Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318277 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.

SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284196 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see abortion as a "war cry" and don't know anyone who does. I see that as a false premise from your side.
Why don't you focus on the fact that with 7B people roaming the planet, 315M of 'em here, there are over 4M annual live births to 800K annual abortions? Regardless of these numbers, there is a net gain of one person every 15 seconds in the good ol' USofA.
It most definitely is a war cry. A big part of Obama's platform and the reason he won a reelection was based on this war cry.

Sadly enough.

Are you, too, getting tired of this president continually talking about women as if any of us ever thought we were second-class citizens before he came on the scene? What's up with that? Even feminists are starting to say knock it off, Mr. President.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284197 Feb 16, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Those are the guys in the little blue helmets, right? Run around the world attempting to keep peace!
Astute observation. The UN can't seem to do anything for anyone. Or even avoid their own scandals.

But someone like Katie thinks their laws are written in stone somewhere.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284198 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
He answered it not long after you asked. Find your post, you'll eventually find his.
I answered because I get tired of reading the same old crap from the same old people.
All y'all need a new topic.
You have an amazing memory.

You can't tell me what he said because he never answered my question.

New topic? People should reveal who they really are and what they are doing on Topix. That would be a lot more interesting than was that baby viable or visible. Was it 4" long or was it 8 pounds? Etc. etc.

So you go first, Katie. That is your real name, isn't it? Let's see how honest you are.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284200 Feb 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I haven't lied about anything; your posts just aren't interesting.
<quoted text>
That Hurts!

Just because you love men, doesn't mean you have to Hate women.

Did you see the advertisement on Topix for ballet flats? You should get a pair or two, they would feature you. Hope they make your size. Leopard would be flattering, you could wear them with your skinny jeans.

Live a little and walk on the wild side.

I think you have a (not so) secret admirer. Her? name is Katie and she likes to defend you. She takes pity on you when she feels you have lied. Can't imagine why. It is kind of sweet. Do you have room in that closed off heart of yours for her? It could be that she is a he! That would make more sense. Ah, Love is in the air!

I think you have finally found someone to love you. Thank the lord.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284201 Feb 16, 2013
It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.

It would stop all this crazy talk.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284202 Feb 16, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Protecting me from what ? Your scintillating posts that leave me speechless and to which I cannot possibly respond ? Grow up.
I had nothing to do with any of your posts being removed.
Why would I continue saying I didn't see them ? Why would I ask you to personal message me the post #? Just to keep up the charade ?
You need to get a life......and quickly.
Obviously my posts existed so your claims that I didn't answer you, or that it's my "MO" to leave your questions unanswered, was quite wrong. Again you forget how I tracked down one of my past posts answering one of your questions that you claimed I didn't answer, and proved you wrong back then.

What we really have is your "MO" of claiming your questions are going unanswered...and being wrong.

You were wrong that first time you claimed I didn't answer your question, and I proved it by digging up my unanswered post.

You were clearly wrong this time when you claimed I didn't answer your current question, as you well know.

You were wrong when you claimed I didn't provide the post number when you asked for it.

And you were wrong with the whole "took the bait/it wasn't bait per se" debacle.

What we have is a clear pattern of you being wrong quite often.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284203 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.
It would stop all this crazy talk.
Which side of the fence are you finally going to fall on?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284204 Feb 16, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
It's a given that fetus means inside the uterus and infant indicates born/outside the uterus.
You disagree with Doc. You are asserting that "viability" of an infant "would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
Doc is using the definition of viability, which includes WITH ALS.
Doc hasn't made a distinction between an MD's determination of viability of a fetus vs. an infant, that I know of.
STO: "You disagree with Doc. You are asserting that 'viability' of an infant would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive 'without medical help.'"

No Doc and I don't disagree. We both completely understand the definition of viability and that it includes with medical help.

You and Katie mix up viable/non-viable fetus with viable/non-viable infant. I don't, and haven't seen Doc do it either.

Viability in the abortion issue is about the potential of a FETUS to survive outside of the womb, with or without medical help. That potential is determined while that fetus is still in utero. That determination isn't about an already born infant. Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help, they'll give the child that help. It's "viable" enough for doctors to determine it's worth TRYING to help it survive.

"Capable", "ability" are words in the the definitions of "viable" and "viability". Guessing you and Katie don't understand the meanings of those words either.

Neither [capable] nor [ability] mean "absolute", or "definite" survival with or without medical help.

If the fetus is deemed viable (which it would be while still in utero), and given medical help once born and then dies, it obviously wasn't a viable fetus...or viable born infant.

I don't see where Doc's and my views differ, except in the minds of peoplke who don't understand the definition of viability and that it pertains to a fetus.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#284205 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid I have to echo John-K.
Not sure what you mean by "they". Our sins and rebellion against God put a man of love and peace on a cross to die a horrible death that should have been our own. His purpose for coming was to drink that bitter cup. Our sin debt has been paid. All we have to do is freely accept it. You believe this too, right?
You don't think it was dumb to nail a human being
to a cross? He has to die so everyone can go on and be
stupid. Wouldn't you have taken him down if you had been
there. I would have.
The children at church always tell me that they are hungry.
Shouldn't I feed them? No one cares!
150 children.
carol

Orlando, FL

#284206 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.
It would stop all this crazy talk.
These forums aren't really meant for the spreading of the gospel. It just happens sometimes because the topic inevitably comes up.

In fact, I never knew there were so many biblical scholars on the left until before this last election.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284207 Feb 16, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You totally miss the point. The issue was never the legality of working within the law to change a law. The issue was you saying that all you are doing is defending a woman's right to choose within the law. I found that to be a convenient statement since you agree with the current law. So I asked you if you would say the same thing pre -1973. You still haven't answered. This babbling about the legality of working to change laws is not an answer to my specific question.
<quoted text>
I don't know. I was just a little shaver back then. You tell me.
And keep in mind that I've never said abortion should or would ever be considered murder.
<quoted text>
What does any of this babble have to do with my specific question about RvW ? What does any of this have to do with the fact that a fetus is alive and is a developing human life....regardless of whether it is being sustained by another ? This is indisputable scientific fact.
A woman getting an abortion pre-1973 is breaking the law. A woman protesting against the law is not breaking the law. She is exercising her right to work to change an existing law. The law was in fact changed, by SCOTUS. What about this don't you get?

I never said a fetus is not alive, or a developing human. A z/e/f does not have rights. A woman has rights. A born baby has rights.
To give the z/e/f rights would then revoke rights from women. A woman is a born human being, a z/e/f is not born yet.
carol

Orlando, FL

#284208 Feb 16, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think it was dumb to nail a human being
to a cross? He has to die so everyone can go on and be
stupid. Wouldn't you have taken him down if you had been
there. I would have.
The children at church always tell me that they are hungry.
Shouldn't I feed them? No one cares!
150 children.
Crucifixion was a common form of execution from the 6th century BC until Constantine abolished it in the Roman Empire in 337 AD out of veneration for Christ. It was also used as a form of execution in Japan for criminals and inflicted also on some Christians.

Jesus' crucifixion was unique in that he had broken no laws. The Jewish religious leaders of the day simply felt threatened by him.
His followers and disciples were also Jewish as were many in the early churches before the gospel was spread to the gentiles.

His death on the cross was for our salvation. He knew that was his purpose and why Christians use the phrase "washed in the blood of Christ".

We can't save ourselves from our ourselves. Sinners need a savior. Who better than God in the flesh who shed His own blood for our sins? He loves us that much.
carol

Orlando, FL

#284209 Feb 16, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
A woman getting an abortion pre-1973 is breaking the law. A woman protesting against the law is not breaking the law. She is exercising her right to work to change an existing law. The law was in fact changed, by SCOTUS. What about this don't you get?
I never said a fetus is not alive, or a developing human. A z/e/f does not have rights. A woman has rights. A born baby has rights.
To give the z/e/f rights would then revoke rights from women. A woman is a born human being, a z/e/f is not born yet.
Would you call a developing baby with a beating heart with working organs and sucks its thumb a human being?

The human heart starts beating on its own in the first half of the first trimester.

Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens.
Obskeptic

United States

#284210 Feb 16, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
My issue is with anyone who claims to know what happens after we die, like gtown and sapphire have claimed. It is the heiight or arrogance.
Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284211 Feb 16, 2013
A.k.a. carol.

Had to post something on an old thread that I'm no longer on and forgot to change back to my present topix name.

Sorry for the confusion.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#284212 Feb 16, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which side of the fence are you finally going to fall on?
What?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284213 Feb 16, 2013
When I had said something about viability of an infant being about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help, I should have known better. I should not have it be a given that everyone would understand the obvious; infant having been given ALS until such time that it could survive without it. I should have explained for those who can't uderstand anything, because then they come back with stupid questions about what they didn't understand in the 1st place, and with more questions, because the obvious not being stated messed with their brain and confused them further.

Any full term or preemie newborn infant that needs ALS is given that ALS when the doctors see the POTENTIAL of that infant to survive with the help, until its body is strong enough to survive on its own. If the infant dies while being given ALS, then obviously the (viability/capability) of that infant's body to survive wasn't what the doctors thought it was.

The determination made about an infant, and the determination made about a fetus are obviously made at different stages of that child's life.

For a fetus, its mother's womb is NLS (natural life support).
The determination is made while the fetus is in utero as to whether or not that child's body is at a stage where its viability/capability can survive with or without ALS,(artificial life support) once outside of the womb.

WHY do we have to explain this as though we're explaining to children?
Because PCers who post here are so mind bogglingly ignorant. Not only do they not understand words, they can't even read the definitions for comprehension.
Bottom line, viability in the abortion issue is NOT about the infant already born, but the potential of the fetus while in utero to survive once born, with or without medical help. That's the medical and legal definition abou a fetus.

An infant already born has nothing to do with the abortion issue, because killing an already born child wouldn't be called "abortion".

That's the simple logic those in the PC camp miss. Those who argue viability as being about being already born and surviving without ALS is so ridculously illogical.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284214 Feb 16, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you call a developing baby with a beating heart with working organs and sucks its thumb a human being?
The human heart starts beating on its own in the first half of the first trimester.
Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens.
Hello Guppy.

"Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens."

It's called an SA node. The heart's own pacemaker.
Obskeptic

United States

#284215 Feb 16, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you call a developing baby with a beating heart with working organs and sucks its thumb a human being?
The human heart starts beating on its own in the first half of the first trimester.
Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens.
These are some of the same scientists that suggest that man can control the climate of the earth. What you just described is a human being to everyone except liberals. Since they are way smarter then everyone else with a different opinion, and of course a liberal is never wrong about anything, just as one, they know that its not a human being at all. In other words, an apple can be an orange if they say it is. If you dare to disagree, their wrath is what you'll get. So tolerant and compassionate of them, don't you think?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284216 Feb 16, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.
Way too many stories of near death experiences in all ages that couldn't have possibly been made up. Some were even upset and angry they came back.

Children, especially, have amazing recollections.

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) 4 min welfarestate 1,618,613
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 17 hr why 21,286
News What the Black Lives Matter campaign gets wrong (Aug '15) Mon im fair are you 49
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) Oct 16 Phil 82
Income Based Rent? (Dec '06) Oct 14 BigNosedKate 156
Capital sex offender free in Baltimore. (May '15) Oct 11 Paul 45
News Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) Oct 7 ColdCase 21

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages