Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313199 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275940 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal terms are not based on medical scientific terms. Everyone should know that.
There is no etymology of "unborn baby" because the phrase refers back to pregnancy being described as "with child".
Anyone can call the ZEF anything they want and it has no impact on anything or anyone. In a debate, though, both sides need to agree on terms and definitions or the debate will not progress.
That pretty much sums up the issues in this forum with this group of people. Most of the PCers use medical terms while most of the PLers use emotional terms.
That creates a stalemate (and silly post exchanges like we're having about KW's post).
Katie: "The legal terms are not based on medical scientific terms. "

They're obviously terms recognized in LAWS. You know, the kind of thing you PCers stand behind, like RvW.

Katie: "Anyone can call the ZEF anything they want and it has no impact on anything or anyone."

Bullshit. It had an impact in that law being made, and in the wording of that law.

Katie: "In a debate, though, both sides need to agree on terms and definitions or the debate will not progress."

Again, bullshit. You people don't even understand definitions and try to redefine what's already been defined, by law, so there's no way any intelligent person would agree to your terms on that matter.

Katie: "That pretty much sums up the issues in this forum with this group of people. Most of the PCers use medical terms while most of the PLers use emotional terms."

Bullshit again. Are you suggesting that the terms we use that have also been used in "The Laci and Connor's law" were "emotional" terms? You'd have to be if you're going to make that kind of claim.

Katie: "That creates a stalemate (and silly post exchanges like we're having about KW's post.)

There's no stalemate. I have this hands down. The only cause for any silly exchange is the silliness coming from you PCers.

Katie

Seattle, WA

#275941 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie is a "useless" excuse for a human being.
That's not belittling to you, according to what you're saying. I don't know you, you're a stranger to me.
" 'Useless' wad of cells" IS belittling, you ignoirant twit.z
Yeah, I'm referring to unknowns. If you're posting to me, than I am a known quantity. But look who I'm trying to explain it to; a name-calling, bad spelling, ignorant twit.
<eye roll>

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275942 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all I'm not arguing YOUR view. I'm arguing your ridiculous defense of THEIR view.
I've not misrepresented anything anyone else has said. Ever. In fact those I've cited have actually clarified their position and confirmed my representation of what they've said. Need I remind you of that moron chicky....claiming that a preemie that needed artificial support was not viable ? You rightly disagreed with her.
That was just before she grabbed her viability ball and left in a huff.
You've even misrepresented some of the things I've said and cherry picking my posts is an example of such. Yes, I disagreed with what Chicky said, but that doesn't mean she's wrong and I'm right; just that I disagreed with her. Besides that; why do you harbor this morbid desire to foster your proclivities of pontifical lord? Do you think arguing viability on Topix is going to make you famous?
Doc Degall wrote:
Love your beach story. What does it mean?
You know what it means. In the alternative, you should know what it means.
Doc Degall wrote:
My viability argument does NOT hang on the word albeit. My viability argument disputes their definition of viability which defines it as the ability to survive EXCLUSIVELY without medical assistance.
But the definition of viability does not state that it is the ability to survive EXCLUSIVELY WITH medical assistance. Thus, absent a condition precedent that qualifies a fetus as viable WITH medical assistance, the reasonable, and correct definition of viability must exclude WITH medical assistance.

When a Judge dismisses a lawsuit, it is presumed to be dismissed WITH prejudice, unless the dismissal states, explicitly, that it is WITHOUT prejudice. Now, don't go off the deep end here trying to say I'm contradicting myself by my example. I'm not. The point is that in the absence of an explicit condition, then no condition can be assumed, presumed, or made necessary, for viability to exist.
Doc Degall wrote:
Excellent. Your definition is a lot different than theirs. Ya see their contention....and the one you're still missing is that if an MD places it on life support as a means to ensure that remaining 50% ability....then it is NOT viable.
Wrong. The one who's presuming it's not viable is you. It's viable if it already has a 50% chance or greater to survive outside the womb, when it's extracted from the womb. Medical assistance is applied to ensure it does not remain a 50% chance of survival, but it increases above the 50% mark. Such is not a condition to viability, but a condition to continued viability. No doctor worth his/her salt will rest on the 50% contingency and not apply medical assistance until he/she is satisfied that the O2/CO2 exchange is at MMI for the age of the baby.
Doc Degall wrote:
Again. The point was never YOUR position. It was your defense of THEIR position.
I defend that which I think is defensible. I've even defended what's arguably indefensible, only to mitigate the degree to which it is indefensible. It's what I do for a living Doc.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275943 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "...my lost pregnancy (a male)..."
Lily: "You think a "pregnancy" has a gender? Wow. Just...wow."
cPeter: "Yeah, I have a male pregnancy."
NR: "No cases of back door Peteys conceiving anything but a bowel movement."
More non sequitur fallacies.

