Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,214
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

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288224 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> If the bible is "okay" with ripping women's wombs open and dashing infants heads against rocks (rolls eyes), then it MUST be acceptable for that practice today.
Why are moms in prison for killing their born? God says it's okay. Right?
You people will do or use anything to justify killing the innocent.
Shall we find out what God has to say about killing the innocent? Or about a child in the womb? Or what God ssys about killing?. Nah......STO won't do that. He won't even answer Gtowns simple question asked of him SEVERAL times. Why ? It doesn't suit his agenda what God says about that.
His Mom aborted and he is desperately trying to justify it. His Mom is unrepentant and if he really loves her he will pray for her. He is also misleading his fellow proaborts. He should be telling the truth and leading them to God with messages of love and forgiveness.
"If the bible is "okay" with ripping women's wombs open and dashing infants heads against rocks (rolls eyes), then it MUST be acceptable for that practice today."

You can't have it both ways, Sassy. You want us to follow your archaic Bible-based religious dogma, but now some things written about in the bible are not relevant to "today".
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#288225 Mar 6, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
So Ms. fake nurse, you would take a job just so you could piss off Catholics. Make sure the poor patients sare kept away from you, pagan.
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep".
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288226 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Those "fundie" sites didn't include my bible.
"""The bible never specifically mentions abortion""" "
According to you and STO it does in numbers.
Your site, btw, proves that there is a child in the womb .
The passage about two people fighting and the woman miscarriaging and him not being charged is referring to it not being deliberate act to kill the unborn baby. Why would they be charged with murder ?
My site showed the ambiguity of the bible's position on abortion. Do you need the definition of ambiguous provided?

"am·big·u·ous adjective \am-&#712;bi-gy&#601;- w&#601;s\

Definition of AMBIGUOUS

1
a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness <eyes of an ambiguous color>
b : inexplicable
2
: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways <an ambiguous smile> <an ambiguous term> <a deliberately ambiguous reply>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amb...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#288227 Mar 6, 2013
Not everyone bases their personal opinions on your zombie carpenter or his rapist dad.
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text>Question...if God supposedly approves of abortion then why do you support no elective abortion after viability?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288228 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion has no restriction during the first trimester. Following that, states can regulate.
Wrong. Casey vs PP rejected the RvW trimester framework and recognized:
"...a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure"

Regardless, the fact that you are wrong about this has nothing to do with the point I was making anyway.
Therefore your above premise is false.
Your head is false.
Anyway, as you pointed out, the question is what type of life is that life prior to viability? It is developing, unknown, and unaware.
So is it worth more than/equal to a woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy? To the point where following through with the pregnancy will cause harm to the pregnant woman and/or the fetus/baby?
You totally, as usual, miss the point. Do you have a genetic defect that prevents you from understanding points being made ?

The fact that YOU consider life prior to viability to be "developing, unknown and unaware" and less meaningful than a woman's right to privacy is irrelevant...even if we assume it to be true. Because the fact is the RvW decision acknowledged that the SC did not know when meaningful life begins nor were they going to even attempt to answer that "difficult question".
So once they make it clear that they do not know when meaningful life begins, and then turn around and render a decision giving a woman the right to abort without restriction, whether prior to the end of the 1st trimester or prior to viability, then they are blatantly contradicting themselves. By rendering such a decision they are effectively acknowledging that meaningful life does NOT exist prior to this point, for if it did they would be compelled to protect it. Yet within their own decision they indicate they do not know when meaningful life begins. If one does not know when meaningful life begins then it is axiomatic that one cannot say when it does NOT exist.
Their decision and their statement regarding the unknown point at which meaningful life begins, are blatantly contradictory and just one reason why RvW was just a terrible decision.
Gtown71

United States

#288229 Mar 6, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with educating the ignorant.
I didn't "give verses". I quoted them. I showed you and Ink the translations.
Do you have a problem with me sharing information? I would think you'd appreciate knowledge you were unaware of. Seems to me you don't want folks to learn.
I think learning "can " be a good thing, but rightly divided, when it comes to the bible, and it is a far reach to tie numbers 5 and abortion together.

Some people are ever learning, but not able to come to the truth.
Gtown71

United States

#288230 Mar 6, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Dollars to donuts that this thing was a Sunday school dropout - argued with the priests about everything. While that gtown fool never saw the inside of a bible study class.
You could take a satan worshipper, who's never seen a bible and even they could read numbers 5, and see it has nothing to do with abortion. Not that you really care, for the bible or abortion?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288231 Mar 6, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Your reference to abortion being murder is also not relevant.
Now you're just lying. I've never said abortion was murder nor have I ever said it SHOULD be murder.

No matter how it happened, natural, induced, or self inflicted it's still an abortion and neither are murder. There is no such thing as a miscarriage, they are all abortions. Why can't you bring yourself to say natural abortion?
Who said I can't bring myself to say natural abortion ? I can say it. The same way I can say natural death ( as opposed to death by homicide). Both, by definition are considered deaths and both result in the cessation of life. But both are hardly comparable.
Just because a miscarriage technically qualifies, by definition, as an abortion, in no manner, shape or form means you can conclude that there is no difference between a naturally occurring abortion and an induced abortion.
That conclusion is absurd and the point you dopey PC's are trying to make in making this ridiculous comparison, remains a mystery.
Gtown71

United States

#288232 Mar 6, 2013
sasylicious wrote:
<quoted text> STO is frustrated. He doesn't like to have bible discussions. He links something that he's copied and pasted and refuses to acknowledge the inconsistencies.
Mesnwhile, he knows(or claims to) the bible. Having read the "entire bible" yet leaves out what God has to say about killing the innocent or how he created us. He has NO problem talking about this ONE passage in the bible for weeks on end but when asked about another ( by Gtown) he runs because he is afraid to have his proabort friends not like his answer.
He has an agenda. He's using God to justify his evil support and to cover up his siblings death.Take notice that otherwise, he REFUSES to talk about God.
Sad, but true.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288233 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is that different than this, "THIS baby was not viable due to injuries sustained by his mother and him."
I'm not gonna say this is the stupidest question ever because there are probably some I haven't seen that are equally asinine. But this one is definitely in the top 5.
Gtown71

United States

#288234 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd think so, STO. But ... um ... aint happened yet!
Was looking at some sites regarding abortion in the bible and found a number of interesting ones. What's funny is how people interpret the same passages and claim these mean different things. What wasn't so funny was how some of the passages were altered and then interpreted afterward. Those were the fundie sites, though. And one even ended with, "You CAN Be SAVED ...(send money here)."
However, thought this worth posting here.
"The Bible never specifically mentions abortion. This is significant, because herbal abortifacients--most notably pennyroyal and silphium--were in common use at the time that the New Testament was written. Jesus, Paul, and the other major figures of the New Testament were surrounded by cultures that practiced abortion, but no specific condemnation of the practice can be found in the Bible." http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/b...
Looking at it that way, the bible doesn't condem building a meth lab.

How about the verse be ye Holy, for I am Holy?
what's Holy about killing the unborn?
Gtown71

United States

#288235 Mar 6, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"If the bible is "okay" with ripping women's wombs open and dashing infants heads against rocks (rolls eyes), then it MUST be acceptable for that practice today."
You can't have it both ways, Sassy. You want us to follow your archaic Bible-based religious dogma, but now some things written about in the bible are not relevant to "today".
Could you give books /verses? Please.
Just becouse it is in the bible, doesn't mean God liked it. Each verse must be read in context.

For instance you can kill anyone with a acts and 2 -38's.:)

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288236 Mar 6, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>The child survived ex-utero under the worst occurance. That is the ultimate in viability.
The child did NOT survive. What are you talking about ?
The CHILD was delivered prematurely and died despite all available medical assistance attempting to keep it alive. That is the ultimate in non-viability.
You remain an enigma grumpster.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#288238 Mar 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I figured you couldn't come up with anything.
lol...you don't figure anything, ever. That's why you can't follow a simple conversation without having to ask what's going on every few posts. Try to think for yourself,for once. You're one lazy chick.
Gtown71

United States

#288239 Mar 6, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Not everyone bases their personal opinions on your zombie carpenter or his rapist dad.
<quoted text>
Well you're very right about that.
I will say that you seem to live your life, just the way you wish, and believe when we die, we just die and that's that.

I hope your right, but at the same time I know you're wrong.

Now feces can come tell me how I think I know it all, but will be glad to back up your theory of death.

Just like abortion, its a double standard.

This worlds getting worse and worse, and I also realize it must.
it won't be long untill Isreal stands alone, or atleast on earth,but they are going nowhere,and if you're still alive, perhaps when you see how God moves on that tiny plot of land for the sake of His people, and prophesy, it may just begin to soften your hard heart.

It is not your sins, that are seperating you from God, it is your SIN.

I spoke with an atheist on another post today.
He said atheist does not mean they don't believe there is no god, but means there is no god based on anything any theist have shown them thus far.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288240 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's different? Her injuries were his injuries. Without her injuries, baby'd be in utero and woman would be alive.[/quote]

The mother's injuries are not always the baby's injuries. There are numerous instances of babies being delivered prematurely to mothers who had suffered severe physical trauma or even death.....and surviving. They survived because they suffered no direct serious injury themselves as a result of the trauma to their mother, and because they were viable at the time of their premature delivery. This baby in Brooklyn died because it was not viable due to its prematurity...necessitated by the trauma to its mother.

[QUOTE]I've said it before, you guys draw the strangest distinctions. You make 'em where none exist and don't see 'em when they do. So odd.
You've said a lot of things before. Most of which make absolutely no sense.
This is no strange distinction. What's strange is that you would consider it to be strange.
You are strange.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#288241 Mar 6, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said a lot of things before. Most of which make absolutely no sense.
This is no strange distinction. What's strange is that you would consider it to be strange.
You are strange.
"The mother's injuries are not always the baby's injuries. There are numerous instances of babies being delivered prematurely to mothers who had suffered severe physical trauma or even death.....and surviving. They survived because they suffered no direct serious injury themselves as a result of the trauma to their mother, and because they were viable at the time of their premature delivery. This baby in Brooklyn died because it was not viable due to its prematurity...necessitated by the trauma to its mother."

Those are not my words. Why'd you quote them with my words? You goofed up somewhere.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288242 Mar 6, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability."
I think the Court had to know that life exists prior to viability,
What they may have known and what they SAID they knew are two totally different things.
Of course life exists prior to viability. An amoeba is life....a sperm is life.....what they were talking about is meaningful life and life worthy of legal protection. Hence their qualification of the question of when life begins as being a "difficult" one. It is not difficult to conclude that generic life exists prior to viability.

it just came down to not labeling that life a person or human "being". Ultimately, if they had ruled against RvW they would have made the woman's rights secondary to the z/e/f's.
They did not label that life a "person" or a "human being". THAT is the point. By saying there was no need to resolve the difficult question of when life begins they were effectively acknowledging they did not know when it begins. It is self evident that if one does not know when meaningful life begins then one likewise does not know when meaningful life does NOT exist. Yet the decision they rendered which gave women the right to abort without restriction or the need for justification prior to viability could not have been made unless they acknowledged that meaningful life did not exist prior to viability. But yet in the same decision they said they did not know.
A blatant contradiction and one you have attempted to address but have failed to reconcile.
RvW was and remains a bad decision. This is only one of the reasons why.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288243 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"The mother's injuries are not always the baby's injuries. There are numerous instances of babies being delivered prematurely to mothers who had suffered severe physical trauma or even death.....and surviving. They survived because they suffered no direct serious injury themselves as a result of the trauma to their mother, and because they were viable at the time of their premature delivery. This baby in Brooklyn died because it was not viable due to its prematurity...necessitated by the trauma to its mother."
Those are not my words. Why'd you quote them with my words? You goofed up somewhere.
I didn't quote you. Where are the quotation marks ? I will quote you now though. You said "her injuries were his injuries" (the mother's injuries were the baby's injuries ). I just pointed out that a mother's injuries are not always the baby's injuries....and they are not. Plenty of babies escape injury despite severe trauma befalling their mothers.
In this case the baby did not die due to injury suffered to himself. He died because he was not viable due to being delivered prematurely.

I didn't goof up. Go get some sleep. You need it.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#288244 Mar 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yeah I hear you believe that VIABILITY in concept applies only to the gestating fetus.
Wrong once again. Viability can apply both to a fetus and to a preemie. What I said was the concept of REACHING VIABILITY applies only to a gestating fetus. Please pay attention.

I hear you believe it has no practicality being applied to a micropreemie or other premature newborns; even those who don't survive.
You hear wrong. As usual.
To me it seems like you're splitting hairs just for the sake of splitting hair. Or being contentious just for the sake of being contentious.
Dismiss me as being contentious for the sake of being contentious if you must and if it helps you cope with the fact that you are wrong.
I maintain, a fetus determined to be viable who is delivered and attached to ALS, but dies anyway, was obviously not viable. It was unable to survive outside the womb.
I maintain the same thing. Whaddya know ???

Now please explain how, under any circumstances, a preemie can currently REACH viability with medical assistance.....as you said it could.
Back to splitting hair -- I have interchanged VIABLE and SURVIVE throughout this yearS long discussion/disagreement. I do not believe it's been wrong to do so.
Who said it was wrong ? To be VIABLE is to be able to SURVIVE
( with or without medical assistance )to the point where medical assistance is no longer needed.
Excellent link.

It points out that 19 of 34 preemies born at 24 weeks survived.

Ya know what ? Those 19 that survived were VIABLE at 24 weeks. They did not reach viability with medical assistance.

Do you finally get this now ?

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) 7 min John Galt 1,124,813
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 min JOEL 69,966
Help 6 hr Joey 1
Review: G8 Van Lines Sun Jessie Ruiz 4
Review: Travel Options Inc (Sep '11) Sat maria 123
Can BSO clean up their act in Pompano? Oct 15 Pompano Beach Tor... 1
Pompano Beach assault: Broward Sheriff's Office... (Jun '09) Oct 15 Pompano Beach Tor... 55
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 ]