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
269,821 - 269,840 of 305,381 Comments Last updated 50 min ago
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287297
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Here's another fetal homicide case.
http://www.wwltv.com/news/northshore/Sheriffs...


What makes you displeased with knowing the majority (98%) of abortions take place during the first trimester?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287298
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Here's another fetal homicide case.
http://www.wwltv.com/news/northshore/Sheriffs...
Sorry, I missed that "no". Okay, so you're not happy with the fact that most women decide to do this early. Would you be happier if there would no regulations at all?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287299
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not regulated enough.
What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion.

So what are your thoughts on regulating gun ownership? Enforcing the rules and regulations already in place for gun ownership? Keeping weapons out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable? Do you agree with regulations on weapons or not?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287300
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?
Can't wait to hear this answer.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287302
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone who believes that abortion kills a human life be happy because it's done at one time instead of another?
Because as someone who dislikes abortion, I am pleased knowing it takes place earlier and earlier. Rather than later when the fetus is more developed, more formed, closer to viability.

I do not see an embryo as equal to a fetus. I do not see a fetus as equal to a newborn. I do not see a newborn equal to a teenager. I do not see a teenager as equal to a 70-something year old man or woman.

Neither the newborn nor teenager have the same civil rights as the 70-something year old person. Why should an embryo or fetus?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287303
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?
It isn't.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287304
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?
Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion.

I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional. Then they mix it up. Like you did above saying, "Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287305
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't discussing "most prolifers". I was discussing the premise of the entire PLM (being as I just read and linked the history of it for Ink recently).
I disagree, though. I do not believe there can be equal rights between woman and fetus. Woman's rights trump fetus' since it is unformed, unkown, and unknowing. That doesn't necessarily equate to disrespecting or not protecting it, imo.
So killing it ,for no other reason than you don't want it, equates to respect and protection to you?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287306
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It couldn't BE regulated enough for you. But tell me, HOW regulated would it really be if illegal? Would you rather they were done by anyone at any time? Because THAT is what would occur if abortion was made illegal. No regulations at all, no oversight at all. Would THAT be better than what we have now?
Using this rational, nothing should be illegal.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287307
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I missed that "no". Okay, so you're not happy with the fact that most women decide to do this early. Would you be happier if there would no regulations at all?
Those regulations did a lot of good in the case of Gosnel's "clinic", didn't they.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287308
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion.
So what are your thoughts on regulating gun ownership? Enforcing the rules and regulations already in place for gun ownership? Keeping weapons out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable? Do you agree with regulations on weapons or not?
"What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion."

So was I.

What does gun ownership have to do with abortion?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287309
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Those regulations did a lot of good in the case of Gosnel's "clinic", didn't they.
The exceptions don't disprove the rule. Didn't you ever learn that?

Still, you'd be HAPPIER if all abortions were performed under those circumstances?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287310
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Because as someone who dislikes abortion, I am pleased knowing it takes place earlier and earlier. Rather than later when the fetus is more developed, more formed, closer to viability.
I do not see an embryo as equal to a fetus. I do not see a fetus as equal to a newborn. I do not see a newborn equal to a teenager. I do not see a teenager as equal to a 70-something year old man or woman.
Neither the newborn nor teenager have the same civil rights as the 70-something year old person. Why should an embryo or fetus?
But you don't get to legally kill the newborn or the teenager.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287311
Feb 27, 2013
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't.
It isn't what?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287312
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
This whole disagreement over viability has really gotten down to splitting hairs, imo.
Splitting hairs ? I strongly disagree. It's not splitting hairs when you have nudniks like chicky, moncie, etc.claiming that an infant is NOT viable if it requires any artificial assistance at all to survive. And that is not my interpretation of what they are saying. They flat out said it.
I'll say you are right regarding the strict legal definition. Thus, "viable" does include with ALS.
Of course it does.
Your issue is with the phrase "reach viability", and when you apply the strict legal definition, I agree, there is no room for "reach viability".
By definition it is impossible. And I disagree that it is only when you apply the strict legal definition. RvW's definition IS a medical definition. There is no medical definition of viable that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
A physician has to have some benchmark to gain permission to use whatever resources are available to help the infant hopefully survive.
I'm guessing that is why there is a legal definition. Without it, insurance companies may be making that determination, instead of the MD.
You're losing me here. The benchmark is simply his medical judgement. If he believes an infant possesses the minimum basic function that it can benefit and survive with ALS he will deem it viable and apply ALS.
Explain to me the circumstances under which an insurance company would ever make that call. Cause I don't see it.
I use the phrase "reach viability", not in the legal sense, but in medical reality. The medical reality is probably often unknown to the experts when they deem an infant "viable".
In some cases perhaps....like when the infant is, in the MD's judgement, on the viability "bubble". He might err on the side of caution, deem it viable and apply ALS.....with the actual viability still to be determined. I don't doubt that there are otherwise, numerous cases where an MD would be very comfortable in making a viability determination.
If an MD does make a determination of viability but the infant dies anyway despite all medical efforts, then it was, in hindsight, never viable. If it survives then the determination of viability
( at the time it was made )was in fact correct. Where does the concept of reaching viability ever make sense ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287313
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

(cont)
For example, their opinion may rest upon the resources available given one medical facility as opposed to another. Say, an infant is delivered in an ambulance 20 miles away from the local country hospital that is not equipped to treat a severely premature infant. They may say that infant is not viable. But delivered at a faciility that specializes in severely premature infants, they may say that infant is viable.
Exactly. Same as if an infant born 100 years ago is deemed non viable but the same exact infant born today would be deemed viable.
The determination of viability is always made based on "available" medical technology.
Back to the hypothetical, artifical womb. A fetus at 10 weeks is not viable in a woman's womb, and tho it can be deemed legally viable if there is a chance to successfully move it from natural womb to artifical womb, it really is not viable in the sense it can survive without A womb.
It would be viable in the sense that the artificial womb is, by definition ALS. While I understand what you are saying, if the concept of an artificial womb ever did become a reality, then the definition of viability would have to be totally reconsidered in order for the concept of "reaching viability" to have any real meaning.
Thus, I would say it needs to be in that natural or artifical womb to "reach viability" -- to survive outside of the necessary environment which will bring it to the point of needing no medical assistance.
An exception or an exclusion of an artificial womb as ALS would need to be made in order to validate the concept of "reaching viability".
So, I see both sides. Strict legal definition enables the MD to do whatever is possible to give that infant a shot. But the legal definition does not necessarily speak to the medical reality (often unknown), which may be better described as potentially viable.
Sorry but I don't see it. Even the medical definition of non viable does not allow for the concept of "potentially viable". That concept exists, by current definition ( legal or medical )only if the fetus remains in the natural womb.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287314
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion.
I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional. Then they mix it up. Like you did above saying, "Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"
"Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion."

Is the fetus partially born?

"I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional."

If you did then you would agree that it's hypocritical to charge someone with assulting an unborn child, when you say that there are no children in the womb.

My question still stands:

"if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287315
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Using this rational, nothing should be illegal.
You mean rationale?

Let's try to focus here. Would you be HAPPIER with no regulations at all? With the mafia running abortions?

I mean, I have no doubt that the thought of more women dying doesn't bother you. There is no doubt in my mind that your first thought would be that she got what she deserved. I actually have no memory of you mentioning the woman Gosnell killed (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am), and you only mention women dying when it can serve your agenda. But, do you REALLY think it would be better without any regulations or oversight AT ALL? If ALL abortions were done under the circumstances that Gosnell operated under?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287316
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't what?
You really couldn't work out what I meant for yourself? Maybe you should re-read your question and my answer again.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287317
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This is exactly what I've been speaking to, STO.
No it isn't. YFrankly you don't know what you're speaking to.

And that, to me at least, it seems as if Doc is A-OK with the courts determining when viability is as opposed to the physicians.
The key being when you say "to me at least". To you at least, does it seem that water runs uphill ?

I've seen him say the determination will always rest with the physicians, but if artificial surfactant and artificial womb become the norm, then based on the legal use of viability, it seems as if the courts are determining it, not the physicians.
Hogwash. Even in the event of the advances you mention, who is it that would still be determining if an infant has the capability of benefitting from artificial surfactant ? Or if an infant has the ability to be successfully transplanted into an artificial womb ? And thus determining whether or not it is, by definition, viable ? Not the courts genius.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 17 min truth told 18,742
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min Islam is Obama 1,095,380
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr gcaveman1 46,223
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr scirocco 68,834
`Dragon' Smokes Out Thefts (Mar '07) 15 hr A former Klingber... 24
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 22 hr TRD 68,292
Can someone photoshop my photos into nude for m... Mon No Mercy 1

Search the Wethersfield Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

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 ]
•••