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
266,321 - 266,340 of 305,487 Comments Last updated 11 min ago
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!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283591 Feb 11, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen!
RAmen!

:-D
Obskeptic

Detroit, MI

#283592 Feb 11, 2013
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.
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.
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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283593 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So in essence, you do place precedence of the embryo over that of the girl/woman gestating it.
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what "in essence" means. I already told you, when similar rights are comparatively considered for each, the woman's should always take precedence. The woman's right to privacy however is NOT similar to the fetus's right to life, and should in no way supercede it. Oh, I know legally it does right now....but it shouldn't. The right to privacy is already restricted in cases where innocent human life is/may be in peril.

“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.

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) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,101,833
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 54 min Samuel-6g-Jackson 18,904
CHICAGO: 5-Dead, 42-Wounded In the 2014 Labor D... 1 hr YOUNG BLACK KILLERS 1
One Action Movie Can Damage a Mind for Life 13 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
•••

Severe Thunderstorm Watch for Baltimore County was issued at September 02 at 4:47PM EDT

•••
•••
Baltimore Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••