Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311864 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

#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

Auburn, 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

Auburn, 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

Auburn, 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

Auburn, 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

:*

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284987 Feb 19, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Yet another person who thinks Lily is an a~hole. Why am I not surprised.
No reason why you should be.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284988 Feb 19, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just me. DARE to disagree with her about ANYTHING, no matter how petty, and you'll incur her wrath - LOL As ineffectual as that wrath is.
She tries to browbeat people into agreeing with her and when that doesn't work she turns up the obnoxiousness even more.

Where are Chooselife and Mary?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284989 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanger was against abortion.
She was on the fence based on her own statements and writings over the years.

It is ironic that the woman who started Planned Parenthood said this about abortion:“It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”[The Nation, Jan. 27, 1932]

This is contradictory to giving out abortion information in the first edition of her birth control methods pamphlet, Family Limitation, published in 1914.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284990 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, there is no source, and you're just making up whatever nonsense you wish to pretend is real. Got it.
Common sense - sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

Simple perception.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284991 Feb 19, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Another gay pagan twit being an ass. You think you are superior with your secular paganism but you come off as an ass.
Remember years ago when you posted under the name Wise One and ranted about religious zealots? And you would come back as Ignorance is Bliss and agree with yourself?

Times sure do change.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284992 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think healthcare, in general, should be more difficult to get? Like treatment for lung cancer, for example?
Assuming you mean all those with lung cancer are smokers, they only kill themselves.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284993 Feb 19, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Your answer confirms you are about as Christian as the other proabort pagans on this forum. You Sir, are no
Christan.
You Sir, are no judge of who is a Christian.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284994 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The two greatest commandments are to love God with all our hearts and minds and to love each other as ourselves.
It's all about love.
The Golden Rule.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min Grey Ghost 1,431,588
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 22 min TRD 71,049
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 61,466
Anthony Rosser, Mike Spinella, Andrew Rosser & ... 5 hr Moron 55
News Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School custodians... (May '09) 9 hr MrTripsOnTheory 191
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 12 hr Barmsweb 72,037
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Fri Realtimeloser 98,197

Pompano Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pompano Beach Mortgages