Do you guys have anything better? Think I'll go play FB games.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275944 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Tinker Bell is a coward. He also claimed that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. And he backpedaled on that one also.
<quoted text>
Don't tell me what I overlook. I overlooked nothing.
<quoted text>
I not only saw it I acknowledged it and responded to it. You're lying again. Just like you did when you said I left off the word "right" in my discussion with Bitter.
<quoted text>
That's not THE basic concept of viability, that's HIS position on what the basic concept of viability is. Go back and read.
But even if we were to concede that his position is the correct one, even he acknowledges that the application of medical assistance to support the remaining 50% of the O2 exchange would not preclude a determination of viability. By Tinker Bell's definition ( and yours ) an infant requiring ANY medical assistance to survive is NOT viable.
It's a stalemate then.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275945 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
Oh, forgot to add this tidbit. Mrs. Jumbo is Dumbo's mother.
Asking if I'm projecting as if you didn't see the Disney movie, "Dumbo" is hilarious. You're the one who called KW "Dumbo" to begin with.
Just another fine example of you not knowing or understanding what others say, right?
<chuckle>
I called KW Dumbo because he's DUMB-O, you ignorant buffoon. Which is why calling me Jumbo could only mean I'm a very large person, IF you were understanding my reason for using the word I did.

Calling him Dumbo doesn't make me his mother either, so no matter how you cut it, your reference to me as "Jumbo" was senseless.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275946 Jan 11, 2013
Yes, Katie, what YOU posted WAS another fine example of mot understanding what others say.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#275947 Jan 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.
It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.
LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
It is convenient to go back to the Laci Peterson case where Scott was convicted of killing his unborn child. If I remember right that child was in utero.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275948 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?
(quit crawling with the snakes and leave my grown daughters out of your posts, out of your thoughts altogether)
I have complete bodily autonomy and ALL without ever needing to have any of my unborn children killed. That's because bodily autonomy is about MY body. Imagine that.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275949 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?"
Your granddaughter didn't benefit from bodily autonomy. Your daughter ripped her little body up at your beckoning.
Was she your patient? You musta been steering that curette to lop off the arms and legs. Did you remember to grab a handful of dimes to place beside bloody pieces as you photograph and put 'em back together like some macabre jigsaw puzzle? Let me have copies of those photos. Would love to see my "deceased granddaughter".

TIA

(what a creepy coward you are. do you want to be reported?)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275950 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "Pain is not subjective. Ask anyone you know to stick their hand in an active fireplace, and everyone will experience the same pain."
If I have to ask them about their pain, I'm seeking a subjective report.
(unbelievable)
__________
cPeter: "Didn't you say that sentience is not reached until a certain level of maturity?"
Where did I say that? What I did say to you is that the baby wants to live. Even instinctually s/he demonstrates she is meant to live by moving from the death weapon & inflicted pain.
["Multiple lines of evidence thus corroborate that the key mechanisms of consciousness or conscious sensory perception are not dependent on cortical activity" - Anand, 2006]
__________
Research is gaining insight into thalamic involvement in pain perception, along with the cortical subplate zone.(Pain peception no later than 20 weeks gestation....likely sooner....thus, the multiple-state abortion pain laws.....learn more.)
I saw a program yesterday with a story about a little girl who can't feel pain. She's a fully functioning young lady who simply can't feel pain. If she's burned, breaks her leg etc, she won't know it based on any pain sensations. Imagine this little girl unconcious. So she's unaware and can't feel pain at all. Based on the PC idiotic type of reasoning, because she doesn't feel pain and is unaware of being killed, sending her through a chipper would be just fine. No different than a natural death either.
bman

Commack, NY

#275951 Jan 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Not if she doesn't want to be pregnant. PP does refer women to adoption services if they ask, but PP is a medical facility, not a social-worker office.
And yes--mind your own business. What the woman has or does not have within her body is absolutely NONE of your business.
<quoted text>
Really? Planned Parenhood says adoption is one of the choices? Give me a link to ONE source of Planned Parenthood having the word adoption in it. Good luck with that search. Now in terms of a woman having the right to do what she beleives can be in her body, it sounds like you don't have a problem with Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) a disorder in which someone wants a bodypart removed from themself. Can't women have the right to remove whatever organ or limb is bothering her? Or are you going to deny her right to choose what to do with her body? After all it's none of your buisness. Let her decide what is best for HER body. It sounds as if you veiw a fetus as a bodypart. Is a fetus a bodypart? If not then you lost the argument because if a fetus isn't a bodypart, that means that it is SEPERATE from the mother in terms of organs, tissue, and an endoskeleton. Oh yeah, and don't forget a seperate heartbeat.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275952 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Still providing wonderful examples of your poor comprehension skills. No surprise there.
LOL, no, actually YOU are, since you didn't get my comment, dummy.

You obviously understand a "pregnancy" wouldn't have a gender. The pregnancy is a CONDITION. So, for you to claim your "lost pregnancy" was "male", is just more of your type of senselessness, trying to avoid claiming what you lost was your unborn son. Your fetus was your son, since you know he was male.

Saying your "lost pregnancy" was male is just a STUPID way to avoid stating the facts. Pregnancies don't have genders.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275953 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetal pain laws aside, whether or not a fetus feels pain should never be a determination as to whether or not killing them is okay.
I just saw a program yesterday of a little girl who can't feel any pain at all. She can break bones, burn herself etc. and not feel a thing. Does lack of pain sensation make it okay to hurt her? Of course not.
The "fetus doesn't suffer" so killing them isn't a bad/wrong/immoral thing argument is senseless.
Abortion isn't determined by fetal pain or lack of it. Abortion is determined by a woman and her doctor.

The fetal pain argument is a PLM fallacy. Am glad to see you concede it isn't realistic. However, it's disheartening to see you pick up a new fallacy and fling it toward the PC. I don't know anyone, anywhere who thinks abortion is okay because the fetus doesn't suffer.

Women's civil rights are okay because it's morally right to give women the same opportunities to determine their lives' outcomes without interference from the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parkers (like you).

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275954 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct ?!? Are you kidding ?
<quoted text>
There is EVERYTHING wrong with Bitter's statement. And if you don't think there is then you explain this :
Just how does a preemie REACH viability with medical assistance ?
If a preemie needs to REACH viability that means it has not yet attained viability. If it has not attained viability then it is not yet viable and by definition no means or level of medical assistance with prevent its demise ( as you've stated ).
So explain to me....and take me through it slowly and step by step if you don't mind....just how a non viable fetus reaches viability through medical assistance.
Doc, not everything in medicine, or life for that matter, is that demarcated.

Theoretically speaking, a fetus having only a 49% ability to survive outside the womb is NOT viable given the 50% standard. Agree? Good.

Do you think a doctor is NOT going to act in an abundance of caution and administer medical assistance to help the fetus reach the 50% mark, especially when he/she, in the light most conservative of his/her medical training, knows that there is no EXACT measure of when viability is at precisely 50%?

Medicine is not an exact science because the human body isn't an exact "mechanism."

8 months ago I underwent surgery to repair what a 2 day old MRI, stated it was a "slight" rotator cuff tear. When the surgeon went in arthroscopically, which he believe would be able to do with no issues, he found the tear was major and ended up having to discontinue arthroscopic surgery and do incisive surgery. I ended up with 6 titanium anchors and 3 stitches to repair a major rotator cuff tear, and labral tissue repair, the latter of which didn't show in the MRI. My doctor said I'd be lucky if I recovered 80% of my range of motion on that shoulder.

Today, thanks to the fact that I had the best physical therapy physician in the world - my wife, I have 99.9% of my range of motion back. My shoulder is a little temperamental at times, but it isn't more painful than when my rotator cuff was torn.

Point being, the human body has a canny way of healing itself. Medicine only aids in that enterprise. A person with walking pneumonia may not need antibiotics to rid him/herself of the condition.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275955 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm referring to unknowns. If you're posting to me, than I am a known quantity. But look who I'm trying to explain it to; a name-calling, bad spelling, ignorant twit.
<eye roll>
You're a complete unknown to me. I don't know you from Adam, Toots. You're a bunch of words on a computer screen to me. To think you're anything more than that to me is senselessness.

You don't know me in any way either.

I'm just a moniker and words on a page. As much a stranger to you as you are to me. We are not personally acquainted in any way, since that would require knowing each other in person, which we don't.

You ARE an unknown to me, you nit wit. You people think this is real life here, or what?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#275956 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no, actually YOU are, since you didn't get my comment, dummy.
You obviously understand a "pregnancy" wouldn't have a gender. The pregnancy is a CONDITION. So, for you to claim your "lost pregnancy" was "male", is just more of your type of senselessness, trying to avoid claiming what you lost was your unborn son. Your fetus was your son, since you know he was male.
Saying your "lost pregnancy" was male is just a STUPID way to avoid stating the facts. Pregnancies don't have genders.
What part of "...to refer to my lost pregnancy..." flew in one eye and out the other or over the top of your head? Why do I need to explain this?

You're like NR. Pull partial quotes without supplying context, try to make it mean whatever you want it to mean, then point your fingers and play the blame game.

It's your fallacy. Jesus is so proud.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275957 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural Law of Human Beings states Katie's aborted granddaughter had a right to life. She was created just as she was supposed to be, living & growing exactly where she was meant to be. Intentionally killing her (and Katie encouraging her daughter to kill her) violated the Natural Law of Human Beings.
"Natural Law of Human Beings"

Is that a law book? Who's the publisher; West?

I guess that must be a quote from a 1979 edition of Mad magazine you read at your sunday school class.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275958 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a stalemate then.
If you want to call Doc having that hands down a stalemate, then so be it.

Call it whatever you want, he still has it hands down.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275959 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward. There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook. CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
That has always been my position Katie. Thanks!

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) 7 min Patriot 1,480,906
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 3 hr truth 7,994
News Baltimore shootings up 30 percent compared to t... 5 hr former democrat 1
Mosby Wed Johnathan T 4
News DUI Defendant Drinks 12-Pack at Court - (Oct '07) Tue Dudley 47
News Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Jan 15 IAMGKNEE 113,993
News Baltimore man fires shots because someone took ... Jan 15 Dudley 2

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages