Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,067
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. Full Story

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283544 Feb 11, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very often when I take the time to write posts for the purpose of discussion or answering questions those posts get ignored. Most recently I wrote a detailed response to a question Gtown asked and there was no response.
As you recall, you once accused me of not answering a question you asked, I told you that I had taken the time to write an in depth answer and you didn't believe it, so I hunted down the post to show you. This happens a lot. I can only conclude that the questioner can't refute my responses so they just skip them.
Your conclusion is incorrect, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for Gtown. If I said you didn't respond and you did, then it was because I legitimately missed it....certainly not because I couldn't refute what you said.

Regardless, let's not focus on the past. Right now I asked you a serious question about RvW because I sincerely want to get your feedback.

You're up.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#283545 Feb 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You brought it up. You said I was confusing the two. I asked you to set me straight. So far you've had two chances to answer....two chances to engage in a so called serious discussion....and you turn tail and run. You're a phony.
<quoted text>
Wrong. I do not want the courts to determine the benchmarks of when ALS is used. Need to hear it again ? Or are you going to come back again and recite the same inaccurate bullshit all over again ?
What I believe brainless one ( now pay attention I'm gonna go
slow )......is that MD's will ALWAYS make the determination of when ALS is used. However, legally, and in accordance with RvW's precedent setting definition, they CANNOT declare an infant non-viable if it needs ALS. Once THEY make the determination that ALS should be used, then they have already made the determination that that infant is viable. Get the distinction ?
Or are you still as dense as a rock ?
Remember the talk of the 50% gas exchange? That's already a protocol in determining viability. If physicians think the fetus has not reached the 50% mark, it will be determined nonviable.

With that said, you do know scientists are tweaking artificial surfactant, yes? So in that sense, all that you say above *could* open the door for the courts to determine when viability is rather than the physicians. Fifty percent won't matter because they can use this new-fangled ALS and inject artificial surfactant to bring the newborn to viability.

I brought this up to you before, but you and glossed (misunderstood, ignored, poked fun of, or myriad other options) right over it.

Do you see this Doc? Or are you going to start flinging ad homs like monkeys fling sh*t?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283546 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.
So you want me to believe you do not do the same?
Pay attention genius...it's something you demonstrate you have a REAL problem doing.
I said all things being equal including rights, then the woman takes precedence. And I meant it. If a pregnancy is threatening a woman's life then the LIFE of the woman takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Right to life vs the Right to life.
Saying that a woman's right to privacy takes precedence over the fetus's right to life is NOT a case of the same or equal rights being considered for each.
Anonymous

United States

#283547 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text> The reason for my question, which you failed to answer, is the Christianity gets painted with many strokes, all claiming to have anchor in truth. If you are going to Evangelize your faith, let be clear as to what faith you are evanglizing! There are great differences in those of who believe in Jesus Christ, so for the sake of further discussions, I need to understand under what umbrella your preaching from.
I'm a guy who truly didn't believe in God, who was saved by God, as decribed in the bible. So I am a biblical christian who has no problem attending any christian church for growth as a christian. You're correct when you say that there are many many different secs of "christians ",and all claim to be the true christians. I met God at home and was saved at home, which I am very thankful for. I line up who I am, by prayer, Gods Word, and common sense about it all.

So I geuss I cannot give you an answer, other then I was a sinner on my way to Hell, and now I'm a sinner on my way to Heaven.

I give All credit for any good I do or have had done to me to Jesus Christ, for He alone is worthy.

I believe that if anyone is truly serious about knowing God, instead of knowing about God, that they can call on Him, and He will reveal Himself to that person.
They don't have to know anything at all about Him, and they can be as sinful as they come.
He died once and for all.
He rose again once and for all.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#283548 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc and I are discussing elective abortion.
Of all annual abortions, 98% are performed between 7-8wks gestation. This is on an embryo the size of a Tic Tac.
When people claim they want elective abortion criminalized because the "teeny tiny baby with a heart beat is being maliciously killed," imo, they're putting precedence of the embryo over the girl/woman gestating it.
My response will probably not enamour me to you, however, In my world, life begins at conception, not a popular viewpoint here, but mine, so, the taking of that life, anywhere in the process, other than to save the life of the mother, due to complications, etc. is an issue for me! Now, and I again don't agree with the law of the land, but it is what it is, in your senario, it maybe, again under current law, accepable, however, the partial birth abortions permitted, and you would know the percentages better than I, I truely have big problems with. Thanks for the explanation!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283549 Feb 11, 2013
Huskerlicious wrote:
<quoted text> I really don't think there are any *liberal* bishops, Mahoney can't participate, thank God anymore. Most if not all the Bishops are more orthodox. I sure hope Dolan is the new Pope, but I doubt he will, he would make a great one, but i think there will be one from South America. Benedict did his job by appointing Bishops that would agree with him and with Blessed John Paul II.
You mean THIS Mahony?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02...

Apparently you're wrong. He will be participating.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283550 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
Eating pork during lent to "stick" it to you puts grave doubts upon Jewishness of your friends.
I find much of our liberalism comes from our belief that our entrance into heaven depends on what we leave behind. Our law says that when we die, our soul is in pergatory and our entry into heaven is based on the effect we had on our survivors.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283551 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
Yes, all the time. It's not my problem it flies right over your head.
Your idiocy flies over my head a lot.
Btw, seventeen is more than four.
"In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life (see box)."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060...
(the box is at the bottom of the page and CA is one of those states, just like i mentioned)
Read brainiac.....READ ! Elective abortion ! Without restriction.
Only 4 states had legal unrestricted abortion before 1973......FOUR. Not 17 !
And no.....4 is NOT more than 17.
The point's been made more often than I count, that within those laws, pregnant women were free to leave their home states, go to those states with legal abortion, and obtain the same. So your question to LNM is moot.
The point is not moot genius. If it were then you'd be OK with going back to pre RvW days and have the States individually set their own abortion laws. I'm sure there would be at least a few that would keep it legal so any woman who lived in a State where it was illegal would be free to jet right over there and kill that little nuisance legally.
In any case you've had your say on this....as stupid and idiotic as it is. Why don't we let the person to whom the question was asked.....answer. Whaddya say huh ? Ya nosy parker ya.
Why don't you start showing some respect and using people's actual SNs? You want me to begin referring to you as bawkbawkdoc?
Oh button it you old crank. All you PC do here is make clever little take-off names on PL posters.....knutter, Dic, skank, etc. Now all of sudden you demand respect ? Get lost you hypocritical phony.
'Cause you seem chicken to actually use your brain for anything aside from ad homs.
Yeah right....that's all my posts are....just a litany of ad homs.
You're a complete joke.
grumpy

Stony Point, NY

#283552 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, while I do admire his passion, it is often the zealots who cause the greatest harm. I know little of the actual beliefs, but have two very good friends who are of the "reformed" Jewish faith. I was told this is a little more Liberal than the orthodox version. They often order "pork sandwiches" on Fridays during Lent just to stict it to me. We do oppose one another on a lot of social issues, which surprises me. Why are those of the Jewish Faith much more liberal than conservative?
I've asked this question and the only answer I got was that Jesus only cared about our soul.(?)
Here's the question: If Jesus was alive today, "Would he be against taxing the rich to help the needy?"

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283554 Feb 11, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
<quoted text>My response will probably not enamour me to you, however, In my world, life begins at conception, not a popular viewpoint here, but mine, so, the taking of that life, anywhere in the process, other than to save the life of the mother, due to complications, etc. is an issue for me! Now, and I again don't agree with the law of the land, but it is what it is, in your senario, it maybe, again under current law, accepable, however, the partial birth abortions permitted, and you would know the percentages better than I, I truely have big problems with. Thanks for the explanation!
Late term abortion is performed at only four venues in the U.S. Those abortions are performed only under very specific criteria. They are never performed upon simple demand, by any legal medical facility. You will hear all kinds of propaganda from dishonest "pro-life" extremists. Be careful and do some independent research from unbiased sources.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283555 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, like NR was a med student?
What is NR?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283556 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>This is not a Christian country. We Americans are not all Christians. We never were. If you want to live in a theocracy, you will have to leave the U.S.
73% of Americans are Christian, Elsie. Would that be the majority?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283557 Feb 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the talk of the 50% gas exchange? That's already a protocol in determining viability. If physicians think the fetus has not reached the 50% mark, it will be determined nonviable.
....and it will NOT have ALS applied. Good, you're getting it.
If the physician DOES determine it possesses the basic lung function to survive with ALS then he will deem it viable and ALS will be applied. He will not apply ALS to a non viable fetus so it can REACH viability....as numbskulls like Bitter and Chicky have claimed.
With that said, you do know scientists are tweaking artificial surfactant, yes? So in that sense, all that you say above *could* open the door for the courts to determine when viability is rather than the physicians.
No stupid. The courts will never determine when viability is.
The court merely established a definition of WHAT viability is. Physicians still and always will be the ones to determine WHEN viability is.
Fifty percent won't matter because they can use this new-fangled ALS and inject artificial surfactant....


I don't know if any of this artificial surfactant talk is true but if it is and the technology was readily available, then a physician would have to consider it in determining viability. Don't like it ? Then petition the court to get the definition changed.
to bring the newborn to viability.
NO ! You STILL don't get it. If artificial surfactant was available and a physician felt it could enable a fetus to survive, then he would deem the fetus viable and he would inject it. It would not be injected to "bring the fetus to viability". It would already BE viable. If it were not viable then it would not survive no matter what medical assistance is provided.....and that includes any hypothetical artificial surfactant.
I brought this up to you before, but you and glossed (misunderstood, ignored, poked fun of, or myriad other options) right over it.
Great you brought it up before. Want a medal ?
What does it change ?
Do you see this Doc? Or are you going to start flinging ad homs like monkeys fling sh*t?
I saw it... so what ? You still have no idea what you're talking about. Then OR now.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283558 Feb 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nice steal from wiki. Not that you understood it, of course. But you claimed to have learned a lot about AIDS from the media--and you cnnot know anything about it without knowing what t-cells are.
Elise would be a fantastic caregiver; she knows what she's doing and cares about her patients in a professional manner.
<quoted text>
You seem to be wrong. I did not get the information from wiki.
Whatever you say.
Elise would be a horrible caregiver, she has no idea what she's doing and does not care about her patients in a unprofessional manner. Cold hearted woman. Remind me not to have surgery at her hospital. Would that be a community hospital?
When people meet you, can they tell you are gay? Is Elise gay?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283559 Feb 11, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>I've asked this question and the only answer I got was that Jesus only cared about our soul.(?)
Here's the question: If Jesus was alive today, "Would he be against taxing the rich to help the needy?"
No he probably wouldn't. But the rich are already taxed to help the needy. Disproportionately so.
What Jesus likely WOULD be against however, is those who were not really needy but who just preferred to take advantage of others rather than attempt to be become sufficient. As I see it he would despise that the most. And he'd be against one group being singled out disproportionately over others to help the "legitimately" needy.

Do you have a point ?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283560 Feb 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nice steal from wiki. Not that you understood it, of course. But you claimed to have learned a lot about AIDS from the media--and you cnnot know anything about it without knowing what t-cells are.
Elise would be a fantastic caregiver; she knows what she's doing and cares about her patients in a professional manner.
<quoted text>
Didn't see your answer to my question. Who took care of you when you were a baby, if your mother worked? Did you fend for yourself?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283561 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
73% of Americans are Christian, Elsie. Would that be the majority?
So, you're okay with the Muslim theocracies making laws based upon the religion, Islam, for all citizens, including Christians? Those countries have at least a 75% Muslim majority. That fits your argument. Sound okay to you?

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#283562 Feb 11, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be wrong. I did not get the information from wiki.
Whatever you say.
Elise would be a horrible caregiver, she has no idea what she's doing and does not care about her patients in a unprofessional manner. Cold hearted woman. Remind me not to have surgery at her hospital. Would that be a community hospital?
When people meet you, can they tell you are gay? Is Elise gay?
You are a liar and you sure aren't being a good Christian, right now. You have no way of knowing what you just posted. I forgive you. I hope things get better for you. Yes, I am happy. Thanks for asking :-)
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283563 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text> You are a liar and you sure aren't being a good Christian, right now. You have no way of knowing what you just posted. I forgive you. I hope things get better for you. Yes, I am happy. Thanks for asking :-)
How am i lying?

No, I am not being a good christian. How is one a good christian? I have no interest in being christian.

You forgive me? Thank you, but what did I do wrong?

Yes, things are getting better for me.???

You are happy? That's wonderful and good to know. I am sure the lord is smiling and doing everything possible for you. You are blessed.

BTW - Calling me a liar is not what I would call christian like. You might want to repent.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#283564 Feb 11, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're okay with the Muslim theocracies making laws based upon the religion, Islam, for all citizens, including Christians? Those countries have at least a 75% Muslim majority. That fits your argument. Sound okay to you?
To tell you the truth - I can't do anything about it. Can you?

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox is going down (Dec '09) 10 min Norm Chaney 5,749
Black murder rate 40 min Nbam 5
africa23 - _tel od out lo in protest is spy whyte 1 hr africhaiti 1
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 1 hr Paul Yanks 311,695
Jay Z, Russell Simmons Meet With New York Gover... 2 hr simou94 16
Unemployment rate at 5.8%, great job Obama 2 hr reality is a crutch 7
Whine and Cheese: Where are the crackers (Dec '09) 4 hr barrack 657

Jackson-Heights News Video

Jackson-Heights Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:12 am PST

NBC Sports 4:12AM
Odell Beckham picks up $10,000 fine
NBC Sports 4:41 AM
Rex Ryan thinks Aaron Donald can't hold Sheldon Richardson's jock
NFL 7:57 AM
Geno Smith: I see myself as Jets' QB for a long time
NBC Sports 8:18 AM
Geno Smith: I'm part of the problem, I want to be part of the solution
Bleacher Report 4:00 PM
Beckham Definition of Special Talent