Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,230
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
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284163 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I posted to you the entire post that has been deleted 3 times now. I removed the links. let me know it you see it.
It's # 284160
I see it, LNM.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284165 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I posted to you the entire post that has been deleted 3 times now. I removed the links. let me know it you see it.
It's # 284160
Still up so far;

http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...

Good evening all...Happy Friday!
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#284166 Feb 15, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question until this post.
You say an embryo is a baby when it is inside a womb, but it is not a baby when it is inside a test tube.
So, you're cool with disposing of a frozen embryo, because to you that's not "killing a baby".
It has the potential to gestate to term. Both do. Why is one more valuable than the other, to you?
Don't we all have the same brain? Why do they freeze embryos?
Stan wants to be God?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284167 Feb 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it, LNM.
Yes! I have prevailed!

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#284168 Feb 15, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Still up so far;
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...
Good evening all...Happy Friday!
To you as well!
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#284169 Feb 15, 2013
We all have had to suffer for what they did to Jesus.

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284170 Feb 15, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't we all have the same brain? Why do they freeze embryos?
Stan wants to be God?
Ah man...

That dude "Stan" is at it again!!!

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284171 Feb 15, 2013
Forum wrote:
We all have had to suffer for what they did to Jesus.
"They" whom...?

Wasn't the "Passion" and subsequent crucifixion Jesus endured supposed to be a part of the overall "plan" for the salvation of humanity?

If God sent his "only begotten son" to "bear the sins of the world" and die on our behalf, why is it necessary that "we have all had to suffer for what they did to Jesus?"

Doesn't that "negate" his "sacrifice?"
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284172 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! I have prevailed!
Victory!
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#284173 Feb 15, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"They" whom...?
Wasn't the "Passion" and subsequent crucifixion Jesus endured supposed to be a part of the overall "plan" for the salvation of humanity?
If God sent his "only begotten son" to "bear the sins of the world" and die on our behalf, why is it necessary that "we have all had to suffer for what they did to Jesus?"
Doesn't that "negate" his "sacrifice?"
I would be angry.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284174 Feb 15, 2013
Stan's not a bad guy; he just had an abusive father.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah man...
That dude "Stan" is at it again!!!

“That rug tied the room”

Since: Aug 09

together--did it not...?

#284175 Feb 15, 2013
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be angry.
With whom--and why...?

Also, from whose point-of-view are you speculating...God, or Jesus?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284177 Feb 15, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
"There is no way to quantify what is 50% or what is 48%....or what is 52%. One physicians 50% may be another's 45% or another's 55%."
So, under what authority do you make the statement that "[t]here is nothing that exists on this earth that would ever validate Bitter's patently ridiculous statement[;]"
The authority of logic and common sense.
your contention that "the basic premise [is] that a physician must first conclude that an infant possesses the minimal basic lung function to survive before he applies medical assistance[?]"
And you disagree with this ? What physician would conclude that an infant could not possibly benefit from medical assistance....and then apply medical assistance ?
Are you a physician, Doc?
Nope. Are you an attorney ?(Rhetorical)
If not; who are you to say what is the "minimal basic lung function to survive[,]" or that such needs to be reached "before [a doctor] applies medical assistance[?]"
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.
Bitner's statement, paraphrased, of course, was that medical assistance can be administered to help a preemie reach viability.
Yep that's it. It sounds even more ridiculous when you say it.
And you say this statement is wrong,
It's not only wrong it's absurd. And not because I say it is.
ipso facto, when you don't have the qualification to make a judgment on that statement, especially given your own statement above.
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.
BTW, kudos to you! Thanks for taking my bait, hook line and sinker, and finding the post where I state that a preemie on medical assistance is already viable.
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.
You've already agreed that the exact point of viability is unquantifiable,
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.
so in a manner of speaking, you've validated Bitner's statement.
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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284178 Feb 15, 2013
(continued)
This is not a David & Goliath match up cara 'e culo. You can split hairs all you want, but bottom line, you're not an ObGyn, or a Pediatrician, despite that you play a "Doc" on Topix.
With that in mind, I'm going to amend my previous statement and say that a preemie on medical assistance is either already viable, or has been deemed potentially viable by someone that knows more about infants than you and me,
You should have stuck with your unamended version. It was closer to being accurate. There is no such thing as a "potentially viable" infant. A born infant is either viable ( with OR without medical assistance ) or it is not.
Only a fetus still in utero can be "potentially viable". A 10 week old fetus....as long as it remains in utero...is potentially viable.
or even my wife, since she's a Physiatrist, and not a Pediatrician. Neither Courts, nor dictionary publishers, interfere with how a doctor practices medicine, especially when he/she is acting in the scope of his/her medical training, judgment and/or experience.
So, when push comes to shove, who cares whether you, or me, or anyone else, calls a fetus non-viable. If the attending physician says otherwise, medical assistance will be administered. Fact is, however, you have expressly conceded to my position with regard to the lack of REQUIREMENT of medical assistance for viability to exist.
There was no point to concede. I've never considered medical assistance to be a requirement for viability. How stupid is that ? Who would ever consider an infant born at 36 weeks that needed no artificial support to survive...to be non viable ?
My position has always been that the need for medical assistance does not preclude a determination of viability.
Doc, if you think you've "won;" what have you won? The only thing you've managed to do is display a much higher, and misguided disposition, to go find a post to "prove" someone else wrong, where it doesn't matter; in an anonymous internet forum. As if such was some sort of overly coveted title.
Go on and enjoy yourself Doc. Be sure to get Sassy, or Lynne to cash your "chips" for you. You'll probably have enough to buy your son more sandbags and shutters.
I don't think I've won anything. But I have demonstrated that I am right. And for a guy who's essentially written friggin treatises on here in an attempt to prove he was right, I wouldn't make little of that. It comes off as supremely hypocritical.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284179 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a repost of my previously deleted post to Doc. I copied it off my post list from my profile.
Who the F is protecting Doc.
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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284180 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is again minus the links...
Doc.."No you didn't. I asked for the post # with Post 283584, you responded with your "still silence" with Post 283614. There is nothing in between."
Really??? Doc Degall wrote: <quoted text> "I may have. I'm only human. But after this post I went back and looked again and still couldn't find it. Can I have a post # please ?"
Long Night Moon..."#2834 99"
That was post #283586 Yet again you prove to me that you're either really clueless or playing games. We went through this before and you were wrong then too. And HERE is my actual answer to your question...
LNM..."Point 1. It is not illegal to protest against laws or work to change laws. At that time obtaining or performing an abortion was illegal, but speaking against the abortion law was not illegal. Women at that time would know abortion was illegal, and so wouldn't be surprised when they couldn't obtain one. They would be within their rights to work at changing the law, but not actually getting an abortion, according to the law. Tell me this...if a woman got some sort of abortion prior to 1973 was she prosecuted for murder? Or just for breaking a law? Point 2. What IS the criteria for being considered alive? Does a z/e/f that is depending on another functioning body to be sustained alive according to the criteria? "There is not an unequivocal definition of life so to be considered alive an organism must meet all or at least most of the following criteria." "1. Maintenance of homeostasis or regulation of the internal environment of the cell. 2. Organization, being composed of one or more of the basic unit of life the cell. 3. Posses a metabolism, the ability to convert both chemicals and energy into cell components. Anabolism (cell growth) vs catabolsim ( organic matter decay). 4. Growth maintenance of a higher rate of Anabolism than catabolism. Increasing the size of many of its parts. 5. Adaptation the ability to change over time in response to stimuli in the organisms environment. 6.Response to stimuli 7. Reproduction, the ability of that organism to produce new organisms of the same type." (link deleted)
The question is not "if" a z/e/f is alive, but WHEN the z/e/f fits the criteria for being considered alive. But again the criteria is "is not an unequivocal definition of life". To render a decision on RvW the SC would have to answer the question of when life begins so they answered it, but that doesn't mean they are right. The SC is not infallible." And the link to my post... And it indicates #283499...as I stated in my other post. Now I suppose you'll convenient miss THIS post too. How many more times do I have to make you look like a fool, Doc? I've answered your questions. YOUR "MO" is to pretend to not see my posts and then lie about it.
Hey....why wasn't this post removed Mr. Moderator ? We had a deal !

I can't possibly answer this !!!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284181 Feb 15, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
LNM..."Point 1. It is not illegal to protest against laws or work to change laws. At that time obtaining or performing an abortion was illegal, but speaking against the abortion law was not illegal. Women at that time would know abortion was illegal, and so wouldn't be surprised when they couldn't obtain one. They would be within their rights to work at changing the law, but not actually getting an abortion, according to the law.
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.
Tell me this...if a woman got some sort of abortion prior to 1973 was she prosecuted for murder? Or just for breaking a law?
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.
Point 2. What IS the criteria for being considered alive? Does a z/e/f that is depending on another functioning body to be sustained alive according to the criteria? "There is not an unequivocal definition of life so to be considered alive an organism must meet all or at least most of the following criteria." "1. Maintenance of homeostasis or regulation of the internal environment of the cell. 2. Organization, being composed of one or more of the basic unit of life the cell. 3. Posses a metabolism, the ability to convert both chemicals and energy into cell components. Anabolism (cell growth) vs catabolsim ( organic matter decay). 4. Growth maintenance of a higher rate of Anabolism than catabolism. Increasing the size of many of its parts. 5. Adaptation the ability to change over time in response to stimuli in the organisms environment. 6.Response to stimuli 7. Reproduction, the ability of that organism to produce new organisms of the same type."
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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284182 Feb 15, 2013
(continued)
The question is not "if" a z/e/f is alive, but WHEN the z/e/f fits the criteria for being considered alive. But again the criteria is "is not an unequivocal definition of life". To render a decision on RvW the SC would have to answer the question of when life begins so they answered it,
No they did NOT answer it. That is the point. They specifically stated in their decision that they "need not determine the difficult question of when life begins." And no where in their decision do they say anything to indicate that they've determined when life actually begins.
But yet they rendered a decision that determined when life did NOT exist...and that was pre-viability. Because they affirmed the right to abort without restriction prior to that point. They would not have been able to do that without implicitly agreeing that life did not exist at that point. They contradicted themselves.
but that doesn't mean they are right. The SC is not infallible."
I'm not asking the SC to be infallible....just not to be hypocritical. Don't say there is no need and you are not going to determine when life begins, and then render a decision that does just that.
And the link to my post... And it indicates #283499...as I stated in my other post. Now I suppose you'll convenient miss THIS post too. How many more times do I have to make you look like a fool, Doc? I've answered your questions. YOUR "MO" is to pretend to not see my posts and then lie about it.
Get over yourself. I never pretend not to see posts.....especially the psycho babble you call posts. If I say I haven't seen them that means I haven't seen them.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284183 Feb 15, 2013
Peter is avoiding me because he knows he lied.

Hope he has a fabulous time with his friends this weekend.

Be safe!
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284185 Feb 15, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw his answer. Why didn't you?
Do you sound like Dori?
"just keep swimming, just keep swimming..."
If you saw his answer, what did it say?

Why didn't I see it. I've been drinking quite a bit. Words are kind of fuzzy.

Yes, I sound like Dori. Well, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Why are you answering for Peter? Is he afraid of me?

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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Tony Rome 1,125,474
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 47,488
Overpaid Firefighters (Sep '10) 6 hr Big Bruno 392
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr JOEL 70,024
crimestoppers 18 hr Bcb 1
Review: G8 Van Lines Sun Jessie Ruiz 4
Review: Travel Options Inc (Sep '11) Oct 18 maria 123
Pompano Beach Dating
Find my Match

Pompano Beach Jobs

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pompano Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pompano Beach

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]