Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311489 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.

“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?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241149 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
So, basically what you're getting at is 3 weeks is viable. In the here and now. Today. Legally and medically.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241150 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
He hasn't denied it, that I know of. He ignores it like it never happened. DocMary and LynneD are a lot alike in that respect.
Btw, notice DocMary has never denied posting unregistered as Mary the registered nurse? He tried to deflect but he never denied!
Hmmm...again, just like "lilLilly" who has never denied she posted as Lynne D. Must be an anti-choicer thing.
Not having denied something does not make it so.Too often denials come off as unbelievable and as baseless as the accusations themselves which is why I generally don't even dignify them. Like you PC ofen do when you are accused of either being on here 24/7 ("Hey I've got a REAl job....") or being unintelligent ("I'm educated....I've got a phD...")or being callously unfeeling ( "Hey I've got kids and grandkids...and damnit....they're my sweeties..." ). When you feel the need to respond to baseless accusations from an anonymous dope on some internet forum....you've lent a measure of credibility to the accusation.
But I'll play your game just this once. I have never posted as anyone or any nurse named Mary. And for the record I am also not Tap....I am not Al Kahalik...and I am not ETR. Any others ?
Let's see if that stops the stupid accusations. Don't count on it.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241151 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
You say, if it's viable it gets assistance.
I said if a medical professional DeTERMINES it to be viable it gets assistance.

If it's not, it doesn't.
Correct. That's what non viable means....it will not and cannot survive regardless of what level of available medical assistance is provided.

If it gets assistance and expires it was never viable, and the MD was wrong.


Not always. If it gets assistance and does not survive because it was never sufficiently developed to be able to survive....even with medical assistance...THEN it was never viable. It may have been viable but expired to due to disease, infection, etc and that is not necessarily a function of non viability.
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?
Not in the slightest. Show me where the conflict is ? Show me where it is wrong for a physician to err on the side of caution when in doubt as to the viability of a newborn ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241152 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically what you're getting at is 3 weeks is viable. In the here and now. Today. Legally and medically.
Huh ? Wuh ? What in the wide wide world of sports would ever lead you to that conclusion ?
Explain to me what medical technology exists today that would be able to sustain and allow for the further development of a 3 week old fetus ex-utero ?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241153 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Not having denied something does not make it so.Too often denials come off as unbelievable and as baseless as the accusations themselves which is why I generally don't even dignify them. Like you PC ofen do when you are accused of either being on here 24/7 ("Hey I've got a REAl job....") or being unintelligent ("I'm educated....I've got a phD...")or being callously unfeeling ( "Hey I've got kids and grandkids...and damnit....they're my sweeties..." ). When you feel the need to respond to baseless accusations from an anonymous dope on some internet forum....you've lent a measure of credibility to the accusation.
But I'll play your game just this once. I have never posted as anyone or any nurse named Mary. And for the record I am also not Tap....I am not Al Kahalik...and I am not ETR. Any others ?
Let's see if that stops the stupid accusations. Don't count on it.
Thanks. But I don't believe you. Unregistered Mary posts exactly like you, has all your "trademarks". As for the rest, eh, don't really believe you. Guys don't generally sit around kissing one guy's ass all day. But I could be wrong. Maybe your pals do.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241154 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh ? Wuh ? What in the wide wide world of sports would ever lead you to that conclusion ?
Explain to me what medical technology exists today that would be able to sustain and allow for the further development of a 3 week old fetus ex-utero ?
I think at 3 weeks gestation it's still an embryo.

Look at the criteria. If it can survive outside the womb with the best of medical technology, i.e. an artificial womb, and so be declared viable, then why not inside the woman's womb? What's the difference regarding the defintion you are using for "viable"?

If you believe a fetus at 10 weeks gestation could be declared "viable" outside the womb given futuristic medical technology, why wouldn't it be declared "viable" inside the womb where it implanted, in the first place?

And if we're gonna keep going with this, you'd have to declare frozen embryos viable, as well. Because medical technology can implant them in a woman...or perhaps in the future, in an artificial uterus.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241155 May 31, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well said, John...tho it will fall on deaf ears. You're going to hell for this, ya know.

:P
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241156 May 31, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nah, she can't. She really can't. You're going to hell, too. Just thought I'd let you know.

:P
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241157 May 31, 2012
Gotta go. See you guys in hell. I'll have the Corona's chilled, but I insist you all bring lots of ice. Lots and lots of ice.

:P

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#241158 May 31, 2012
Because animals can know pain and fear, and are not living within our bodies or living off of our bodily systems.
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?
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#241159 Jun 1, 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 look, more unprovable garbage from gay cancer bob.

I'm not going to bother comparing what is worse, but your claim that animals do not have a soul is something I'd love to see you try and prove.

Get back to us when you have a clue.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241160 Jun 1, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Because animals can know pain and fear, and are not living within our bodies or living off of our bodily systems.
<quoted text>
I'd also like to see her prove her assertion that "animals don't have a soul."

I guess that makes it easier for her to justify eating roadkill.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#241161 Jun 1, 2012
pupsee wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Lalu
Have you heard of this case ??
This is what happens when people ignore animal abusers ..
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/body-parts-susp...
Yes! I saw that!

Animal abuse at a young age has been correlated to sociopathy/psychopathy, pups. Anyone who acts as if there's nothing wrong with animal abuse (NIT) should be closely watched for those pathologies.

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) 4 min RealDave 1,404,218
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr stupid republicans 20,389
News Police arrest man in shootings outside schools 8 hr bozo 1
News Two men shot in one-hour span overnight in Balt... 22 hr bozo 1
boycott the usps Sun JOHNNY LENNON 1
News Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) Sun TheGambler 12
News Two men shot, one fatally, inside suspected dru... Sun bozo 1

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages