Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[STO]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
No, of course I don't want you to cringe and back away from the debate. I want you to defend your position with the passion that you demonstrate, even if i disagree with it. The unfortunate reality of this computer interaction is that it coarsens the debate in way that is very unproductive. The anonymity allows for some to be extra mean, and extra rude. Trust me, defending a conservative opinion opens you up to some of the forums most arrogant,vicious, and I must add, ignorant and juvenile. It's more fun then watching TV for me, and I am not afraid to offer up my opinion. Like on abortion Katie. I think its killing a baby. My wife and I have two children. The first, my daughter, was not planned, we were not married. Its 26 years later and I have a beautiful daughter that loves us, and thats how it worked out for me. No regrets.

Do you believe disposing of a frozen embryo is also "killing a baby"?

[feces for jesus]

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have one even better, since 100% of people die, why not just appoint a gov branch, that sweeps through the US, weeding out all who don't live up to a certain standard? We could eliminate all handicap people, old people, plus people who are not built the way the group so chooses? Plus they should let me head the whole thing up being blameless. The good news is, the older and more out of shape I get "if possible ",the higher the age, and lower the standard I would use. Think of all the pretty people in the world, and not having to deal with poor folks. Heaven on earth, don't you think feces? Of course your name would need to change, it just wouldn't fit in our new world order. ;)

My name is an excellent song. I'm sure you've heard it.

Continue on with your empty judgements.

[STO]

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
No we cuss at Him to, since we know every child that dies before birth is His doings.
I'm sorry my questions like "do you consider aborting a viable fetus as murder? "Bother you.
Between all the pro choicers and God, we good upright sinless folks don't have much of a chance.:)

"No we cuss at Him to, since we know every child that dies before birth is His doings."

His doings? Cuss at Him?

[The Prince]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh PLEASE. You're just another militant religionist who is mad that you can't FORCE your toxic beliefs on public school students and on the American population in general. Too bad.
If you're so unhappy with the FREEDOM women now have in America, then move to an extremist religious country. You know, like Afghanistan or Iran, a country where women have NO freedom whatsoever. You'd probably fit right in over there.

Please list all the reasons motherhood and pregnancy are bad. I don't think people really understand it like you do.

[The Prince]

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.
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?

This has always been the problem with the probrotion pagan view of abortion. You can't get past viablity. Like the flawed Supreme
Court decision that hinges on "viability", your definition of what is viable, hinges on this "50%" number.

The problmen is, what defines the 50%, how can you be sure you are not killing a viable unobrn child. Could we say that you have no real idea of when viability actually occurs because you have no real clear delfintion of what viabilty means. All of you proabort pagans have different definitions depending on how aggressively proabortion you are.

There is a national law being proposwed that would ban all third trimester abortions unless the mothers life is threatened by the pregnancy. Two doctors would have to agree. Since you put so much stock in "the law". Would you support this law if passed. I am sure that you would.

[Forum]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Late and later term abortions are not the norm. These account for less than 2% of all annual abortions.
Neither do these compare to murder. It is illegal to abort late and later term without cause. Most states have restrictions and strict guidelines to follow.
It doesn't matter if I find it revolting and would not choose it for myself. It doesn't matter if a woman learns late in a wanted pregnancy her fetus is doomed and she decides it is better to abort. Neither does it matter if she is induced prematurely, births a doomed baby, only to watch it until it dies. These things happen outside your control, outside my control, outside the general public's control. Who do you think you are to control these personal, private medical matters?
I mean really?

Do these women know how their baby suffers? They can't hear
their baby screaming in the womb. How dumb.

[Ocean56]

The Prince wrote:

Please list all the reasons motherhood and pregnancy are bad. I don't think people really understand it like you do.

Actually, I believe I have said that pregnancy and motherhood are HARD, not bad, and there are quite a few HARDSHIPS involved with both. Some of the hardships mothers of all ages will face once a baby arrives include -- but are not limited to -- the following:

1. Loss of freedom
2. Loss of sleep
3. Loss of money
4. Loss of education and job/career opportunities
5. Loss of mobility
6. Loss of private time
7. Dealing with colic

There is no escaping the fact that becoming a mother makes a girl’s/woman's life much HARDER and she loses most, if not all, of the benefits and comforts she had before she got pregnant. Too many girls/women are PRESSURED into having children by family members and/or religious community, and purposely aren't told just how very hard motherhood is until AFTER they have had a baby. I think it is high time that changed. If some girls/women decide they don't want the hardships of motherhood, that is fine. The choice for a woman to be childfree is just as valid and respectable as the choice to be a mother.

[Katie]

The Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
This has always been the problem with the probrotion pagan view of abortion. You can't get past viablity. Like the flawed Supreme
Court decision that hinges on "viability", your definition of what is viable, hinges on this "50%" number.
The problmen is, what defines the 50%, how can you be sure you are not killing a viable unobrn child. Could we say that you have no real idea of when viability actually occurs because you have no real clear delfintion of what viabilty means. All of you proabort pagans have different definitions depending on how aggressively proabortion you are.
There is a national law being proposwed that would ban all third trimester abortions unless the mothers life is threatened by the pregnancy. Two doctors would have to agree. Since you put so much stock in "the law". Would you support this law if passed. I am sure that you would.

Banning all third trimester abortions unless the woman's life is threatened is already how it's set up. Most states have restrictions and strict guidelines for these unfortunate events.

Why wouldn't I support a federal ban? Because women would now have a duty to die for the country. Their fetus took precedence over their life. Physicians would be too hesitant to perform an abortion lest they get prosecuted for it.

Catholic countries allow women to die all the time. Their fetuses, too. That what you want for the USA?

Is it murder when the woman dies due to lack of abortion when ending the pregnancy would've saved her?

[Katie]

Forum wrote:

<quoted text>
Do these women know how their baby suffers? They can't hear
their baby screaming in the womb. How dumb.

Do you know how the amniotic fluid acts as an anesthetic? No, apparently you don't. How dumb.

[Ocean56]

Ocean56 wrote:

There is no escaping the fact that becoming a mother makes a girl’s/woman's life much HARDER and she loses most, if not all, of the benefits and comforts she had before she got pregnant. Too many girls/women are PRESSURED into having children by family members and/or religious community, and purposely aren't told just how very hard motherhood is until AFTER they have had a baby. I think it is high time that changed. If some girls/women decide they don't want the hardships of motherhood, that is fine. The choice for a woman to be childfree is just as valid and respectable as the choice to be a mother.

I forgot to add one more thing. Due to the health risks of pregnancy and the hardships of motherhood, the ONLY person who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the WOMAN who is pregnant.

[Obskeptic]

STO wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you believe disposing of a frozen embryo is also "killing a baby"?

Now that was simply a brilliant question. Next!

[Guppy]

This forum is going down the tubes.

The amniotic fluid acts as an anesthetic? Didn't know that.

[cpeter1313]

Screaming? Melodramatic twaddle.

Forum wrote:

<quoted text>
Do these women know how their baby suffers? They can't hear
their baby screaming in the womb. How dumb.

[LiIrabbitfoofoo]

The Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a national law being proposwed that would ban all third trimester abortions unless the mothers life is threatened by the pregnancy..

Psssssst.....NEWSFLASH.....LTA 's are ALREADY banned in the third trimester except for severe medical issues, and has been for years.

[LiIrabbitfoofoo]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that was simply a brilliant question. Next!

Why are you afraid to answer? Its not a difficult question.

[lil Lily]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know how the amniotic fluid acts as an anesthetic? No, apparently you don't. How dumb.

Prove that claim. Don't come back with expecting others to do it for you.

"...amniotic fluid acts as an anesthetic..."

Prove it.

[lil Lily]

STO wrote:

<quoted text>
" A fetus is considered viable or not BEFORE birth."
"viability of a fetus isn't something that needs to be "reached" AFTER being born"
Doc and I discussed this a while back. I offered a hypothetical "artificial womb", as a future medical technology.
Given the hypothetical...
My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable", as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus, rendering no need to make that determination before birth.
I think that is ridiculous because essentially the word "viable" becomes meaningless in the scheme of current debate.
Tho, it fits the definition.
The fetus absolutely would not be considered viable without this ALS (artifical womb), and even with this ALS it would not meet what we consider viable, today ( a womb is a womb is a womb).
Does that help?
(I know, I know .. ad homs, right?)

STO: "I offered a hypothetical "artificial womb", as a future medical technology.
Given the hypothetical...
My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable", as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus, rendering no need to make that determination before birth.
I think that is ridiculous because essentially the word "viable" becomes meaningless in the scheme of current debate."

No, it's ridiculous because it's a senseless hypothetical to begin with, and what's ridiculous in your hypothetical is that you're expecting viablity at 8 weeks. When it goes "from embryo to fetus".

You came up with a senseless hypothetical that you expect others to make sense of, which is stupid.

Viability is about a determition made at a certain gestational point as to the potential of a fetus surviving outside of the womb. A determination made while that human life is in the womb, still a fetus, and not a newborn infant. Katie and some other PC are arguing vaibility of a newborn, and newborns "reaching" viability. The premise in their arguments about viability is wrong to begin with. They will never be right in the argument of viability i an abortion discussion as long as they argue viability as being about a born infant, when it's about a fetus in utero.

Your silly hypothetical is immaterial.

[STO]

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Now that was simply a brilliant question. Next!

Ok. Go ahead and answer.

[LiIrabbitfoofoo]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>

No, it's ridiculous because it's a senseless hypothetical to begin with,.

No Moron Lynniekins, its not ridiculous OR sensless. In fact, in a few short years, we'll have them. Its already happened with shark embryo's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21905089

http://www.thesciencenews.info/2011/04/artifi...

But then, we know you dont give a shit about actual discussion, you'd MUCH rather dismiss anything ANYONE that's on your personal shit list as being "ridiculous" even tho its reality.

[STO]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
STO: "I offered a hypothetical "artificial womb", as a future medical technology.
Given the hypothetical...
My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable", as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus, rendering no need to make that determination before birth.
I think that is ridiculous because essentially the word "viable" becomes meaningless in the scheme of current debate."
No, it's ridiculous because it's a senseless hypothetical to begin with, and what's ridiculous in your hypothetical is that you're expecting viablity at 8 weeks. When it goes "from embryo to fetus".
You came up with a senseless hypothetical that you expect others to make sense of, which is stupid.
Viability is about a determition made at a certain gestational point as to the potential of a fetus surviving outside of the womb. A determination made while that human life is in the womb, still a fetus, and not a newborn infant. Katie and some other PC are arguing vaibility of a newborn, and newborns "reaching" viability. The premise in their arguments about viability is wrong to begin with. They will never be right in the argument of viability i an abortion discussion as long as they argue viability as being about a born infant, when it's about a fetus in utero.
Your silly hypothetical is immaterial.

"Viability is about a determition made at a certain gestational point as to the potential of a fetus surviving outside of the womb."

With ALS, per Doc.

The point at which a fetus is "viable" has changed, IF one considers medical technology today as opposed 30 years ago.

Medical technology may one day include an artifical womb.

So, your ad homs aside, when is a fetus viable?