Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Long Night Moon 13]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Protecting me from what ? Your scintillating posts that leave me speechless and to which I cannot possibly respond ? Grow up.
I had nothing to do with any of your posts being removed.
Why would I continue saying I didn't see them ? Why would I ask you to personal message me the post #? Just to keep up the charade ?
You need to get a life......and quickly.

Obviously my posts existed so your claims that I didn't answer you, or that it's my "MO" to leave your questions unanswered, was quite wrong. Again you forget how I tracked down one of my past posts answering one of your questions that you claimed I didn't answer, and proved you wrong back then.

What we really have is your "MO" of claiming your questions are going unanswered...and being wrong.

You were wrong that first time you claimed I didn't answer your question, and I proved it by digging up my unanswered post.

You were clearly wrong this time when you claimed I didn't answer your current question, as you well know.

You were wrong when you claimed I didn't provide the post number when you asked for it.

And you were wrong with the whole "took the bait/it wasn't bait per se" debacle.

What we have is a clear pattern of you being wrong quite often.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Guppy wrote:

It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.
It would stop all this crazy talk.

Which side of the fence are you finally going to fall on?

[lil Lily]

STO wrote:

<quoted text>
"Viability of a fetus is the ~potential~ to survive ~outside of the womb~, with OR without medical help.
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."
It's a given that fetus means inside the uterus and infant indicates born/outside the uterus.
You disagree with Doc. You are asserting that "viability" of an infant "would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
Doc is using the definition of viability, which includes WITH ALS.
Doc hasn't made a distinction between an MD's determination of viability of a fetus vs. an infant, that I know of.

STO: "You disagree with Doc. You are asserting that 'viability' of an infant would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive 'without medical help.'"

No Doc and I don't disagree. We both completely understand the definition of viability and that it includes with medical help.

You and Katie mix up viable/non-viable fetus with viable/non-viable infant. I don't, and haven't seen Doc do it either.

Viability in the abortion issue is about the potential of a FETUS to survive outside of the womb, with or without medical help. That potential is determined while that fetus is still in utero. That determination isn't about an already born infant. 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, they'll give the child that help. It's "viable" enough for doctors to determine it's worth TRYING to help it survive.

"Capable", "ability" are words in the the definitions of "viable" and "viability". Guessing you and Katie don't understand the meanings of those words either.

Neither [capable] nor [ability] mean "absolute", or "definite" survival with or without medical help.

If the fetus is deemed viable (which it would be while still in utero), and given medical help once born and then dies, it obviously wasn't a viable fetus...or viable born infant.

I don't see where Doc's and my views differ, except in the minds of peoplke who don't understand the definition of viability and that it pertains to a fetus.

[Forum]

SapphireBlue wrote:

<quoted text>
Afraid I have to echo John-K.
Not sure what you mean by "they". Our sins and rebellion against God put a man of love and peace on a cross to die a horrible death that should have been our own. His purpose for coming was to drink that bitter cup. Our sin debt has been paid. All we have to do is freely accept it. You believe this too, right?

You don't think it was dumb to nail a human being
to a cross? He has to die so everyone can go on and be
stupid. Wouldn't you have taken him down if you had been
there. I would have.
The children at church always tell me that they are hungry.
Shouldn't I feed them? No one cares!
150 children.

[carol]

Guppy wrote:

It's too bad the mother of jesus didn't have an abortion.
It would stop all this crazy talk.

These forums aren't really meant for the spreading of the gospel. It just happens sometimes because the topic inevitably comes up.

In fact, I never knew there were so many biblical scholars on the left until before this last election.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
You totally miss the point. The issue was never the legality of working within the law to change a law. The issue was you saying that all you are doing is defending a woman's right to choose within the law. I found that to be a convenient statement since you agree with the current law. So I asked you if you would say the same thing pre -1973. You still haven't answered. This babbling about the legality of working to change laws is not an answer to my specific question.
<quoted text>
I don't know. I was just a little shaver back then. You tell me.
And keep in mind that I've never said abortion should or would ever be considered murder.
<quoted text>
What does any of this babble have to do with my specific question about RvW ? What does any of this have to do with the fact that a fetus is alive and is a developing human life....regardless of whether it is being sustained by another ? This is indisputable scientific fact.

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.

[carol]

Forum wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't think it was dumb to nail a human being
to a cross? He has to die so everyone can go on and be
stupid. Wouldn't you have taken him down if you had been
there. I would have.
The children at church always tell me that they are hungry.
Shouldn't I feed them? No one cares!
150 children.

Crucifixion was a common form of execution from the 6th century BC until Constantine abolished it in the Roman Empire in 337 AD out of veneration for Christ. It was also used as a form of execution in Japan for criminals and inflicted also on some Christians.

Jesus' crucifixion was unique in that he had broken no laws. The Jewish religious leaders of the day simply felt threatened by him.
His followers and disciples were also Jewish as were many in the early churches before the gospel was spread to the gentiles.

His death on the cross was for our salvation. He knew that was his purpose and why Christians use the phrase "washed in the blood of Christ".

We can't save ourselves from our ourselves. Sinners need a savior. Who better than God in the flesh who shed His own blood for our sins? He loves us that much.

[carol]

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.

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.

[Obskeptic]

feces for jesus wrote:

<quoted text>
My issue is with anyone who claims to know what happens after we die, like gtown and sapphire have claimed. It is the heiight or arrogance.

Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.

[SapphireBlue]

A.k.a. carol.

Had to post something on an old thread that I'm no longer on and forgot to change back to my present topix name.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Guppy]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Which side of the fence are you finally going to fall on?

What?

[lil Lily]

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.

[Long Night Moon 13]

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.

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.

[Obskeptic]

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.

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?

[SapphireBlue]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.

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.

[lil Lily]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
The authority of logic and common sense.
<quoted text>
And you disagree with this ? What physician would conclude that an infant could not possibly benefit from medical assistance....and then apply medical assistance ?
<quoted text>
Nope. Are you an attorney ?(Rhetorical)
<quoted text>
I've never said I would be the one to determine what constitutes basic minimal lung function. That would always be a determination made by a qualified physician.
<quoted text>
Yep that's it. It sounds even more ridiculous when you say it.
<quoted text>
It's not only wrong it's absurd. And not because I say it is.
<quoted text>
One need not have the medical qualification to make the judgement that a physician would NOT apply medical assistance to an infant he deems to be NON VIABLE.
<quoted text>
You challenged me and I stuck it where the sun don't shine. Suck it up and take it like a man. Bait my ass.
<quoted text>
It is. That's why the determination of viable/non viable will always be a subjective one made by a qualified physician on a case by case basis.
<quoted text>
Not even close. Bitter's statement can NEVER be validated. It is patently absurd. A physician ( not yours truly now ) will not apply medical assistance to an infant he has deemed NON VIABLE. If the physician ( not Doc D.) believes the infant can survive with medical assistance he will deem it viable and apply said assistance. Simple as that. By definition an infant cannot REACH viability with medical assistance because if it needs to REACH viability that means it is not yet viable. If it is not yet viable it cannot survive no matter WHAT medical assistance is applied.
This is basic stuff.

I honestly don't get how anyone can be as ignorant,(and so mind bogglingly arrogant in being so ignorant), as the ones posting here as PCers.

Viability in the [abortion] issue, is about a fetus already having reached a certain stage of development. That's not about a born infant, it's about a fetus. Once born, it's a completely different issue, and has nothing to do with a fetus or abortion.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.

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.

[Junket]

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.

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...

[Long Night Moon 13]

Guppy wrote:

<quoted text>
What?

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

[Guppy]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
These forums aren't really meant for the spreading of the gospel. It just happens sometimes because the topic inevitably comes up.
In fact, I never knew there were so many biblical scholars on the left until before this last election.

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?