Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326538 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

#283759 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It is! I wonder what artificial amniotic fluid would be comprised of after reading they were working on that, too.
Thanks, again, Foo.
(there is much i could say regarding Josie's Story, but maybe on FB instead)
<3
Maybe the same thing real amniotic fluid is comprised of: "The main constituents are water and electrolytes (99%) together with glucose, lipids from the fetal lungs, proteins with bactericide properties and flaked-off fetal epithelium cells (they make a prenatal diagnosis of the infantile karyotype possible)."

"Amniotic fluid is 98-99% water."

Nothing that's an anesthetic, as you claimed and didn't prove, that's for sure.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283760 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you think our laws came from, when this country was founded?
You're deflecting.

Not only does your question have nothing to do with our discussion, but when this country was founded, abortion was legal.

Now, do please explain to us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#283761 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable."
No, that's not his argument. You people don't have adult reading comprehension skills whatsoever.
STO: "Her argument is that if an artificial womb were needed, the fetus isn't viable, as it wouldn't be viable in a natural womb."
No, that wasn't my argument either.
Feel free to clarify. And please explain where, what I misunderstood. That would be most helpful.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#283762 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You might as well be from another country, too, if you think secular society is going to stand for women in the 21st century dying during childbirth because "God willed it" when in reality what happened was abortion was criminalize.
PS I wasn't raped last time I was examined. So your claim is a bit exaggerated.
Everytime the doctors hurt us or cut us, God has to heal
us.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283763 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"She's talking about viability of a newborn infant, which is different than viability of a fetus."
What is the difference?
Honest question. I think they are one in the same.
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. RvW was talking about a FETUS when stating the medical definition of viability with regard to abortion, and because it's about abortion, it's about a human life IN UTERO. That wasn't about viability of an already born human life.

That's where the distinction is and one all PCers have missed and have argued based on ignorance of those facts.

Determining the viability of a born human isn't the same as determining viability of a fetus in utero. Both has to do with potential to survive, but in RvW and in the abortion issue it's about a fetus not a newborn.

A viable fetus and a viable newborn are 2 different things because it's 2 different phases of human life. One is in utero, the other is born. You people keep saying a fetus isn't the same as a born human being, yet with viability you suddenly want to equate the two? They aren't the same and is why viability of a fetus isn't the same as of a born infant, but neither fetus nor born infant is less of a human life than the other.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#283764 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, with ALS, per Doc. But that's not what Katie understands. She's talking about viability of a newborn infant, which is different than viability of a fetus. She's the one not grasping the distinction.
"Artificial womb" is immaterial to a discussion on viability. You placed viability at 8 weeks in your hypothetical, and that's not going to happen.
Hypotheticals that have no basis in truth are ridiculous. Yours included "viable" when human life goes "from embryo to fetus" which = 8 weeks gestation. Not a realistic basis and is why your hypothetical is irrelevant.
How does one apply ALS to a fetus?

Perhaps when you can answer that question, you will then see where I've been coming from and realize it's material to this discussion of medical and legal viability and where it is headed in the future due to advanced technology.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283765 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its all according to how you wish to interpet the bible.
I've not read where it says the moon produces its own light, but the moon does produce light.
All must come from somewhere.
Even the sun must have some "source ",have you ever wondered how the sun can continue to burn and burn, yet never burn up?
Do you realize how big the sun is?
How much energy it takes and gives.
How the earth just floats around, along with all planets.
Prove adam wasn't made from dust.
After one dies, what happens to their body?
Given enough time, they go back to dust.
With all the amazing things in the world, it makes me wonder why people dumb it down to the very basics.
I guess you've never read Genesis.

"Prove adam wasn't made from dust." It's actually up to you to back up your claim with evidence, but we know you don't understand science or logic so there is no point trying to debate with you.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283766 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to clarify. And please explain where, what I misunderstood. That would be most helpful.
Why, STO? From experience, I know that when we waste our time doing so, you just turn around and lie about what we've posted anyway.

I'm telling you that you were wrong about our positions. Our positions have already been posted and people who can read for comprehension wouldn't have gotten from it what you did. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Anonymous

United States

#283767 Feb 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're deflecting.
Not only does your question have nothing to do with our discussion, but when this country was founded, abortion was legal.
Now, do please explain to us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time.
That's a good question, but if a person walks into an abortion clinic and kills a woman, that is sitting in the waiting room, to have an abortion, then that person will be charged with 2 murders instead of just 1.

It is a can of worms I don't believe those judges really knew they were opening when they made abortion legal.

Either the unborn child, is someone to be protected, or it is nothing more then a medical choice, and if a woman chooses to remain pregnant, then she should get no special treatment at her work, or parking spots at stores.
The list is endless, when you deal with double standards.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283768 Feb 13, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
The doctors backgrounds are in the computer.
The doctors I have been to in Carlsbad never wash their
hands. They should wear gloves.
My doctor told me that I just needed a simple surgery
and then his office wants to take out my uterus.
I told them that it was against God and that I wasn't
going to have any surgery. I will never let them take
out my blood. I have healed and feel great.
Yeah. Okay.
Obskeptic

United States

#283769 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
" Although most PL define the beginning of life at conception, an "embryo" that is conceived, studied, and frozen in the very first stages of development, in a test tube and not the womb, would never meet the legal or scientific definition of "viable"."
You didn't answer the question. You said abortion was "killing a baby". So, do you equate disposal of a frozen embryo with "killing a baby"? Viability is irrelevant to this question.
Actually I did, but in typical liberal fashion you weren't listening. I said when it is in the womb, it is a "baby" and killing it there would be. I'm saying that when it is in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance) in a test tube that it is not a baby, it's an embryo under scientific study. It would not be developed to 8-10+ weeks, injected with saline and then pulled apart a limb at time like an actual abortion does. Is that clear enough for you to understand?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283770 Feb 13, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I did, but in typical liberal fashion you weren't listening. I said when it is in the womb, it is a "baby" and killing it there would be. I'm saying that when it is in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance) in a test tube that it is not a baby, it's an embryo under scientific study. It would not be developed to 8-10+ weeks, injected with saline and then pulled apart a limb at time like an actual abortion does. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
No saline is used and at 8-10 weeks, nothing is torn apart.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283771 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its all according to how you wish to interpet the bible.
I've not read where it says the moon produces its own light, but the moon does produce light.
All must come from somewhere.
Even the sun must have some "source ",have you ever wondered how the sun can continue to burn and burn, yet never burn up?
Do you realize how big the sun is?
How much energy it takes and gives.
How the earth just floats around, along with all planets.
Prove adam wasn't made from dust.
After one dies, what happens to their body?
Given enough time, they go back to dust.
With all the amazing things in the world, it makes me wonder why people dumb it down to the very basics.
Isaiah 30:26 , 13:10 speak of the moons "light", Fundie-master.

Looks like a non-believer can show you a thing or two about your fabled "word of god".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283772 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
"That's a good question,"

Then answer it.

"but if a person walks into an abortion clinic and kills a woman, that is sitting in the waiting room, to have an abortion, then that person will be charged with 2 murders instead of just 1."

Ah, no. There are states where they will be charged with one murder, and one fetal homicide. There are states where they will be charged with one murder, as not all states even have fetal homicide laws. Still, where they do, those laws only kick in at viability in some places, and are always the result of the fetal death occuring during the commission of another crime, murder of, or assault on, the woman.

"It is a can of worms I don't believe those judges really knew they were opening when they made abortion legal."

They didn't "make it legal". They determined that the laws in existence that made abortion completely illegal were unconstitutional, and overturned them. By the way, in most states, there were already exceptions to those laws on the books prior to RvW. In fact, there was only a short period in the history of this country where it was entirely illegal.

"Either the unborn child, is someone to be protected, or it is nothing more then a medical choice, and if a woman chooses to remain pregnant, then she should get no special treatment at her work, or parking spots at stores."

What nonsense.

"The list is endless, when you deal with double standards."

The only double standard here is from your side of the argument. Many of you are not only against a woman having the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant, but against contraceptives, real sex ed in the schools, and welfare programs.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#283773 Feb 13, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Isaiah 30:26 , 13:10 speak of the moons "light", Fundie-master.
Looks like a non-believer can show you a thing or two about your fabled "word of god".
Whether you believe it or not, others do. A healthy percentage of the population believe abortions to be murder. Many are not religious. Religious doctrine will also say that abortions, about 56 million of them now are offerings to Satan. Children are important in the evil that is around us but are abused massively by many of the same who claim to love them. So if you are secular it still exists. If you don't believe, there are still people who do.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283774 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Whether you believe it or not, others do. A healthy percentage of the population believe abortions to be murder. Many are not religious. Religious doctrine will also say that abortions, about 56 million of them now are offerings to Satan. Children are important in the evil that is around us but are abused massively by many of the same who claim to love them. So if you are secular it still exists. If you don't believe, there are still people who do.
So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283775 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
I have yet to see an anti-choice argument that doesn't boil down, even if it takes a little while, to a religious argument.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#283776 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283778 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
Define "healthy percentage", and please list your source for that. As far as I know, there are no polls on that exact question.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283779 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Whether you believe it or not, others do. A healthy percentage of the population believe abortions to be murder. Many are not religious. Religious doctrine will also say that abortions, about 56 million of them now are offerings to Satan. Children are important in the evil that is around us but are abused massively by many of the same who claim to love them. So if you are secular it still exists. If you don't believe, there are still people who do.
What the hell are you blabbing about? I was talking to our new favorite fundie, Gtown, about how the bible says the Moon has it's own light light and how that is incorrect. You can believe whatever you want.

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.

Newington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 43 min Reality Check 1,683,986
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 18 hr Fitius T Bluster 21,382
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Thu Let It Snow 1,671
NAACP For Who? Jan 17 three blocks 1
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) Jan 17 Ken 89
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Jan 16 Into The Night 64,397
News Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim speaks outside the C... Jan 14 America Gentleman... 3

Newington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newington Mortgages