Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309893 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.

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#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.

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#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...?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284295 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite correct!
My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole "viability" issue that's been beaten-to-death on here. Personally, I doubt I can offer a "reasonable" post to it since there seem to be so many differing opinions as to what "viability" actually means.
"Lily," if this whole scenario were as simple as an "if-then," or an "either-or," don't you think we'd have come to a satisfactory conclusion to it by now?
There is NO contradiction in believing that a woman whom murders her child is a "murderess" while a woman who undergoes an abortion is not.
We simply "see" things from a different perspective.
As I said before, this is where the whole argument about where "personhood" begins arises.
Does it occur at the moment of conception, or does it occur at some "later" moment?
NOW you're going to post respectfully to me, after being obnoxious? Would you be expecting me to be respectful in return, by any chance, and if I'm not, would you then pass your self-righteous, inaccurate judgments on the way I post to you as a result of how you posted to meprior to this post?(Rhetorical) Just something for you to think about.

John: "Personally, I doubt I can offer a "reasonable" post to it since there seem to be so many differing opinions as to what "viability" actually means."

That's the thing, "opinions" of what viability means are all PCers have, while the PLers have used only what has already been medically defined, and that medical definition was used in RvW as the legal definition for the purposes of the abortion issue. The definition isn't our opinion of what it means, it's the actualy [definition] of it.

John: ""Lily," if this whole scenario were as simple as an "if-then," or an "either-or," don't you think we'd have come to a satisfactory conclusion to it by now?"

What "scenario"? What exactly are you talking about?

John: "There is NO contradiction in believing that a woman whom murders her child is a "murderess" while a woman who undergoes an abortion is not."

I didn't say "murderess", that would be a legal term. I said "monster", because that's what they've called women who killed their born children. A woman who "undergoes" an abortion is a woman having her developing child killed. Do you need me to provide the definition of "child", or are you already aware it includes "fetus"? You're trying to make abortion seem like less than what it really is with your wording, and that isn't an honest representation of what abortion is. It's not just a medical procedure like undergoing a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or even a hysterectomy. It's the ending of the life of her own child in utero.

You can claim everything is opinion, but the things PL are presenting happen to be facts we substantiate, and our opinions are based on those facts. PC presents unsubstantiated claims and their opinions are based on that.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284296 Feb 16, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
What difference does it make? It's make believe.
To you perhaps, to me perhaps, to those who "Genuinely Believe..."

For them, there is NO doubt.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284297 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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
:)
John: "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."

You made an assumption, and are acting like it's the truth about me, and speaking to me as though your assumption is fact? How very obnoxious of you. I didn't "dismiss" you. I was making a point using the hypocrisy you displayed. Common among PCers here, and you're no exception, is accusing PLers of being certain negative behavior, when it's PCers who initiate the negative behavior they accuse PLers of displaying. Funny stuff, John. You ALL do that.

I just finished replying to one of your "later" posts, and saw this one right after it posted. Guess you proved something about yourself again. You're not doing very well at trying to prove something about me. All you keep proving is what you accuse me of is true about you.

Wanna keep going? lol
Anonymous

United States

#284298 Feb 16, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of nothing more than unprovable garbage and deceit. Why don't you go back to stating that Hindus worship cows so we can laugh at your idiocy?
Well according to google, some hindus DO worship cows.
How many times has science had to go back to the drawing board, and you want to gamble your eternal exsistance on a verse or two from a book made up of many books, from many authors, over many years of time, and say those few verses are wrong? Each time your verses mentioned moon, they mentioned sun, get a clue.
I will say untill ypu know God, you will never see it.

You're saying if God would show me, then I would believe, but God is saying believe and I will show you.
He's God -you're man.

Your boss says work and trust me, I'll pay you. How many times have you told a boss pay me, and I'll work, even though this is a bad illustration, since you're saved by grace.
Anonymous

United States

#284299 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
Hope those of you still here have a great day.
Later.
The same to you.
Life can be funny, and it can be real.
Life is so much more then we live.
It can be one more passion filled ride, like how a song can carry you back years, or when you wake up from a nap to realize how old you are, and where time has gone.
We try and believe it is just another day, but....
Life is but a vapor.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284300 Feb 16, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
<quoted text>
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.
My post #284213 explains that. I didn't contradict myself. I made the mistake of thinking you'd know something was a given. My mistake. I should know better.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

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.
Anonymous

United States

#284301 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The name "Jesus" is not an "English" translation--it's Greek for the Aramaic "Yaisuah, Yeshua, Joshua..."
Seriously, do you ever look beyond your "yardsticks" to "learn' anything about your professed faith, or do you simply trust in "Rev. Hovind/Dr. Dino?"
I try and keep the cookies on the bottom shelf, but if one wants to know how many fleas are on pharohs dog, then I geuss they could.

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) 5 min John Galt 1,233,552
News Tom Brady suspended four games, Patriots lose d... 39 min tom wingo 53
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 1 hr White Bytch 600
News Police changing strategies after spate of shoot... 2 hr reality is a crutch 1
5 dead in 24 hrs in Baltimore. 4 hr Susan 3
Why is racism getting worse in Baltimore????? 6 hr perple nerple 3
News Baltimore Bloodshed Continues; 28 Shot, 9 Dead ... 6 hr Mike 4
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]