Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 20 comments on the Jan 22, 2008, Newsday story 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.

Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288050 Mar 5, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
So this goes back to my question-How long does a baby have to live to be considered viable? Are they viable if they take a single breath before being hooked up to life-support? What about if they need life-support just for a short while? Are they alive while they are on life-support?
What? I have nfi what you're trying to get at. The conversation with Doc and STO was about Doc's contention with the phrase "reaching viability". If a fetus is determined to be viable and goes through childbirth, is hooked up to ALS, but still doesn't make it, that means it didn't "reach viability". Viability means ability to survive outside the womb.

Your inane question above leads me to believe all survived outside the womb whether they were attached to ALS or not. Which would mean all were viable.

<shaking head, grabbing tylenol>

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#288051 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I will stand by the medical examiners statement rather than a reporter or a community organizer.
Since the medical examiner didn't make any statements,(his/her flunky did) and there was NO autopsy - the ME likely didn't even see the child, thanks but I'll take the spokesman for the family's word, and the statements of the hospital over what was clearly an erronious report, ONLY being reported by some cut rate "news" sources.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288052 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said you had to accept it.
Nobody figured you would.
It doesn't matter except in the fact the bible does not make any claims that abortion is forbidden. You all have to read between the lines to say it does. Most notably by attributing a status reserved for prophets to every single pregnancy.
Accept what? It isn't there. If you disagree then show me where it is.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288053 Mar 5, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the medical examiner didn't make any statements,(his/her flunky did) and there was NO autopsy - the ME likely didn't even see the child, thanks but I'll take the spokesman for the family's word, and the statements of the hospital over what was clearly an erronious report, ONLY being reported by some cut rate "news" sources.
I'll still take the word from the med examiner's office.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288054 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink? Please answer. I'd love to hear the answer.
Yeah, she miscomprehended and assumed fetus was born and hooked up to ALS and still a fetus. See below.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you call the baby a fetus in you r post that I quoted. Why did you call aborn baby a fetus before?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288055 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. It doesn't even come close to saying that she is pregnant.
Sure it does.

But since you don't think so, what do you believe the symptoms from the bitter water are in regards to?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288056 Mar 5, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the medical examiner didn't make any statements,(his/her flunky did) and there was NO autopsy - the ME likely didn't even see the child, thanks but I'll take the spokesman for the family's word, and the statements of the hospital over what was clearly an erronious report, ONLY being reported by some cut rate "news" sources.
From news press now

The child had been delivered by cesarean section after his parents were killed. The baby weighed only about 4 pounds when he was delivered, neighbors and friends said. He died of extreme prematurity, the city medical examiner's office said.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288057 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Accept what? It isn't there. If you disagree then show me where it is.
Go back and find the posts from STO and me that do just that. If you're adventurous enough, go back several years to where Chicky does exactly that, too.

Nobody said you had to accept it. If you are interested in more than a pissing match, then you can use up your own time researching it instead of wasting my time with your clear inability to understand my points.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288058 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and find the posts from STO and me that do just that. If you're adventurous enough, go back several years to where Chicky does exactly that, too.
Nobody said you had to accept it. If you are interested in more than a pissing match, then you can use up your own time researching it instead of wasting my time with your clear inability to understand my points.
That's a cop out just like your convoluted answers about viability.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288059 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does.
But since you don't think so, what do you believe the symptoms from the bitter water are in regards to?
Not in the Jewish Bible or the Catholic Bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Maybe some abortion activists have added it to some version of their own bible.
feces for jesus

Westbury, NY

#288060 Mar 5, 2013
feces for bhitler wrote:
<quoted text>Wow Bhitler, your evil.
Pathetic... You're still unable to use you're the correct way.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288061 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a cop out just like your convoluted answers about viability.
My "convoluted" answers are usually in response to your "convoluted" questions.

Enough already! Have and show some decency by offering an apology without being asked for it. You should be ashamed, Catholic woman.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288062 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Accept what? It isn't there. If you disagree then show me where it is.
Num 5:21 Then the priest 3548 shall charge 7650 the woman 802 with an oath 7621 of cursing 423, and the priest 3548 shall say 559 unto the woman 802, The LORD 3068 make 5414 thee a curse 423 and an oath 7621 among 8432 thy people 5971, when the LORD 3068 doth make 5414 thy thigh 3409 to rot 5307, and thy belly 990 to swell 6639

rot

H5307 = to fall

Read the defintion. About a third down you will see...

"Specially to fall is used of -(a) a fetus which is born"

Then a few more lines down...

"In Chaldee, specially is used of an abortion"

Read the rest of that portion of the definition and you'll see Numbers 5:21 is used as an example.

Sorry. It wouldn't let me copy and paste the Hebrew defintion. But you can check for yourself.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288063 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and find the posts from STO and me that do just that. If you're adventurous enough, go back several years to where Chicky does exactly that, too.
Nobody said you had to accept it. If you are interested in more than a pissing match, then you can use up your own time researching it instead of wasting my time with your clear inability to understand my points.
I went ahead and did the homework for them, again. Point by point.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288064 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in the Jewish Bible or the Catholic Bible.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Maybe some abortion activists have added it to some version of their own bible.
KJV
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288065 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Num 5:21 Then the priest 3548 shall charge 7650 the woman 802 with an oath 7621 of cursing 423, and the priest 3548 shall say 559 unto the woman 802, The LORD 3068 make 5414 thee a curse 423 and an oath 7621 among 8432 thy people 5971, when the LORD 3068 doth make 5414 thy thigh 3409 to rot 5307, and thy belly 990 to swell 6639
rot
H5307 = to fall
Read the defintion. About a third down you will see...
"Specially to fall is used of -(a) a fetus which is born"
Then a few more lines down...
"In Chaldee, specially is used of an abortion"
Read the rest of that portion of the definition and you'll see Numbers 5:21 is used as an example.
Numbers 5:21
21 then the cohen is to make the woman swear with an oath that includes a curse; the cohen will say to the woman,“...may Adonai make you an object of cursing and condemnation among your people by making your private parts shrivel and your abdomen swell up! 22 May this water that causes the curse go into your inner parts and make your abdomen swell and your private parts shrivel up!”— and the woman is to respond,“Amen! Amen!” 23 The cohen is to write these curses on a scroll, wash them off into the water of embitterment 24 and make the woman drink the water of embitterment and cursing — the water of cursing will enter her and become bitter. 25 Then the cohen is to remove the grain offering for jealousy from the woman’s hand, wave the grain offering before Adonai and bring it to the altar. 26 The cohen is to take a handful of the grain offering as its reminder portion and make it go up in smoke on the altar; afterwards, he is to make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she is unclean and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that causes the curse will enter her and become bitter, so that her abdomen swells and her private parts shrivel up; and the woman will become an object of cursing among her people. 28 But if the woman is not unclean but clean, then she will be innocent and will have children. 29 This is the law for jealousy: when either a wife under her husband’s authority goes astray and becomes unclean, 30 or the spirit of jealousy comes over a husband and he becomes jealous of his wife, then he is to place the woman before Adonai, and the cohen is to deal with her in accordance with all of this law. 31 The husband will be clear of guilt, but the wife will bear the consequences.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288066 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
KJV
Which line of the KJV refers to pregnancy or abortion in your opinion?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288067 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Which line of the KJV refers to pregnancy or abortion in your opinion?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Did you read my post??

Numbers 5:21

I linked you the translations.

WHAT are you missing?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288068 Mar 5, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify. You may have addressed the question but you did not answer it. And in that regard I really should apologize because in fact, there really is no answer. Their statement that they "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and the decision they ended up rendering.....are totally incompatible.
<quoted text>
I don't know what ruling they would have made. That would be pure speculation. What I do know is they would have had to know for certain that life did NOT exist prior to viability for them to have made the decision they did.
<quoted text>
That is not what they were referring to when they mentioned the "difficult question of when LIFE begins".
<quoted text>
THAT is what they were referring to.
<quoted text>
By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability. For if it did and/or if there was a possibility it did ( they acknowledged that possibility existed when they said they could not resolve the question of when life begins ) then they would have been compelled to protect it.
Just one of the reasons ( not the only one ) why RvW was a terrible decision.
"By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability."

I think the Court had to know that life exists prior to viability, it just came down to not labeling that life a person or human "being". Ultimately, if they had ruled against RvW they would have made the woman's rights secondary to the z/e/f's.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288069 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, she miscomprehended and assumed fetus was born and hooked up to ALS and still a fetus. See below.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Imo, you were clear. You used the word "delivered". "Fetus" + "delivered" = newborn.

Ink just responded to a post of mine where I give her a specific chapter and verse. She responds again asking for the same chapter and verse. WTH?

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) 2 min say what 1,220,494
News Thousands storm Baltimore streets in protest ca... 12 min Guest 3
How About Stop Black on Black Murders? 15 min Guest 11
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Chuck 19,852
Keep up the Good Work 4 hr ItsEasyToDo 1
News More Details Emerge in Arrest of Freddie Gray 6 hr Be nice 16
News Robert Smith out as MTA administrator for secon... 8 hr FursMon 8
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]