Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310175 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.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283797 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already addressed it.
Plus mans laws and other mans law can differ across the world, but so can mans law and Gods law.
A man can kill a woman that is pregnant, and be charged with two murders, and the same woman can pay another man to kill the life that is in her, and it would be legal.-
The difference is that the woman in the first example didn't want her pregnancy to end and in the second, the woman had made the decision to end her pregnancy. It is about the woman's interest and rights, nothing to do with the fetus.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283798 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I will not. I provided the chemical make up of amniotic fluid, because you were too lazy to, or because you knew you were wrong. You made a claim, I proved you wrong. You want to prove you're right YOU provide the info, lazy.
Your lack of good faith is enough to end any attempts on my part of anything more than the barest amounts of civility. And that's for the other posters' benefit. Not yours.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283799 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The last one in New York could be interpreted as such.
Which one is that? What's the number of the bill, please?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283800 Feb 13, 2013
IF Katie was right about amniotic fluid having an anesthetic, she wouldn't have any hesitation or problem providing not only the source of her claim, but the exact sentences which substantiate the claim she made.

All she provides are excuses as to why she won't prove anything she claims here, and expects others to find the proof of claims she makes when there's no proof of her claims to be found in the 1st place. Expecting [us] to find the proof of [her] claims makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Logic according to Katie.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283801 Feb 13, 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.
"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."

Have asked you before but do not recall your answer.

What happens when the newborn dies anyway? Was it nonviable? That's my answer. So even if the physician deems a fetus viable, births it early, applies ALS, but the newborn dies anyway, then for all intents and purposes, it was not viable.

What say you to that, Doc, old boy?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283802 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of good faith is enough to end any attempts on my part of anything more than the barest amounts of civility. And that's for the other posters' benefit. Not yours.
"Lack of good faith" this, you ignorant buffoon. I don't care about your civility or lack of it toward me. That's not important to me, especally from idiots, because the facts I post and prove don't rely on you or anything you say or do toward me, whatsoever. All you're proving is you can't prove your claims, which I knew you couln't. You're a liar and you prove that very well.
Anonymous

United States

#283803 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
IF Katie was right about amniotic fluid having an anesthetic, she wouldn't have any hesitation or problem providing not only the source of her claim, but the exact sentences which substantiate the claim she made.
All she provides are excuses as to why she won't prove anything she claims here, and expects others to find the proof of claims she makes when there's no proof of her claims to be found in the 1st place. Expecting [us] to find the proof of [her] claims makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Logic according to Katie.
Yes, these claims are idiotic, and helps them deal with abortion.

During abortion a tiny baby has its life stopped, and usualy sucked out and discarded as medical waste.

The later an abortion takes place, the more violence must take place, in order to cut the baby to pieces, to be removed.

Yet, it sounds better to just say abortion is a medical procedure where a choice was made.

I've been told that fish have no feelings, but find that hard to believe, since I've removed the hook from many, and even cleaned a few.

Pro choice wants to believe, that the baby feels nothing and knows nothing.
It is a very sad thing.

I couldn't watch the silent scream myself.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283804 Feb 13, 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.[/QUOTE}

All this time I've said I'm PC ??? When was that ? This appears to be a significant lie on your part.

[QUOTE]And you are wrong about viability.
Hardly. I couldn't be more right.
without the ALS, the baby is not viable.
Of course not. But WITH ALS it is viable. That's the whole point !
The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede.
WRONG. ALS cannot "bring" it to viability. It is impossible. If it has to "reach" viability that means it is not yet viable. If it is NOT viable, it cannot survive no matter what ALS is applied. In order for a physician to decide to apply ALS he must first determine the infant to be VIABLE. He will not apply ALS to an infant he has deemed to be NON VIABLE. By definition, an infant cannot "reach" viability with ALS because an infant that is not yet viable will not...and cannot survive no matter what ALS is applied.

A not so subtle, indisputable point 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.
Being right is a great aphrodisiac.
Go you. Must be proud.
<major eyeroll>
I couldn't be prouder
<major fist pump>
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283805 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
IF Katie was right about amniotic fluid having an anesthetic, she wouldn't have any hesitation or problem providing not only the source of her claim, but the exact sentences which substantiate the claim she made.
All she provides are excuses as to why she won't prove anything she claims here, and expects others to find the proof of claims she makes when there's no proof of her claims to be found in the 1st place. Expecting [us] to find the proof of [her] claims makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Logic according to Katie.
Why should I be cooperative with a disrespectful ingrate such as yourself? I'm done with your ad homs and aggressive arguing. You do not debate, you viciously attack. Any ounce of empathy I may have had for you at one time has dissipated into thin air.

I gave you a hint to look into fetal brain development. If I can find it so can you.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283806 Feb 13, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for the post number for my response to your questions. Still silence.
That's right.....still silence. Where is that post #?

You managed to take a bow for this though.
A bow for what ? What are you babbling about ?

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.
What games ? Direct me to the post where you answered my question on RvW and a discussion you shall have. I intentionally ignore nothing.
Anonymous

United States

#283807 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>The difference is that the woman in the first example didn't want her pregnancy to end and in the second, the woman had made the decision to end her pregnancy. It is about the woman's interest and rights, nothing to do with the fetus.
No, my first example had both women at the abortion clinic, but you're right! Women may choose which babies live and which babies die, in this country. It is all about the woman and not the baby.

