Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,257
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. Full Story
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283744 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So anyone who had an abortion before abortion was legal was a murderer?
Anyone who has an illiegal abortion today is a murderer?
As long as it is done according to the law, it it not considered murder.
So as long as it is legal, then it is ok, correct?
This is a fact that has been true throughout time, no matter what it is, if it was legal to do then it was ok to do, or it is up to each person to decide if it is right or not.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sto, the bible says that life is in the blood, so if a person must stop the heart from beating, then they gave killed a baby.


STO replied: But a frozen embryo can implant and gestate. You consider it to be dead because the heart beat was stopped, however temporarily?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283745 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
" Although most PL define the beginning of life at conception, an "embryo" that is conceived, studied, and frozen in the very first stages of development, in a test tube and not the womb, would never meet the legal or scientific definition of "viable"."
You didn't answer the question. You said abortion was "killing a baby". So, do you equate disposal of a frozen embryo with "killing a baby"? Viability is irrelevant to this question.
That's right, viability is irrelevant to the question.

What's also irrelevant is that abortion has to do with a human life in utero being killed.

Further, if there ever was a time where a fetus was gestating in an artificial womb, YES, aborting it would be killing that human life. Not sure what answer you're expecting from PL.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283746 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
She copies my words "physician determines fetus is viable" but doesn't understand what these mean as she rides my a$$ and demands I prove what I am saying or bow down to her highness. Even worse, when coming up behind her buddy Doc, she doesn't understand what he's saying (although I'm sure she's clicking those icons in his favor).
Didja see where she told me to prove Doc is PC? How crazy is that? Doc can confirm or deny himself. He's always claimed he's PC, though I see him as PL holding exceptions for life of woman.
Katie: "She copies my words "physician determines fetus is viable" but doesn't understand what these mean as she rides my a$$ and demands I prove what I am saying or bow down to her highness."
WHERE did I copy those words liar? You made a claim and once again you can't substantiate it so make excuses and play victim. Your act here is old and boring.

Yes, YOU claimed Doc said he was PC. I expected you to b able to prove where he said that about himself. Can't do it, just say so, bonehead. Funny, I can prove my claims of what you people have said, by providing the posts in which you said it. You make claims and can't back one of them. As far as I know, he's always claimed to be PL and holds exceptions for rape and life of mother. His friend Tap is PC.

Just goes to show anyone who's paying attention and who cares about integrity in discussion, that you don't pay attention and have no integrity in discussion.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283747 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, with ALS, per Doc. But that's not what Katie understands. She's talking about viability of a newborn infant, which is different than viability of a fetus. She's the one not grasping the distinction.
"Artificial womb" is immaterial to a discussion on viability. You placed viability at 8 weeks in your hypothetical, and that's not going to happen.
Hypotheticals that have no basis in truth are ridiculous. Yours included "viable" when human life goes "from embryo to fetus" which = 8 weeks gestation. Not a realistic basis and is why your hypothetical is irrelevant.
"She's talking about viability of a newborn infant, which is different than viability of a fetus."

What is the difference?

Honest question. I think they are one in the same.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283748 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, viability is irrelevant to the question.
What's also irrelevant is that abortion has to do with a human life in utero being killed.
Further, if there ever was a time where a fetus was gestating in an artificial womb, YES, aborting it would be killing that human life. Not sure what answer you're expecting from PL.
If you read my post again you will see that I was asking about frozen embryos, and if that poster believed disposing of a frozen embryo equated to "killing a baby". That poster had already stated that abortion was "killing a baby".

You have mixed up two separate conversations.
Anonymous

United States

#283749 Feb 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"So anyone who had an abortion before abortion was legal was a murderer?"
Abortion has never been considered murder in this country, just an illegal abortion.
"Anyone who has an illiegal abortion today is a murderer?"
No, they've just had an illegal abortion. Even Gosnell has not been charged with murder for the illegal late term abortions he performed, but for the woman who died, and the infants he killed.
"As long as it is done according to the law, it it not considered murder."
Forget we're talking about abortion for a moment, and share with us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time.
"So as long as it is legal, then it is ok, correct?"
Who said anything about "okay"? I said it's not murder. And it's not.
"This is a fact that has been true throughout time, no matter what it is, if it was legal to do then it was ok to do, or it is up to each person to decide if it is right or not."
It is not a "fact" that anything legal is "okay". That is a subjective perception, not objective.
What it IS, is legal for a person to choose to do. And the fact is that murder is a legal term for illegal killing. Killing that is legal therefore, is not murder.
Where do you think our laws came from, when this country was founded?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283750 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So long as it's consensual, I guess. Maybe those embryos are "less" natural, less "deserving" of protection or of needing his voice because everything about their conception was artificial. Does he think the embryo is artificial, too? I dunno. It makes no sense to me, STO.
Me neither.

I wonder if the OP will be back to explain.?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283751 Feb 13, 2013
WOW! Talk about beating a dead horse.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283752 Feb 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"So anyone who had an abortion before abortion was legal was a murderer?"
Abortion has never been considered murder in this country, just an illegal abortion.
"Anyone who has an illiegal abortion today is a murderer?"
No, they've just had an illegal abortion. Even Gosnell has not been charged with murder for the illegal late term abortions he performed, but for the woman who died, and the infants he killed.
"As long as it is done according to the law, it it not considered murder."
Forget we're talking about abortion for a moment, and share with us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time.
"So as long as it is legal, then it is ok, correct?"
Who said anything about "okay"? I said it's not murder. And it's not.
"This is a fact that has been true throughout time, no matter what it is, if it was legal to do then it was ok to do, or it is up to each person to decide if it is right or not."
It is not a "fact" that anything legal is "okay". That is a subjective perception, not objective.
What it IS, is legal for a person to choose to do. And the fact is that murder is a legal term for illegal killing. Killing that is legal therefore, is not murder.
"Killing that is legal therefore, is not murder."

Exactly. Such as execution or target killing.

And some would argue both should be considered murder, in that they should be ILLEGAL. Thus the questions regarding drone strikes.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283753 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I have. More than once. About a year ago when claiming childbirth is a process, that the brain doesn't instantly wake up upon birth no matter how alert your newborn seems. Dig for it yourself. You argued it then, why should I do your work when you'll be less appreciative of it now?
Stop you idiotic, aggressive demanding of others. Google works as well for you as it does for me. Just look up the words in Merriam medical to understand the definitions of the chemical makeup of the amniotic fluid and what these do physiologically.
Come back to the table when you can be more adult. It'd be appreciated.
Really, dimwit?

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/fplacenta/am...

"The makeup of the amniotic fluid is thus quite complex, with many maternal and fetal constituents. The main constituents are water and electrolytes (99%) together with glucose, lipids from the fetal lungs, proteins with bactericide properties and flaked-off fetal epithelium cells (they make a prenatal diagnosis of the infantile karyotype possible). "

I see the words, water and electrolytes (making up 99% of the fluid), glucose, lipids, proteins, bactericide properties, and flaked-off epithelium cells.

Just where is the "anesthetic" in that chemical make up, idiot?
Not one of those words is an anesthetic.

http://www.actabiomedica.it/data/2004/supp_1_...

"Amniotic fluid is 98-99% water."

"Amniotic fluid physiology
About 4 liters of ~~water~~ accumulate within intrauterine
compartments during the 40-week period of
human gestation, with 2800 ml in the fetus, 400 ml in
the placenta, and 800 ml in the amniotic fluid. At the
beginning of pregnancy, amniotic fluid volume (AFV)
is a multiple of fetal volume."

You try to be condescending to your intellectual betters, but you haven't got what it takes to back it up, so you look like an ignorant buffoon instead.

If you have something that proves amniotic fluid is an anesthetic, then prove that, or prove you're a liar. You stated it as fact.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283754 Feb 13, 2013
The reason I ask you to prove something you claim, Katie, is because I know you're wrong.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283755 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought everyone knew this.
I think most unborn babies even want to be aborted.
They come up with many stupid things, to help ease their conscience,or the ones that still have one at all.
She's an ignorant buffoon who thinks she's above PLers intellectually, when all she keeps proving is she doesn't have adult intelligence or knowledge. She doesn't have adult reading comprehension skills either.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283756 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
LilLynne is ignoring Doc's argument.
His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable.
Hence, my hypothetical artificial womb.
Her argument is that if an artificial womb were needed, the fetus isn't viable, as it wouldn't be viable in a natural womb.
Which is more along the lines of what I think.
STO: "His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable."

No, that's not his argument. You people don't have adult reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

STO: "Her argument is that if an artificial womb were needed, the fetus isn't viable, as it wouldn't be viable in a natural womb."

No, that wasn't my argument either.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#283757 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Every sentence in that post is complete nonsense. Congratulations.
The doctors backgrounds are in the computer.
The doctors I have been to in Carlsbad never wash their
hands. They should wear gloves.
My doctor told me that I just needed a simple surgery
and then his office wants to take out my uterus.
I told them that it was against God and that I wasn't
going to have any surgery. I will never let them take
out my blood. I have healed and feel great.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283758 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry if this is a duplicate.
We see both points the same way, STO. Not sure how that would play out if Doc argued against it, though. Maybe it'd be easier for him to concede to Triple L than either you or me.
Didja read Foo's links? It's really fascinating, reading how different teams are creating artificial wombs. It looks like the second link has been translated to English, but is still easy enough to understand.
Thanks for the interesting info, Foo!
Katie: "We see both points the same way, STO." Of course you do, and is why you're BOTH wrong.

Neither of you understood the arguments, and STO proved that when he tried to claim what Doc's and my positions were, and was way off.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283759 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It is! I wonder what artificial amniotic fluid would be comprised of after reading they were working on that, too.
Thanks, again, Foo.
(there is much i could say regarding Josie's Story, but maybe on FB instead)
<3
Maybe the same thing real amniotic fluid is comprised of: "The main constituents are water and electrolytes (99%) together with glucose, lipids from the fetal lungs, proteins with bactericide properties and flaked-off fetal epithelium cells (they make a prenatal diagnosis of the infantile karyotype possible)."

"Amniotic fluid is 98-99% water."

Nothing that's an anesthetic, as you claimed and didn't prove, that's for sure.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283760 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you think our laws came from, when this country was founded?
You're deflecting.

Not only does your question have nothing to do with our discussion, but when this country was founded, abortion was legal.

Now, do please explain to us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283761 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable."
No, that's not his argument. You people don't have adult reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
STO: "Her argument is that if an artificial womb were needed, the fetus isn't viable, as it wouldn't be viable in a natural womb."
No, that wasn't my argument either.
Feel free to clarify. And please explain where, what I misunderstood. That would be most helpful.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#283762 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You might as well be from another country, too, if you think secular society is going to stand for women in the 21st century dying during childbirth because "God willed it" when in reality what happened was abortion was criminalize.
PS I wasn't raped last time I was examined. So your claim is a bit exaggerated.
Everytime the doctors hurt us or cut us, God has to heal
us.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283763 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"She's talking about viability of a newborn infant, which is different than viability of a fetus."
What is the difference?
Honest question. I think they are one in the same.
Viability of a fetus is the ~potential~ to survive ~outside of the womb~, with OR without medical help.

That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help. RvW was talking about a FETUS when stating the medical definition of viability with regard to abortion, and because it's about abortion, it's about a human life IN UTERO. That wasn't about viability of an already born human life.

That's where the distinction is and one all PCers have missed and have argued based on ignorance of those facts.

Determining the viability of a born human isn't the same as determining viability of a fetus in utero. Both has to do with potential to survive, but in RvW and in the abortion issue it's about a fetus not a newborn.

A viable fetus and a viable newborn are 2 different things because it's 2 different phases of human life. One is in utero, the other is born. You people keep saying a fetus isn't the same as a born human being, yet with viability you suddenly want to equate the two? They aren't the same and is why viability of a fetus isn't the same as of a born infant, but neither fetus nor born infant is less of a human life than the other.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Eman 1,126,321
STEVE DeBAUGH (May '12) 18 hr Steve 2
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 20 hr grave digger 54,520
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 21 hr Pastor LDM 19,381
Baltimore on Orkin Rattiest City List Tue numberonepestcont... 1
Need help to get down! Oct 20 sweetenvy 1
Review: Atas Marc J Oct 20 Briansaul 5
Baltimore Dating
Find my Match

Baltimore Jobs

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 ]