Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,223
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
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284966 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The Clintons and Obama want to decrease the number of abortions.
Why shouldn't it be more difficult to get? Might create more of an incentive to prevent it.
Do you think healthcare, in general, should be more difficult to get? Like treatment for lung cancer, for example?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284967 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Foo -- did you catch where lilLynne proclaimed she was not interested in having this discussion? That it was a hypothetical I brought up with Doc, blah, blah, blah.
I said the hypothetical you used about artificial wombs one day allowing an 8 week fetus to be viable was ridiculous, and was irrelevant to anything sensible in the here and now. I said I wasn't interested in the sci-fi discussion you were having about that, because I wasn't and am still not.

You had stated, based on your own ridiculous hypothetical of a fetus being viable at 8 weeks, that "viability" could become a non-issue, to which Doc replied that it could mean "abortion" would be a non-issue as well.

Foo stated that abortion would still be an issue and explained why. Doc said "point taken".

I disagreed with Doc that she had a point, and explained why, which was; based on what you and Doc had previously posted about artificial wombs; viability of a fetus at 8 weeks; and viability being a non-issue.

If "viability" would be a non-issue, then it stands to reason so would abortion. If abortion would still be an issue, as Foo stated and for the reasons she stated, then logic states viability would also still be an issue.

I wasn't posting to Foo or you, but to Doc. You're not relevant to what I said to Doc, and neither is Foo. She's already explained herself and I still disagree that she had a point because her point made was made based only on artificial wombs, and not the entire hypothetical you and Doc had been discussing.

She, and now you, are trying to make more of it than it was, and that's just something everyone who's reasonable knows you fools do.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284968 Feb 19, 2013
Post 284403
STO wrote:

<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.

Doc wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284969 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the hypothetical you used about artificial wombs one day allowing an 8 week fetus to be viable was ridiculous, and was irrelevant to anything sensible in the here and now. I said I wasn't interested in the sci-fi discussion you were having about that, because I wasn't and am still not.
You had stated, based on your own ridiculous hypothetical of a fetus being viable at 8 weeks, that "viability" could become a non-issue, to which Doc replied that it could mean "abortion" would be a non-issue as well.
Foo stated that abortion would still be an issue and explained why. Doc said "point taken".
I disagreed with Doc that she had a point, and explained why, which was; based on what you and Doc had previously posted about artificial wombs; viability of a fetus at 8 weeks; and viability being a non-issue.
If "viability" would be a non-issue, then it stands to reason so would abortion. If abortion would still be an issue, as Foo stated and for the reasons she stated, then logic states viability would also still be an issue.
I wasn't posting to Foo or you, but to Doc. You're not relevant to what I said to Doc, and neither is Foo. She's already explained herself and I still disagree that she had a point because her point made was made based only on artificial wombs, and not the entire hypothetical you and Doc had been discussing.
She, and now you, are trying to make more of it than it was, and that's just something everyone who's reasonable knows you fools do.
Hush now.

Go take a nap.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284970 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.
Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest.
Now, how about these statements you made:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Can you agree that there is no difference?
STO: "Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.
Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest."

Putting it to rest would be on you, since you're the one who began it and kept it going, in spite of the fact that I explained that whole thing before you even started with the stupidity about my contradicting myself. I led you to the post in which I clarified what I was saying, and made it before you started in about it, then you continued on with the "you contradicted youself" stupidity.

My 2 statements:~If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS.

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."~

STO: "Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Can you agree that there is no difference?"

I can't Dick and Jane it more than I have. There is a difference, and it's an obvious one, except to those who haven't got the adult intelligence and sense to grasp it.

Fetus isn't born, infant is.

Viability or a fetus is determined before birth.
Viability of an infant is determined aftyer being born.

Viability of a fetus is what the abortion issue is about. Viability of a born infant isn't what the abortion issue is about.

Fetus has already reached viability in utero, when a physician determines it's a viable fetus.

That isn't about a born infant. It's only PC dimwits who don't get that.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284971 Feb 19, 2013
*viability [of] a fetus

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284972 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what Katie said. See where she writes, "if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS"...
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
**********
Looks like you agree with us, nitwit.
: D
Wrong, as usual. None of you can read for comprehension.

Viability of a born infant has nothing to do with a fetus or abortion.

That's where nitwits like you and Katie make their mistake about what viability means in the abortion issue, and exactly why you people prove you don't understand anything about it.

A fetus needing to "reach viability" is something that needs to be done IN UTERO and IS already done IN UTERO when a physician determines a fetus is viable. So, the claims that viability has to do with "reaching viability" once born are patently false, and senseless.

A born infant is a different stage of that human life, and that's exactly WHERE it all makes a difference. Something pea brains like you, Katie, Petey, Chicky et al are too ignorant to understand.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284973 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

You had stated,... that "viability" could become a non-issue,...
No, I didn't.
lil Lily wrote:
Post 284403
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.
Doc wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
STO: "viability" could become practically limitless"

How in the hell can you copy my quote then claim the quote says something enirely different? I never said "non-issue".

What kinda crap you tryin' tuh pull here?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284974 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Hush now.
Go take a nap.
Just admit you were a senseless idiot, like a big boy, and you won't have to come back trying to be witty, when you don't have the ability.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284975 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.
Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest."
Putting it to rest would be on you, since you're the one who began it and kept it going, in spite of the fact that I explained that whole thing before you even started with the stupidity about my contradicting myself. I led you to the post in which I clarified what I was saying, and made it before you started in about it, then you continued on with the "you contradicted youself" stupidity.
My 2 statements:~If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS.
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."~
STO: "Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Can you agree that there is no difference?"
I can't Dick and Jane it more than I have. There is a difference, and it's an obvious one, except to those who haven't got the adult intelligence and sense to grasp it.
Fetus isn't born, infant is.
Viability or a fetus is determined before birth.
Viability of an infant is determined aftyer being born.
Viability of a fetus is what the abortion issue is about. Viability of a born infant isn't what the abortion issue is about.
Fetus has already reached viability in utero, when a physician determines it's a viable fetus.
That isn't about a born infant. It's only PC dimwits who don't get that.
You did contradict yourself, but we're moving on from that.

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."

Look at your statement number 1 >>>>> If a fetus is "removed" from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT.

If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.

There is NO DIFFERENCE

Why can't you agree there is no difference between a BORN INFANT and a BORN INFANT. Neither are a FETUS. FETUS "removed from the womb" <<<< YOUR WORDS >>>> If it's removed and on ALS, IT IS BORN!

Hello??? Are you so far gone you can't grasp you're own words?
Gtown71

United States

#284976 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just becouse it happens in nature doesn't make it natural."
Yes, actually, it does.
You're dumb as dirt.
Are you saying that just becouse "some " animals exibit homosexual behaviors that it is natural for all animals, or humans?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284977 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, as usual.
No. I'm right. As usual.

Katie wrote: "Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability."

"lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit. "

A "newborn" is a "BORN infant". Just like Katie said.

What is wrong with you? Push the reset button, will ya?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284979 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity began when the followers of Christ believed he was who he said he was while he was here on earth. He was the first to spread the gospel.
But I do agree with you that unless someone is in the process of seeking God, no amount of witnessing will convince them to do so.
It's a very personal experience. But it also can't be kept a secret. Otherwise, Christians in many parts of the world wouldn't risk their lives proclaiming to be one after someone shared the gospel. That's how real it is.
Have you read about the man who is imprisoned in Iran, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and became a preacher?
Again, that's how real it is.
None of this answers my question, or even addresses the point.

What point in telling people things they already know, or can learn easily if they wish?

And there WERE no gospels when Jesus supposedly lived.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284980 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
It's why I also support the morning after pill long before a heart starts beating.
The problem is studies have shown the majority of women who use this pill are white educated women.
It was Margaret Sanger who first introduced eugenics and abortion as an option in the U.S. primarily because of her observations of unwanted children in the black community and to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."
Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which evolved into the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952.
Just a fact.
Sanger was against abortion.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284981 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant -teen-wins-abortion-battle-150 554993--abc-news-topstories.ht ml
How many teens would not have been strong enough to go this route? Many would have been so scared, their parents would have succeeded in coercing them to abort, because abortion is legal. It may be illegal toforce someone to abort, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. oit happens more often than PCers are willing to admit.
"A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.
Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.
As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.
The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.
"We are extremely happy with the judge's decision today and we are very proud of our teenage client for being strong enough to stand against her parents to save her unborn child's life," Greg Terra, president of the Texas Center for Defense of Life, said in a blog post on the group's website.
Attorneys filed a lawsuit on the teen's behalf earlier this month arguing that her parents "are violating her federal constitutional rights to carry her child to term by coercing her to have an abortion with both verbal and physical threats and harassment."
The teen, identified in the lawsuit only as R.E.K. since she is a minor, was "beside herself" when she called the center for help, her lawyer Stephen Casey told ABCNews.com last week. The group claims it has previously represented teens in similar situations and won their cases.
"These girls are in a bind, particularly in a situation where their parents are forcing them to do something they don't want to do," Casey said. "Regardless of the [situation], that's her parents and she should expect support from them in this situation, not resentment and anger."
When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."' "
Maybe this will force Texas into this century. In my state, a pregnant teen has sole decision-making powers over her own body regardless of what her parents want. That should be how it is in more states. But the rights and responsibilities come with teens being able to make their own medical decisions at an early age -- which includes mental health such as counseling. So it's not all rainbows and sunshine when the same teen can refuse treatment and/or refuse pregnancy against the parents' wishes. It does go both ways when these become law.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284982 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense.
In other words, there is no source, and you're just making up whatever nonsense you wish to pretend is real. Got it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#284983 Feb 19, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that just becouse "some " animals exibit homosexual behaviors that it is natural for all animals, or humans?
No, I'm saying anything found in nature, is natural. Your original claim is that it wasn't natural because it's not found in nature. You were proven wrong, and are now trying to claim that even though it is found in nature, it's not natural. Make up what passes for your mind.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284984 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit.
The viability of a fetus is BEFORE being born, while in utero, and something it's already "reached" BEFORE being born.
You numbskulls will never get it. You're still wrong, and always will be so long as you think viability of a [fetus] has to be "reached" [after] birth. A fetus isn't born, and infant. Viability of a fetus and abortion doesn't have anything to do with a newborn infant.
I have always discussed born infants "reaching viability" and in the same manner you've said, "...eventually be able to survive without ALS..." which makes the quoted phrases synonymous.

I have given examples of a physician deeming a fetus viable, birthing it, attaching it to ALs, only for the infant to die. Which means it didn't reach viability. There is no difference here, regardless of how willing you are to split hairs.

Please be done with misunderstanding what others post and then criticizing them ad infinitum even when you've been shown your mistake. It's a new day, a new year even. Let's move on.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284985 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as medical reality goes, yes. The infant has the "potential to survive" or will "eventually be able to survive" is what we mean when we use the term "reach viability". Because given ALS, if the infant does not survive, then the "potential" did not bear out. Thus, the infant was not viable -- even tho, legally it must have been "deemed" viable to qualify for ALS, as Doc said.
Yes! Hopefully it's cleared up and we all can move on to other interesting topics.

:)
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284986 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm right. As usual.
Katie wrote: "Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability."
"lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit. "
A "newborn" is a "BORN infant". Just like Katie said.
What is wrong with you? Push the reset button, will ya?
LOLOL

:*

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
Giants talk back (Dec '06) 15 min Black Mamba 3,074
jets talk back (Dec '07) 19 min jimi-yank 9,348
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 48 min the Don 309,293
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 1 hr The Man 15,573
Free Pizza Coupons 1 hr Raymond 1
Let's play a game (May '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 1,039
Constant parades on 37th Ave. ae a constant pai... Oct 18 truthteller 1

Jackson-Heights News Video

Jackson-Heights Dating
Find my Match

Jackson-Heights Jobs

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 ]