Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.

Comments (Page 13,319)

Showing posts 266,361 - 266,380 of303,209
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283585
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prolife friends believe the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the girl/woman gestating it.
So you want me to believe you do not do the same?
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay attention genius...it's something you demonstrate you have a REAL problem doing.
I said all things being equal including rights, then the woman takes precedence. And I meant it. If a pregnancy is threatening a woman's life then the LIFE of the woman takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Right to life vs the Right to life.
Saying that a woman's right to privacy takes precedence over the fetus's right to life is NOT a case of the same or equal rights being considered for each.
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think without privacy, a woman wouldn't legally be allowed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy without question during the first trimester?
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the RvW court cited the right to privacy as the basis for the woman's right to terminate without question then the answer to that is obvious. No.
So in essence, you do place precedence of the embryo over that of the girl/woman gestating it.
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
However in hindsight the RvW court, in the absence of the right to privacy ( which, contrary to the courts interpretation, in no way grants the right to abortion ), likely would have found another reason to justify the right to abortion.
The RvW decision was horrible....based on faulty logic at best. But the court knew what decision HAD to be made and simply backed into a way to justify it.
STO

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283587
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I would find it interesting that you're under the delusion that its not, but its not shocking since you demean any faith that's not your verison of "faith".
<quoted text>
And ONCE AGAIN you're LYING, since he certainly HAS told people's he's Christian, and EVERYONE knows he's Christian.
And he's one hell of a better Christian than you will EVER be.
<quoted text>
While you would demean your version of "faith" and your version of jesus for the opportunity to post a lame insult.
Thank you, Foo.

Gtown is an idiot -- "der, you don't even tell people here you're a Christian, duh der der der."

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283588
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

That's me, little mary sunshine!

Just typing that hurt...
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Optimist! ;-D
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283589
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
....and it will NOT have ALS applied. Good, you're getting it.
If the physician DOES determine it possesses the basic lung function to survive with ALS then he will deem it viable and ALS will be applied. He will not apply ALS to a non viable fetus so it can REACH viability....as numbskulls like Bitter and Chicky have claimed.
<quoted text>
No stupid. The courts will never determine when viability is.
The court merely established a definition of WHAT viability is. Physicians still and always will be the ones to determine WHEN viability is.
<quoted text>
I don't know if any of this artificial surfactant talk is true but if it is and the technology was readily available, then a physician would have to consider it in determining viability. Don't like it ? Then petition the court to get the definition changed.
<quoted text>
NO ! You STILL don't get it. If artificial surfactant was available and a physician felt it could enable a fetus to survive, then he would deem the fetus viable and he would inject it. It would not be injected to "bring the fetus to viability". It would already BE viable. If it were not viable then it would not survive no matter what medical assistance is provided.....and that includes any hypothetical artificial surfactant.
<quoted text>
Great you brought it up before. Want a medal ?
What does it change ?
<quoted text>
I saw it... so what ? You still have no idea what you're talking about. Then OR now.
Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago. Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability. That is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.

Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?
Obskeptic

Birmingham, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283590
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a guy who truly didn't believe in God, who was saved by God, as decribed in the bible. So I am a biblical christian who has no problem attending any christian church for growth as a christian. You're correct when you say that there are many many different secs of "christians ",and all claim to be the true christians. I met God at home and was saved at home, which I am very thankful for. I line up who I am, by prayer, Gods Word, and common sense about it all.
So I geuss I cannot give you an answer, other then I was a sinner on my way to Hell, and now I'm a sinner on my way to Heaven.
I give All credit for any good I do or have had done to me to Jesus Christ, for He alone is worthy.
I believe that if anyone is truly serious about knowing God, instead of knowing about God, that they can call on Him, and He will reveal Himself to that person.
They don't have to know anything at all about Him, and they can be as sinful as they come.
He died once and for all.
He rose again once and for all.
Amen!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283591
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen!
RAmen!

:-D
Obskeptic

Birmingham, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283592
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the RvW court cited the right to privacy as the basis for the woman's right to terminate without question then the answer to that is obvious. No.
However in hindsight the RvW court, in the absence of the right to privacy ( which, contrary to the courts interpretation, in no way grants the right to abortion ), likely would have found another reason to justify the right to abortion.
The RvW decision was horrible....based on faulty logic at best. But the court knew what decision HAD to be made and simply backed into a way to justify it.
What a refreshing poster you are Doc. It's a pleasure to have someone grown up that can seriously discuss the topic in all of it's ugliness and controversy.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283593
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So in essence, you do place precedence of the embryo over that of the girl/woman gestating it.
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what "in essence" means. I already told you, when similar rights are comparatively considered for each, the woman's should always take precedence. The woman's right to privacy however is NOT similar to the fetus's right to life, and should in no way supercede it. Oh, I know legally it does right now....but it shouldn't. The right to privacy is already restricted in cases where innocent human life is/may be in peril.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283594
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago.
Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.

Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability.
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.

That is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for so
long ?
you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.

Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283595
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
What a refreshing poster you are Doc. It's a pleasure to have someone grown up that can seriously discuss the topic in all of it's ugliness and controversy.
Thanks. I think highly of your posting as well.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283596
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
That's me, little mary sunshine!
Just typing that hurt...
<quoted text>
LOL, sorry :)
Anonymous

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283597
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
What a refreshing poster you are Doc. It's a pleasure to have someone grown up that can seriously discuss the topic in all of it's ugliness and controversy.
Agreed!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283598
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lol. Wow...
Anonymous

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283602
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:
Lol. Wow...
WOW. Lol :)/(: loL. WOW

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283604
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW. Lol :)/(: loL. WOW
What?
Anonymous

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283605
Feb 12, 2013
 
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>What?
Where?

I hope you have a good day elise in burque :)
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283607
Feb 12, 2013
 
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.
<quoted text>
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.
<quoted text>
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for so
long ?
<quoted text>
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.
Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
<quoted text>
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.
You rub me the wrong way. All this time you say you're PC and you're not. You are PL who holds exceptions. That is all.

And you are wrong about viability. without the ALS, the baby is not viable. The ALS brings it to viability. Subtle difference you refuse to concede.

But it sure doesn't stop your antisocial, name-calling, idiotic, blithering fool behavior. No, because apparently you throw your head back, and get off on it.

Go you. Must be proud.

<major eyeroll>

Think what you want. You're wrong.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283608
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
If women don't want kids, then they should not have sex.
Ah, you want women who don't want children PUNISHED with lifetime celibacy. That's so typical of anti-choice extremists, especially the faith-based ones.

Thankfully for women who either don't want any children or those of us who have had the number of kids they wanted and are now DONE with the whole procreation thing, that isn't YOUR call to make.

In any case, marriage and motherhood are both OPTIONAL, not required. That means a woman can reject either option or both of them, and she doesn't need your permission or approval to do so.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283610
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen!
TH APOCALYPSE
CHAPTER 14
7 Saying with a loud voice : Fear the Lord,
and give him honour, because the hour of his judgment
is come ; and adore ye him, that made heaven and earth,
the sea, and the fountains of waters.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283614
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I think highly of your posting as well.
You asked for the post number for my response to your questions. Still silence. You managed to take a bow for this though. You complain I don't want a discussion, but like I said, I write discussion responses and those are the posts that go unanswered. Enough with these games.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 266,361 - 266,380 of303,209
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••

Flood Warning for Hartford County was issued at April 18 at 11:37AM EDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••