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
266,461 - 266,480 of 305,460 Comments Last updated 9 min ago
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.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283764 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.
How does one apply ALS to a fetus?

Perhaps when you can answer that question, you will then see where I've been coming from and realize it's material to this discussion of medical and legal viability and where it is headed in the future due to advanced technology.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283765 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its all according to how you wish to interpet the bible.
I've not read where it says the moon produces its own light, but the moon does produce light.
All must come from somewhere.
Even the sun must have some "source ",have you ever wondered how the sun can continue to burn and burn, yet never burn up?
Do you realize how big the sun is?
How much energy it takes and gives.
How the earth just floats around, along with all planets.
Prove adam wasn't made from dust.
After one dies, what happens to their body?
Given enough time, they go back to dust.
With all the amazing things in the world, it makes me wonder why people dumb it down to the very basics.
I guess you've never read Genesis.

"Prove adam wasn't made from dust." It's actually up to you to back up your claim with evidence, but we know you don't understand science or logic so there is no point trying to debate with you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283766 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to clarify. And please explain where, what I misunderstood. That would be most helpful.
Why, STO? From experience, I know that when we waste our time doing so, you just turn around and lie about what we've posted anyway.

I'm telling you that you were wrong about our positions. Our positions have already been posted and people who can read for comprehension wouldn't have gotten from it what you did. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Anonymous

United States

#283767 Feb 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That's a good question, but if a person walks into an abortion clinic and kills a woman, that is sitting in the waiting room, to have an abortion, then that person will be charged with 2 murders instead of just 1.

It is a can of worms I don't believe those judges really knew they were opening when they made abortion legal.

Either the unborn child, is someone to be protected, or it is nothing more then a medical choice, and if a woman chooses to remain pregnant, then she should get no special treatment at her work, or parking spots at stores.
The list is endless, when you deal with double standards.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283768 Feb 13, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah. Okay.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#283769 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.
Actually I did, but in typical liberal fashion you weren't listening. I said when it is in the womb, it is a "baby" and killing it there would be. I'm saying that when it is in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance) in a test tube that it is not a baby, it's an embryo under scientific study. It would not be developed to 8-10+ weeks, injected with saline and then pulled apart a limb at time like an actual abortion does. Is that clear enough for you to understand?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283770 Feb 13, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I did, but in typical liberal fashion you weren't listening. I said when it is in the womb, it is a "baby" and killing it there would be. I'm saying that when it is in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance) in a test tube that it is not a baby, it's an embryo under scientific study. It would not be developed to 8-10+ weeks, injected with saline and then pulled apart a limb at time like an actual abortion does. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
No saline is used and at 8-10 weeks, nothing is torn apart.

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 THE DEVIL 1,100,547
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 33 min see the light 18,877
One Action Movie Can Damage a Mind for Life 34 min HidingInMyCave 6
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Thu Raptor in Michigan 120,152
Review: Dundalk Animal Hospital - Dennis G Fost... (Jan '09) Aug 28 time 26
gay hookup in maryland Aug 27 mdtowson 3
How can I find a active biker dating site ? Aug 26 kobe 1
•••
•••
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 ]
•••