Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310229 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#241129 May 31, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me, you think animal abuse is worse than abortion? Animals do not have a soul like what we have, we are made in God's Image, animals aren't. So , why are you so upset over animal abuse and not abortion?
Your religion may state that animals don't have souls as people do.
Far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you from that belief.
I'd wager that an awful lot of pet-owners might disagree with you.

"Knit," a common trait shared among serial-killers is that a good many of them have had a history of abusing/torturing animals--especially during childhood.
People who do those things do so out of a sense of fury, or sadistic delight.
I sincerely doubt any abortions are performed with those being their foremost intentions.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241130 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc: "No need to guess. The answer would be yes. The key is "available medical technology".
This sums up your position. You know at 10 weeks gestation, it is not viable.
At this time, with the medical technology currently available, yes, it is non viable.

Yet, if an artifical womb were available to gestate it to a state of viability, you'd consider it viable. Even though it's not.
Even though it's not ??? But it is. If the medical technology existed that allowed for further development of a 10 week old infant to a point of complete independence then it would be considered viable at 10 weeks.
Else it wouldn't need further gestation.
That's the crux of our disagreement.
The crux of our disagreement remains your inaccurate definition of what viability means.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241131 May 31, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, if someone presents a scenario - even just philosophically - that involves *requiring* a rape/incest/pedophile victim report their rape in order to consider their *previously obtained* abortion legal, I find that disturbing.
Mind you, he kept squirming and changing his "scenario" (without admitting that he was changing, he just acted as if he felt that way all along and we were too "dopey" to interpret it that way. He's a liar.) because it was so incredibly offensive at the outset.
What's the point of speculating about a hypothetical if it is completely unreasonable and offensive? He has tipped his hand, e. He completely blows off the emotional component of rape, and that it is incredibly difficult to prove. At first he wanted the victims to *prove* the rape before being permitted to get an abortion, and when that didn't fly, he kept altering his stance.

Don't let him fool you.
Yeah....don't you dare let Doc fool you ! He is a a misogynistic control freak whose only goal is to punish rape victims, punish women for having sex, and to insure that the elderly and pregnant never get a seat on the subway. And damnit, you'll lie as much and as long as it takes to prove it.
And that book of Doc's.....'To Serve Man'.......it's...it's......
it's a COOKBOOK !!!
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241132 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they could be wrong. Doctors are not infallible.
<quoted text>
Of course it would be viable. No one ever made the statement that artificial support was a requirement of viability. But that doesn't mean a fetus born at 24 months that would require assistance to further develop would be considered non viable. That is insanity. You've yet to address the point that 24 weeks has been widely established by medical professionals as the "limit of viability" and this is because that is the point at which history has shown that an infant has a 50/50 of survival. But how could a 24 week old infant survive or further develop WITHOUT medical assistance ?
<quoted text>
So don't agree with it. It won't change it. The legal and medical definition of viability is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it. And no definition....legal OR medical...defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.
Doc: " But that doesn't mean a fetus born at 24 months that would require assistance to further develop would be considered non viable."

Needing to develop to the point of viability means it isn't viable. Else it wouldn't need to "further develop".

What I've read of preemies and assistance has to do with specific issues like infection, disease, injury, etc. The assistance is to treat the problem, not to create an artificial gestation in an effort to bring the preemie to viability. Full term infants can have the same problems and be given similar, if not the same, treatment.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241133 May 31, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
It was indefensible and asinine, regardless.
An *honest* answer would have been: you can't.
Also, no one but YOU used the term "hypothetical", you slimy snake.
If it's not reality.....and likely never will be....then it HAS to be hypothetical. Ya slimy dope ya.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241134 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct, La.
He still hasn't explained how a state sanctioned abortion, obtained with explicit permission by the state due to a specific exception, and provided for by a licensed medical professional is illegal.
Ahh...ahh...be careful. Don't say I haven't explained it. Just say you haven't found....or rather refused to look for where I DID explain it.
And don't forget, he orginally wanted the rape victim's guilt or innocence determined by her rapist's verdict. No counsel. No trial.
He still thinks that's a salvagable idea.(shrug)
It was workable. You may have thought it unfair ( and I may have agreed to a certain extent which is why I modified it ). But it was certainly NOT unworkable.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241135 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
At this time, with the medical technology currently available, yes, it is non viable.
<quoted text>
Even though it's not ??? But it is. If the medical technology existed that allowed for further development of a 10 week old infant to a point of complete independence then it would be considered viable at 10 weeks.
<quoted text>
The crux of our disagreement remains your inaccurate definition of what viability means.
At 10 weeks, it is not an infant. It's a fetus (barely). How far back do you want to go? 3 weeks? 3 weeks gestation = viable infant IF technology can gestate it? C'mon.

