Comments on: Web Site Restores "Abortion" Search Term
Reproductive Health Site Funded By Gov't Was Slammed For Restricting Use Of Word In Searches
Add a Comment See all 101 Comments
- There is NO reason why women in the USA should be getting pregnant if they don''t want to be.
If you''re stupid enough to let Super Stud get away with not using a condom then you need to be on some form of birth control. How tough is that to figure out? I thought women were as smart or smarter than men? - Reply to this comment
- The Pope & your local priest/nun will be more than happy to babysit your kids for you. It''s just what a Christian should do.
- Reply to this comment
- Whats next after abortion?
Euthanasia is my guess, it''ll be just like logan''s Run before we know it. - Reply to this comment
- I am always amazed about how precious life is to the baby, the unborn, and usually to men. However, what about the conceiving of that baby? Rape, incest, whatever. Or the health of the mother - that is patently unimportant -but wait! The mother is seriously ill, and being pregnant jeopardizes her health. Nonetheless, that fetus has more rights than she does - so, she must have that baby. She dies because of this pregnancy. Now, is someone guilty of murder? The mother? The physicians? God? And what about the family she leaves behind, children, husband, other family members who love and care? Hmmm.
- Reply to this comment
- A lawyer should so on the behalf of the baby in the womb? When to people say yes to having sxx they are making a contract to what results from the union. So if a baby is conceived the baby has the rights guaranteed under the binding contract of the union. Another words the baby has rights as a person because of the union, agreement!
Posted by Providence-6 at 10:17 AM : Apr 06, 2008
Maybe you lunatic fringe right wingers, shouldn''t be PREVENTING sxx education and contraceptives in the BIZARRE HOPE that by preaching abstinence, teens will quit having sxx.
People have been preaching abstinence for thousands of years and guess what? IT''S STILL NOT WORKING!!!! - Reply to this comment
- Where are the babies rights when someone say yes to have sxx and a baby comes along. Who is proclaiming the liberty for this baby? Where are his or her rights met, Oh we just want to cater to the mothers right to be self centered.
Posted by Providence-6 at 10:04 AM : Apr 06, 2008
It''s amazing how the "right" believes that life is so precious, and a miracle to behold while in the womb, but as soon as that baby is born, they are readily expendable in illegal wars of aggression. - Reply to this comment
- A lawyer should so on the behalf of the baby in the womb? When to people say yes to having sxx they are making a contract to what results from the union. So if a baby is conceived the baby has the rights guaranteed under the binding contract of the union. Another words the baby has rights as a person because of the union, agreement!
- Reply to this comment
- The baby is a person to you know. With hopes and dreams in their infancy but most of all wanting to love and be loved. How can anyone in their right mind kill a baby wanting love?
- Reply to this comment
- Where are the babies rights when someone say yes to have sxx and a baby comes along. Who is proclaiming the liberty for this baby? Where are his or her rights met, Oh we just want to cater to the mothers right to be self centered.
- Reply to this comment
- Abortion caters to choice? The choice of mothers choosing to be self centered? They could of not engaged in lewdness, saying no, or take the responsibility of a baby for saying yes. But she does not want to deal with the problem so the baby gets tossed in the garbage can!
Posted by Providence-6 at 09:58 AM : Apr 06, 2008
If you don''t want an abortion, then don''t have one. If someone else wants to have one, or is deciding to have one, then mind your own friggin'' business.
It''s that simple. - Reply to this comment
- Abortion caters to choice? The choice of mothers choosing to be self centered? They could of not engaged in lewdness, saying no, or take the responsibility of a baby for saying yes. But she does not want to deal with the problem so the baby gets tossed in the garbage can!
- Reply to this comment
- You Freakvannies are just p!ssed off because you can''''t control what everybody else does. Abortion isn''''t the issue, the issue is, you want to impose your beliefs onto everybody else.
Posted by FloydZepp at 06:31 AM : Apr 06, 2008
Well said Floyd. - Reply to this comment
- Won got this response from POPLINE administrator Debra L. Dickson: "Yes, we did make a change to POPLINE. We recently made all abortion words stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."
A "stop word" is a word that a search engine ignores; typically they are common words such as "a," "the" and "is."
In other words, "Since we''re a federally funded agency, we are fully within our capacity to censor certain words. Big brother is controlling you!!" - Reply to this comment
Johns Hopkins doctors don''t mind promoting killing because it is legal, just like war. It''s also a big money-maker.
If anyone speaks out against the slaughter of the unborn, they are labelled as "Fundamentalits cranks'' by liberal blood thirsty ghouls. Since Roe vs Wade, over 40 million have died at the hands of doctors at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere.
Wade vs Rowe can be overturned. It must be overturned! The slaughtering of the next generation must end.- Reply to this comment
- Line item taxes...interesting.....just imagine what our country could have done with that 1.5 trillion.......I haven''''t even began to understand how much money that is, in terms of schools and healthcare,etc.........we could''''a dam near bailed out everyone with a housing problem......anything would have been better......
Posted by getcentered at 09:54 PM : Apr 05, 2008
RAmen. With line item taxes we could be living in utopia. And why not? After all, this is OUR country. Isn''t it about time we demanded the right to run it? Seems to me we''ve forgotten that they work for us, instead of the other way around. - Reply to this comment
- Hopefully, after this next election, the fundamentalist wackos in our government will all be given their pink slips, and sanity will finally return.
- Reply to this comment
- This story is unbelievable.
CBS - Please follow up with who gave the okay for the censorship. - Reply to this comment
- "well I think taxpayers should have the power of line item taxes and direct that my taxes only fund programs I DO like."
Posted by SgtRDS
Line item taxes...interesting.....just imagine what our country could have done with that 1.5 trillion.......I haven''t even began to understand how much money that is, in terms of schools and healthcare,etc.........we could''a dam near bailed out everyone with a housing problem......anything would have been better...... - Reply to this comment
- If you bought every 4-person family in the world a regular house, plus lawn, you could fit everyone in the world in the state of Texas. Of course, during commercial breaks during the SuperBowl, the Gulf of Mexico would get flooded.
Posted by ubrew12 at 09:27 PM : Apr 05, 2008
Where would you put all of the Mexican gardeners that it would take to mow all of those lawns?
;-) - Reply to this comment
- Article: "The move followed criticism from some health advocates and librarians that the restriction on searches about abortion amounted to censorship"
Duh, ya think!! What does not allowing photographs of coffins returning from Iraq amount to? - Reply to this comment
How gold pays for 
