Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311496 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#292169 Apr 13, 2013
(Pre)eclampsia occurs after 20 weeks, and there are treatments to help prevent it from becoming full blown eclampsia before viability.

"Treatment varies widely depending on the severity of the disorder and the gestational age of the pregnancy. Whenever possible, the pregnancy will be allowed to continue until the baby can be born healthy. However, in severe cases of pre-eclampsia and definitely in the case of eclampsia, the baby will have to be delivered, regardless of the gestational age. "

The baby will have to be (delivered), not aborted, "regardless of gestational age".

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#292170 Apr 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"The only safest way to cure pre-eclampsia is to abort or deliver the child. If pre-eclampsia is not very serious, then a woman can continue with her pregnancy and deliver her baby normally. In case the problem is very serious, premature delivery of the baby takes place."
My youngest was born under these circumstances. After I was admitted to the hospital on Christmas Eve following an OB appt. My oldest went full term, but the pre-ecclampsia began rearing its ugly head toward the end of that pregnancy. My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. Why that op acts as if I don't know what I'm talking about is beyond me. Apparently STO is right. She was there, a fly on the wall, during all my OB appts.
:-|
You re-quoted from Foo's "news" link about something medical: "If pre-eclampsia is not very serious, then a woman can continue with her pregnancy and deliver her baby normally. In case the problem is very serious, premature delivery of the baby takes place."

Only irrational fools miss what's said in what they quote, as you and Foo did.

Your children were DELIVERED as mine was and my daughter's child was, because that IS the treatment for preeclampsia/eclampsia, as has been proven with (medical) links.

I had preeclampsia before 6 months gestation, as my daughter did. I delivered before it went to eclampsia but my daughter's developed to eclampsia and she had to have labor induced, which didn't work and her blood presure was becoming dangerously high during that time, so she had to have a c-section. Mother and baby survived the eclampsia and the c-section.

NO (abortion) needed for preeclampsia or eclampsia.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#292171 Apr 13, 2013
Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "

Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".

I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#292172 Apr 13, 2013
STO, I don't "hate" you, or Foo (as you claimed) or anyone else here, because you're nobodies to me. You're names on a forum, strangers to me.

What I can't stand is STUPIDITY, and when people act as childish and obnoxious while being stupid as you people do.
Katie

Kent, WA

#292173 Apr 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "
Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".
I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.
This is very similar to your claim that using two or more forms of birth control is 100% effective against preventing pregnancy. No birth control is 100% effective, even when combined with other forms. And it took you a lonnnng time to understand what was being said to you and what you thought was being said to you.

This conversation, regarding pre-eclampsia and abortion or early delivery. Please note the medical sites will state induced delivery will cure the pre-eclampsia. Even on a previability fetus.

So, try to figure out what that actually means. What people have actually been saying to you.
Katie

Kent, WA

#292174 Apr 13, 2013
And stop giving WR excuses not to answer the question that was posed to him/her.

What do you prefer? Abortion on an 8wk embryo or abortion on a 32wk fetus?

This was asked to him/her allowing health exceptions for pregnant woman but criminalizing abortion on demand during the first trimester.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#292175 Apr 13, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, not by a long shot. no where near anytime soon.
Okay, if you say you won't grow up anytime soon, I'll take your word for it. You should know, after all.

Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
worships reality

AOL

#292176 Apr 13, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like YOU are the idiot. Nothing there about "lethal force", he was simply found guilty of animal cruelty.
"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty"
had you been involved in this discussion from the beginning you would have seen that this was already addressed. even in cases involving born humans, other than law enforcement officials, one who uses unjustified "lethal force" would not be found guilty of "lethal force" but of a separate crime.
if someone used "lethal force" and shot and killed you without just cause, they would not be convicted of "lethal force", dummy. they'd be convicted of murder, manslaughter, etc.

the person in question here used unwarranted lethal force against an animal and was convicted of a crime.

as i told peter, weigh in when you have a clue.
worships reality

AOL

#292177 Apr 13, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>That incident has nothing to do with the policy change.
"The changes come after a highly publicized incident in which officer Thomas Griffin was dispatched to a possible domestic disturbance on East Fifth Street in late April but was sent to the wrong address. There, he encountered resident Michael Paxton and his blue heeler, Cisco".
There is about a 25 pound difference between a mixed Jack Russel and a Blue Heeler. How you thought the two stories were connected to bring about policy change in "lethal force" against a dog is beyond me.
what are you talking about? one link has absolutely nothing to do with the other. they are totally unrelated.

the first link illustrated, that there is in fact a legal context in which the concept of "deadly force" against a non-person exists.
this is a direct contradiction of peter's incorrect asertion to the contrary.

the second link is unrelated to the first and was provided to refute peter's assertion that one could not be convicted of a crime for the use of deadly force against an animal(dog).
worships reality

AOL

#292178 Apr 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, if you say you won't grow up anytime soon, I'll take your word for it. You should know, after all.
Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
nope. not anytime soon. not even close.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#292179 Apr 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "
Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".
I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.
No one said full term pregnancies required an abortion. 32 weeks is not full term, it's premature.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#292180 Apr 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Tick Tock the clock is ticking.
If you've had an abortion
If you are for abortion
If you are gay
If you have lied
If you have stolen anything
If you have fornicated
If you have commited adultery
If you have ever used Gods name in vain
If you have ever been rebellious against good
If you have ever been drunk
Etc. Etc. Etc.
You, yes you need a savior.
Or when YOUR clock stops ticking, you will meet your judge.
This is what you believe...but that doesn't make it a fact.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#292181 Apr 13, 2013
"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty."

Not lethal force.
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
it's common knowledge "and" i looked it up, idiot.
missed the part where the city's law enforcement agency changed their existing, legal policy on the use of deadly force against dogs ?
you ok? you're not trying to post and fellate at the same time again, are you?
<quoted text>
tell you what, idiot....
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20209430/man-co...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#292182 Apr 13, 2013
The HYPOCRITE wrote:
<quoted text>
You are known by what you call yourself and you named yourself well. Your hatred knows no bounds.
You're also know by your actions, hypocrite.
worships reality

AOL

#292183 Apr 13, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty."
Not lethal force.
<quoted text>
miss this one, stupid?

post no. 292098 -

"nope shit for brains. even in cases of unwarranted lethal force against born persons, the perpetrator, unless they are a law enforcement officer, is also not charged with "lethal force" but rather a separate crime."

had mr. good done the same thing to a born person, he would also not have been charged with or convicted of "lethal force".

you "are" an idiot. it is confirmed. it is written.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#292184 Apr 13, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. not anytime soon. not even close.
Okay, I agree you won't grow up anytime soon. Not even close. Feel better?

Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
Gtown71

United States

#292186 Apr 13, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you believe...but that doesn't make it a fact.
WHAT IF IT IS A FACT? How will you fare?
worships reality

AOL

#292187 Apr 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I agree you won't grow up anytime soon. Not even close. Feel better?
Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
not close by any stretch. no light at the end of this spineless tunnel.
smackdownn

United States

#292189 Apr 13, 2013
Abortionists are stinking killers!!
smackdownn

United States

#292190 Apr 13, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're also know by your actions, hypocrite.
You Godless atheist horr!!!

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.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min woodtick57 1,404,993
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr dGo mnaDed lyHo i... 60,662
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 hr Ize Found 70,836
Woman Stabbed, Man Shot Within Hours Of One Ano... (Aug '09) 10 hr TorresHtfdCt 95
News Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09) 13 hr Chaimpie 93
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 14 hr stupid republicans 20,391
News Nassau County Court and Family Court judges (Nov '08) Tue silly rabbit 81

Hartford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hartford Mortgages