Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,294
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. Read more
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283568 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No he probably wouldn't. But the rich are already taxed to help the needy. Disproportionately so.
What Jesus likely WOULD be against however, is those who were not really needy but who just preferred to take advantage of others rather than attempt to be become sufficient. As I see it he would despise that the most. And he'd be against one group being singled out disproportionately over others to help the "legitimately" needy.
Do you have a point ?
Yes! My reply was to a poster who wanted to know why Jews are liberals and Christians are conservatives. You showed why more succintly than I ever could.
"What Jesus would despise the most...."
Anonymous

United States

#283569 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc and I are discussing elective abortion.
Of all annual abortions, 98% are performed between 7-8wks gestation. This is on an embryo the size of a Tic Tac.
When people claim they want elective abortion criminalized because the "teeny tiny baby with a heart beat is being maliciously killed," imo, they're putting precedence of the embryo over the girl/woman gestating it.
Even when the fetus /babe /baby /medical waste /it /bundle of joy /whatever one calls the life inside of the womb, is the size of a tic tac, it still has a beating heart, that pumps blood throughout the tiny body that is growing. In order for a pregnant woman to become unpregnant, she must be willing to have that heart stopped, regaurdless of size. Most abortions are done, just becouse they can be, and no other reason.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283570 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
To tell you the truth - I can't do anything about it. Can you?
You are the one who thinks America should be a Christian country because most Americans identify as Christian. I was just asking if you think those Muslim countries are a good model. Did you forget your own posts?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283571 Feb 11, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, honey, honey... Not everything is about you, even on a public forum. Your answer is irrelevant to my question to Guppy. Thanks for stepping off, now.
Anonymous

United States

#283573 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Honey, honey, honey... Not everything is about you, even on a public forum. Your answer is irrelevant to my question to Guppy. Thanks for stepping off, now.
Oh the irony :)

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283574 Feb 11, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the irony :)
Define, "irony," gomer:-)
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283576 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one who thinks America should be a Christian country because most Americans identify as Christian. I was just asking if you think those Muslim countries are a good model. Did you forget your own posts?
What are you talking about?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283577 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay attention genius...it's something you demonstrate you have a REAL problem doing.
I said all things being equal including rights, then the woman takes precedence. And I meant it. If a pregnancy is threatening a woman's life then the LIFE of the woman takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Right to life vs the Right to life.
Saying that a woman's right to privacy takes precedence over the fetus's right to life is NOT a case of the same or equal rights being considered for each.
Do you think without privacy, a woman wouldn't legally be allowed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy without question during the first trimester?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283578 Feb 11, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I don't remember your question. I do know that I responded to one of your post, that never was sent, and I simply didn't rewrite it, as I got caught up in life. I do however purposely ignore some post, but just can't remember doing this to you.
If you would like to reask your question, then I promise to try and answer it, to the best of my ability.
I hope you recieved my reply to your heart felt post, about your parents and grandparents.
please forgive me, for seeming insensitive, but I find that I can be good at that at times. Ocean called me an azz once. I can only agree with her on that.
Okay. If I missed your post I apologize to you. I'll go back and look for it and read it.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#283579 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>This is not a Christian country. We Americans are not all Christians. We never were. If you want to live in a theocracy, you will have to leave the U.S.
If you want to live in his world, you have to believe in God.
Where are you going to go?
Don't you just live in your home?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283580 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
You lost track of your own conversation. That's okay, dear.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283581 Feb 11, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Yes! My reply was to a poster who wanted to know why Jews are liberals and Christians are conservatives.
Glad I could help.
Jews consistently vote against their own best interest. As a voting bloc they are an enigma. Especially here in NYC.

You showed why more succintly than I ever could.
"What Jesus would despise the most...."
I think Jesus would agree that anyone who is righteous and fair minded would despise that the most.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283582 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion is incorrect, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for Gtown. If I said you didn't respond and you did, then it was because I legitimately missed it....certainly not because I couldn't refute what you said.
Regardless, let's not focus on the past. Right now I asked you a serious question about RvW because I sincerely want to get your feedback.
You're up.
Uh, I answered your RvW question. Did you <ahem> miss it again?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283583 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think without privacy, a woman wouldn't legally be allowed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy without question during the first trimester?
Since the RvW court cited the right to privacy as the basis for the woman's right to terminate without question then the answer to that is obvious. No.

However in hindsight the RvW court, in the absence of the right to privacy ( which, contrary to the courts interpretation, in no way grants the right to abortion ), likely would have found another reason to justify the right to abortion.
The RvW decision was horrible....based on faulty logic at best. But the court knew what decision HAD to be made and simply backed into a way to justify it.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283584 Feb 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, I answered your RvW question. Did you <ahem> miss it again?
I may have. I'm only human. But after this post I went back and looked again and still couldn't find it. Can I have a post # please ?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283585 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.
So you want me to believe you do not do the same?
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay attention genius...it's something you demonstrate you have a REAL problem doing.
I said all things being equal including rights, then the woman takes precedence. And I meant it. If a pregnancy is threatening a woman's life then the LIFE of the woman takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Right to life vs the Right to life.
Saying that a woman's right to privacy takes precedence over the fetus's right to life is NOT a case of the same or equal rights being considered for each.
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think without privacy, a woman wouldn't legally be allowed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy without question during the first trimester?
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the RvW court cited the right to privacy as the basis for the woman's right to terminate without question then the answer to that is obvious. No.
So in essence, you do place precedence of the embryo over that of the girl/woman gestating it.
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
However in hindsight the RvW court, in the absence of the right to privacy ( which, contrary to the courts interpretation, in no way grants the right to abortion ), likely would have found another reason to justify the right to abortion.
The RvW decision was horrible....based on faulty logic at best. But the court knew what decision HAD to be made and simply backed into a way to justify it.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283587 Feb 11, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I would find it interesting that you're under the delusion that its not, but its not shocking since you demean any faith that's not your verison of "faith".
<quoted text>
And ONCE AGAIN you're LYING, since he certainly HAS told people's he's Christian, and EVERYONE knows he's Christian.
And he's one hell of a better Christian than you will EVER be.
<quoted text>
While you would demean your version of "faith" and your version of jesus for the opportunity to post a lame insult.
Thank you, Foo.

Gtown is an idiot -- "der, you don't even tell people here you're a Christian, duh der der der."

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#283588 Feb 11, 2013
That's me, little mary sunshine!

Just typing that hurt...
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Optimist! ;-D
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283589 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
....and it will NOT have ALS applied. Good, you're getting it.
If the physician DOES determine it possesses the basic lung function to survive with ALS then he will deem it viable and ALS will be applied. He will not apply ALS to a non viable fetus so it can REACH viability....as numbskulls like Bitter and Chicky have claimed.
<quoted text>
No stupid. The courts will never determine when viability is.
The court merely established a definition of WHAT viability is. Physicians still and always will be the ones to determine WHEN viability is.
<quoted text>
I don't know if any of this artificial surfactant talk is true but if it is and the technology was readily available, then a physician would have to consider it in determining viability. Don't like it ? Then petition the court to get the definition changed.
<quoted text>
NO ! You STILL don't get it. If artificial surfactant was available and a physician felt it could enable a fetus to survive, then he would deem the fetus viable and he would inject it. It would not be injected to "bring the fetus to viability". It would already BE viable. If it were not viable then it would not survive no matter what medical assistance is provided.....and that includes any hypothetical artificial surfactant.
<quoted text>
Great you brought it up before. Want a medal ?
What does it change ?
<quoted text>
I saw it... so what ? You still have no idea what you're talking about. Then OR now.
Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago. Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability. That is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.

Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?
Obskeptic

Detroit, MI

#283590 Feb 11, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a guy who truly didn't believe in God, who was saved by God, as decribed in the bible. So I am a biblical christian who has no problem attending any christian church for growth as a christian. You're correct when you say that there are many many different secs of "christians ",and all claim to be the true christians. I met God at home and was saved at home, which I am very thankful for. I line up who I am, by prayer, Gods Word, and common sense about it all.
So I geuss I cannot give you an answer, other then I was a sinner on my way to Hell, and now I'm a sinner on my way to Heaven.
I give All credit for any good I do or have had done to me to Jesus Christ, for He alone is worthy.
I believe that if anyone is truly serious about knowing God, instead of knowing about God, that they can call on Him, and He will reveal Himself to that person.
They don't have to know anything at all about Him, and they can be as sinful as they come.
He died once and for all.
He rose again once and for all.
Amen!

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 The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 min TOASTER 19,730
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr woodtick57 1,207,368
News Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 17 hr WelbyMD 54,569
News Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. arrives at Baltim... Sun Carla 1
News Missing woman found safe in Baltimore City Sun Friday Love 1
News Local group Slutwalk Baltimore plans to protest... Sun Friday Love 1
Is it really true? (Nov '11) Sat Satans Evil Son 4
Baltimore Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]