Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Guppy]

SapphireBlue wrote:

<quoted text>
Way too many stories of near death experiences in all ages that couldn't have possibly been made up. Some were even upset and angry they came back.
Children, especially, have amazing recollections.

Twilight Zone.

[Guppy]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
I said...which side of the fence are you finally going to fall on?

What side do you think I am on now??

[lil Lily]

Doc Degall wrote:

(continued)
<quoted text>
You should have stuck with your unamended version. It was closer to being accurate. There is no such thing as a "potentially viable" infant. A born infant is either viable ( with OR without medical assistance ) or it is not.
Only a fetus still in utero can be "potentially viable". A 10 week old fetus....as long as it remains in utero...is potentially viable.
<quoted text>
There was no point to concede. I've never considered medical assistance to be a requirement for viability. How stupid is that ? Who would ever consider an infant born at 36 weeks that needed no artificial support to survive...to be non viable ?
My position has always been that the need for medical assistance does not preclude a determination of viability.
<quoted text>
I don't think I've won anything. But I have demonstrated that I am right. And for a guy who's essentially written friggin treatises on here in an attempt to prove he was right, I wouldn't make little of that. It comes off as supremely hypocritical.

Doc: "There is no such thing as a "potentially viable" infant. A born infant is either viable ( with OR without medical assistance ) or it is not.
Only a fetus still in utero can be "potentially viable". A 10 week old fetus....as long as it remains in utero...is potentially viable."

Exactly.

They're screwing up because they don't understand the definition of viable/viability in the 1st place, or that a viable fetus and viable infant are 2 separate issues. Even when given the definitions, they don't have the adult reading comprehension skills to get any of it.

Obviously fetus and born infant are not at the same stage of life. Viability of a fetus and viability of an infant are about 2 different stages of that child's life. Only one of those has to do with the abortion issue, and that's viability of the fetus. Viability is something a fetus "reaches" [before] being born, so a fetus doesn't need to "reach" anything once born. Once born it's not a fetus anymore. Except in Katie's screwed up logic.

Their argument is about born infants and is why they'll always be wrong about what viability of a fetus is. The medical and legal definition of viability/viable are clear, to anyone with adult intelligence.

[lil Lily]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey....why wasn't this post removed Mr. Moderator ? We had a deal !
I can't possibly answer this !!!

LOL, their paranoid ideas about all that displayed just how irrational the PC nutcases are. Not once did they consider any rational explanation. It went stupid to completely irrational in 1 sec flat.

Logic would have told them, certain people here are not afraid to respond to posts. Why would they think others would report them and have their posts removed, and for the reasons they suggested? Because that's what they would do, and those would be the reasons why.

[Guppy]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you call a developing baby with a beating heart with working organs and sucks its thumb a human being?
The human heart starts beating on its own in the first half of the first trimester.
Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens.

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.

[Guppy]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Guppy.
"Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens."
It's called an SA node. The heart's own pacemaker.

Hello Red.

[SapphireBlue]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
I read that book. It's a big pile of fantasy b.s. The very descriptions this child was giving of Jesus were just like the depictions shown in my old children's bible books from when I was a kid. The father's claims that the boy had never seen such pictures was far from credible. The father was some sort of pastor and no religious materials would have been very common around this family.
The mother had a miscarriage I believe, yet this boy met his unborn sister in Heaven? The father admitted the family was having some financial troubles and then here's this book. Uh huh.

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.

[SapphireBlue]

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 our free will and personal choices are pointless? You'd rather we be created as robots?

[lil Lily]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Always fantasizing about my ass. Closet case.
<quoted text>

You ignore posts by PLers who OWN you in discussion, claiming their posts aren't "interesting", yet respond to nutcases like "zach" who post: "Hey homo....did ya get that big fat boner outta your ass yet.....I heard you were struggling big time and you didn't want hubby seeing you with another man you dickstain.....LMFAO" with:

cpeter1313 wrote:

Always fantasizing about my ass. Closet case.
<quoted text>

Such and intelligent and mature response.

I'm sure you wouldn't find it interesting to have your ass handed to you by PLers, on the abortion topic, and having it expected of you to prove your ridiculous claims when you can't.

[SapphireBlue]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Guppy.
"Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens."
It's called an SA node. The heart's own pacemaker.

The question you need to ask yourself is if man could create a human beating heart. From scratch.

[lil Lily]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course now the basta@rd has to actually see the post.
When I brought up one of Doc's past eff-ups he told me to forget the past. Funny coming from him, doncha think?

Toots, you're not worth the credit you're giving yourself. You don't have the intelligence to intimidate anyone with your posts, and certainly not people who OWN you PCers in discussion.

[lil Lily]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Fn hilarious, LNM.

The irrational paranoia you and she displayed was that, alright. You both looked like bumbling buffoons.

[SapphireBlue]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
These are some of the same scientists that suggest that man can control the climate of the earth. What you just described is a human being to everyone except liberals. Since they are way smarter then everyone else with a different opinion, and of course a liberal is never wrong about anything, just as one, they know that its not a human being at all. In other words, an apple can be an orange if they say it is. If you dare to disagree, their wrath is what you'll get. So tolerant and compassionate of them, don't you think?

Couldn't have said it better. An apple can be an orange if they say it is.

Why so many are easily fooled. They repeat what they're told to believe without question. If they're told enough times an apple is an orange, then it must be true.

[SapphireBlue]

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
What's stumping scientists?
"During early embryonic development, organ systems develop on an "as needed" basis. The brain and spinal cord, for example, which are required to control and coordinate the functions of other major organ systems of the body, are the first to form. At the end of the third week, the embryo is about two millimeters long and the blood vessels and alimentary canal have begun to develop. By the end of the fourth week, all major organs have begun to develop and the heart beats for the first time."
http://www.ehow.com/about_6801344_human-organ...

Hate to say it, but this line of reasoning is why you must be a liberal.

For some reason, liberals seem to have a very difficult time zooming out to see a much bigger picture.

You're describing what scientists know - not what they don't know.

It's more about what they don't know. For instance, they don't know why cells begin to divide on their own after conception.

Neither could they recreate that in any lab from scratch.

[lil Lily]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
A woman getting an abortion pre-1973 is breaking the law. A woman protesting against the law is not breaking the law. She is exercising her right to work to change an existing law. The law was in fact changed, by SCOTUS. What about this don't you get?
I never said a fetus is not alive, or a developing human. A z/e/f does not have rights. A woman has rights. A born baby has rights.
To give the z/e/f rights would then revoke rights from women. A woman is a born human being, a z/e/f is not born yet.

You people calling a fetus ZEF is ridiculous. Abortion isn't about a zygote, and you're wrong, a fetus does have rights. Rights you people support if you support RvW. Those rights are at viability. Obviously a fetus has been given rights then.

A woman shouldn't have a "right" to have her own flesh and blood child killed.

That is the RIGHT you people want to fight to keep, yet most of you agree she shouldn't have that right at viability. Most of you think a woman who kills her born children are monsters. None of you sees the senselessness of your contradicting views.

[feces for jesus]

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can call it what you like, but God callse it eternal security. God doesn't want His children wondering where they will go, after they die. Many things have popped up over the years about life after death, abd many believe different things.
I buried enough family members to tell you, they go in the ground, but their souls go on forever, either in Heaven or in Hell "which is the county jail ",then the lake of fire forever seperated from God, or any friends or family.
I believe this NOW, even though I truly don't know where any of my dead family are.

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?

[feces for jesus]

SapphireBlue wrote:

<quoted text>
Couldn't have said it better. An apple can be an orange if they say it is.
Why so many are easily fooled. They repeat what they're told to believe without question. If they're told enough times an apple is an orange, then it must be true.

Kind of like what you do with the words of the bible.

[SapphireBlue]

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?

You'd think people who condoned killing the unborn and tolerated any kind of bad behavior as long as there was no morality involved wouldn't know a thing about biblical principles.

Yet, on another thread I used to be on, these people were the same ones who knew more about biblical principles and Jesus' teaching than any of us.

Odd, huh?

Only one man in history claimed to be the Son of God whose body was not found three days after he died.

It's a mystery the love of God and his grace towards us. Jesus came to help us get it right - love, forgive, mercy, compassion, etc.

When we want a way out of our own sinful natures, Jesus gives us that way. Unless you know it, you can't know it.

It's folly to nonbelievers. That's scriptural.

[SapphireBlue]

feces for jesus wrote:

<quoted text>
Kind of like what you do with the words of the bible.

Don't think I've said anything contradictory to the words of the Bible. Could you be more specific?

[SapphireBlue]

Guppy wrote:

<quoted text>
Twilight Zone.

How sad that you would think this life on this planet is all there is.