Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,223
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. Full Story
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284270 Feb 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't hate women; some are beneath contemptas individuals. You, for example.
Gay = effeminate? Should I stereotype women = idiots? You, sure, but ALL women?
Katie has my respect; has anyone ever respected you?
<quoted text>


Wow,
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably too young, but I remember a time in the late 60s and early 70s when girls who got pregnant - several who were in my class - had to drop out of school and hope the guy would marry her - which, surprisingly, many did back then - or get enough money to fly to New York for an abortion which was inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade was very narrow and restrictive when it came to abortion. But once Pandora's box is opened, it usually flies wide open. That's where we are now.
Ironically, the woman represented as Roe is now a pro-life activist.
Abortion should be an issue for each state to decide and should still be inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
Unfortunately, it has become a war cry for the empowerment of women. It's time they - and we - humbled ourselves instead.

[QUOTE who="Katie"]<quot ed text>
Abortion is an issue decided individually by states. The federal umbrella covering abortion is during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. No questions asked, no reasons needed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy. As it should be. Since 98% of all annual abortions are performed during this time, the PLM needs to stop sucking the goop off that spoon and start living in reality.
Roe v Wade also protects women from forced abortion. Don't forget that in your misplaced zeal to overturn it, criticize it, or otherwise disrespect all it does for women you will never meet or know in your life time or beyond.
(is this Janice?)
Wow, Cptr (and back atcha), is Guppy pouting because your post wasn't linked? I saw it, read it, and thought how similar it was to my own childhood. We had a big family. Most the women were educated and worked as nurses. Sometimes I even went to work with my mom or gramma. Probably wouldn't be legal these days, though.

Do you think Guppy's ever had anyone's real respect?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284271 Feb 16, 2013
oops! ignore SB's post up there with Cptr's. not sure how it got there. haven't quite figured out all the bugs in Windows 8 yet.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284272 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
All I saw from your PC friends since I started here has been; "you bitch", "you moron", "you c**t", "you liar", "you f'kn this or that", "you're a slut", "drug addict", "Lynnie, Lynniekins, LyinLynnielilyslut" blah blah.
I gave in kind, only not to the vulgar degree the PCers have, and when I have called someone on their shit, they see that as abusive, while they are being verbally abusive to others. Nothing from you about that, John boy.
I didn't see anything from you calling the PCers obnoxious, hypocrite. Selective blindness seems to be a habit with you. I've been obnoxious to those who have been vulgar toward PLers and who have lied about PLers.
<quoted text>
That's a lie. They haven't called a fertilized egg a "person". A human life, the woman's child yes, but not a "person". If you're going to try to make a point, you might want to stick to facts, and noit make up stuff like that, otherwise you're displaying a lack of credibility.
<quoted text>
Again not a "person", but yes, they believe it's a mother having her own developing child killed. That's not all PLers, and point taken about their beliefs about MAP.
However, there isn't going to be a surgical abortion until the woman knows she's pregnant, and that doesn't happen in zygote stage, which is what I was talking about. We're talking about abortion, and that's usually about an embryo or fetus. So the dishonesty about it is coming from the PC camp. Zygote stage has nothing to do with surgical abortions.
<quoted text>
You're trying to compare laws about driving to laws about killing a human life? That doesn't make sense.
<quoted text>
Killing a human life isn't about "sexuality/personal relationships", and it's not about "reproductive rights" either. The right to reproduce or not begins and ends BEFORE the sex act. Once a pregnancy occurs, a human life has been produced, and it's no longer about "reproduction", but about destroying the developing human life. When a woman finds out she's pregnant, that human life's heart is beating. Abortion is stopping a beating heart in a tiny human body. Yes, I would like to see that being illegal.
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...?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284273 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I disagree and do not see women's civil rights as a "war cry". What makes you think it is?

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284274 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.
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?

“Changing your thoughts”

Since: Sep 09

will change your world

#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.~

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#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?"

“Changing your thoughts”

Since: Sep 09

will change your world

#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.

“Changing your thoughts”

Since: Sep 09

will change your world

#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 :)

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Easy Eed 1,125,374
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 min UnderstandPeople 19,375
Baltimore on Orkin Rattiest City List 5 hr numberonepestcont... 1
Need help to get down! Mon sweetenvy 1
Review: Atas Marc J Mon Briansaul 5
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) Sun VeganTiger 54,518
T r a m a d o l & X A N A X and much more Oct 19 Dealer 1

Flash Flood Warning for Baltimore County was issued at October 21 at 7:38PM EDT

Baltimore Dating
Find my Match

Baltimore Jobs

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 ]