Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Doc Degall]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, YOU don't get to decide what women "should" or "should not" do, pal, no matter how much you WANT to control other women's lives.
Much as you probably hate it, there ARE women who don't regret having an abortion. They only regret GETTING pregnant in the first place, and were glad the option of abortion was available to them. Whether YOU approve of their decision or not is irrelevant.
http://www.imnotsorry.net

Great....here's the cathartic website again.....where most go to try to assuage their guilt.

" it was the best thing I ever did.....it empowered me....I swear it did"

Right.

[Doc Degall]

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>Not me and I speak only for myself. I am 100% prochoice. Period.

Can you tell us another nurse story ? It's been 10 minutes.
Pwetty pweeeeeease !

[Doc Degall]

Bitner wrote:

Outrageous.
http://my.firedoglake.com/rhrealitycheck/2013...

A bunch of unsubstantiated, unverified slop.....

"A woman in Utah...."
" A Louisiana woman..."

What is that ?

And this .....

"a Tennessee woman who had been in a car accident was tested to see if she had been driving under the influence of alcohol. According to local press, her blood alcohol content was well below the legal limit. Nevertheless, because she told a police officer that she was four months pregnant, she was arrested and taken to jail. Tennessee apparently recognizes a special crime reserved just for pregnant women: driving while not intoxicated."

Anyone believe there is nothing else to this story ? Even if it is real ( doubtful ). She was arrested simply because she was pregnant?

Outrageous.

[Doc Degall]

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Doc, once more you show your ignorance..
When you are in a foreign country. You are under that country laws. That is a simple fact of life. DERRR!!!!

The key phrase was "U.S. citizen" ma'am....not "U.S. soil".
The Constitution does NOT apply only to U.S. citizens.

You're showing your ignorance again lady. DERRR !!!!!

[Bitner]

Bhitler is fat wrote:

<quoted text>Awww, your upset because your wittle feelings were hurt. Actually I am healthy, healthier than you , you fat pig. Go spend some time at a gym and do Zumba.

Once again, you prove that you are a shallow, hatefilled person. You're ugly inside, no matter what you look like on the outside. And you always will be. Ugly. You are ugly.

[Bitner]

Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:

<quoted text>
She is a pervert with fantasies about child rape. Sick.

Among her many other failings, yes, she is.

[elise in burque]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you tell us another nurse story ? It's been 10 minutes.
Pwetty pweeeeeease !

Don't hate, baby. I'm not the one who brought up the subject of caregiving. It was one of you PLs. Try to keep your sour grapes in check.

[Doc Degall]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
No not lke yesterday. You were calling people "f'kn retards" in a derogatory manner, implying retarded people are less than you.
I, OTOH recognize retarded people as being mental superiors to you PC idiots.
They would have understood that as well, where you weren't even close.
What "stings"? I remembered you were banned because you called people names, and were loud mouthed about it with your exclamation points because you couldn't control yourself, and use what I remember to point out you're a hypocrite in calling other people loud mouthed name callers, and you think that means it stung when you did it?
LOL, you wished it did, but the effect you were going for didn't work. You think because someone calls you names and it "stings" you, that it has the same effect on us. You're wrong, Toots. I don't care what dummies call me.

Katie was infamous for her "FOAD"'s and calling people AH's. I guess it's OK when you call people names disguised as acronyms.
But call her delusional and watch her get all bent outta shape at the vile "name callers".

[Long Night Moon 13]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Heh! Have they caught the person yet? Only a dumb kid would shoot at a cop shop. At least I hope so, anyway!

Oh yeah, it didn't take long.

[Long Night Moon 13]

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>
"Dark Night Rises doesn't actually exis" - LADY, damn, the Dark Knight Rises SHOOTER! the real person who killed all those people, he did it in a place he knew would UNlikely have lots of armed people
as liberals on here usually do, you ignored my question like the coward u usually are..........try again, would you prefer if guns were banned & therefore only criminals own them??

"the real person who killed all those people, he did it in a place he knew would UNlikely have lots of armed people
as liberals on here usually do.."

And you, like the shithead you are, ignored my links to stories of gun carrying cops being gunned down, and that was just a few of the many I found. These were cops, criminals knew they were armed, and yet the criminals pulled a gun and shot them anyway. These cops being armed was no deterrent.

I showed you an article where a nut shot into a police station. I showed you a sample of articles about armed cops being shot down. That shows that criminals do not necessarily seek targets where there are few guns or few people carrying guns. There is CLEARLY no guarantee that criminals we seek places where there are few or no guns. I CLEARLY rebutted that argument.

You cannot PROVE that your hero Dark Knight Rises chose that venue because there were few guns...you THINK he did but you don't know it as fact. I showed you PROOF that criminals will shoot armed cops and one of them shot into a police station full of guns and armed cops. If criminals will shoot armed cops and at armed police stations they will shoot at anything regardless of whether there are a lot of guns there or not.

I clearly proved that so you lose, Fundieboy.

[Long Night Moon 13]

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>thats not cause & effect idiot..........just bc civilians & criminals have guns & we still have OCCASIONAL shootings does not mean that civilians having them does NOTHING (if NONE of us law abiding citizens had guns, crime would be far WORSE..........think, if you want to rob a house, do you rob the family that owns guns or the liberal pansies that dont?.....you know the answer to this)
so then, by your logic, drunk driving laws do NOTHING b/c we still have drunk drivers..........RIGHT?
admit, then that you believe that laws against murder do nothing since we still have murder.......laws against speeding do nothing since people still speed.....
so why do we have laws then numbnuts?
OOOPS, logic hurts

"by your logic, drunk driving laws do NOTHING b/c we still have drunk drivers"

And by YOUR logic the way to fight drunk driving is to have everyone drunk while driving. We have criminals with guns so arm everyone to deter killings...we have drunk drivers so have everyone drive drunk to deter drunk drivers...same effed up logic.

Many many many civilians own guns. Do they still get robbed? Yes? Murdered in their homes? Yes. Where is this deterrent? Where's all these stories of armed citizens thwarting killers and shooters? Where are all the stories of legal gun owners pulling out a gun and stopping a mass murdering by shooting them down?

Killers KNOW there are plenty of gun owners out there and they commit crimes anyway...and you know it.

[Long Night Moon 13]

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>
right, so tell these idiots like LNMoon & Chicky Brilliance this..........they somehow think that mass shootings will go DOWN if all the decent people have their guns taken away.......that somehow criminals WONT take advantage of a disarmed nation
UNREAL

I never said that, liar. I never said anything about taking guns away from decent people either, Liar.

Why don't you actually try comprehending what you read for once.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Doc, the mere fact that FHL's are silent on whether a pregnancy is wanted or unwanted is irrelevant. The statute assumes a wanted pregnancy. Otherwise, there would be no need for the exclusion in each and every FHL regardnig legal termination of pregnancy.

Wrong. The exclusion is for a LEGALLY performed abortion by a licensed medical practitioner. The death of a fetus caused by an illegal assault can ( and should )still be prosecuted, whether the fetus was wanted or not.

Yet you cannot proffer another crux for their existence without reverting to the only core existence for FHLs; protection of a woman's right to carry a wanted pregnancy to term.

I don't have to. All I need to do to refute your assertion that that is the ONLY reason for their existence is show that they exist for another reason. Which I did. And you continue to ignore the fact that if your assertion was true, the same could have been accomplished by passing the " Unlawful Termination of a Wanted Pregnancy Law". There would have been no need to designate the fetus as a separate victim. The fact that they did not do this is evidence that the purpose of the FHL go beyond your SOLE reason.
And you continue to sidestep the fact that if the sole reason for FHL's were what you claimed, the pro choice movement would not have opposed them as they did. They would have embraced them.
To claim as you have that the pro choicers did not oppose these laws, is engaging in revisionist history.

Pay attention.

But then again, without something to protect and for which to punish anyone, what's the point of the punishment?

Strictly punitive. Pay attention.

Doc, you can't prove it's wrong, so stop trying. As I've stated herein, FHLs exist for the protection of a woman's right to carry a wanted pregnancy to term by the vehicle of providing for additional punishment against the perpetrator, in the hopes of deterring violence against pregnant women. Not women by and for themselves, but PREGNANT women.

And, since FHLs isolate pregnant women from non-pregnant women, the only way to validate them is to designate the fetus as a separate victim, for the sole purpose of the illegal termination of a presumed wanted pregnancy.

No, that is NOT the only way. See above.