If the preemie has no chance of surviving outside the womb due to lack of development, it is not viable.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241136 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh...ahh...be careful. Don't say I haven't explained it. Just say you haven't found....or rather refused to look for where I DID explain it.
<quoted text>
It was workable. You may have thought it unfair ( and I may have agreed to a certain extent which is why I modified it ). But it was certainly NOT unworkable.
Yeah, well I suppose you could declare her an enemy combatant. Then you could detain her indefinitely, without charge or counsel, much less a trial, and torture her until she tells you what you want to hear. In fact, you can have one of your comrades knock her up, and force her to gestate to term. Bet she won't be reporting rape again. That'll teach her.

Unfair but workable, ya say?

“YEAH, read it and weep Knit”

Since: Apr 12

Love animals more

#241137 May 31, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me, you think animal abuse is worse than abortion? Animals do not have a soul like what we have, we are made in God's Image, animals aren't. So , why are you so upset over animal abuse and not abortion?
Hey, dipstick ?!... this animal abuser murdered a HUMAN BEING, then dismembered him, and sent his foot to the PC Party in Canada and his hand was en route to the Liberal party ..

Ah, that is right, this victim was BORN !! So, to YOU, who cares ..

Animal abuse is right up there with abortion in my eyes .. Don't like it, TUFF SH*T !!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#241138 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>Each individual makes their choice "if" "who" they will have sex with. If the man wants sex, he understands that a pregnancy may occur and that todays law tells him that he's a NOBODY where his own conceived child is concerned. Therefore, a male that respects his childs life best think twice about having sex with a proabort female because his child may be slaughtered.
The woman, if she chooses to have sex MUST take full responsibilty for her actions because at pregnancy time or aSTD time that is when she will see the true color of this man who had sex with her.MOST of the time, she finds out the truth that he used her for sex and will suggest killing their child or he will bail on his responsibility to father his child.
Dumbsss women think pro choice men CARE about their choices when in reality it is their selfish "get me off the hook for using your body for sex" motives behind it. Let the woman change hernmind and CHOOSE life and you'll see what I mean.
Do i think making abortion illegal will end unintended pregnancies? Not completely but it wouldndecrease By a LANDSLIDE. Many know abortion is their back up plan. My gf grew up when abortion became legal and she told me that it gave many a green light to sleep around or take chances that they normaly wouldnt have.shenended up having one and many of hdr friends had a few abortions.
I think you do a disservice to women with this point of view "Sass."
Men are the perpetually horny--and predatory sex(which isn't an untruth I freely admit,) while women, if they happen to be PC, are simple-minded, cow-eyed, warm bodies willing to submit to the man's advances, or else they're hedonistic sluts with no sense of self-worth, or responsibility?
I think that "Kathwynn" was quite correct when he said that there are some people who view the world through a "black-and-white" perspective.
"Sass," I realize you and I have got points of view regarding this subject that are irreconcilable.
I've long since stopped trying to get to you look beyond your own yardsticks as I've realized such an endeavor is utterly fruitless.
The main point of contention we have is this:
You want others to respect your system of beliefs...fair enough.
The part we take issue with is that you don't respect the fact that there are those who don't share your system of beliefs, and you feel there's nothing wrong with trying to legislatively impose those beliefs onto the rest of us.

“YEAH, read it and weep Knit”

Since: Apr 12

Love animals more

#241139 May 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>People who commit ritualistic animal abuse tend to go on to commit violence toward people. Women who have abortions and physicians who perform the procedure are not psychotic, no matter what you may think of them. You really don't know much, do you?
Tis okay Elise .. this HUMAN victim was already BORN .. knit don't care bout that !! She just saw that I wrote animal abuse and she got all in a tither .. guilty conscience I guess, roadkill and all ..

Only fetus protection interests her ..
Sad, pathetic lil thang she is and all ..

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241140 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc: " But that doesn't mean a fetus born at 24 months that would require assistance to further develop would be considered non viable."
Needing to develop to the point of viability means it isn't viable. Else it wouldn't need to "further develop".[QUOTE]

You're changing my words again. I never said "develop to the point of viability". I said if it requires assistance to further develop...PERIOD. If a physician determines that it has the ability to further develop, even with medical assistance, to the point it can reach complete independence, then it is VIABLE at THAT point....and not at the point it reaches complete independence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511

"When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient."

[QUOTE]What I've read of preemies and assistance has to do with specific issues like infection, disease, injury, etc. The assistance is to treat the problem, not to create an artificial gestation in an effort to bring the preemie to viability. Full term infants can have the same problems and be given similar, if not the same, treatment.
Do some research on the development of a 24 week old fetus. They are simply not developed sufficiently...either in terms of lung function or digestive system to be able to survive and further develop without medical support. This does not mean they are non viable. If they were determined to be non viable then that would mean that they could not survive regardless of what medical assistance was provided. This is obviously untrue as 50% of fetuses born at this time HAVE survived....and have developed to the point of complete independence...WITH medical support. And THAT is why many states have established 24 weeks as the "point of viability". It is NOT called the "point at which a fetus has a chance of REACHING viability.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#241141 May 31, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>I know your no lady, ladi.
And YOU'RE no brain child Knutbar. You're also not a lady, OR a Christian.

“YEAH, read it and weep Knit”

Since: Apr 12

Love animals more

#241142 May 31, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Your religion may state that animals don't have souls as people do.
Far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you from that belief.
I'd wager that an awful lot of pet-owners might disagree with you.
"Knit," a common trait shared among serial-killers is that a good many of them have had a history of abusing/torturing animals--especially during childhood.
People who do those things do so out of a sense of fury, or sadistic delight.
I sincerely doubt any abortions are performed with those being their foremost intentions.
Knit doesn't interest herself with BORN humans ..

( I think she is jealous that furry lil' creatures are MUCH cuter than her ) Hell, I bet it would be easier to cuddle up to a trantula than her .. imagine being married to something as hate filled and cold as her ?!

Knit -- animal abuse and abortion .. 6 of one, half dozen of another ..
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241143 May 31, 2012
Still waiting for your response, Doc. This'll be 29x I've challenged. I expect another dodge.

Explain how a state sanctioned abortion, obtained with explicit permission by the state due to a specific exception, and provided for by a licensed medical professional is illegal.

**********

If you had an answer, you'd have given it. If you posted a response, you'd have given me the link. 29x later and all I get is you posting as Mary the unregistered registered nurse. Wutz up witthat?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#241144 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> If you only had a clue. Perhaps the great and powerful Oz could give you one?
Foo claimednthat she " hasn't had a drink or drugs in over 20 years". This is a lie. She in fact drinks.
I did not claim that. COMPREHENSION Skankdawg.

I was never an alcoholic, drinking was NEVER an issue for me in any way, thus whether I have a drink at dinner is irrelevant. I've been clean from drugs for OVER 20 years.

You can stop lying anytime now Skankdawg.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#241145 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied. You said that you hadn't had a drink in over 20 years.
Now you contradict yourself.in this post.
"No, however...I have wine and beer"
LMAOOOOOO
I did not at ANY time say that I havent had a drink in over 20 years. I was responding to your lies claiming I use drugs.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241146 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
At 10 weeks, it is not an infant. It's a fetus (barely). How far back do you want to go? 3 weeks? 3 weeks gestation = viable infant IF technology can gestate it? C'mon.
Hey it was your hypothetical not mine. I agreed that a 10 week old fetus is not viable. But if hypothetically speaking the technology was developed that allowed it to further develop independent of the woman to a point of complete independence then by definition.....legally and medically...it would be considered viable.
It's the same reason that a fetus born 200 years ago at 24 weeks would not have been considered viable but is today.
If the preemie has no chance of surviving outside the womb due to lack of development, it is not viable.
Precisely. And "no chance" includes the consideration of artificial/medical assistance.

It is non viable if it has NO CHANCE of surviving REGARDLESS of what level of medical assistance is provided.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#241147 May 31, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
I noticed Chicky is MIA since being hammered from at least 3 directions with the facts about RvW defining viability, and Katie stopped posting in support of Chicky's stupidity about viability.
Seems the PCers are using their personal off topic and unsubstantiated attacks to distance the thread from Chicky's and Katie's ignorance and stupidity about viability.
The patterns of behavior from the PC here are always the same.
Chicky has a life and a job, unlike you lynniekins.

Though you were here to discuss abortion? Oh wait, you were lying again. First three posts of yours is AGAIN trying to justify your own stupiidty.

You DO know the definition of insanity is Lynnie, right? You've been doing the same thing over and over here, and expecting a different result - but for going on SEVEN years, you're STILL sthe same miserable failure you were back in October of 2006. You pathetic schlub.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241148 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Do some research on the development of a 24 week old fetus. They are simply not developed sufficiently...either in terms of lung function or digestive system to be able to survive and further develop without medical support. This does not mean they are non viable. If they were determined to be non viable then that would mean that they could not survive regardless of what medical assistance was provided. This is obviously untrue as 50% of fetuses born at this time HAVE survived....and have developed to the point of complete independence...WITH medical support. And THAT is why many states have established 24 weeks as the "point of viability". It is NOT called the "point at which a fetus has a chance of REACHING viability.
You say, if it's viable it gets assistance. If it's not, it doesn't. If it gets assistance and expires it was never viable, and the MD was wrong. If it gets assistance and it survives, the MD was right. You don't see the conflict in trying to wedge "viable" into situations where it's unknown?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Nuculur option 1,275,822
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 min VINNY DINARDI 20,102
Disrespect Ravens Coach 3 hr Thug Ravens Coach 1
Review: Around The States Moving & Storage 16 hr luketurgeon19 15
News Looking back at Baltimore's deadliest month Sat reality is a crutch 1
White men today Fri LEO 477 18
News Ben Carson suggests doing away with Department ... Fri reality is a crutch 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages