Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 20 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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283594 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago.
Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.

Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability.
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.

That is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for so
long ?
you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.

Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283595 Feb 11, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
What a refreshing poster you are Doc. It's a pleasure to have someone grown up that can seriously discuss the topic in all of it's ugliness and controversy.
Thanks. I think highly of your posting as well.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283596 Feb 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
That's me, little mary sunshine!
Just typing that hurt...
<quoted text>
LOL, sorry :)
Anonymous

United States

#283597 Feb 11, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
What a refreshing poster you are Doc. It's a pleasure to have someone grown up that can seriously discuss the topic in all of it's ugliness and controversy.
Agreed!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283598 Feb 11, 2013
Lol. Wow...
Anonymous

United States

#283602 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
Lol. Wow...
WOW. Lol :)/(: loL. WOW

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283604 Feb 12, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW. Lol :)/(: loL. WOW
What?
Anonymous

United States

#283605 Feb 12, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>What?
Where?

I hope you have a good day elise in burque :)
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283607 Feb 12, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.
<quoted text>
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.
<quoted text>
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for so
long ?
<quoted text>
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.
Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
<quoted text>
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.
You rub me the wrong way. All this time you say you're PC and you're not. You are PL who holds exceptions. That is all.

And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede.

But it sure doesn't stop your antisocial, name-calling, idiotic, blithering fool behavior. No, because apparently you throw your head back, and get off on it.

Go you. Must be proud.

<major eyeroll>

Think what you want. You're wrong.
Ocean56

AOL

#283608 Feb 12, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
If women don't want kids, then they should not have sex.
Ah, you want women who don't want children PUNISHED with lifetime celibacy. That's so typical of anti-choice extremists, especially the faith-based ones.

Thankfully for women who either don't want any children or those of us who have had the number of kids they wanted and are now DONE with the whole procreation thing, that isn't YOUR call to make.

In any case, marriage and motherhood are both OPTIONAL, not required. That means a woman can reject either option or both of them, and she doesn't need your permission or approval to do so.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#283610 Feb 12, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen!
TH APOCALYPSE
CHAPTER 14
7 Saying with a loud voice : Fear the Lord,
and give him honour, because the hour of his judgment
is come ; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth,
the sea, and the fountains of waters.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283614 Feb 12, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I think highly of your posting as well.
You asked for the post number for my response to your questions. Still silence. You managed to take a bow for this though. You complain I don't want a discussion, but like I said, I write discussion responses and those are the posts that go unanswered. Enough with these games.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283615 Feb 12, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.
<quoted text>
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.
<quoted text>
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for so
long ?
<quoted text>
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.
Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
<quoted text>
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.
She tried to claim "viable" and "viability" are somehow different in meaning but RvW states:

"...or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks...."

RvW states what "viable" means (with regard to the life in utero and abortion), and then states when "viability" is usually placed.

The terms "viable" and "viability" are interchangable. ALS has nothing to do with viability since viability is determined BEFORE the child is born, while still in utero. It's a FETUS determined to be "viable" or not, not a newborn infant. ALS is irrelevant to that determination, and so is birth. The child is determined to be VIABLE while in utero. That fact alone proves the senselessness of their arguments about ALS and "reaching viability". I don't know why she and the other pinheads can't get that.

Viable
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable

"b.
(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. "

Viable is defined as having REACHED such a stage of development as to "be capable of living...outside the uterus".

Viability
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
"the ability to continue living."

"Capable" and "ability" are the key words in both definitions, and they mean the same thing. Both have to do with the POTENTIAL of the fetus to live outside of the uterus. Neither means having reached the stage of living outside of the uterus, or having reached it without medical assistance.

I realize you already know about all that I posted, and it was posted for the educational benefit of any PC boneheads who might read it and don't already understand this.
That's giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'd be able to read it for comprehension and have the intelligence to grasp it. Which is unlikely, but you never know when a light bulb will go on.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283616 Feb 12, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You rub me the wrong way. All this time you say you're PC and you're not. You are PL who holds exceptions. That is all.
And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede.
But it sure doesn't stop your antisocial, name-calling, idiotic, blithering fool behavior. No, because apparently you throw your head back, and get off on it.
Go you. Must be proud.
<major eyeroll>
Think what you want. You're wrong.
Katie: "All this time you say you're PC and you're not."

When has Doc said he's PC, liar? You don't stop lying about others here. You PC are all alike.

Katie: "And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede."

You're an uneducated fool who doesn't know the meanings of words, and wouldn't undewrstand the definitions even while reading them.

Viable and viability are interchangable, both have to do with CAPABILITY of living outside of the uterus, and both have to do with that potential of a FETUS. Not a newborn infant. Viabilility of a fetus and viable fetus is determined while that fetus is IN UTERO. Neither has to do with reaching anything once born.

You like to come off as educated and intelligent, but you come off as an uneducated buffoon. Your inability to grasp simple meanings of words and terms, while you try to redefine what's already been defined,(medically and legally), is what makes you look like an irrational mental case.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283617 Feb 12, 2013
A fetus has [reached] "viability" while in utero. A fetus is determined to be "viable" while IN UTERO. It has "reached" that stage IN UTERO at a certain gestational point. Both words have to do with [potential] of the FETUS to be able to [live] outside the uterus, albeit WITH medical aid. Neityher has to do with a newborn needing to "reach" that stage. It's about a FETUS reaching that stage of viability, of being viable.

The mind boggling ignorance of PC who claim to be college educated is beyond the pale. They can't read for comprehension beyond 4th grade level. They are NOT smarter than a 5th grader, that's for sure.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283618 Feb 12, 2013
This is where Katie makes her mistake:
Katie: "And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede."

She's talking about "viability" of a "baby", and to her, that's a child already born. That's not what "viability" is with regard to a fetus and the abortion issue. The abortion issue isn't about a child already born.

RvW isn't about a BORN child, it's about a fetus in utero. The viability issue is about the fetus, not a newborn infant.

THAT is the "subtle difference" Katie and some other PC don't have the intelligence to grasp.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283620 Feb 12, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
This is where Katie makes her mistake:
Katie: "And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede."
She's talking about "viability" of a "baby", and to her, that's a child already born. That's not what "viability" is with regard to a fetus and the abortion issue. The abortion issue isn't about a child already born.
RvW isn't about a BORN child, it's about a fetus in utero. The viability issue is about the fetus, not a newborn infant.
THAT is the "subtle difference" Katie and some other PC don't have the intelligence to grasp.
You tell me how often a baby survived a hundred years ago with only have 50% capacity for exchanging gases without any artificial life support. How prevalent was that prior to using to modern technology (even if it just meant mouth to mouth on the struggling newborn)?

To read Doc's posts (i won't even bother with yours), one would think a physician would determine fetus may have 50% chance or better at exchanging gases on its own, birth it prior to its due date, put it on ALS, and there will always be a happy ending. What Doc doesn't or won't take into consideration is that if the newborn doesn't survive, even will all it seemed to have going for it, then it wasn't viable. His postings, his thoughts, his understanding of how ALS is used, belies the fact he doesn't get it.

And I'm cool with that. Y'all can just keep your lame name-calling to yourselves. And if you don't like others doing it, you're only being hypocritical when you do it to others.

But, hey, I'm cool with y'all showing your true colors.
Obskeptic

Detroit, MI

#283622 Feb 12, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You rub me the wrong way. All this time you say you're PC and you're not. You are PL who holds exceptions. That is all.
And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede.
But it sure doesn't stop your antisocial, name-calling, idiotic, blithering fool behavior. No, because apparently you throw your head back, and get off on it.
Go you. Must be proud.
<major eyeroll>
Think what you want. You're wrong.
Katie, is there any subject at all that a person who disagrees with the lefts political position can discuss without the intolerance and demonizing? I'm not suggesting that its just you either. The lack of intellectual honesty and objectivity from most of the PC posters is glaring and obvious. Many responses consists of nothing more then name calling. The kind of name calling that takes me back to the days of junior high. Can we at least try to conduct ourselves as respectful adults here or must I continue responding to the opposition in the same manner? Who cares if Doc is PC or PL, he makes some excellent points even if I were to disagree with some of them.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283623 Feb 12, 2013
Len wrote:
I took a friend to a clinic for counseling as her b/f was out of town (She ended up not getting an abortion after talking to the counselor at Planned Parenthood). It's amazing how these self-absorbed nuts flock to you quoting biblical verse and ranting about how we're all going to H*LL even though they had NO idea why we were there. It was good that she had the option to choose. I will always support that option regardless of what the self-appointed saints tell us.
Yep. When a woman goes into a PP clinic, she is probably going in for gynecological services or birth control. As you wrote, if she goes for pregnancy counseling, she will be helped to decide what is best for her, whatever that may be. These myopic jerks refuse to see that.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283624 Feb 12, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie, is there any subject at all that a person who disagrees with the lefts political position can discuss without the intolerance and demonizing? I'm not suggesting that its just you either. The lack of intellectual honesty and objectivity from most of the PC posters is glaring and obvious. Many responses consists of nothing more then name calling. The kind of name calling that takes me back to the days of junior high. Can we at least try to conduct ourselves as respectful adults here or must I continue responding to the opposition in the same manner? Who cares if Doc is PC or PL, he makes some excellent points even if I were to disagree with some of them.
You tell me. I use name-calling very little here. Usually dish it back after it's been dished out to me. What the opposition does is hold the entire group of PC people responsible for a couple or few posters. It's disgusting.

Last year, when I was wrongly accused of supporting infanticide, I stuck it to 'em and they trot this out as if it was current. Even though I refrain from using the same phrase, there are a couple (or one poster under different SNs) who keep rubbing my face in it.

So you tell me. Above you chastise me when I am standing up for myself. You want me to cringe into the woodwork and get walked on like a doormat?

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) 1 hr Holy Jumpin Jesus 1,224,041
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 1 hr white guy 415
News Poverty edging into 2016 presidential race amid... 3 hr Novus Ordo Seclorum 7
Cop shoots N!@@er in Baltimore 4 hr pathetic 6
total pieces of crap 4 hr pathetic 2
The Walking Dead star CHIMPSOUT (video) 4 hr TOASTER 5
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 6 hr Chuck 19,892
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]