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
257,901 - 257,920 of 305,485 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#274514 Jan 4, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Get over equating supporting choice to elective abortion/abortion on demand.
I think Bobby's post just showed a fresh perspective. Like the same old room with a new coat of paint. You have blinded yourself to Foo's and CD's words. I think this because I *have* paid attention.
Holy Canoli! You're like a freakin coin stuck in the jukebox for crying out loud.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274515 Jan 4, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not separate until it is. At birth. If it's viable, or at least developed enough for medical intervention to keep it alive until it IS viable,
What ?!?! Medical intervention to keep it alive until it is
viable ??? So it's not viable yet but with medical intervention it can become viable ?
You are pricelessly stupid.

then it continues to live. Before a certain point, it ISN'T viable, and no medical intervention will help.
Ya mean if it isn't viable than no medical intervention will help ?
But you just said above that medical intervention can help it become viable.
How is that possible ???

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
sassyliciouus

Jackson, NJ

#274516 Jan 4, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain to me from a scientific/medical standpoint how a pre-mature fetus/baby can go on living in an incubator? Or in other words, how can a pre-mature fetus/baby continue to live if it is seperated from its mother?
Its my understanding that a non-fully developed fetus is part of a woman until it is fully developed. According to you PCers, as long as the fetus is attached to a woman it is part of the woman and it is not a seperate human being.
In addition, how can a pre-mature fetus/baby continue to develop its organs, its fingers, its toes, etc., without a woman's body?
The truth is every fetus is a DNA-based, self-contained growing machine and it will develop into a fully developed human being as long as it continues to receive nutrients and blood.
Abortion destroys the seperate entity growing inside a woman. I know you PCers hate the fact that your bodies are incubators, but the truth is your bodies are just that. Deal with it and then stop all this abortion bs.
Great post!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274517 Jan 4, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, you're just really, really stupid. Viability has to do with the level of development in which the fetus can use its own systems to survive if removed from the woman. One lynchpin of determination is development of the lungs. If the lungs are not to the point where they can oxygenate the blood, nothing you do will allow it to survive. IF it is developed to the point where that function is weak BUT PRESENT, it may survive; there is no guarantee. It is therefore viable but not in perfect health.

You defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. Now you are blatantly contradicting that and claiming exactly what we are.....that an infant born with weak but functioning lungs and thus will require medical assistance, are viable.

And you've got the balls to call anyone else stupid you coward ?

[QUOTE]Legislation cannot supplant the doctor's own judgment.
<quoted text>
No one ever said it could ya dope. But legislation can, and has, defined the parameters by which the doctor makes his judgement.
A doctor cannot ignore the consideration of medical assistance when making a determination of viability/non-viability.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274519 Jan 4, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you, but I certainly know a ZEF is killed in spontaneous or induced abortion. Unlike you, I see NO DIFFERENCE between the two.
You acknowledge there is a difference in your own immediately preceding sentence. One is spontaneous and the other is induced.

You didn't mean there was no difference. Because there most definitely IS. What you meant is that while there is a difference, it doesn't matter to you.

I'm here to help.
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#274520 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No one ever said it could ya dope. But legislation can, and has, defined the parameters by which the doctor makes his judgement.
A doctor cannot ignore the consideration of medical assistance when making a determination of viability/non-viability.
You never answerred my question. If she chooses, would you want your pregnant woman to opt for abortion if the fetus' survival threatens your woman's life?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274521 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> I am not here to convert people. You live your life while I will live mine.
Will I bring post abortive Mothers the truth about Gods unconditional love for them? Yes. He will forgive and heal them.
Will I bring post abortive Mothers the truth about Gods unconditional love for them? Yes. That is why prolifers are here exposing the decptive, evil nature of abortion.
"Will I bring post abortive Mothers the truth about Gods unconditional love for them? Yes."

No, there is no "truth" to this, it is your religious belief and this illustrates how you, and fundies like you, cram your beliefs and religion down other people's throats.

"That is why prolifers are here exposing the decptive, evil nature of abortion."

You are doing exactly what I said you're doing...cramming your beliefs down other people's throats.

"You live your life while I will live mine."

You're contradicting yourself.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274522 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion kills another life. God forbids it. We must defend all victims.
That is YOUR belief. There is no proof your God exists. I don't believe in God. Many other people don't believe in God. You can't impose your personal beliefs on other people's lives.

Live your life and leave other people alone to live their lives. Butt out of other people's business.
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#274523 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text> Does that make me an anti-semite?
I need to know.
Yesterday I was a closet one according to you because I revealed having a Jewish best friend. Am I one today? If you declare me one again today, can I at least be in the closet with NR again like you said we were -yesterday? I am scared of the dark :(
Ah gagaga
LMAO you are getting desperate Mister.
What you do with NR
in the closet or anywhere else is of no concern of mine. But Foo's references to God as "G-d" is more reverrent than your "God".
She doesn't doesn't use the name of the Lord in vain.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274524 Jan 4, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Why put something to bed once and for all, when it that has already been done? We had this discussion about a year and a half ago.
Judges are charged with interpreting the intent of the legislature and youíre neither a Judge, nor a lawyer. So, you can speculate 'till your heart's content as to what the intent of the legislature was in the creation of FHLs, but in the final analysis, your speculation will not amount to much other than cheap argument.
After reading the quotes from some of those who sponsored the legislation I can safely say I am not speculating.
But, if you care to re-hash this matter, let's start by stipulating that Fetal Homicide exists ONLY when an unborn fetus dies in a manner other than by a legal, or natural abortion (miscarriage), and that all FHLs carry an exception for legal abortions.
I think you're smart enough to not dispute this.
Who could dispute it ? The fact is they had to include such an exception or else they would have directly conflicted with RvW which legalized abortion. Moreover, and more to the point, the legislation would have never passed without such an exception
You state:
"The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death."
There is an undeniable amount of truth in your claim above.
If you acknowledge that then it's apparent we agree.
All I did was dispute your inaccurate claim that FHL's existed for one reason and one reason only.
However, while it's easy to see how a person without legal expertise would view that as the sole purpose, fact is that your claim is missing the underlying element, or the mechanism that allows FHLs to exist; the mother MUST be the first victim. Making the fetus a separate, or distinct victim, means squat if mommy isn't hurt first, and any temporary personhood status granted by the statutes of the given individual jurisdiction, is conditioned on the illegal death of a fetus SOLELY when mommy is the first victim.
No disagreement here but none of this changes anything I've said.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274525 Jan 4, 2013
(continued)
Further, the sole purpose of laws that punish criminal
behavior, is deterrence of criminal activity. What better way to deter criminal activity towards a pregnant woman and protect a womanís right to have a child, than for the State to circumvent the 8th Amendment by conveniently subjecting a potential aggressor to additional punishment? Itís a hell of a way for the politicians to show the state takes an aggressive stance in the preservation of potential life.
You also state:
"that could have been accomplished simply by increasing or enhancing the punishment for already existing laws involving assaults on women which result in pregnancy loss."
Doing this would be unconstitutional, given the protection of the 8th Amendment. When a criminal defendant is deemed competent to stand trial, the law is (or in the alternative should be) blind to the gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and stage of pregnancy of the victim. A defendant charged with say, manslaughter, cannot be sentenced to any more time if he caused the death of a pregnant woman, than if he caused the death of a sterile man under the same circumstances.
Valid point. But still does not alter the inaccuracy of your original statement.
So, given the 8th Amendment, and the fact that FHLs do not attach but for mommy being hurt first, and the fact that all FHLs carry an exception for a doctor performing a legal abortion with the consent of the mother, itís axiomatic that the crux of what's being protected is a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose whether the pregnancy will be carried to term, or aborted within the legal period of time.
Are you trying to say that she didn't have that right or that right wasn't protected prior to the enactment of FHL's ? And if so, are the states that don't have FHL's being negligent in not protecting a woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy ?

You also ignore two of my main points, i.e. if the FHL's exist for the reason you state....and ONLY the reason you state, then why were the PC so admanantly and uniformly opposed to it? As I said, if it's existence was solely for the reason you state, they should not have only NOT opposed it....but embraced it.

And if they existed solely for the reason you state then someone assaulting a woman ( resulting in the death of her unwanted fetus ) who was walking into a clinic to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, could not and would not be charged with fetal homicide.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274527 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>ELECTIVE abortion is FORBIDDEN in the Jewish religion. You and foo STILL support the act as choice and want ELECTIVE abortions kept legal.

You and Foo are not practicing Jews.

Now..enjoy your weekend :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So sayeth the catholic hypocrite who follows all of her Jeebus' commandments to the "T."

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274528 Jan 4, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>You never answerred my question. If she chooses, would you want your pregnant woman to opt for abortion if the fetus' survival threatens your woman's life?
Yes. I've always agreed with the right abort when there is a threat to maternal life.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274529 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO have you ever done theatre? You're GOOD studmuffin. Bet you were at least in the drama club at school.

Am I right ;)?
You're as right as the Mayans thought they were.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#274530 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I've always agreed with the right abort when there is a threat to maternal life.
I'm sure women all over the country can sleep soundly at night now knowing you agree with them having the right to abort if their life is in danger.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274531 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>You just told TomTom in a post that Bobby was right with what he said regarding what your religion says about FORBIDDING ELECTIVE ABORTION. That you had no reason to backpeddle.

Now here ^^^^ you are saying "Hey, you want to take the word of an atheist(booby) who was born a Jew over the word of two practicing Jews..blah blah..be my guest"""" """

LMAO
Deflecting dweeb? You know that no matter what you say, or how you twist what others say to suit your agenda, the fact, I'll repeat that; THE FACT, is that women have a choice to have an abortion, and there isn't a G-damned thing you can do about it, other than squirm, rant, rave and throw a hissy fit over what is LAW.

And it kills you!

Squirm dweeb. You're good at that.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274532 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>liar liar pants on fire
That's some defense dweeb.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274533 Jan 4, 2013
sassyliciouus wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another death threat.

Yet another display of your hatred(bigotry) for Chrisitans by mocking Jesus.

You are a very angry man. Your unresolved guilt is apparent by your emotional breakdown while spewing intolerance for Christianity.

Sad.
Hook, line and sinker!!!!

Not a death threat if I'm reasonably incapable of fulfilling it dweeb. Unless, of course, you think I could kill you. Do you???? Of course not.

See how easy it is to show how you lack discernment and twist things to augment and embellish your agenda?

I love it when you Xtians deflect your idolatry to what you perceive as others' hatred for Christianity.

Want to know something dweeb? My mother is a Christian. Unlike you, she doesn't blame me for denying jesus. You think I would ever be capable of hating her?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#274534 Jan 4, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure women all over the country can sleep soundly at night now knowing you agree with them having the right to abort if their life is in danger.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted and misplaced. Why would they even care since right now they have the right to kill even without such a threat ?

The guy asked me a hypothetical question. I answered. Butt out.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#274535 Jan 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>After reading the quotes from some of those who sponsored the legislation I can safely say I am not speculating.

[QUOTE]But, if you care to re-hash this matter, let's start by stipulating that Fetal Homicide exists ONLY when an unborn fetus dies in a manner other than by a legal, or natural abortion (miscarriage), and that all FHLs carry an exception for legal abortions.
I think you're smart enough to not dispute this."

Who could dispute it ? The fact is they had to include such an exception or else they would have directly conflicted with RvW which legalized abortion. Moreover, and more to the point, the legislation would have never passed without such an exception

[QUOTE]You state:
"The FHL's exist for one reason....to establish the fetus as a distinct victim and establish a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be charged with homicide for actions that result in its death."
There is an undeniable amount of truth in your claim above."

If you acknowledge that then it's apparent we agree.
All I did was dispute your inaccurate claim that FHL's existed for one reason and one reason only.

[QUOTE] However, while it's easy to see how a person without legal expertise would view that as the sole purpose, fact is that your claim is missing the underlying element, or the mechanism that allows FHLs to exist; the mother MUST be the first victim. Making the fetus a separate, or distinct victim, means squat if mommy isn't hurt first, and any temporary personhood status granted by the statutes of the given individual jurisdiction, is conditioned on the illegal death of a fetus SOLELY when mommy is the first victim."

No disagreement here but none of this changes anything I've said.
Love how you cherry pick Doc, especially how you chose to only stipulate to 1/3 of what I proposed.

My intent was not to change what you said. I can't change what you said. I can, however, challenge what you said. I have, and you haven't said anything to rebut, or debunk what I've stated. Ralistically speaking, you can't.

That's ok. I knew you couldn't.

This matter has been put to bed long ago. Let sleeping dogs lie Doc, including your babble about viability.

Seems like regurgitating already digested matters is your m.o.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min DBWriter 1,101,354
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Jim 18,892
One Action Movie Can Damage a Mind for Life 1 hr HidingInMyCave 8
gay hookup in maryland Sun mdtowson 5
Md. Governor Does Illegal Immigrants Another Fa... Sun wild child 2
Atlantic fish management research to be address... Sun Will Jones 1
15 homeless single moms in Osceola get housing ... (Dec '08) Sun Crodriguez 20
•••
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••