Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 340330 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.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287641 Mar 2, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You may call what you wish.
I'm just saying that before God opened my eyes, I knew what abortion meant :the death of a baby, but back then death meant very little to me, and seeing all the starving kids in the world, I felt most kids were better off aborted.
Unless they had a great home to go to.
If you want to call bs, call it on the "good " home part.
They are very few good homes, but it doesn't give anyone the right to choose who lives or dies.
Abortion kills babies. You are either FOR the killing of babies, or against it.
Stop trying to ride the imaginary fence.
You, sto, foo and some others like to say you are for a womans choice?!?!?
Well these women are choosing to kill an unborn child, regaurdless what you wish to label it.
Atleast cd -knew what he stood for, and knew like I always have, is that during an abortion the "life " of a human being is being snuffed out.
And most choose to give birth vs abortion. It's pretty obvious women make the choice we all support more often than the alternative. Ya'll talk like there are no babies being born at all lol.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287642 Mar 2, 2013
Did you know that both Bitter and Vladdy have said that an infant can "reach" viability with medical assistance ?
elise in burque wrote:
Lol! Funny stuff!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287643 Mar 2, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that, but unless I'm mistaken, the discussion had been about STO's "artificial womb" hypothetical, in the future, where a fetus at 8 weeks could be "viable", according to his thinking.
He stated "viability" could become "pracically limitless", to which you replied that in that case, so could abortion.
How could "viability" be practically limitless,(keep in mind he used the point of 8 weeks), if he was talking about women becoming pregnant naturally, without artificial wombs? If viability would be practicially limitless due to artificial wombs, then abortion would be a non-issue in such cases, and is why I disagreed with her having a point about that. If a woman would be using asn artificial womb, she wouldn't be wanting to abort her developing child.
My understanding was that the dicussion based on STO's hypothetical was only about artificial wombs and the possibilities [they] allow about viability. That it was not a discussion that included natural pregnancies; viability in that regard, or abortion in that regard.
I didn't think the discussion expressly excluded natural pregnancy. My understanding was what effect an artificial womb would have on the concept of fetal viability, period. Even if an artificial womb existed woman would still be getting pregnant naturally. Under those circumstances a 10 week old fetus could technically be considered viable because by definition it could be removed from it's natural womb and kept alive artificially until such time that it could survive independent of ANY ALS. STO believed that since the artificial womb was still technically a womb, then the fetus at 10 weeks would not be considered viable.
In any case if the woman decided she wanted to abort at 10 weeks would she agree to have the fetus transplanted into an artificial womb ? Some might not. And in that sense abortion as an issue would not go away. That was my point.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287644 Mar 2, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd. Ya mean a similar end automatically means a similar means ?
Cardiac arrest due to a congenital heart defect and cardiac arrest induced by a fired bullet into the heart both result in a stopped heart and death for the victim. Does that mean the processes were the same ?
What's the difference if the victim died? Zero. The heart stopped in both instances. What's the difference if a fetus is naturally aborted or electively aborted? Nothing. They both die and the process of termination is the same.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287645 Mar 2, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"The benchmark is simply his medical judgement. If he believes an infant possesses the minimum basic function that it can benefit and survive with ALS he will deem it viable and apply ALS."
Right, and that would be regardless of the medical definition of viable -- even if it is not 500 g and 24 weeks, the physician makes the call. If an insurance company said to the MD, "no, it doesn't fit the definition. We don't see the likelyhood of it surviving. We're not paying for the resources." Call me cynical. I put little past the power of $$$.
But it's still a medical judgement based on the current medical/legal definition.
If the legal definition was "24 weeks and 500g" PERIOD and the fetus weighs in at 499g then yes the insurance company could intervene. But as the definition exits today it is STILL a medical judgement. I don't see any circumstances under which an insurance company could override the judgement of an MD.
"Where does the concept of reaching viability ever make sense ?"
From your next post:
" While I understand what you are saying, if the concept of an artificial womb ever did become a reality, then the definition of viability would have to be totally reconsidered in order for the concept of "reaching viability" to have any real meaning. "
"An exception or an exclusion of an artificial womb as ALS would need to be made in order to validate the concept of "reaching viability". "
and
"Even the medical definition of non viable does not allow for the concept of "potentially viable". That concept exists, by current definition ( legal or medical )only if the fetus remains in the natural womb."
Judging by your statements, I think you understand my all points.
I do. And I think you understand mine.
To sum it up, the concept of "potentially viable" may only be applied to the the natural womb -- like you said. However, a fetus at the same gestational stage in the hypothetical artifical womb would be considered "viable", even tho, in reality it is "potentially viable". In both scenarios, the fetus would have to "reach viability".
I don't think there's anything we disagree on here. The bottom line here is that outside of the concept of the not yet plausible "artificial womb" the concept of "reaching viability" with medical assistance, outside the natural womb, is impossible.

Hear that Kate ?
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to examine both side's POV, even if we disagree, in the end. It's good to know exactly what one is diagreeeing with, even if it boils down to nuance.
The thing is I don't believe we do disagree. Oh sure, we do disagree on the fundamental issue of abortion but on this specific issue we are on the same page. And I still want to remind you that we are dealing with more than nuance here when you have those on the other side STILL maintaining that an infant that requires ANY artificial assistance at all to survive.....is not viable.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287646 Mar 2, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What's the difference if the victim died? Zero. The heart stopped in both instances. What's the difference if a fetus is naturally aborted or electively aborted? Nothing. They both die and the process of termination is the same.
Zero difference ? Then why don't we just shitcan all of our homicide laws ? After all there is no difference between someone dying of a heart attack due to a congenital defect and someone dying of a heart attack induced by a fired bullet.
And relative to abortion if there is no difference then why did we need the RvW decision at all ? After all was anyone ever prosecuted, even prior to 1973, for a naturally occurring miscarriage ? If not then why would anyone have been prosecuted for an induced abortion ? I mean there's no difference between the two right ?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287647 Mar 2, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Doing good, Bit. It's sunny/overcast off and on, here. We've had some great weather the past few days. Warm and sunny. Ya know, we Californians aren't happy unless the weather is perfect. Couldn't cut it where you live. lol
Fresh eggs and vegetables. Wish I had a green thumb. My granddad did. I did not inherit his expertise. I kill air plants (no one told me you had to water them now and then! they're called "air" plants!).
I'm married to the Plant Guy. I learned :) I did once kill a rosemary, over watered it.

It's great, enjoying all our fresh and canned veggies from the garden all year. A lot of work, but worth it, I think :)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287648 Mar 2, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You may call what you wish.
I'm just saying that before God opened my eyes, I knew what abortion meant :the death of a baby, but back then death meant very little to me, and seeing all the starving kids in the world, I felt most kids were better off aborted.
Unless they had a great home to go to.
If you want to call bs, call it on the "good " home part.
They are very few good homes, but it doesn't give anyone the right to choose who lives or dies.
Abortion kills babies. You are either FOR the killing of babies, or against it.
Stop trying to ride the imaginary fence.
You, sto, foo and some others like to say you are for a womans choice?!?!?
Well these women are choosing to kill an unborn child, regaurdless what you wish to label it.
Atleast cd -knew what he stood for, and knew like I always have, is that during an abortion the "life " of a human being is being snuffed out.
I'm riding no fence. I support a woman's right to make her own choice regarding her own uterus and pregnancy.

Are you so stupid that you don't realize that most women CHOOSE to continue their pregnancies?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287649 Mar 2, 2013
feces for wiccans wrote:
<quoted text>Your gonna lay around eating whilst your poor mullet headed beer bellied hubby and family try to work.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere, Knutter. As an admitted liar, you have no credibility here.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287650 Mar 2, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question? All I saw were the typical rantings of yet another insecure male. First thing your ilk always thinks is that women you can't browbeat must be fat man-hating lesbians.
That's no man. That's the forum's admitted liar, Knutter, AKA Knit and Pray, AKA Huskerlicious, etc.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287651 Mar 2, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
One state. How about the other 49?
Ugh. I mentioned California because that's where Peterson was tried. There are other states that similarly do not restrict potential fetal homicide charges to a limited fetal age.

Ya see....it's post like these that demonstrate why I would never have any post of yours removed.....and why I would never want to.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287652 Mar 2, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
the fact remains...posts have been removed. Numbers are missing. Several times I told you I had answered your questions and you claimed I didn't and then I go back and can show that post numbers from that time are missing. A post I wrote answering a question from you yesterday went missing. You can go back to yesterday and see one of my posts and then something like 3 numbers are missing right after it, and that included my answer to your post.
It's not like I could lie about answering your posts and just get lucky every time by finding missing numbers right around my other visible posts.
Again.....I never saw the posts. I can't respond to what I don't see. And after others pointed out that the posts did exist I acknowledged you in fact did answer. I did not perpetuate my lie claim. Hell, knowing the posts had been removed I even asked you to personal message me the post or the post #. Sound like someone who wants to continue claiming you lie and evade ?

By my count I've had 4 posts to you removed now. None of my other posts to anyone else have gone missing...just posts to you.
You can deny all you want, but from where I sit it's quite suspicious, and it always seems to involve you And yes, it put you in a position to claim I was lying and evading each time it happened.
Once again if my sole intent was to claim you were evading how was I supposed to get away with it since posts need to be up and visible before they can be removed. There were several here who saw the posts and said so. You have yet to establish any plausible motivation on my part to have some harmless benign posts of yours removed. Frankly you are a lightweight who poses little challenge and your responses aren't difficult at all to rip apart. So why would I pick your posts to remove ? All I've ever done on this forum unlike other cowards like Bitter, Vladdy and the pseudo nurse, is to answer every question that's ever been directed to me.....and answer them directly.
You act like I'm obligated to trust you, but I'm not, and I don't.
Knock yourself out.

By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)
Gtown71

United States

#287653 Mar 2, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're comparing adultery to urinating/defecating in your pants?
<quoted text>
Adultery may be morally wrong but it's not illegal.
<quoted text>
Why would you speak to school children about adultery when they're not old enough to be married?
<quoted text>
If your mistress and her child are on Public Aid/Medicaid, then they're already footing the bill. Then again, what does this have to do with cheating on your wife and impregnating your long time mistress?
<quoted text>
Again, what on earth does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Depends on the lie although I'd wonder why they felt they could not come to me with the truth.
<quoted text>
If I constantly harped on people and demanded that they do not lie, when I've lied myself, then yes, I would feel and would be a hypocrite.
<quoted text>
Unless the Good Lord has come down and spoken to you about he has in store for each and everyone in their afterlife, you do not know what the payment is for sin, if there is any payment at all.
<quoted text>
Right.
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't believe that folks hate the Good Lord's message at all. I think they hate how some people beat the Good Lord's message over their heads, how some people think they know the Good Lord's message better than anyone else or that they twist the Good Lord's message to suit their agenda.
<quoted text>
You've spoken that you did not let God into your life until after you got caught up and impregnated your mistress. You carried on an affair for a long time and if pregnancy did not occur, you'd still be doing wrong behind your wife's back. You didn't need God until you were up shite's creek without a paddle. So why should anyone listen to you when it comes to God, sin and the sanctity of marriage? Think about that and perhaps you'll understand why some folks are not receptive to your message and feel you're not qualified to lecture anyone about God, sin and the sanctity of marriage.
There's much wrong with your post, but to sum it up, you like to judge others, that you believe judges others :)
Gtown71

United States

#287654 Mar 2, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>And most choose to give birth vs abortion. It's pretty obvious women make the choice we all support more often than the alternative. Ya'll talk like there are no babies being born at all lol.
Perhaps more husbands don't physicaly cheat on their wives, but should we teach that the ones "like me " who have, that its ok, just their choice?

MOST abortions are not done becouse of any reason, but oops.

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

#287655 Mar 2, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's much wrong with your post, but to sum it up, you like to judge others, that you believe judges others :)
I wasn't judging you at all. It's not my place to judge anyone as I leave that up to God. If that's what you got from what I wrote then you've misunderstood what I've written. To make a long story short, I feel that given the fact that you carried on an extra marital affair for a long time which resulted in child outside of your marriage and that you only managed to let God into your life when you were caught up, you're really not in a position to lecture anyone about God, sin and the sanctity of marriage.

Of course, you're free to share your story. However, given your history, do you really believe that people take you seriously when you speak about the importance of marriage, marital fidelity, raising children in a 2 family home, sin and God? Think about it this way. If people are discussing the importance of those things, who do you think people are going to take seriously? A couple, both of whom have been spiritual since they were young, who have been married, faithful, and had their 2 children while married to each other for over 30 years or a couple whose been married for 30 years but the husband carried on a long term relationship with another woman which resulted in a child being born out of that relationship and the husband discovered God after he got caught with his pants down?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#287656 Mar 2, 2013
We ALL have morals, but not all the same morals. Sex is a biological function--if you wish to ascribe moral dimensions to it, bully for you.
Corgi lover wrote:
<quoted text>We have morals, a code to live by . We are not dogs in heat.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#287657 Mar 2, 2013
I've had more partners than you've had delusions. Perfectly healthy after all these years. Sex is healthy and natural; no wonder your unnatural cult dislikes it.

We are a FREE country; we are not governed by the superstions of othes.

What keeps a straight boy from marrying two women, a goat, and a toaster oven?

Being gay is as normal as being straight. Deal with it.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes our "sinful " nature is against abstinence, and sex is healthy for two married people who don't have any std's, and remain faithful, but again our sin nature is against anything healthy or pure.
It desires things that are unhealthy and risky.
We are now becomming a country that enables the sinful behaivor, instead of allowing people to sleep in the bed they make.
I am all for grace, for without it I would be damned, but there is a difference in giving someone grace and mercy, and handing them a do whatever you want, we gotcha covered card.
Just like gay marriage, when that law does get passed, what is to stop a man from marring two men? 10 men? 50 men and 17 goats? 1500 women and 1 man?
Plus it being taught in our schools as normal for any and all.
Where do we draw the line?
is there a line?
Maybe others can read this, since you don't care for normal marriage or kids.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287658 Mar 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I've had more partners than you've had delusions. Perfectly healthy after all these years. Sex is healthy and natural; no wonder your unnatural cult dislikes it.
We are a FREE country; we are not governed by the superstions of othes.
What keeps a straight boy from marrying two women, a goat, and a toaster oven?
Being gay is as normal as being straight. Deal with it.
<quoted text>
Post # 25477 :

Tinker Bell:
"Viability under the law refers to when the fetus could be removed from the uterus WITHOUT the need for heroic measures or technology. That is also the medical definition."

After this how can anyone possibly take anything an idiot like you says seriously ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287659 Mar 2, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
We ALL have morals, but not all the same morals. Sex is a biological function--if you wish to ascribe moral dimensions to it, bully for you.
<quoted text>
Here's another:

#261399-

"And you;re the idiot who thinks fetuses are viable at 24 weeks, monkeynipples. At that time, they have roughly a 50/50 chance of viability."

They have a chance at viability ?

You're an idiot. There can be no other explanation.
Gtown71

United States

#287660 Mar 2, 2013
-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't judging you at all. It's not my place to judge anyone as I leave that up to God. If that's what you got from what I wrote then you've misunderstood what I've written. To make a long story short, I feel that given the fact that you carried on an extra marital affair for a long time which resulted in child outside of your marriage and that you only managed to let God into your life when you were caught up, you're really not in a position to lecture anyone about God, sin and the sanctity of marriage.
Of course, you're free to share your story. However, given your history, do you really believe that people take you seriously when you speak about the importance of marriage, marital fidelity, raising children in a 2 family home, sin and God? Think about it this way. If people are discussing the importance of those things, who do you think people are going to take seriously? A couple, both of whom have been spiritual since they were young, who have been married, faithful, and had their 2 children while married to each other for over 30 years or a couple whose been married for 30 years but the husband carried on a long term relationship with another woman which resulted in a child being born out of that relationship and the husband discovered God after he got caught with his pants down?
Well Jesus, and all who have given their testimony would disagree.

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.

Elkridge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min sonicfilter 1,758,902
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr Trumptanic 21,667
News Rapper, actor Common to support Baltimore State... Fri Overseer58 2
Mace Electric's Dick Colon raped an 11-year-old... (Jun '13) May 17 Mohammed 91
i love May 16 Fitius T Bluster 2
Why Are The Chi Family Hidding Trust Funds? May 14 News 1
Review: Metro Motorworks (Feb '15) Mar '18 Bruce 3

Elkridge Jobs

Personal Finance

Elkridge Mortgages