Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318333 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283774 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Whether you believe it or not, others do. A healthy percentage of the population believe abortions to be murder. Many are not religious. Religious doctrine will also say that abortions, about 56 million of them now are offerings to Satan. Children are important in the evil that is around us but are abused massively by many of the same who claim to love them. So if you are secular it still exists. If you don't believe, there are still people who do.
So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283775 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
I have yet to see an anti-choice argument that doesn't boil down, even if it takes a little while, to a religious argument.
serfs up

Melbourne, FL

#283776 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>So, go ahead and believe whatever you want. What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283778 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
Define "healthy percentage", and please list your source for that. As far as I know, there are no polls on that exact question.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283779 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Whether you believe it or not, others do. A healthy percentage of the population believe abortions to be murder. Many are not religious. Religious doctrine will also say that abortions, about 56 million of them now are offerings to Satan. Children are important in the evil that is around us but are abused massively by many of the same who claim to love them. So if you are secular it still exists. If you don't believe, there are still people who do.
What the hell are you blabbing about? I was talking to our new favorite fundie, Gtown, about how the bible says the Moon has it's own light light and how that is incorrect. You can believe whatever you want.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#283780 Feb 13, 2013
Husker wrote:
<quoted text>We are Temples and Satan wants to destroy what God loves the most.
Temples are temples, piggy peggy.
Guppy

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#283781 Feb 13, 2013
Peter hasn't been around lately.

I guess he is busy with his gay friends.
Anonymous

United States

#283782 Feb 13, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Isaiah 30:26 , 13:10 speak of the moons "light", Fundie-master.
Looks like a non-believer can show you a thing or two about your fabled "word of god".
You are not making a very good point choosing those verses, but let us look at them. Isaiah 30:26 says : the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days.

"It seems to me, that the brighter the sun is, the brighter the moon will be.

Isaiah 13:10 says : the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Again, it looks to me, that if the sun is dark, then so is the moon.

Both verses seem to indicate that the moons light depends on the sun.

Brighter the sun -brighter the moon.
Darker the sun -darker the moon.

You can try all you wish, but this is a sad attempt to discredit Gods Word.
The Prince

Allentown, PA

#283783 Feb 13, 2013
except for severe medical issues, and has been for years.
"except for severe medical issues"

That is a vague staement. The law would be absolute and mean only in the case of death, no some vague "severe medical condition" that is used as an excuse for many late term abortions. You proabort pagans know that, and that is why you can't answer the question honestly.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283784 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a nice a sentiment, LNM.
Thank you.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283785 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Clever, but snide. Funny!
;)

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#283786 Feb 13, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Oooohh...Snap!
<quoted text>
LOL!

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283787 Feb 13, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> What does that have to do with those who don't share your beliefs?
That makes no sense. I'm not trying to force any belief on anyone. You are. Why can't you answer the question instead of coyly evading it?
Anonymous

United States

#283788 Feb 13, 2013
The Prince wrote:
except for severe medical issues, and has been for years.
"except for severe medical issues"
That is a vague staement. The law would be absolute and mean only in the case of death, no some vague "severe medical condition" that is used as an excuse for many late term abortions. You proabort pagans know that, and that is why you can't answer the question honestly.
Its all in the wording. A woman could be severly depressed.

This is why they keep trying to pass laws, so thet may obtain their ultimate goal of abortion on demand at any stage.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283789 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its all in the wording. A woman could be severly depressed.
This is why they keep trying to pass laws, so thet may obtain their ultimate goal of abortion on demand at any stage.
I take it you're not going to address my post, and share with us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283790 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its all in the wording. A woman could be severly depressed.
This is why they keep trying to pass laws, so thet may obtain their ultimate goal of abortion on demand at any stage.
Specifically, to what laws are you referring? I don't know of any recent bills being introduced. Please name them. I'm very interested. Thanks in advance.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283791 Feb 13, 2013
I decided to answer STO, and see how he handles it.

STO about Doc's position on viability: "His entire point is that if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance at survival whatsoever, then by defintion, it is viable."

Doc's position, as I understand it, is a fetus is viable with or without medical aid at a certain gestational point. Same as mine is, because that's the medical and legal definition of what a viable fetus is. 24-27 weeks on. I didn't read him saying anything about; "if a physician determines ALS will give an infant any chance of survival whatsoever..."
because viability is about a [FETUS in utero] not a [BORN INFANT]. He gets that, you people are the ones who don't, so to state his position as being about an "infant" with regard to viability and the abortion issue is dishonest. Viability is determined while the fetus is still IN UTERO.

