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 (Page 13,352)

Showing posts 267,021 - 267,040 of303,199
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284295
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284297
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284298
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284299
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284300
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284301
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284302
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The reasons are IN the post you responded to. WTH is wrong with your brain? The majority of PC posting here do agree with the restrictions. Those who do not wouldn't be included in what I'm talking about, because it wouldn't be about them.

The reasons IN the post you responded to:

~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.~
Guppy

Rotonda West, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284303
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Katie is not my real name nor listed on my birth certificate.
Why are you so afraid to use your real name? Is it a boys name?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284304
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
What side do you think I am on now??
Neither. I think you're straddling it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284305
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
That's your issue with Doc, and a hypothetical you created that is irrelevant and something I'm not interested in. I understand him just fine, and he can speak for himself.
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad hom was unnecessary. You were doing so well.
You don't have any right to expect that I would post to you respectfully after the bullshit you've initiated with me since I've been here.
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Again, your sci-fi hypothetical is irrelevant. Viability at 8 weeks isn't relevant in the abortion issue today. An artificial womb is ALS (artificial life support), and the same would apply as any ALS would. A natural womb is NLS (natural life support).
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
...
Yes, it IS with or without ALS. I understand what Doc writes and I understand what viability of a fetus means. I do have adult reading comprehension skills, and he hasn't posted anything confusing to me, or contradicting to anything I've said fetal viability means.

Guppy

Rotonda West, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284306
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
To you perhaps, to me perhaps, to those who "Genuinely Believe..."
For them, there is NO doubt.
How can you have ''no doubt" about a person that doesn't exist? I think they truly would like to believe it. They have a need. I cant motor through life without it.

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284307
Feb 16, 2013
 
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
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...?
John, your complaints (mild no doubt) would still be more interesting than most of what I read on topix. Go for it!
Guppy

Rotonda West, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284308
Feb 16, 2013
 
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither. I think you're straddling it.
Should I be like everyone else? I like being in the middle. It works for me.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284309
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Children and adults can recount events going on around them long after they were pronounced dead.
Many recount conversations by those attending them and objects in a room that couldn't have possibly been seen from their vantage point before they died.
This simply can't be ignored or explained away.
Modern research on near-death experiences have come from several academic disciplines including medicine, psychology and psychiatry. Among them are the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, British Journal of Psychology and American Journal of Disease of Children.
However, cases of NDEs go back to ancient times and Plato.
Research has also covered neurological explanations like residual brain activity.

There are also many people who have been clinically dead and report having no such experiences, but nobody writes books about those people so they get little media exposure (if any), and having no story to tell also generates no revenue.
Anonymous

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284310
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a Holy Ghost? Seriously? Is a spirit a ghost? Are the soul and spirit the same thing? All you have is spiritual jargon. Empty words with no substance behind them.
Like I've said, untill the "spirit " of the Lord dwells in a person, they cannot understand the things of God, but you have a soul "which is not a pea size thing floating around in you ",but it looks just like you, as if just under your skin. The 3 sons of noah represented these 3 people are made of.
Physical body -represents "as a whole " the black race, which is more physical then any other race. Soul, mind, intellect of man, represents the white race, which is "as a whole "smartest on earth, then spirit -represents all yellow type people, which is "as a whole " the most spiritual on earth.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

These three agree and are one.
The wind blows where it wills.
You cannot know where it has been or where it is going, BUT you know as it touches you, as it passes by, so are all who are born of God, or bornagain.

My wife was never able to give me an answer that made any sense, so I know how you feel, but it is a one on one deal between you and God.

Asking to convict you, to do whatever it takes to get your attention, and make it real to you, if you truly want to know or not.

Read the examples of those in the bible that Jesus spoke to, note their statues in life, and their view of God. What did Jesus tell them?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284311
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you so afraid to use your real name? Is it a boys name?
Is Guppy your real name?

“Post at your own risk”

Since: Sep 09

Whining is unbecoming

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284312
Feb 16, 2013
 
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree with your sentiment, AJ. If you pop into that account you hate, you will find my new address in your inbox :)
Ewww. Hate that place, but I'll gird my loins ... tomorrow! Yes, yes, tomorrow is a new day as they say.:-)
Guppy

Rotonda West, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284313
Feb 16, 2013
 
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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 :)
I don't want a god at all. When was the last time god stepped into someone's life and fixed their mess?

I don't need to build a god. I have no use for fairy tales. They're made up - just like the guy you seem to like.

When was the last time your god left money for a poor person? Never. Why not? He doesn't exist.

If he existed, he would show his face and help the truly desperate. He doesn't, does he. Wonder why?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 267,021 - 267,040 of303,199
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Baltimore Forum right now

Search the Baltimore Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min PDUPONT 1,033,344
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 5 hr just sayin 17,725
Ugly Mug Cafe opens on East Baltimore Street Wed guest 11
In need of loan shark (Aug '12) Wed Michael 6
Debate: Marijuana - Baltimore, MD (Aug '10) Apr 14 Sneek Blee 51
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Apr 14 Squach 123,275
legit Research Chemicals Vendor (Sep '13) Apr 13 Davey 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••