Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,848
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

Puyallup, WA

#275944 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Tinker Bell is a coward. He also claimed that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. And he backpedaled on that one also.
<quoted text>
Don't tell me what I overlook. I overlooked nothing.
<quoted text>
I not only saw it I acknowledged it and responded to it. You're lying again. Just like you did when you said I left off the word "right" in my discussion with Bitter.
<quoted text>
That's not THE basic concept of viability, that's HIS position on what the basic concept of viability is. Go back and read.
But even if we were to concede that his position is the correct one, even he acknowledges that the application of medical assistance to support the remaining 50% of the O2 exchange would not preclude a determination of viability. By Tinker Bell's definition ( and yours ) an infant requiring ANY medical assistance to survive is NOT viable.
It's a stalemate then.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275945 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
Oh, forgot to add this tidbit. Mrs. Jumbo is Dumbo's mother.
Asking if I'm projecting as if you didn't see the Disney movie, "Dumbo" is hilarious. You're the one who called KW "Dumbo" to begin with.
Just another fine example of you not knowing or understanding what others say, right?
<chuckle>
I called KW Dumbo because he's DUMB-O, you ignorant buffoon. Which is why calling me Jumbo could only mean I'm a very large person, IF you were understanding my reason for using the word I did.

Calling him Dumbo doesn't make me his mother either, so no matter how you cut it, your reference to me as "Jumbo" was senseless.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275946 Jan 11, 2013
Yes, Katie, what YOU posted WAS another fine example of mot understanding what others say.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#275947 Jan 11, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no babies in a uterus. RvW doesn't talk about babies at all.
It DOES, however, say that a woman may terminate her pregnancy if that is her choice.
LOL, you're such a Drama Queen.
It is convenient to go back to the Laci Peterson case where Scott was convicted of killing his unborn child. If I remember right that child was in utero.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275948 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?
(quit crawling with the snakes and leave my grown daughters out of your posts, out of your thoughts altogether)
I have complete bodily autonomy and ALL without ever needing to have any of my unborn children killed. That's because bodily autonomy is about MY body. Imagine that.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#275949 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie: "You benefit from bodily autonomy. Why shouldn't women? Why shouldn't pregnant women?"
Your granddaughter didn't benefit from bodily autonomy. Your daughter ripped her little body up at your beckoning.
Was she your patient? You musta been steering that curette to lop off the arms and legs. Did you remember to grab a handful of dimes to place beside bloody pieces as you photograph and put 'em back together like some macabre jigsaw puzzle? Let me have copies of those photos. Would love to see my "deceased granddaughter".

TIA

(what a creepy coward you are. do you want to be reported?)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275950 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
cPeter: "Pain is not subjective. Ask anyone you know to stick their hand in an active fireplace, and everyone will experience the same pain."
If I have to ask them about their pain, I'm seeking a subjective report.
(unbelievable)
__________
cPeter: "Didn't you say that sentience is not reached until a certain level of maturity?"
Where did I say that? What I did say to you is that the baby wants to live. Even instinctually s/he demonstrates she is meant to live by moving from the death weapon & inflicted pain.
["Multiple lines of evidence thus corroborate that the key mechanisms of consciousness or conscious sensory perception are not dependent on cortical activity" - Anand, 2006]
__________
Research is gaining insight into thalamic involvement in pain perception, along with the cortical subplate zone.(Pain peception no later than 20 weeks gestation....likely sooner....thus, the multiple-state abortion pain laws.....learn more.)
I saw a program yesterday with a story about a little girl who can't feel pain. She's a fully functioning young lady who simply can't feel pain. If she's burned, breaks her leg etc, she won't know it based on any pain sensations. Imagine this little girl unconcious. So she's unaware and can't feel pain at all. Based on the PC idiotic type of reasoning, because she doesn't feel pain and is unaware of being killed, sending her through a chipper would be just fine. No different than a natural death either.
bman

Commack, NY

#275951 Jan 11, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Not if she doesn't want to be pregnant. PP does refer women to adoption services if they ask, but PP is a medical facility, not a social-worker office.
And yes--mind your own business. What the woman has or does not have within her body is absolutely NONE of your business.
<quoted text>
Really? Planned Parenhood says adoption is one of the choices? Give me a link to ONE source of Planned Parenthood having the word adoption in it. Good luck with that search. Now in terms of a woman having the right to do what she beleives can be in her body, it sounds like you don't have a problem with Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) a disorder in which someone wants a bodypart removed from themself. Can't women have the right to remove whatever organ or limb is bothering her? Or are you going to deny her right to choose what to do with her body? After all it's none of your buisness. Let her decide what is best for HER body. It sounds as if you veiw a fetus as a bodypart. Is a fetus a bodypart? If not then you lost the argument because if a fetus isn't a bodypart, that means that it is SEPERATE from the mother in terms of organs, tissue, and an endoskeleton. Oh yeah, and don't forget a seperate heartbeat.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275952 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Still providing wonderful examples of your poor comprehension skills. No surprise there.
LOL, no, actually YOU are, since you didn't get my comment, dummy.

You obviously understand a "pregnancy" wouldn't have a gender. The pregnancy is a CONDITION. So, for you to claim your "lost pregnancy" was "male", is just more of your type of senselessness, trying to avoid claiming what you lost was your unborn son. Your fetus was your son, since you know he was male.

Saying your "lost pregnancy" was male is just a STUPID way to avoid stating the facts. Pregnancies don't have genders.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#275953 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetal pain laws aside, whether or not a fetus feels pain should never be a determination as to whether or not killing them is okay.
I just saw a program yesterday of a little girl who can't feel any pain at all. She can break bones, burn herself etc. and not feel a thing. Does lack of pain sensation make it okay to hurt her? Of course not.
The "fetus doesn't suffer" so killing them isn't a bad/wrong/immoral thing argument is senseless.
Abortion isn't determined by fetal pain or lack of it. Abortion is determined by a woman and her doctor.

The fetal pain argument is a PLM fallacy. Am glad to see you concede it isn't realistic. However, it's disheartening to see you pick up a new fallacy and fling it toward the PC. I don't know anyone, anywhere who thinks abortion is okay because the fetus doesn't suffer.

Women's civil rights are okay because it's morally right to give women the same opportunities to determine their lives' outcomes without interference from the gov't, the clergy, or nosy parkers (like you).

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275954 Jan 11, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct ?!? Are you kidding ?
<quoted text>
There is EVERYTHING wrong with Bitter's statement. And if you don't think there is then you explain this :
Just how does a preemie REACH viability with medical assistance ?
If a preemie needs to REACH viability that means it has not yet attained viability. If it has not attained viability then it is not yet viable and by definition no means or level of medical assistance with prevent its demise ( as you've stated ).
So explain to me....and take me through it slowly and step by step if you don't mind....just how a non viable fetus reaches viability through medical assistance.
Doc, not everything in medicine, or life for that matter, is that demarcated.

Theoretically speaking, a fetus having only a 49% ability to survive outside the womb is NOT viable given the 50% standard. Agree? Good.

Do you think a doctor is NOT going to act in an abundance of caution and administer medical assistance to help the fetus reach the 50% mark, especially when he/she, in the light most conservative of his/her medical training, knows that there is no EXACT measure of when viability is at precisely 50%?

Medicine is not an exact science because the human body isn't an exact "mechanism."

8 months ago I underwent surgery to repair what a 2 day old MRI, stated it was a "slight" rotator cuff tear. When the surgeon went in arthroscopically, which he believe would be able to do with no issues, he found the tear was major and ended up having to discontinue arthroscopic surgery and do incisive surgery. I ended up with 6 titanium anchors and 3 stitches to repair a major rotator cuff tear, and labral tissue repair, the latter of which didn't show in the MRI. My doctor said I'd be lucky if I recovered 80% of my range of motion on that shoulder.

Today, thanks to the fact that I had the best physical therapy physician in the world - my wife, I have 99.9% of my range of motion back. My shoulder is a little temperamental at times, but it isn't more painful than when my rotator cuff was torn.

Point being, the human body has a canny way of healing itself. Medicine only aids in that enterprise. A person with walking pneumonia may not need antibiotics to rid him/herself of the condition.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275955 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm referring to unknowns. If you're posting to me, than I am a known quantity. But look who I'm trying to explain it to; a name-calling, bad spelling, ignorant twit.
<eye roll>
You're a complete unknown to me. I don't know you from Adam, Toots. You're a bunch of words on a computer screen to me. To think you're anything more than that to me is senselessness.

You don't know me in any way either.

I'm just a moniker and words on a page. As much a stranger to you as you are to me. We are not personally acquainted in any way, since that would require knowing each other in person, which we don't.

You ARE an unknown to me, you nit wit. You people think this is real life here, or what?
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#275956 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, no, actually YOU are, since you didn't get my comment, dummy.
You obviously understand a "pregnancy" wouldn't have a gender. The pregnancy is a CONDITION. So, for you to claim your "lost pregnancy" was "male", is just more of your type of senselessness, trying to avoid claiming what you lost was your unborn son. Your fetus was your son, since you know he was male.
Saying your "lost pregnancy" was male is just a STUPID way to avoid stating the facts. Pregnancies don't have genders.
What part of "...to refer to my lost pregnancy..." flew in one eye and out the other or over the top of your head? Why do I need to explain this?

You're like NR. Pull partial quotes without supplying context, try to make it mean whatever you want it to mean, then point your fingers and play the blame game.

It's your fallacy. Jesus is so proud.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275957 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural Law of Human Beings states Katie's aborted granddaughter had a right to life. She was created just as she was supposed to be, living & growing exactly where she was meant to be. Intentionally killing her (and Katie encouraging her daughter to kill her) violated the Natural Law of Human Beings.
"Natural Law of Human Beings"

Is that a law book? Who's the publisher; West?

I guess that must be a quote from a 1979 edition of Mad magazine you read at your sunday school class.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275958 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a stalemate then.
If you want to call Doc having that hands down a stalemate, then so be it.

Call it whatever you want, he still has it hands down.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275959 Jan 11, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is being a backpedaling coward. There's a distinction with viability you continue to overlook. CD touched on it when discussing the exchange of gases. You'd had a great opportunity there to see what has been said repeatedly. But you chose not to.
Baby's considered viable if it can handle at least 50% of the gas exchange on its own. Without assistance. That is the basic concept of viability.
That has always been my position Katie. Thanks!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#275961 Jan 11, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
It is convenient to go back to the Laci Peterson case where Scott was convicted of killing his unborn child. If I remember right that child was in utero.
You do remember right and I provided proof of it. There's a law based on it called "Laci and Connor's law", which I provided in a post. The law is abouit protection of unborn children, and prosecuting those who intentionally kill unborn children. Connor was killed IN UTERO. The PCers don't know any facts when they post. All they do is make unsubstantiated claims.

The wording in that law is as follows. Note what terms are used for the human life in utero:

"‘Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

‘(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

‘(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

"Unborn child", "human being" and the woman who's pregnant as "the unborn child's ~mother~".
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#275962 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I have complete bodily autonomy and ALL without ever needing to have any of my unborn children killed. That's because bodily autonomy is about MY body. Imagine that.
Good for you. That's what choice is all about.
Don't like abortion, don't have one. Nobody will legally force you or the generations following you to abort against your will provided women's civil rights aren't chipped away to nothing substantial.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#275963 Jan 11, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to call Doc having that hands down a stalemate, then so be it.
Call it whatever you want, he still has it hands down.
You have a right to your opinion.
So do I.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#275964 Jan 11, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
CD's Mom: "Look, honey, baby CD has an inny."
CD's Dad: "What do you mean? His cut unbilical cord is poking out."
CD's Mom: "When I say 'an inny' I'm not talking about baby CD's navel."
CD's Dad: "Oh. I thought he was a girl...."
Funny how things develop all on their own after birth. Wanna peak take a look NR????

Wait, strike that. You may then see me as a priest.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RoxLo 1,115,117
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 41 min Kristy 46,997
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 69,494
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 9 hr Uzi 68,555
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 9 hr Chuck 19,285
Brooklyn Teen Charged With Attempted Murder (May '08) 9 hr kdoehr 8
CT Who do you support for Governor in Connecticut ... (Oct '10) Mon Sir Samuel 806

Wethersfield Jobs

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]