actually committing serial abortion."
Aren't they? Of course it's only a problem for them if they think a fetus is sacred and that abortion is murder. According to their own opinions of the holy fetus they are being selfish and causing the demise of "innocence".
Personally, I don't care what they do. Mostly because as in the case of any abortion, I am unaware of the event. Whether medical or spontaneous. It's only those exploiting their families on TV that I know about.
You were the one making the issue of people expressing their personal opinions about a controversial public figure. But you changed your mind.
Wow. Ok - I asked why the Duggars' reproductive choices were being judged by folks who claim not to judge the reproductive choices of women in general, and that no one should judge the reproductive choices of others. Rather than examine the motives for judging the Duggars, I was informed that those folks have every right to judge the Duggars, because the Duggars are television personalities.
If you don't want to examine this hypocrisy, I'm certainly not going to DEMAND that you do. I was just laboring under the impression that I was conversing with women of thoughtful intelligence - if I was mistaken, I stand corrected.
C'est la vie.

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

#254674 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>We're just going to have to 'agree to disagree' here, I think.
I'm not sure ... 100%- but that doesn't sound like La to me. Could be wrong - happens.

When people do not sign in - I pay attention - sometimes they are on vacation - but in this case - I don't think so.

As far as 19 and counting - she and her tribe were on "Say Yes to the Dress" - wedding gowns - because Michelle wanted to renew vows but she was picky - no strapless for her. I clicked it off. Perhaps she'll make the Guinness Book of World Records - but at this point - I think not. Still! She gave it a really good and profitable try!

Buddy system? Same as day care imo. However one of the regs here thinks that women belong at home to raise kids. No opinion on that - Michelle stays home and still had no choice but to implement the "buddy system". What pray tell is the difference?
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#254675 Aug 26, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't him before birth. So sorry facts confuse you.
Who was he?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254676 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
Do those of us with a pro-choice stance,'need' to be the ones asking this question? Shouldn't it be left up to the woman and her physician?
How is it any of our business? Just because she puts it out there, are we REQUIRED to comment on it?
Nobody is required to comment, but are are entitled to. Interesting thing about the Duggars; even people who don't watch their show (like me) or don't have pay TV (like me) know about them. So, if Mrs. Duggar makes her private business, very public business, she obviously isn't opposed to people talking about her. Afterall, if the public isn't interested, they won't pay attention, and she doesn't make money.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254677 Aug 26, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure ... 100%- but that doesn't sound like La to me. Could be wrong - happens.
When people do not sign in - I pay attention - sometimes they are on vacation - but in this case - I don't think so.
Well, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it? I hadn't thought about this possibility, but you may be right...
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>As far as 19 and counting - she and her tribe were on "Say Yes to the Dress" - wedding gowns - because Michelle wanted to renew vows but she was picky - no strapless for her. I clicked it off. Perhaps she'll make the Guinness Book of World Records - but at this point - I think not. Still! She gave it a really good and profitable try!
Buddy system? Same as day care imo. However one of the regs here thinks that women belong at home to raise kids. No opinion on that - Michelle stays home and still had no choice but to implement the "buddy system". What pray tell is the difference?
The only differences I can think of are the 'not having to pay the sitter' part, and sibling rivalry, both of which have the potential to yield far more unfortunate results (JMO)...but otherwise, there's no difference.

JMO again.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254678 Aug 26, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I use them interchangeably. A fetus, for me is an unborn baby.
That's what most people do, which is quite natural. So, in your opinion, it's okay to kill your unborn baby in order to save your own life. It makes sense to me. We agree on something, finally :-)

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254679 Aug 26, 2012
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but you did insinuate that people here expressing an opinion on the Dugars odd behavior had a detrimental effect on their very freedoms and humanity.
Now you are stating it doesn't??
Grammar police, much?
"I am curious to know if you think women who continually try for children after miscarrying, are actually committing serial abortion."p
Aren't they? Of course it's only a problem for them if they think a fetus is sacred and that abortion is murder. According to their own opinions of the holy fetus they are being selfish and causing the demise of "innocence".
Personally, I don't care what they do. Mostly because as in the case of any abortion, I am unaware of the event. Whether medical or spontaneous. It's only those exploiting their families on TV that I know about.
You were the one making the issue of people expressing their personal opinions about a controversial public figure. But you changed your mind.
Yup.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#254680 Aug 26, 2012
John wayne? You mean the guy who stayed in hollywood while other actors were in the trenches or in the air bombing the enemy? He was no hero.

Romney? He couldn't plan a cotillion, much less a highly-sensitive raid. Obama took the smart route--he oversaw the operation but let the experts do what they are paid to do. He also made the mart decision to not let the body or pictures out; martyrdom is far less impressive when it's unseen.
JBH wrote:
You are out of your minds if you still do not know what the right thing for you and to do, is.
The best AND right thing to do is to fire Obama absolutely as there is no other way.
That is it--Obama is supposed to be let go by all of you in this election.
You need a strong fellow as tough as John Wayne, who is fit for the image of the president and that image can only filled by Romney, but not Obama.
Obama has failed in everything, without doing one single thing of any accomplishment but making vast damages and destruction.
On Iraq, Obama claimed he had achieved approving and helping the mission of Bush by saying,"Mission accomplished".
If it was Romney, he would say, "This is the time US withdraws from Iraq, for this confirms the ending involvement engaged from former administration".
On bin Laden, many people do not like and disapprove the way of Obama's handling, by bowing to others like Muslims, to shuffle against them by telling to take credit instead, while there are not any pictures of dead body shown by being sloppy and giving a poor presentation.
Unlike Obama, Romney would take charge of overseeing the raid, and give more details from the bin Laden case on all the conspiracy of bin Laden and 9-11 case, besides showing pictures of dead bin Laden and would not give excuses of fear of Islams and Muslims--that is supposed to be the way of a great man as president would do--and serving that is what US people want to know.
Unlike Obama, by pointing to Bush, if Romney would be in charge of the economy for the last few years, the present public health care would be cost-effectively in place, debt-levels would not rise, simultaneously the unemployment rate would be well under 6% and income and wealth of people would not drop. The middle class would not have declined and education becomes competitive for all people. No matter what color and race of people are, they all have job opportunities and that is all that matters. Women would be doing fine with rights of better choices, to choose between careers, freedom of living and style besides choice of abortion, with freedom of speech while having more liberty, to be single, married or single mothers.
The future would be bright with Romney thus because all of you need a great man with vitality, who possesses hands-on ability and skills, with great communication gesture and presidential image, to lead to get things done in the right way.
Obama is not real, but an unrealistic radical, extremist as a con artist with a poor perversion image while having none of any capability.
Now that YOU KNOW, what are you waiting for?
Elect your good future which is right for all of you--Romney-Ryan for 2012.
Ink

Morrisville, PA

#254681 Aug 26, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That's what most people do, which is quite natural. So, in your opinion, it's okay to kill your unborn baby in order to save your own life. It makes sense to me. We agree on something, finally :-)
It would be a rare unfortunate situation but yes.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#254682 Aug 26, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is required to comment, but are are entitled to. Interesting thing about the Duggars; even people who don't watch their show (like me) or don't have pay TV (like me) know about them. So, if Mrs. Duggar makes her private business, very public business, she obviously isn't opposed to people talking about her. Afterall, if the public isn't interested, they won't pay attention, and she doesn't make money.
In my opinion, this is hypocrisy. If one believes women should have the right to be free from judgment regarding their reproductive decisions, whatever the decisions may be, the fact that the woman in question is a publicity hound should not mitigate that personal belief on one's part. It seems to me certain posters here are doing exactly what they decry, and I am simply pointing this out. Obviously, my assertions are not being universally well received - and I can live with that.

:)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#254683 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Why would I admit to something untrue?
Typo or not, what I stated was correct "I didn't use the term 'ectopic ptregnancy'."
If you like, I'll 'admit' instead that I didn't use that term because I proofread before typing.
"If you like, I'll 'admit' instead that I didn't use that term because I proofread before typing."

You proofread before TYPING?

Good job displaying how you proofread. Burned yourself with your own arrogance and stupidity. Not only are your arguments epic fails, but your insults are epic fails too.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#254684 Aug 26, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. Ok - I asked why the Duggars' reproductive choices were being judged by folks who claim not to judge the reproductive choices of women in general, and that no one should judge the reproductive choices of others. Rather than examine the motives for judging the Duggars, I was informed that those folks have every right to judge the Duggars, because the Duggars are television personalities.
If you don't want to examine this hypocrisy, I'm certainly not going to DEMAND that you do. I was just laboring under the impression that I was conversing with women of thoughtful intelligence - if I was mistaken, I stand corrected.
C'est la vie.
There's a difference between judging someone's reproductive choices and denying someone one of those choices. I may judge a woman who has several abortions in a country where she can acquire condoms free of charge or cheaply, as irresponsible. However, I uphold her right to have as many abortions, as she wants. It isn't my business but, privately, I may judge her. Who cares?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#254685 Aug 26, 2012
There is something that is often referred to as the authority of the media; it means that what we see in papers, on the internet, on tv, etc, bears more weight than what we discuss among ourselves. Should it? Not really, but it does. It's why charities compete for celebrity spokespeople instead of using their own people, and why a telethon is more productive than mail fundraiser.

The duggers used the media as a cash flow, using their family and their belief system as the selling point. That has impact, and I would guess it has lot of impact on young women who already romanticizes motherhood. They likewise opened themselves up to criticism, and it is up to them to decide how much it lets them affect their family.

(in all this, the kids are the ones who I believe are suffering. Can you imagine always having cameras around, lighting equipment, etc? There is a reason so many child stars are so fu**ed up later in life, and I despair when I think about these kids' futures.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>In my opinion, this is hypocrisy. If one believes women should have the right to be free from judgment regarding their reproductive decisions, whatever the decisions may be, the fact that the woman in question is a publicity hound should not mitigate that personal belief on one's part. It seems to me certain posters here are doing exactly what they decry, and I am simply pointing this out. Obviously, my assertions are not being universally well received - and I can live 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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Fed Up Again 256,428
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Patriot 1,100,487
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 12 min Cbusa 1,869
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 15 min Frankie Rizzo 54,974
Utah university removes Harry Reid's name from ... 15 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 2
Ukraine Says Russia Has Invaded 15 min Hue 63
As 145 Arrested in White House Protest, Rep. Lu... 18 min dirtbag1958 1
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 35 min Aquarius-WY 1,481
Race in America: Why are blacks being seen as r... (Jul '13) 4 hr xxxrayted 9,844
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••