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 11,981)

Showing posts 239,601 - 239,620 of303,180
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254618
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

She'd betetr be sure it's not a descendant of balaam's ass:
http://www.anunseenworld.com/balaamandthetalk...
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure Knutter studies these historical events deeply and frequently and with much anticipation. Probably every Saturday night right before she visits the donkey in the barn......

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254619
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If you put yourself deliberately in the public eye, you can't complain about a lack of privacy. A lot of performers are public only in terms of their professional life and keep their private life to themselves, and i think that should be protected. But going on tv specifically to discuss having an abortion (or NOT having an abortion) certainly will evoke public opinion.

Taking money doesn't abrogate one's humanity or civil rights, but if you freely give up your privacy, you aren't going to get it back.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
General Question:
If a woman went on national television advertising that she intended to get an abortion, would anyone be more or less inclined to put their two cents in to her decision as a result?
Does anyone believe that taking money for appearing on television negates someone's humanity, or civil rights to reproductive autonomy?
Just asking.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254620
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
If you put yourself deliberately in the public eye, you can't complain about a lack of privacy. A lot of performers are public only in terms of their professional life and keep their private life to themselves, and i think that should be protected. But going on tv specifically to discuss having an abortion (or NOT having an abortion) certainly will evoke public opinion.
Taking money doesn't abrogate one's humanity or civil rights, but if you freely give up your privacy, you aren't going to get it back.
<quoted text>
An excellent point.
2 posts removed

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254623
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Really knutter?? Aren't you able to keep the insults at bay and make an effort to be the better person?
That broad is truly twisted. I almost admire her for being so openly perverted.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254624
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be - if she and her family were not in the spotlight - let us not forget that this woman eschews "artificial contraception". Imo, that opens the door to debate.
If she continues to try and gestate a pregnancy and fails in the attempt - how is she different from a woman that voluntarily aborts? Just because she wants to give birth to no. 19 despite odds not in her favor, strikes me as self serving in the extreme.
That was my point, also. If a fundamentalist Christian woman knows her body will probably abort a pregnancy, isn't it sinful for her to continue to get pregnant over and over again? These people's philosophy is inconsistent.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254625
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That was my point, also. If a fundamentalist Christian woman knows her body will probably abort a pregnancy, isn't it sinful for her to continue to get pregnant over and over again? These people's philosophy is inconsistent.
If an atheist woman knows her body will probably abort a pregnancy, is it automatically against her principles to attempt one anyway?

Can anyone but the woman herself answer this question?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254626
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
General Question:
If a woman went on national television advertising that she intended to get an abortion, would anyone be more or less inclined to put their two cents in to her decision as a result?
Does anyone believe that taking money for appearing on television negates someone's humanity, or civil rights to reproductive autonomy?
Just asking.
She has a right to autonomy, of course. Since she made the decision to become a public personality, she she hasn't a right to demand that the public mind its own business. Her shtick is being the mother of umpteen children and trying for more. How can she expect people to not talk about her? That's what she wants, obviously.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254627
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>She has a right to autonomy, of course. Since she made the decision to become a public personality, she she hasn't a right to demand that the public mind its own business. Her shtick is being the mother of umpteen children and trying for more. How can she expect people to not talk about her? That's what she wants, obviously.
To my knowledge, Mrs. Duggar hasn't demanded that the public mind their own business, and frankly, neither am I.

These are just my personal observations. Of course anyone and everyone has the absolute right to disagree with them.

Last I checked, this is still the United States of America.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254628
Aug 25, 2012
 
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Um.
Thank you for your prompt and honest response.
:)
I don't recall mentioning a 'televised abortion', just the televised intent to obtain an abortion at all. Personally, my response would be "Why would you put that on national television?" and ignoring it otherwise.(That's what the 'off' button is for.)
I like to think I would not say "Burn her. Burn her at the stake for doing that. She lost all rights to reproductive freedom when she gave up her privacy."
JMO
My personal feeling is, that women in the United States take our rights far too much for 'granted'- they were EARNED, and until we no longer have to 'earn' them, they're not fully recognized - even by our sisters.
Not a popular view, perhaps, but mine, nonetheless.
I think that the fact that girls take their rights for granted means that the women who fought for them were successful in their efforts. I believe that we need to teach our kids the histories of all of the civil rights movements in this country and the world, but I certainly don't want kids feeling that they should have to earn what every person has an inherent right to have.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254629
Aug 25, 2012
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, dan quayle used to note the importance of bondage between a mother and child. I guess it would be important for the extended family too...:)
<quoted text>
lol
1 post removed

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254631
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If an atheist woman knows her body will probably abort a pregnancy, is it automatically against her principles to attempt one anyway?
Can anyone but the woman herself answer this question?
??? The point is that if a woman considers abortion to be immoral, she is behaving immorally when she continues to try to become pregnant knowing that she her body will abort the pregnancy. If she doesn't consider abortion to be wrong, it isn't inconsistent to her beliefs to risk miscarriage, obviously.
6 posts removed

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254638
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
General Question:
If a woman went on national television advertising that she intended to get an abortion, would anyone be more or less inclined to put their two cents in to her decision as a result?
Does anyone believe that taking money for appearing on television negates someone's humanity, or civil rights to reproductive autonomy?
Just asking.
Okay, well now you've changed your questions.

You originally queried:

"Why is Mrs. Duggar's fertility, or her decision whether or not to further procreate, even under discussion?

It's her business. Let's leave it to her, shall we?"

Putting her "business" for income on national television negates her right to privacy, and, of course, leaves her wide open to "discussion." Including putting one's "two cents in." Obviously whatever she subsequently chooses to do is completely and utterly up to her.

In terms of negating her "humanity," I have no idea what you are inferring here. With respect to relinquishing her right to reproductive autonomy, of course not.

IMO.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254639
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>To my knowledge, Mrs. Duggar hasn't demanded that the public mind their own business, and frankly, neither am I.
...
Sure you did, right here:

"It's her business. Let's leave it to her, shall we?"

??

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254640
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>That was my point, also. If a fundamentalist Christian woman knows her body will probably abort a pregnancy, isn't it sinful for her to continue to get pregnant over and over again? These people's philosophy is inconsistent.
Yep. Agreed.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254641
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>She has a right to autonomy, of course. Since she made the decision to become a public personality, she she hasn't a right to demand that the public mind its own business. Her shtick is being the mother of umpteen children and trying for more. How can she expect people to not talk about her? That's what she wants, obviously.
Yep. It pays her bills.

She'd be a hypocrite if she expected people to "mind their own business." You can't control people and say "you can only say positive things about me, not negative." That's not how it works, sorry.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254642
Aug 26, 2012
 
1 Brilliant Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute.....I thought you were concerned that expressing a personal opinion or observation was an attack on bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom?
Wouldn't disagreeing with Mrs Duggars behavior be the same as disagreeing with yours in this United States of America?
Indeed.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254643
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Geisha gal wrote:
Why do you assume what other women want?. I know a lot of people who want lotsa children when hey get married. I personally am one of them who when I get married in January plan on having as many as I can.
Let's stop making motherhood a negative experience. Children are what most women want and if you had a bad experience in your life that led you to be so anti family then so be it. That's not something to shove on motherhood and women in general. You seem like you news professional assistance.
I said I seriously doubt that many women would want to pop out 19 kids. If that offends YOU, that's just too bad.

Contrary to what you seem to want every woman to BELIEVE (beliefs aren't facts, by the way), children are not what ALL women want, and many women (and men too) these days are choosing NOT to have children. For my own part, I chose to stop at just ONE child, as many moms are also doing. For those of us who are cheerfully "DONE after one," we enjoy being moms of one child, and we have no intention of reproducing further.

As I have said more than once, motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and that applies whether a woman is considering having any children or more than one. The number of children a woman decides to have is up to HER, even if that number is zero. Deal with it.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254644
Aug 26, 2012
 
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
Always.
There's only one person I know who says this. Welcome back, SKL. Good to see you.:-)
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254645
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
So, you;re independently wealthy? Raising children is a very expensive proposition these days. Many couples are stretched to the breaking point with two kids, much less "as many as [they] can". Not to mention that the amount of attention and personal time decreases with each child.
Exactly. Raising children is EXPENSIVE, and as you pointed out, many families are stretched to the limit with only TWO children, financially, physically, and emotionally.

That's precisely why I chose to stop at just ONE child, I didn't want to experience that kind of constant struggle. It was one of the best decisions I ever made, for me and DS.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254646
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tomtom wrote:
They are proabort "women" who are a self gender hating crowd. They advocate extreme feminnism, that they mistakenly believe means that all things normal women want and love must have been created by man and therefore evil.
They promote abortion since it is the ultimate anti-woman thing they can hold over normal societies heads.
They are pagans with no real love of anything but themselves. You can't reason with them they are a sorry bunch and not very educated or moral.
This nonsense coming from a religionist MORON who has reduced women to only ONE function; reproduction. What pisses YOU off is that you can't force your toxic beliefs about women and reproduction on all women. Too bad for you, goofy.

Women get to decide for OURSELVES when and IF we will get married and/or have children. A growing number of women have decided either not to have ANY children, and some of us have chosen to stop at just ONE. Whatever we decide, it is OUR decision as individuals and not yours. Get over it.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 239,601 - 239,620 of303,180
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••