Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313639 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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283815 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion is okay because it is a moral right.
Exactly.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283816 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what answer you're expecting from PL.
Certainly not anything resembling an intellectually honest or thoughtful answer from the likes of you Lynne.

The QUESTION was " do you equate disposal of a frozen embryo with "killing a baby"?"

Not a fetus, so stop trying to change the parameters of the question to suit your needs.

Or KEEP changing it, its all you can do after all.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283817 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me how often a baby survived a hundred years ago with only have 50% capacity for exchanging gases without any artificial life support. How prevalent was that prior to using to modern technology (even if it just meant mouth to mouth on the struggling newborn)?
To read Doc's posts (i won't even bother with yours), one would think a physician would determine fetus may have 50% chance or better at exchanging gases on its own, birth it prior to its due date, put it on ALS, and there will always be a happy ending.
One would have to be a pretty sick, twisted individual to draw this conclusion from Doc's posts.
What Doc doesn't or won't take into consideration
Pardon me but I'll be the one to decide what I have or have not taken into consideration. Not some nincompoop that says I claim I'm PC.
is that if the newborn doesn't survive, even will all it seemed to have going for it, then it wasn't viable.
No, physicians are not perfect. They are not infallible. They may determine that an infant is viable and apply ALS, but if it still does not survive despite all medical measures taken, then no, in hindsight it was not viable. That does not change the fact that the physician initially made a determination of viability. He HAD to have made that determination. Otherwise he would not have applied ALS. ALS is not applied to infants that are deemed NON VIABLE.

And what of the infants for which ALS was applied and who DID survive. Were they not viable ? Of course they were. And they were viable at the time ALS was applied....they did not "reach" viability with ALS. How stupid.

His postings, his thoughts, his understanding of how ALS is used, belies the fact he doesn't get it.
I think it's obvious to all who really doesn't get it.
And I'm cool with that. Y'all can just keep your lame name-calling to yourselves. And if you don't like others doing it, you're only being hypocritical when you do it to others.
Others can call me any names they wish. Doesn't bother me at all.
It was YOU that actually raised this whole issue when you took me to task for my take-off on LNM's name. Hypocrite.
But, hey, I'm cool with y'all showing your true colors.
You are hardly anywhere close to being "cool".

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283818 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
The reason I ask you to prove something you claim, Katie, is because I know you're wrong.
Actualy, she did some time back. You're free to go find it, OR to prove her wrong. You haven't done that thus far.

Here's a hint Lynniekins, its in regard to brain development.

But you wont bother, its not like you'd ever admit she MIGHT be right about something after all. You're so stuck in your hate filled agenda, you are simply incapable of ANYTHING resembling thoughtful discussion.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283819 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an ignorant buffoon who thinks I'm above PLers intellectually, when all I keep proving is she doesn't have adult intelligence or knowledge. I don't have adult reading comprehension skills either.
COrrected for accuracy.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283820 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
wow, sorry for the typos. hope people can get what is meant.
Not me. What the hell was that ?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283821 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my first example had both women at the abortion clinic, but you're right! Women may choose which babies live and which babies die, in this country. It is all about the woman and not the baby.
What's interesting is how, if a woman were trying to starve herself to death, she would be force feed, by court order.
There is no way to force the average woman to remain pregnant, but my thought is why would we even have these ideas?
The main reason for abortion, is due to wanting pleasure with someone, that you wouldn't want a kid with.
Many don't ever think about their abortion, but as time goes by many many women and men do.
If both women were waiting to have abortions, they weren't far along enough in their pregnancies for there to be a fetal homicide charge. The rest of your post is just your personal opinion. Your opinion isn't relevant to anyone's pregnancy but your own.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#283822 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Silent Scream" was debunked by the very physician performing the fetal surgery. There was no purposeful movement made by the fetus. It was all autonomic.
You guys seem to want the fetus to feel pain. You've personified fetal life to the point of equating it with being a newborn without understanding there are physiological differences between each. No fetus could survive outside the womb and no infant could survive inside the womb.
The ones who don't see this distinction for all its worth are the ones who give precedence to the fetus over the woman gestating it. There are no equal rights between fetus and woman. Woman's civil rights should and will continue to supersede that of any fetus she carries.
Notice how these folks refuse to reply to any post that points out the fact that, physiologically, a fetus in first term development cannot feel pain?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283823 Feb 13, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I did, but in typical liberal fashion you weren't listening.
No actually you didn't. Your first response was to claim it was a stupid question, and your second didn't address the question at all.

3rd time's the charm with you apparently. Pity it takes calling you on your stupidity to get you to answer a simple question.
I said when it is in the womb, it is a "baby" and killing it there would be.
"it would be" what? Murder? Sorry, no, its not. Never has been, never will be.
I'm saying that when it is in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance) in a test tube that it is not a baby,
So lets make sure we understand you correctly - "when its in its earliest stages (days or a week or two for instance)" and its in the womb, it IS a baby then - correct?

But when its in a test tube its not - right?

But the SECOND it goes from that test tube to the woman's womb, it MAGICALLY becomes a baby THEN huh?

@@
it's an embryo under scientific study.
ROFLAMO Uh no. IVF is NOT "under scientific study" you idiot.
It would not be developed to 8-10+ weeks, injected with saline and then pulled apart a limb at time like an actual abortion does.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!! ! Nobody asked you about anything "developed 8-10 weeks" - saline is not used in abortions (hasn't been for decades now) and nothing is torn apart in an 8-10 week abortion you hyperbolic bullshitter.

Is that clear enough for you to understand?
Clear enough to let everyone know you have no rational answer to what was a VERY simple question.

Carry on freak.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283825 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.
Tommy, you're an idiot. Your comment was that there was legislation pending, when the FACT is that its been settled law for decades.

DOCTORS make the medical determination, not politicans. Deal with it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283826 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.
So show us where ANYONE is trying to pass ANY laws ANYWHERE that tries to obtain "abortion on demand at any stage".

Oh wait, you're flat out LYING again since no such legislation is pending ANYWHERE in the US.

On the OTHER hand, there's LOTS of legislation pending from your kind that would try to legislate your RELIGIOUS beliefs, and take AWAY the for women to make the medical decision to abort ANYTIME at ANY stage for ANY reason.

And I CAN provide examples of that easily.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283827 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you a hint. You're looking at the wrong place. Try looking into fetal brain development.
I should have read ahead. I remember the studies you posted last year I think it was.

SHe's an ass, and dishonest as it comes.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283828 Feb 13, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
LilLynne is ignoring Doc's argument.
I don't think she's ignoring. Just interpreting it differently.
I'm interpreting by the legal strict definition of viability. And as such, an artificial womb would be considered ALS. While the artificial womb would serve exactly the same purpose and function as a natural womb, it is man-made and not of the woman so by definition it would be considered "medical assistance".
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.
Fairly accurate. You need to school Katie on this.
Although I would clarify by saying that if a physician determines that ALS will give an infant any chance at survival he will DEEM it viable. Whether it actually WAS viable will be determined in time.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283829 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.-
Lets say it SLOWLY for the stupid boy.

The woman making a medical decision to abort, is not murdering anything or anyone. Its HER CALL, not yours , not ANYONE ELSES to make.

The man with a gun will ONLY be charged with two MURDERS if he ILLEGALLY MURDERS both the woman and her ZEF.

One is a crime. The other is not and never will be - PARTICULARLY in the first trimester. Deal with it already son.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#283830 Feb 13, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
Have asked you before but do not recall your answer.
What happens when the newborn dies anyway? Was it nonviable? That's my answer. So even if the physician deems a fetus viable, births it early, applies ALS, but the newborn dies anyway, then for all intents and purposes, it was not viable.
What say you to that, Doc, old boy?
I've said it already. See above, old girl.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283832 Feb 13, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I will not. I provided the chemical make up of amniotic fluid, because you were too lazy to, or because you knew you were wrong. You made a claim, I proved you wrong. You want to prove you're right YOU provide the info, lazy.
ROFLMAO!! You didn't prove shit Lynnekins. You provided a few lines from an abstract of a much longer paper published from NIH. Hell, you didn't even bother to credit the paper you stole the lines from! Did you bother to read the whole thing? NO. YOu saw the few words you thought you wanted and stopped there.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#283833 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>

What's interesting is how, if a woman were trying to starve herself to death, she would be force feed, by court order.
Unless she's been determined to be mentally ill, no she wouldn't.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#283834 Feb 13, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
"I've already addressed it."

You did not. You just said it is a good question.

"Plus mans laws and other mans law can differ across the world, but so can mans law and Gods law."

Which has nothing to do with the subject.

"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."

Wrong. He would be charged with fetal homicide, and only in certain states. And even then, it's tied in with the death of the fetus during the commission of another crime. You're ignorant of the fetal homicide laws, and should educate yourself.

Now, how can any killing be legal and illegal at the same time?
Anonymous

United States

#283835 Feb 13, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Notice how these folks refuse to reply to any post that points out the fact that, physiologically, a fetus in first term development cannot feel pain?
Not sure if a fetus can feel pain or not, and unless it was the fetus being aborted, then I'm not sure how any would know, BUT we do know many women have felt alot of pain after having an abortion, all the way to suicide.
Anonymous

United States

#283836 Feb 13, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
So show us where ANYONE is trying to pass ANY laws ANYWHERE that tries to obtain "abortion on demand at any stage".
Oh wait, you're flat out LYING again since no such legislation is pending ANYWHERE in the US.
On the OTHER hand, there's LOTS of legislation pending from your kind that would try to legislate your RELIGIOUS beliefs, and take AWAY the for women to make the medical decision to abort ANYTIME at ANY stage for ANY reason.
And I CAN provide examples of that easily.
Is the Jewish faith against abortion, as it stands now?

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) 2 min Reality Check 1,508,467
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Frankspickelbarre... 20,927
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Raymond 63,546
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,066
News Nassau County Court and Family Court judges (Nov '08) 7 hr silly rabbit 96
News Memorable Nights At The Shaboo -- Courant.com (Aug '07) Thu Scn7848 160
Can someone photoshop my photos into nude for m... (Aug '14) Mar 20 bob dole 3

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages