Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,849
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

“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 ?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288246 Mar 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
What is "Holy" about some of the things God did? I'm no bible expert, but God allegedly did some nasty things. God did some mass murdering, so why not let serial killers just use the bible stories as a defense? I can just see it now..."Well God did it".

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288247 Mar 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.:)
Whose context? There can be a million different interpretations of the context of various scriptures. That's a good reason for not basing law on the bible. The other good reason is that there's no proof anything in there really happened. It comes down to faith...and faith is personal and subjective.

But that just proved my whole point that you can't have it both ways when using the bible to support an argument. The fundies can't keep holding the bible up as some kind of ultimate guide to good righteous living and God's law and then say something from the bible is not "relevant" to "today" when they don't like what the bible has to say.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#288248 Mar 7, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Hey, maybe I can't reconcile it, according to you, but still you did not address my point about elevating the rights of the z/e/f above the rights of the woman. The z/e/f is not born, but the woman is. And I don't have the legal expertise of a Supreme Court Justice ya know?

Every time you ejac-late (topix doesn't like that word) millions of live sperms will die...sperm that had the *potential* to become a person. Would you want your sperm's rights elevated above your own? I realize it's not the best analogy, but I think you get the point.

What we need is BC that is 100% effective and then 100% compliance with using it and then we could be arguing something else.

I've got to get to work. Have a good one.
Ocean56

AOL

#288249 Mar 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
Does it bother me, that we've reached a place in time, where women are aborting so many babies -yes.
sex is no longer sacred? Yes
Divorce rate higher then ever -yes
Its ok though, most people enjoy the coughing and sneezing, and even learn to live with it, or use enough tissue to not go to far, as time ticks away.
Tell me was abortion wrong before it was legal?
Does making something legal, make it right?
As you can see we can go on forever, with the back and forth.
Women are now going to the frontlines of warzones, yet could not survive the frontlines of an nfl game.
do I think women and men are different -YES.and they should stay that way. Nor better, not worse, just different.
The lines are so blurred now -I give the future generations very little chance to have a "normal " life.
If anyone can remeber what normal is.
If your version of "normal" is forcing women to live by the 19th-century "woman's sphere" nonsense, I'll cheerfully pass on it. Thankfully for all women, this ISN'T the 19th century, and we all get to decide for OURSELVES as individuals what "normal" is.

Maybe you should stay out of other women's sexual and reproductive decisions, as they aren't yours to make in the first place.
Ocean56

AOL

#288250 Mar 7, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
The fundie boys have uterus envy. If they can't have one, they'll try to control as many as they can.
Yep, the fundie boys make that obvious every time they post. Many of them are just pissed that their opportunity to live in the 19th century is GONE. Too bad for the, huh?:-)
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#288251 Mar 7, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<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.
What is it with idiot fundies and their inability to use you're instead of your?

My "theory" of death is that we all die. Unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to boast that I know what happens after we die. Continue with your double standards.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288252 Mar 7, 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...
Thou shalt not murder.

Where does it say abortion was a common practice?

More children was a safeguard for the community and the continuation of a society. Tell me where it says that the Israelites made a habit of executing their unborn children.

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) 20 min RoxLo 1,115,129
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 22 min JOEL 69,495
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 22 min Mandela 68,560
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 28 min LessHypeMoreFact 47,002
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 5 hr zazz 96,464
Review: King's Office Furniture 8 hr VX_POW 2
Overpaid Firefighters (Sep '10) 9 hr Big Bruno 354

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 ]