Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Gtown71]

cpeter1313 wrote:

I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.
Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
<quoted text>

Yes, and that is also the reason Jonathon had a child, with a woman, becouse he to was gay. Lol

Plus, the biggest downfall for David was after he lusted after Bathsheba not Bob.:)

Plus he tried to cover it up, by bringing her husband home, and throwing him a party, before sending him to his wife. Yet Uriah had more chivalry then most, and did not go home to his wife. So David got him drunk, in the hopes that he would then go home, which again he did not. I geuss you also think uriah was gay and just wanted to stay with david. Lol

I geuss, that is why david had uriah go back to the front line to be killed, so as to cover up the affair he has with uriah?

Just becouse you are gay, don't mean everyone is. There have always been gay people, but very few compared to all others.

Whether or not you believe the bible was inspired by God, it still is plain to see, that David was anything but gay.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, and you have an iota of intelligence, then you'll see your way clear to admitting that with regard to FHLs, the cause is protection of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term, and the effect if such right is denied, is the availability for prosecution of the perp for a separate offense.

A perp could still be charged and convicted with fetal homicide after the assault on a woman in the waiting room as she awaited the abortion of her unwanted fetus.
In any case, if a woman is assaulted and as a result her fetus, wanted or unwanted, is killed, then it is obvious that the FHL did not protect her right to carry to term now....did it ? So in lieu of the protection that it did not provide....and which you maintain is the ONLY reason for its existence, it still exists to allow us to charge the perp with a second crime of homicide and punish him accordingly. So, in sum, to say that the sole reason for the existence of FHL's is the protection of is NOT accurate. It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection

"So are the laws really a deterrent ?"
Don't be that obtuse Doc. Are traffic laws not designed to keep people from violating them by the assessment of fines? Are DUI laws not designed to keep people from driving drunk?

Since we still, and will always have traffic violators and morons who drive drunk, their status as a deterrent could be debated.
What is not debatable is that the laws also exist to be able to punish....and not less significantly...to provide a steady stream of revenue for State and City coffers.
To say that traffic laws exist for one reason and one reason only.....to deter violations....would not be accurate

"Vladdy : Viability is defined as the ability to survive outside the womb WITHOUT medical assistance.
Vladdy : Artificial life support means nothing unless the fetus is viable."
What's wrong with either statement?

They are blatant contradictions. The latter is correct....the former is just WRONG.

Until you can find a law that applies to the entire medical profession, and that expressly conditions viability on medical assistance, both statements will remain true.

Hogwash my good man. He is defining viability as the ability to survive....EXCLUSIVELY....WITH OUT medical assistance. In other words it must be able to survive WITHOUT medical assistance to be considered viable, and if it DOES need any medical assistance at all....then it is NOT viable. If you were not aware of this point then you missed a lot of the discussion with Moncie, Chicky, Bitter, Vladdy et al. That is precisely their point.

And that is a direct and blatant contradiction of the statement that "artificial life support means nothing unless a fetus is viable" because by definition (THEIR definition)if it needs artificial support it is NOT viable.

You gettin this ?

[Long Night Moon 13]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.

So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.

[Jeb Wilson]

any body watching the game tonight man.

[Doc Degall]

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. But abortion, which is what the discussion is about, isn't murder. Never has been, never will be.

I didn't say it was nor do I think it should or ever could be.

To say that because the end result is the same there is no difference between induced and spontaneous abortion is absurd....whether you consider abortion murder or not.
There would be no need for RvW if that were the case. Even the SC acknowledged the difference when they rendered their decision. If there were no difference between spontaneous abortion and induced abortion then there would be no need for RvW and affirming a woman's right to abort. After all, there are no laws against spontaneous abortion nor will there ever need to be. So if induced is athe same as spontaneous....why the need for RvW /

Really? You're comparing women's right to make their own medical decisions regarding abortion to 9/11?
There is no difference in the country or the world today because women had abortions on Friday. And there wont be any difference in the country or the word tomorrow when women have abortions.

I don't know. Did YOU compare your mother and father's natural deaths and your friends murder to a woman making her own medical definition ?

[Jeb Wilson]

hell man i forgot go noter dame man.

[Ink]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
So they're not written in the scriptures? Then how would you know what they are? And Cpeter is right...to prove rights are "God given" you need to prove God exists.

We all know what they are except petey. He thinks all his rights come from whatever government owns him.

[Doc Degall]

cpeter1313 wrote:

If you can't tell the difference between NO function and REDUCED function, you're too stupid to discuss the issue.
<quoted text>

We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.

[Kathwynn]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
We can all tell the difference Tinker. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you defined viability as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So a preemie with REDUCED function, needing temporary medical assistance, would by your definition, be considered non viable........coward.

Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.

And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.

[Doc Degall]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, and you have an iota of intelligence, then you'll see your way clear to admitting that with regard to FHLs, the cause is protection of a woman's right to carry her pregnancy to term, and the effect if such right is denied, is the availability for prosecution of the perp for a separate offense.
"So are the laws really a deterrent ?"
Don't be that obtuse Doc. Are traffic laws not designed to keep people from violating them by the assessment of fines? Are DUI laws not designed to keep people from driving drunk?
"Vladdy : Viability is defined as the ability to survive outside the womb WITHOUT medical assistance.
Vladdy : Artificial life support means nothing unless the fetus is viable."
What's wrong with either statement?
Until you can find a law that applies to the entire medical profession, and that expressly conditions viability on medical assistance, both statements will remain true.

By the way here's another gem.....this one from Bitter. This one actually makes tinky's look intelligent :

"It's not separate until it is. At birth. If it's viable, or at least developed enough for medical intervention to keep it alive until it IS viable, then it continues to live. Before a certain point, it ISN'T viable, and no medical intervention will help. That point is sometime after 21 weeks, though it is rarely that early. 98.7% of all abortions occur BEFORE that point anyway."

If you don't see the problem with this one then the hurdles we need to clear here go beyond reading comprehension problems.

[Kathwynn]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
God given rights would precede the scriptures.

Ahh the old circular logic.. If it written and said by some one a looonnggg timmee ago.. Then it must be true Because it was said and written down a looonnnggg tiimmeee ago..

Ahh Inky. That was just too easy..

[Doc Degall]

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, Doc, glad to see you and the puppets show made it through hurricane Sandy just fine.
And see you are as clueless and stupid as ever.. No doubt not even a Hurricane could knock any sense into you.

Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?

[Kathwynn]

cpeter1313 wrote:

I discuss the bible as a work of fiction, not as a holy text.
Your story sounds much more like an ex-partner taking care of his lover's kid. And of course david married; all men did. It didn't make him straight; such men virtually all had same-sex lovers on the side. As a king, he had a duty to provide another generation of royalty. He might also have been bi. But saying he and jonathan were just friends is total denial of the story.
<quoted text>

Yep, and right up till the latter part of the 19th century young men would sometimes form a loving bond. it was expected they would out grow the need for a physical relationship with another man, but as Richard the "lion heart" demonstrated that was not always the case..

[Kathwynn]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks ma'am. What are ya wearin ?

**shakes his head** Yep, same stupidity even after all these years..

[Conservative Democrat]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>Why are you telling me this? I have no problem knowing where my rights come from.

Give the lecture to Petey. He said:

Ihave a constitutional right to point out that there are no god-given rights.

And he does. It's spelled in the 1st Amendment.

[Conservative Democrat]

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>Why is that one of your favorite photos?

Since when do I owe you an explanation?

[godless by choice]

gtown
I'm not sure what you call the bible?

i call it another book of fiction,

[Gtown71]

godless by choice wrote:

gtown
I'm not sure what you call the bible?
i call it another book of fiction,

Well before I met God, and He changed my "core " beliefs, then I geuss I would've agreed with you, but Idk? I never realy read it before that night about 13 years ago. I would've just asoon to cut my foot off, as to read the bible.

Now I have a good friend, who is about 57 years old, that got saved a few months before I did, and he would've agreed with you 100%.
He had read the entire bible atleast 4 times, before he was saved, and used to say that it was one of his favorite books, but it was fiction.

He nows reads it with an entirely new meaning.

It still amazes me how anyone would want to read anything about God, before they have had a one on one with God, but I am finding out more and more that they are out there.

All I know is before I met God, and was born again -I would have rather ate glass, then go to church or read a bible.

Now when I do thoughs things, it is becouse I desire to.

If given a lie detector and asked if there was a God, and what happened to me was real, then I could not lie, even if it meant my death, or the death of someone I love the most, like my 5 year old little girl.

It is something I will never get over.
It was the greatest thing to every to happen to me.
Praise the Lord!:)

[HuskerDu]

http://studentsforlife.org/files/2013/01/Cour...

[Conservative Democrat]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text><<<deleted for character restriction>>>

"A perp could still be charged and convicted with fetal homicide after the assault on a woman in the waiting room as she awaited the abortion of her unwanted fetus."

You make it sound like being charged with a crime is tantamount to a conviction.

"It serves another purpose as well....beyond protection"

True. But the crux of FHLs is protection of a woman's right to carry to term. Otherwise, what would you say would be another more compelling reason to seek a conviction for the UNWANTED killing of a non-citizen, who has no right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, when the law already provides for penalties for killing, or gravely hurting the person who does; additional deterrence? C'mon!

"In any case, if a woman is assaulted and as a result her fetus, wanted or unwanted, is killed, then it is obvious that the FHL did not protect her right to carry to term now....did it ? "

If it was that simple, why not lobby to abolish orders of protection against domestic violence? A piece of paper won't stop a bullet; so what other reason could there be for a protective order to exist, but to show that the victim's right to carry on with a life free from fear and abuse is being protected?

Laws exist to provide penalties. That's true. But, herein as well you're being obtuse and unbelievable shallow. If people would not break laws; why would we need penalties? Laws exist because people will break them, and the penalty for doing so IS the deterrence. Go ask any lawyer in your firm.

Doc, stop trying to make your viability argument on misrepresentations of what others have said, especially when you're trying to argue MY view on the subject.

You're still hanging your viability argument on the word "albeit."

Albeit = although. The very core for the use of "although," is keeping the end result intact.

Examples:

"Although I've been to the beach countless times, I still get exponentially excited about going."

"I still need to set my GPS to go to my favorite restaurant, although I was there three times in the last 6 months."

Does it matter how often I've been to the beach, when the point of emphasis is that I am excited about going every single time, or how many times I've been to my favorite restaurant when the point of emphasis is that I need to set my GPS every time? Of course not.

Same applies to viability. The core of viability is self survival out of the womb.

My position has always been, and will always be the same. A fetus is viable if it possesses a 50% chance, or greater, of survival outside the womb. This means that it can, at minimum, make the O2/CO2 exchange at least at 50% ratio. That it may be placed on life support as a means to ensure the remaining 50% ability is achieved, is irrelevant to the core concept of viability. If a fetus is only able to make the O2/CO2 exchange at a 40% ratio, no amount of medical assistance will prevent its demise. So doctors are, more likely than not, to not even try.

Now, if you still want to debate my point with me, please stick to debating my point and not everyone else's. Ok

"You gettin this ?"