There are some fetuses that aren't viable, and Doc understands that too. Your claim about his position is a dishonest one.

STO about my position: "Her argument is that if an artificial womb were needed, the fetus isn't viable, as it wouldn't be viable in a natural womb."

I never said if an artificial womb were needed that the fetus isn't viable. I said an 8 week old fetus isn't viable and artificial or natural womb has nothing to do with it. It was about the gestational age oif the fetus, not what kind of "womb" it was placed. You're the one bringing up the stupidity about artificial vs natural wombs.

He can't read our answers for comprehension, and it shows.

STO said: ""I offered a hypothetical "artificial womb", as a future medical technology. Given the hypothetical... My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable" , as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus, rendering no need to make that determination before birth."

He comes up with the senselessness of; "My understanding is that every fetus would be considered "viable" , as soon as it developed from embryo to fetus,"

His understanding of his own sci-fi made up bullshit that a fetus at 8 weeks would be considered viable? That's where he lost whatever point he was trying to make. In order to make a point, it has to have some sound basis for it.
His had none.

His artificial womb/viability hypothetical was immaterial to the abortion discussion and ignorant of facts about what viability is.

His interpretation of the positions of PLers is based on the same ignorance, and also immaterial. In my opinion STO has proven he doesn't have anything sensible to make a point or argue the facts we PLers have stated and proven with the medical and legal definition of viability of a fetus.



Katie

Auburn, WA

#283792 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, dimwit?
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/fplacenta/am...
"The makeup of the amniotic fluid is thus quite complex, with many maternal and fetal constituents. The main constituents are water and electrolytes (99%) together with glucose, lipids from the fetal lungs, proteins with bactericide properties and flaked-off fetal epithelium cells (they make a prenatal diagnosis of the infantile karyotype possible). "
I see the words, water and electrolytes (making up 99% of the fluid), glucose, lipids, proteins, bactericide properties, and flaked-off epithelium cells.
Just where is the "anesthetic" in that chemical make up, idiot?
Not one of those words is an anesthetic.
http://www.actabiomedica.it/data/2004/supp_1_...
"Amniotic fluid is 98-99% water."
"Amniotic fluid physiology
About 4 liters of ~~water~~ accumulate within intrauterine
compartments during the 40-week period of
human gestation, with 2800 ml in the fetus, 400 ml in
the placenta, and 800 ml in the amniotic fluid. At the
beginning of pregnancy, amniotic fluid volume (AFV)
is a multiple of fetal volume."
You try to be condescending to your intellectual betters, but you haven't got what it takes to back it up, so you look like an ignorant buffoon instead.
If you have something that proves amniotic fluid is an anesthetic, then prove that, or prove you're a liar. You stated it as fact.
I'll give you a hint. You're looking at the wrong place. Try looking into fetal brain development.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#283793 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
How does one apply ALS to a fetus?
Perhaps when you can answer that question, you will then see where I've been coming from and realize it's material to this discussion of medical and legal viability and where it is headed in the future due to advanced technology.
Viability is determined BEFORE that child is born. You people think viability is something that needs to be "reached" once born, and you're wrong. It's already been "reached" while still in utero, which is why viability has to do with a fetus and not a born infant.

ALS is only mentioned because viability is determined before that child is born, and it's about the (potential) of that fetus to survive once born, with OR without ALS. ALS is not about helping a fetus "reach" viability, and viability isn't about a born infant. Once born, it's not a fetus. But you're the dimwit who thinks it is until cord is cut and 1st breath is taken. You were proven wrong, and a nutcase about that too. While still a fetus is when viability is determined, and women can't arbitrarily have that child in utero killed. A born infant has NOTHING to do with that.

Anonymous

United States

#283794 Feb 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you're not going to address my post, and share with us all how any killing can be legal and illegal at the same time?
I've already addressed it.
Plus mans laws and other mans law can differ across the world, but so can mans law and Gods law.

A man can kill a woman that is pregnant, and be charged with two murders, and the same woman can pay another man to kill the life that is in her, and it would be legal.-

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min smile n wave 1,619,759
Big whole house tag sale Wethersfield 10/28 16 hr Andrew1984 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Raydot 21,288
News Arizona sex offender convicted in child ruse ca... (Apr '09) Oct 18 Desert Toad 4
News Nesconset dad writes to give his injured teen a... (Dec '08) Oct 17 Thomas Archer 9
"OX" cover band from the 70s. (Oct '10) Oct 16 kdkapitt 21
News Two Charged In Connection With Bloomfield Murder (Mar '09) Oct 15 Law school gradua... 27

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages