Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317623 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: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262621 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Ever hear of a botched abortion?
Ever hear of women going in for an abortion and then days or more later being in agony or still bleeding? She goes to the ER. Dr left a body part of the baby still in mom. They do emergency D&C.
Tell me, in your opinion, is she still pregnant? According to you since the baby is still inside then she is pregnant.
What part of the body is it? Foot=not pregnant. Head= pregnant. You're being silly, so silly is what you get. Thank goodness abortion is legal in the U.S, or your scenario would be a common occurrence. We're never going back to those days, no matter how badly some people would like us to.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262622 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> I don't agree. God rest the girls soul ((if true) and healing for the family (if true) but this was brought up by foo and it backfired on her and her proabortion agenda
.
She claims to be for choice but she proved to be anti- her choice. How DARE she ridicules and disrespects this womans choice and religious beliefs. All she cared about was killing that 'baby(she conveniently referred to a fetus as).
I agree about that. But that's about Foo. I don't agree with her using this woman at all.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262623 Oct 8, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I think the term "monster" is reserved for people who actually commit heinous acts, not for people who write posts thats we don't agree with or make end-of-life decisions that go against our particular sensibilities. Or... have abortions :-O
FooL exploits women. This woman DIED and without even full knowledge of the particulars, she jumps on her unfortunate death along with her baby.

Who CARES if she disagrees with the girls choice. Not HER business remember?

She even posted a womans pictures as her avatar(exploiting her) to gain attention while lying about her story. We're awaiting THAT proof that fooL supposedly had saved @@

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262624 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> HER CHOICE was to not kill her baby.
End of story.
Exactly. Her choice was also about her own life, and she chose death for herself before killing her child in utero.
The very epitome of what she believed, as a mother and as a religious woman. She LIVED what she believed.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262625 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> And they wonder WHY they are referred to as proabortion.
@@
Exactly.
Ink

Feasterville Trevose, PA

#262626 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of SHE made the decision did you not understand?
"She was pregnant, and they dont know exactly what happened yet, but what IS known so far is that somehow he placeta was ripped (?) and being a religious Catholic, she refused an LTA to save her life. Now both she and the baby are dead."
Stop already, because ALL of you using her story this way are dishonoring HER CHOICE and HER BELIEFS.
I have just come back on this thread after days away and I may have to be brought up to speed because I don't understand why she refused an abortion. The Church does not expect any woman to give up her life for a fetus.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262627 Oct 8, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so sorry for your family's loss, foo :(
xoxooxoxox
According to some on here, life-saving abortions are never necessary. I guess they were wrong, eh?
Prove an abortion was necessary to save mom.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262628 Oct 8, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Gosh, I hope you don't mind that I find more value in the assessment of my critical thinking skills by an accredited nursing college and a state board of nursing than I do yours. Nothing personal, ma'am. As I wrote, you dont know for a fact how every medical provider charts. You couldn't possibly know, since physicians are notorious for being very creative in their individual styles. That’s putting it kindly. I must say you certainly have very strong opinions, and I believe that to be an admirable trait. Why is it so important to you that every person agree with you, though?
I don't need every person to agree with me. What is telling in adult discussions, is who and who isn't mature enough to admit that they're wrong.

You PCers haven't proven a D&C after miscarriage is medically considered/documented as an "abortion procedure". In fact it IS only considered a dilation and curettage procedure.

Being a nurse doesn't mean you know everything medically, and when you don't, the wise thing to do would be to stay out of discussions that are about subjects you don't know about. I happen to know about this one, which is why i'm NOT staying out of this discussion.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262629 Oct 8, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>She made her autonomous decision according to her personal ethics. Isn't that what we believe to be her right? She died, being true to herself. Dying isn't the worst thing to happen to a person, imo.
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth to you, I agree. Well said.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262630 Oct 8, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>What part of the body is it? Foot=not pregnant. Head= pregnant. You're being silly, so silly is what you get. Thank goodness abortion is legal in the U.S, or your scenario would be a common occurrence. We're never going back to those days, no matter how badly some people would like us to.
Botched abortions are not as uncommon as you think.
YOU'D know that if you were in the medical field.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262631 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Lala, Lily even showed the link with YOUR words telling me that it is NOT an abortion. You thought that I was saying that it was when in fact it was peter and johnny.
This conversation continues and since finding out that "I" didnt say it, youve remained silent because you were afraid to confront fooL with her bs(or peter or johnny).
What part of I AM NOT FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION is not reaching you? I haven't even looked at anyone's posts on this particular topic, okay? And I will not be drawn into it at this late stage, okay?

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262632 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text>Prove an abortion was necessary to save mom.
I don't know if it was, but it very well may have.

Don't ask me. Ask Foo.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262633 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> IF indeed this is a true story then leave it to fooL to ONCE AGAIN exploit a woman.
She didnt tell about this poor womas tragic loss. She had an agenda to show her bigotry and her hypocrisy while using her and her "babys" death.
She is a monster.
I agree. Directing her post to me, using Lynne's name again, she exploited this woman just to attack pro-lifers who have religious beliefs and accuse them of being happy this happened, which is wrong and it's nasty. It also backfired on her, as you said.

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#262634 Oct 8, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
It is no different than suicide. She died feeling she was doing what was best.
As long as she wasn't coerced, it is really as it should be.
My take is that Foo's post was reinforcing the very real fact that some LTA's or post-vi's *are* done to save the life of the pregnant woman.

This mother-to-be opted to take her chances and paid the ultimate price. Hopefully, she was armed with all the facts. Guess it could depend on where she was being treated?

(Very sorry, Foo.)

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262636 Oct 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I have just come back on this thread after days away and I may have to be brought up to speed because I don't understand why she refused an abortion. The Church does not expect any woman to give up her life for a fetus.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
Interesting.

Then why did the church take an opposing stance with the Brazilian girl and the nun in Arizona? Any idea?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262637 Oct 8, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, what about your hypothetical where you'd choose death for your daughter rather than a life-saving abortion? It is very similar to what Foo's posted. Yet you call her a monster. You probably called Michael Schiavo a monster, too. But the three of you all made decisions based on what was right for you and your family members. Do you still believe Michael Schiavo to be a monster?
You don't understand ANYTHING.

She's calling Foo that because she's upset that the woman made a choice Foo didn't agree with, and Foo's exploiting that choice for her own selfish agenda here. It's not the same as Sassy understanding that woman's CHOICE made about her own life.

No one made a decision for this woman, she made it for herself, according to Foo's post. She chose to refuse the LTA that would save her life. Your post has nothing to do with that.

You really are delusional if you think you have any reading comprehension skills, or any intelligence or sense. Not when you display this kind of proof that you don't.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262638 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You implied it the whole time. You didn't understand that the other PCer WERE saying it's medically stated as "an abortion procedure", back in Jan. and those same people tried to get away with saying it again now.
I do not care what was said when I wasn't here posting. I have not implied it was written "abortion procedure D&C" in a patients chart. I told you time and again it was coded, charted, and transcribed as an abortion procedure with the distinction of the type of abortion. I said it several times and even put it in ALL CAPS for you.
lil Lily wrote:
You tried to back it up and failed. Epic fail on the part of you PCers in trying to prove a D&C after miscarriage is "an abortion" OR "an abortion procedure". It's not referred to that way in layman's terms. It's not even medically referred to that way, which was what you were trying to prove with your codes.
What treatment is used for uterine conditions? D&C. Is an abortion no matter what type of abortion a uterine condition? Yes.

You're an epic fail.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262639 Oct 8, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of I AM NOT FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION is not reaching you? I haven't even looked at anyone's posts on this particular topic, okay? And I will not be drawn into it at this late stage, okay?
Converastion has been active for MONTHS. You were in it from the beginning.

Interesting that when you found out that you were agreeing with me, you jumped out of it.

Whatever.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262640 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Pregnancy...being pregnant means that you are gestating your developing offspring /child. An elective abortion is meant to END that developing childs life. A miscarriage/spontaneous abortion means that a developing child has died. The life of that child is over. The pregnancy is terminated at that point. REMOVAL of that life is the next step.
In an elective abortion, the Dr kills as it removes it.
In a miscarriage the body usually natural expels it.
If not, the Dr will clean out an remains of that baby. Many times even after baby is expelled, the Dr might go in and clean out the uterus. That is NOT an abortion. It is a D & C.
FooL is claiming D&C are "abortion procedures".
Abort means to END. If the baby died, then a D&C is NOT ending/aborting
During anelective abortion, then that D&C DOES abort /end the life/pregnancy
All very simple, sensible and easy to understand. Yet, not one of them, not any of them combined, can process that fact.
Ink

Feasterville Trevose, PA

#262641 Oct 8, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Then why did the church take an opposing stance with the Brazilian girl and the nun in Arizona? Any idea?
I think that they felt that there were still some possibilities to save both the mother and child. We will never know. I don't remember the exact quotes from the doctors if there were any.

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) 3 min Badjudgment 1,603,483
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 19 hr Linden Nj 21,198
Crybaby Ravens Sun Crybaby Ravens 1
Murder Capital Sep 21 Doc Roc 1
News Mansion's reverend has skeletons in his closet (Jul '08) Sep 18 DiLeos D 220
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) Sep 14 Westminster 79
News Baltimore archbishop calls for mercy for 'Dream... Sep 14 Michu pichu 1

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages