Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310476 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.

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#284275 Feb 16, 2013
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...

"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...

**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284276 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
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,
Last line, here, you say:

"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..."

But before, in your prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:

"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."

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I think you are confusing the use of the word "viable" as it can pertain to anything (like an idea or a means of communication or a strategy)-- as opposed to specifically the medical status of a fetus or infant.

You completely contradicted yourself, as evidenced in your own words shown above.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284277 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
John's argument has nothing to do with the hypocrisy from PC about restrictions on abortion at viability, or about their claims that a fetus doesn't have rights.
Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.
PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.
PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.
John's post didn't state anything that proved that was incorrect.
Give some reasons why you believe it's contradictory? I have already read some people's claims they do not agree with restrictions because these do remove women's full autonomy and privacy. So please provide something beyond that.
Anonymous

United States

#284278 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.
All who knew me, before I was saved would say the same thing.
Anytime a guy goes from only saying anything about God is when he was cursing, to not being able to stop talking about God pretty unbelievable.

Anyone can stop drinking or doing drugs, although not easy, but only God can take a life heading in one direction and turn it around on an instance.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284279 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...
"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...
**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
Thanks for this info, AJ.

(hope you are having a fantastic weekend)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284280 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough--there's enough "blame" to go around for people on "both" sides of the proverbial "aisle" to be considered "obnoxious."
You--personally--have a penchant for wallowing in it--IMO...
I feel I've been rather considerate and "understanding" of the PL posters who are likewise; "Susanm, Old Lady, Pup-C, Rachel..." There are others I simply can't call them to mind at the moment.
No that statement is not a lie;
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-...
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/02/18/...
Granted that's just TWO examples of the PL effort to get "personhood" legislation passed, but they're hardly the only ones...
My comparison makes perfect sense; you're insisting that PC folks should endorse the murder of born children: i.e. "if you're in favor of this, you HAVE to be in favor of THAT!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...
All I'm offering to refute that is that, "hey, if you're in favor of freedom of driving, why should you endorse "restrictions" on it?"
You wanna keep going...?
John: "No that statement is not a lie;"

I apologize, I thought you were talking about what PLers here have said.

John: "My comparison makes perfect sense; you're insisting that PC folks should endorse the murder of born children: i.e.'if you're in favor of this, you HAVE to be in favor of THAT!'

You have that backwards. It's 'if you're [against] this, but not against that there's a contradiction'.

John: "All I'm offering to refute that is that,'hey, if you're in favor of freedom of driving, why should you endorse "restrictions" on it?' "

Still isn't a reasonable comparison, especially since freedom of driving isn't freedom to have your own child in utero killed, but also because of what I said in next post to you.

~Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.

PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.

PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.~

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284281 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...
"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...
**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
You will immediately CEASE in your attempts to subvert the "good" folks here with your "Liberal" propaganda!
Everyone "knows" that Canada is fast-becoming a 4th world power rivaling only the "Republic of Pilau."
;P

How've you been "A-J?"

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#284282 Feb 16, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for this info, AJ.
(hope you are having a fantastic weekend)
Hey Katie! I tried to mail you a few weeks ago, but you seem to be off my radar.:-(
xo

Lily mentioned restrictions in one of her posts which got me to thinking. I believe that post-vi abortions should be carefully regulated most especially for the safety of the woman. Also there's just something about later stage abortions that strike me as especially tragic.

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#284283 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You will immediately CEASE in your attempts to subvert the "good" folks here with your "Liberal" propaganda!
Everyone "knows" that Canada is fast-becoming a 4th world power rivaling only the "Republic of Pilau."
;P
How've you been "A-J?"
Hey Friend John! My bad liberal (moderate!) self is fine. How about yourself?

Palau? Interesting place per Uncle Google.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284284 Feb 16, 2013
John, just so you know; your opinions of me are boring, meaningless and hypocritical; especially when you've got people like CD, Foo and Katie in the PC camp being more obnoxious to PLers than I could ever be to anyone, and they're the ones wallowing in it. You don't post to them about their obnoxiousness and wallowing in it with your self-righteous judgements, as you do to PL.

That's not even to mention that I haven't initiated any discussions with you, haven't posted to or about you, and you're the one who initiated the postings to me. What do you do in initiating posting to me?

Take a look in 1st post:

"Lily," you are such an obnoxious personality that I usually simply scroll past your posts without bothering to read them.
It's the same-old same-old from you anyway; you people are boneheads, you people are stupid, you people can't read for comprehension, you people are OWNED by us, the PC are all idiots, blah, blah, blah... "

In 2nd post:
"Fair enough, there's enough "blame" to go around for people on "both" sides of the proverbial "aisle" to be considered "obnoxious."
You--personally--have a penchant for wallowing in it--IMO..."

I consider that to be very disrespectful, "obnoxious" and hypocritical of you, John.

You've done that kind of thing each time you've initiated posts to me. As I said, I don't initiate the obnoxiousness. You just proved the truth of that.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284285 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, Katie is not my real name nor listed on my birth certificate.
Anonymous

United States

#284286 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who is a biblical scholar has a screw loose. Why do people waste their time on something that never happened?
Christ died for our sins? Really, how does that make sense? And why does he have so many names?
I'm not God, and I've been called waaay more names than He, and I agree with each and every one of them ;)
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284287 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
I decided to answer STO, and see how he handles it.
STO about Doc's position on viability: "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."
Doc's position, as I understand it, is a fetus is viable with or without medical aid at a certain gestational point. Same as mine is, because that's the medical and legal definition of what a viable fetus is. 24-27 weeks on. I didn't read him saying anything about; "if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance of survival whatsoever..."
because viability is about a [FETUS in utero] not a [BORN INFANT]. He gets that, you people are the ones who don't, so to state his position as being about an "infant" with regard to viability and the abortion issue is dishonest. Viability is determined while the fetus is still IN UTERO.
Typically, yes. But Doc isn't really arguing about what is typical. As I understand him, he is arguing that the point at which a fetus may be determined viable can (maybe will) continue to change to earlier and earlier points in gestation due to advances in medical technology.

Hence the artifical womb hypothetical.

If Doc's strict use of the definition of the word "viable" regarding specifically the medical status of a fetus OR infant is applied, then the typical understanding of when a fetus or infant is viable, as the term is used today -- TODAY --(in gestation), becomes invalid.
lil Lily wrote:
There are some fetuses that aren't viable, and Doc understands that too. Your claim about his position is a dishonest one.
TODAY they are not viable. In 20 years, they may be. That is the way Doc is using the defintion.

Viable = without ALS

Viable = with ALS

Both, however far medical technology can take it.

Doc is not setting any limits on how/when an MD can determine viability.
lil Lily wrote:
STO about my position: "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."
I never said if an artificial womb were needed that the fetus isn't viable. I said an 8 week old fetus isn't viable and artificial or natural womb has nothing to do with it. It was about the gestational age oif the fetus, not what kind of "womb" it was placed. You're the one bringing up the stupidity about artificial vs natural wombs.
Ad hom was unnecessary. You were doing so well.

The point is the definition of "viable", including with and without ALS. An artifical womb would fall under the WITH category.

You are arguing what is typical, today. You are not understanding the strict defintion that Doc is applying.

An 8 weeks gestation fetus may be considered viable if implanted in an artfical womb (ALS).
lil Lily wrote:
He can't read our answers for comprehension, and it shows.
STO said: ""I offered a hypothetical "artificial womb", as a future medical technology. Given the hypothetical... My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable" , as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus, rendering no need to make that determination before birth."
He comes up with the senselessness of; "My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable" , as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus,"
His understanding of his own sci-fi made up bullshit that a fetus at 8 weeks would be considered viable? That's where he lost whatever point he was trying to make. In order to make a point, it has to have some sound basis for it.
His had none.
I do have basis and reason for it. I'm using a hypothetical to help you understand how Doc is using the definition of the word "viable". Which means with and without ALS.

Sorry, had to edit out your ad homs for space.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284288 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Christ" is not a name--it's a title.
It's the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for Messiah, meaning "The Anointed."
Therefore the "name," Jesus Christ, literally translates to, "Jesus the Anointed."
Also, "Jesus" itself is a translation of the Aramaic Yaisuah/Yeshua/Joshua.
What difference does it make? It's make believe.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284289 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Katie! I tried to mail you a few weeks ago, but you seem to be off my radar.:-(
xo
Lily mentioned restrictions in one of her posts which got me to thinking. I believe that post-vi abortions should be carefully regulated most especially for the safety of the woman. Also there's just something about later stage abortions that strike me as especially tragic.
Agree with your sentiment, AJ. If you pop into that account you hate, you will find my new address in your inbox :)
Anonymous

United States

#284290 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a human being. If there were a god, there would be no need for abortions. If he is all knowing and all seeing he wouldn't let the girl/woman get pregnant in the first place. He is bogus. Abortion is sad, but is there a good alternative? No.
All the religious freaks on here should get together and promise these girls/women that if they will forgo an abortion, they will adopt the baby. Case solved.
Someone I know lives very close to an abortion clinic. Everyday, it's the same creepy, religious fools who are out there shouting at these girls as they walk in. It's usually freaky men.
So, in other words you want a god that allows you free will, while choosing your night out and who you sleep with, and then step in and fix anything you mess up, right?
Perhaps he could even leave you a couple hundred bucks in your pocket when He leaves, so you can go out again the next night.

You need to go to the build a god store and, well build your own god.
Next door to Mr. Cookie in the mall :)
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284291 Feb 16, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think she's ignoring. Just interpreting it differently.
I'm interpreting by the legal strict definition of viability. And as such, an artificial womb would be considered ALS. While the artificial womb would serve exactly the same purpose and function as a natural womb, it is man-made and not of the woman so by definition it would be considered "medical assistance".
<quoted text>
Fairly accurate. You need to school Katie on this.
Although I would clarify by saying that if a physician determines that ALS will give an infant any chance at survival he will DEEM it viable. Whether it actually WAS viable will be determined in time.
Appreciated.

Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284292 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
John, just so you know; your opinions of me are boring, meaningless and hypocritical; especially when you've got people like CD, Foo and Katie in the PC camp being more obnoxious to PLers than I could ever be to anyone, and they're the ones wallowing in it. You don't post to them about their obnoxiousness and wallowing in it with your self-righteous judgements, as you do to PL.
That's not even to mention that I haven't initiated any discussions with you, haven't posted to or about you, and you're the one who initiated the postings to me. What do you do in initiating posting to me?
Take a look in 1st post:
"Lily," you are such an obnoxious personality that I usually simply scroll past your posts without bothering to read them.
It's the same-old same-old from you anyway; you people are boneheads, you people are stupid, you people can't read for comprehension, you people are OWNED by us, the PC are all idiots, blah, blah, blah... "
In 2nd post:
"Fair enough, there's enough "blame" to go around for people on "both" sides of the proverbial "aisle" to be considered "obnoxious."
You--personally--have a penchant for wallowing in it--IMO..."
I consider that to be very disrespectful, "obnoxious" and hypocritical of you, John.
You've done that kind of thing each time you've initiated posts to me. As I said, I don't initiate the obnoxiousness. You just proved the truth of that.
So, you don't want to address anything I'd raised in my later posts but prefer to "dismiss" me because I won't call every PC poster out on the obnoxious posts they post.
Okay. Not a problem luv...only when you start shrieking and raising hell about people "not responding" to specific questions, do try to keep this post in mind won't you...?

That's okay--I've got a "capture" of it, so if you won't bother in the future, rest assured I will...

Best to you and yours as always my dear!

JK
:)
Anonymous

United States

#284293 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
So our free will and personal choices are pointless? You'd rather we be created as robots?
Sorry, I didn't read ahead, but neat we talked about free will in our responces :)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284294 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Friend John! My bad liberal (moderate!) self is fine. How about yourself?
Palau? Interesting place per Uncle Google.
Damned it!

Would you like some "rice" with that my dear?

Hah! John screws up again!

;P

Eh, can't complain...well, I can, but who wants to read that...?

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) 3 min USAsince1680 1,275,077
Review: Around The States Moving & Storage 4 hr oscarstith58 14
White men today 17 hr LEO 477 18
News Ben Carson suggests doing away with Department ... Fri reality is a crutch 1
Can u help (May '13) Fri Ocean1013 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Mother Mcreeeeee 20,096
Sex with Molly Wed jiz 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages