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 (Page 13,318)

Showing posts 266,341 - 266,360 of305,059
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283608
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283610
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283614
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283615
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283616
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283617
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283618
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283620
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Birmingham, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283622
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283623
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283624
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283625
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Katie wrote:
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?
To answer your last question, Katie, I think that's EXACTLY what these anti-choice guys like "Gtown" and "Obskeptik" want. Let 'em squawk. I have NO intention of being a doormat for these bozos, I don't think any other prochoicer will do that either.:-)

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283626
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ojut 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?
When I call someone a myopic jerk or a misogynist, or an arrogant ass, it's because it's an accurate description of their behavior and language. I'm not going to mince words when they call me a baby-killer and a murderer. How dare they be indignant? How hypocritical.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283627
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
To answer your last question, Katie, I think that's EXACTLY what these anti-choice guys like "Gtown" and "Obskeptik" want. Let 'em squawk. I have NO intention of being a doormat for these bozos, I don't think any other prochoicer will do that either.:-)
The lack of posts from those two, using the same "advisement" toward Doc and Triple L (lily), really displays their open bias as well, imo, Ocean. I have, however, seen both posters give positive feedback toward Doc. Were those posts full of ad homs? I dunno. Doesn't matter, either.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283628
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>When I call someone a myopic jerk or a misogynist, or an arrogant ass, it's because it's an accurate description of their behavior and language. I'm not going to mince words when they call me a baby-killer and a murderer. How dare they be indignant? How hypocritical.
Agree, Elise, definitely. The hypocrisy is astounding. They can't be blind to it, though I have given the benefit of the doubt. At times. And it is waning.

They do not offer a pretty picture or even make an attempt to do so when stating their thinly disguised ad hominems as PL arguments. Why would I even consider their views? Even for the briefest of moments? Name-calling, absurd accusations, inability to comprehend what they read, lack of asking for clarification, etc., it goes on and on and on.

Why should I again offer an olive branch. I have. And it's been refused.

So here we are.

But Obskeptic chastises me?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283629
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Y'all"? Damn straight we'll show our true colors. Our colors show we have intelligence and knowledge, while yours show your ignorance, senselessness and idiocy.

You're the idiot talking about something different from what the topic of viability is about. You're talking about viable newborns, and newborns have nothing to do with the abortion issue, pinhead. The issue is a viable FETUS. Needing ALS for a time doesn't negate the viability of a fetus.

100 years ago is irrelevant, since abortion wasn't legal then, and "viability" wasn't an issue.

I don't blame you for not bothering to read mine along with Doc's, because you can't handle that much SENSE coming at you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283630
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie: "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."

You only see it that way because you haven't the foggiest idea what viability of a fetus is about, or what a viable FETUS is.

It's about the POTENTIAL a fetus has to survive outside of the womb, not about definite survival. It's about the chances a fetus has to survive outside of the womb, even with ALS. With regard to the abortion issue, viability is determined BEFORE birth. A fetus is considered viable or not BEFORE birth.

Your viewpoint and arguments are about once born. Epic fail.

Your ability to understand what a viable FETUS is, as well as understanding this is all in reference to the abortion issue, so viability of a fetus isn't something that needs to be "reached" AFTER being born, is also an epic fail. Sense would tell you that once born, it's not a fetus, it's a newborn infant. The abortion issue isn't about newborn infants. Sense fails you every time, because you don't have any.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283631
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
ALL PLers felt the same as you did when we first entered this thread. Stay a year or so and then find out who begins with the name calling and why PLers dish it out a bit too. In a much milder form than that of the PCers. Funny thing is, PCers call us "bitch", "c***", "a**hole", "Katie called us "fk'n retards" etc., and they are the ones offended by name calling that shouldn't bother anyone unless they're children, like "bonehead" or "pinhead".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283632
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
To answer your last question, Katie, I think that's EXACTLY what these anti-choice guys like "Gtown" and "Obskeptik" want. Let 'em squawk. I have NO intention of being a doormat for these bozos, I don't think any other prochoicer will do that either.:-)
Yet when fundies like Zach, Tom Tom and Knut hurl all sorts of insults the very same whiners fall silent.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283633
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree, Elise, definitely. The hypocrisy is astounding. They can't be blind to it, though I have given the benefit of the doubt. At times. And it is waning.
They do not offer a pretty picture or even make an attempt to do so when stating their thinly disguised ad hominems as PL arguments. Why would I even consider their views? Even for the briefest of moments? Name-calling, absurd accusations, inability to comprehend what they read, lack of asking for clarification, etc., it goes on and on and on.
Why should I again offer an olive branch. I have. And it's been refused.
So here we are.
But Obskeptic chastises me?
That poster has obviously been here under another name. If she/he wants to start over with a different take and attitude, that's great, but why not just do it as the original poster? Silly and dishonest, imo.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 266,341 - 266,360 of305,059
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Baltimore Discussions

Search the Baltimore Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Grey Ghost 1,077,553
Baltimore Stands with Israel 3 hr Cordwainer Trout 14
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 7 hr Samuel 18,561
SnuffAGlobalist 10 hr SnuffAGlobalist 2
snapchat usernames! (Nov '13) 13 hr Anyone welcomed 84
Bealefeld: Downtown beating not a hate crime (Apr '12) Sun Judy Strothers 7
thailand prostitution movie Sun Teo 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••