[J Connor]

We are a group of military veterans and we support the right for mentally well balanced, adults to own a firearm if the wish to do so. We do not support mentally disturbed people having access to firearms, either as owners or someone else's firearm. This issues needs common sense, good judgement and or adult supervision. Our focus is on buying American and creating jobs for Americans, but this gun violence issue has to addressed and we have to accept that in order to make society a little safer, we gun owners have to start using better judgment with securing our firearms,(so they don't get easily stolen or picked up by someone in our household) and gun sales have to be limited to people who are sane enough to qualify for a job at the nuclear power plant. The The MMPI-2 is most commonly used by mental health professionals to assess and diagnose mental illness. The The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or MMPI-2 has been utilized in other fields outside of clinical psychology. The test is often used in legal cases, including criminal defense and custody disputes. The test has also been used as screening instrument for certain professions, especially high risk jobs. We make it a LOT easier to find "Made in USA" products but find that some people still buy imported goods even though they know it cost Americans their job opportunities. Some people want government tariffs to control their purchase decisions for them. It might be the same with the 2nd Amendment...we might just need more adult supervision. John C. UnitedAmericanConsumer dot com

[Long Night Moon 13]

LTT wrote:

<quoted text>It's what will happen. They'll have the guns. They'll have their way! We will be sitting ducks, stool pigoens, and under siege. We will be a nation under hostage.

Another soap opera drama queen. Non-criminal people have plenty of guns...does this look like we're all living peacefully because of it? Or do I have to list for you all the mass shootings we've had even though plenty of citizens are legal gun owners.

Do you two rubes actually think we'll actually be living in some Utopia where criminals just stop killing because citizens own guns? Because citizens do own guns and criminals are still out there murdering.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:

<quoted text>
And this:
Cops Shot, Corrections Worker Dead in NJ Police Station Shootout
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-police-statio...
Oh and here is what happens when you have a bunch of responsible, legal, gun owners in one place:
UPDATED: 5 People Shot At 3 Different Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/19/1...
Isn't it too bad there were no people with guns around to prevent these senseless shootings?

Yes, and there was the well publicized story about the gun show in Massachusetts where a little boy lost control of his father's Uzi and blew his own head off. The father and the person running the gun show were "responsible" legal gun owners. I showed Seattle a story about a "responsible" gun owner who mistook a little girl for a skunk and shot and killed her.

I could dig these kinds of stories up all day, but the point is that responsible, decent people legally own guns and not only do we still have crimes and murders (including public mass murders) but we also have stupid senseless accidents that result in deaths.

Their vision of gun-toting citizens deterring crimes clearly is not at all realistic.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
And just how do you support my validation her position, when I've expressly stated I disagree with her opinion?

C'mon. I explained what her position was and you said "there is nothing wrong with that".

Prove it's wrong. In your reply post to Lynne you, albeit inadvertently, validated my contention with regard to the 50% gas exchange ratio. Or did you think I missed reading that post?

It was not inadvertent genius. I purposely validated your contention to illustrate my point, although I don't necesarily agree with your percentages. There is no way to quantify what is 50% or what is 48%....or what is 52%. One physicians 50% may be another's 45% or another's 55%. What I do agree with is the basic premise that a physician must first conclude that an infant possesses the minimal basic lung function to survive before he applies medical assistance.

"she would have to acknowledge that a fetus that can only handle 50% of the gas exchange on its own, would still require some artificial support to handle the remaining 50%"
Which has been my contention since the viability argument began; that once the 50% gas exchange ratio is reached, the fetus is viable. Any medical assistance applied to reach the 100% gas exchange ratio is merely "support" and not a requirement for rendering the fetus as "viable."

There you go again. I NEVER claimed that medical assistance was a requirement for rendering an assessment of viability. Stop it !
I am saying that the requirement for medical assistance does not PRECLUDE a determination of viability.

Hence the reason why "with medical assistance" is not a necessary element of viability, but a necessary element to ensure survival by means of achieving 100% O2/CO2 exchange.

I never said it was a NECESSARY element. You are exasperatingly dense.

You got your wires crossed Doc. It's always been you who's argued that the definition of viability is WITH medical assistance,

Flat out lie. It is with OR without medical assistance.

[Long Night Moon 13]

J Connor wrote:

We are a group of military veterans and we support the right for mentally well balanced, adults to own a firearm if the wish to do so. We do not support mentally disturbed people having access to firearms, either as owners or someone else's firearm. This issues needs common sense, good judgement and or adult supervision. Our focus is on buying American and creating jobs for Americans, but this gun violence issue has to addressed and we have to accept that in order to make society a little safer, we gun owners have to start using better judgment with securing our firearms,(so they don't get easily stolen or picked up by someone in our household) and gun sales have to be limited to people who are sane enough to qualify for a job at the nuclear power plant. The The MMPI-2 is most commonly used by mental health professionals to assess and diagnose mental illness. The The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or MMPI-2 has been utilized in other fields outside of clinical psychology. The test is often used in legal cases, including criminal defense and custody disputes. The test has also been used as screening instrument for certain professions, especially high risk jobs. We make it a LOT easier to find "Made in USA" products but find that some people still buy imported goods even though they know it cost Americans their job opportunities. Some people want government tariffs to control their purchase decisions for them. It might be the same with the 2nd Amendment...we might just need more adult supervision. John C. UnitedAmericanConsumer dot com

Unrealistic. How will you prevent "mentally disturbed" people from obtaining guns illegally? How rigorous will the testing be before a prospective gun buyer is deemed not "mentally disturbed"? What will you do about people who buy guns and are not mentally disturbed but become mentally disturbed later in life? And how many "mentally disturbed" teens have stolen guns from their non-mentally disturbed parents?

[Doc Degall]

(continued)

by virtue of the fact that it does not expressly state "WITHOUT." By the same presumptive standard you give that definition, it's axiomatic why it is you can't understand the only core purpose for FHLs. Seems to me that for someone who claims higher intellect, you miss the premise of things far too often.
So you're saying a fetus with a 40% ability for O2/CO2 exchange is as viable as a fetus with a 70% ability for the same exchange, because one will need medical assistance and the other may not need it?

A fetus/infant is either viable or it is not....whether it needs medical assistance to reach complete independence or whether it is already at the point of complete medical independence.

Does the term "sword and a shield" mean anything to you Doc???
So now you think your argument amounts to "plenty of condition precedent that qualifies a fetus as viable WITH medical assistance."
Lovely!!

A preemie on medical assistance IS already viable.

PRECISELY !!!
So how can you say that there is nothing wrong with Bitter's contention that a preemie can REACH viability with medical assistance ? If it is receiving medical assistance than a physician has already deemed it to be VIABLE.

Barring mom and dad being Mr. and Mrs. Donald Trump (figuratively speaking of course), medicine will not waste efforts, nor insurance companies pay for medical assistance for nonviable preemies. At any rate, it's morel likely than not that medical assistance of a non-viable preemie will not preclude death, especially if it is a severely premature baby.
When you invent the means by which the percentage of gas exchange can be accurately measured, let me know.

No need to. A physician will always be the one to determine, based on his knowledge and experience, whether or not a preemie has the minimal basic function to benefit from medical assistance.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
I am an attorney. I'm also human. As are you. Neither of us are right 100% of the time, although in this instance, I am.

Yes you are. What you're wrong about is claiming that there is nothing wrong with the contention of others ( chicky, moncie, katie, bitter, tinker bell, et al )

I agree it involves no presumption on your part. It involves ignorance, which is far worse.
If an infant has a 50% or greater ability to make the gas exchange in its lungs, on its own; is it more likely than not that it can survive, when compared to one who has less, especially far less than 50%?

If your answer is in the positive, then the fetus is viable and medical assistance is irrelevant to the fact that it is viable.

Very good. The only problem is that to the others....medical assistance is NOT irrelevant to viability. According to them if a preemie requires medical assistance....it is NOT viable.
And therein lies the CRUX of the issue.

Again, if an infant has a 50% or greater ability to make the gas exchange in its lungs, on its own; is it more likely than not that it can survive, when compared to one who has less, especially far less than 50%? If your answer is in the positive, then the fetus is viable and medical assistance is irrelevant to the fact that it is viable.
Ok, so we agree. Medical assistance exists for the purpose of augmenting the chance of survival from 50% to 100%.
Now let me turn your question around for you; how many infants born at less than 24 weeks gestational age do you know that got medical assistance?

I don't know. How many do you know ? What I do know is that if they did receive medical assistance, it means that the attending physician made a determination of viability.

[QUOTE]You'll have to excuse my 50'sh inability to read minds; who's "their?" I've always been under the impression that's YOUR definition.

Nope, it was THEIR's. And cut the "reading minds" crap. I've mentioned countless times who the dunderheads are that promote the totally wrong and asinine definition of viability. It's what this discussion has been about from the beginning. Do you have ADD ?