What's interesting is how, if a woman were trying to starve herself to death, she would be force feed, by court order.

There is no way to force the average woman to remain pregnant, but my thought is why would we even have these ideas?

The main reason for abortion, is due to wanting pleasure with someone, that you wouldn't want a kid with.

Many don't ever think about their abortion, but as time goes by many many women and men do.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283808 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, these claims are idiotic, and helps them deal with abortion.
During abortion a tiny baby has its life stopped, and usualy sucked out and discarded as medical waste.
The later an abortion takes place, the more violence must take place, in order to cut the baby to pieces, to be removed.
Yet, it sounds better to just say abortion is a medical procedure where a choice was made.
I've been told that fish have no feelings, but find that hard to believe, since I've removed the hook from many, and even cleaned a few.
Pro choice wants to believe, that the baby feels nothing and knows nothing.
It is a very sad thing.
I couldn't watch the silent scream myself.
"The Silent Scream" was debunked by the very physician performing the fetal surgery. There was no purposeful movement made by the fetus. It was all autonomic.

You guys seem to want the fetus to feel pain. You've personified fetal life to the point of equating it with being a newborn without understanding there are physiological differences between each. No fetus could survive outside the womb and no infant could survive inside the womb.

The ones who don't see this distinction for all its worth are the ones who give precedence to the fetus over the woman gestating it. There are no equal rights between fetus and woman. Woman's civil rights should and will continue to supersede that of any fetus she carries.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283809 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There is no difference between "viable" and "viability" They mean the same thing. One is a noun and one is an adjective. But their meaning is identical.

She makes these outrageous statements....unsubstantiated. ....and never bothers to explain them or back them up. Just leaves them hanging out there like a big matzo ball.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283810 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know. I'm PC ? Where the hell did THAT come from ?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283812 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So anyone who had an abortion before abortion was legal was a murderer?
Nope. Never in HISTORY has abortion been considered murder in the US.
Anyone who has an illiegal abortion today is a murderer?
Since abortion has never been conisdered "murder", the answer would remain - no.
As long as it is done according to the law, it it not considered murder.
Abortion is not considered murder under ANY circumstances.

Stop the stupidity already.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283813 Feb 13, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
If a women dies in childbirth, it is Gods
will. He takes her life.
Using that same "logic", if a "baby" dies in an abortion, it is G-d's will, HE takes that life too.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283814 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about viability being at 8 weeks being ridiculous to creat a hypothetical about, you ignorant buffoon. Stop trying to help your friends, because you only prove you aren't following what's being said because you have an irrationalk need to prove me wrong, when you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, I proved YOU dont know what YOU are talking about. YOU claimed it was "ridiculous and senseless" when its in FACT, factual and not speculative anymore.

The ignorant buffoon here is you Lynniekins. Using STO's example - which is NOT a ridiculous hypothetical given the state of science today, a non-viable embryo today could be perfectly viabile at 8 weeks in an artifical womb is not too far in the future.

But hey Lynne, its not like you are here for HONEST discussion anyway, so carry on with your meaningless attacks. You bonehead LOL!

BTW, the RIDICULOUS hypothetical the one you made up regarding the 40 year old born in a PVS.

Oh wait, that was just a flat out lie, since you CLAIMED to actually KNOW this person and its mother. LOL!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283815 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion is okay because it is a moral right.
Exactly.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283816 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what answer you're expecting from PL.
Certainly not anything resembling an intellectually honest or thoughtful answer from the likes of you Lynne.

The QUESTION was " do you equate disposal of a frozen embryo with "killing a baby"?"

Not a fetus, so stop trying to change the parameters of the question to suit your needs.

Or KEEP changing it, its all you can do after all.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283817 Feb 13, 2013
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.
One would have to be a pretty sick, twisted individual to draw this conclusion from Doc's posts.
What Doc doesn't or won't take into consideration
Pardon me but I'll be the one to decide what I have or have not taken into consideration. Not some nincompoop that says I claim I'm PC.
is that if the newborn doesn't survive, even will all it seemed to have going for it, then it wasn't viable.
No, physicians are not perfect. They are not infallible. They may determine that an infant is viable and apply ALS, but if it still does not survive despite all medical measures taken, then no, in hindsight it was not viable. That does not change the fact that the physician initially made a determination of viability. He HAD to have made that determination. Otherwise he would not have applied ALS. ALS is not applied to infants that are deemed NON VIABLE.

And what of the infants for which ALS was applied and who DID survive. Were they not viable ? Of course they were. And they were viable at the time ALS was applied....they did not "reach" viability with ALS. How stupid.

His postings, his thoughts, his understanding of how ALS is used, belies the fact he doesn't get it.
I think it's obvious to all who really 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.
Others can call me any names they wish. Doesn't bother me at all.
It was YOU that actually raised this whole issue when you took me to task for my take-off on LNM's name. Hypocrite.
But, hey, I'm cool with y'all showing your true colors.
You are hardly anywhere close to being "cool".

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 min shinningelectr0n 1,250,581
News 13 shot since Monday morning in Baltimore 8 hr reality is a crutch 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 10 hr the Ace of Spades 20,044
Poll Will You Vote For Hillary Clinton For President? 18 hr Natty Bumppo 4
News Man found guilty of murder (Oct '08) Tue meh 23
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) Tue Jacques 45
News Man dies in shooting in E. Baltimore Tue reality is a crutch 1
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages