Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,966
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

Spanaway, WA

#287956 Mar 4, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha!
I see they pulled the same sh^t with you...
<quoted text>
"projecting your confusion on to me and stating these are my beliefs when not."
Often, I don't think they are confused. I think they got nuthin', so they have to make up sumthin.
It seems you're right, STO.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287957 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it is. the fact that a woman has a legal right to choose is not opinion. however, whether or not you agree and support or disgaree with that legal right "is" your opinion. there is no getting around that. your spinning notwithstanding.
<quoted text>
you said your personal opinion regarding abortion or any of the choices available would not make any difference to a woman making her own choice.
"What possible difference could it make to any woman making her own choice how I feel about any of it?"
tell me again what you "never" said.
<quoted text>
as long as you're responding, i'm manipulating.
what i can't manipulate is a coward like you into answering the question posed, pusillanimous one.
LOL, enjoy your impotence. Don't hurt yourself by stamping your widdle feet in your tantrum.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287958 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
i did, and you're wrong.
according to the ny daily news --
"the cause of death was 'extreme prematurity' caused by blunt force trauma to the mother, the city’s medical examiner said."
why would anyone deliberately make themselves look so dumb, idiot.
So how is that different than this, "THIS baby was not viable due to injuries sustained by his mother and him."
STO

Vallejo, CA

#287960 Mar 4, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we all have sins in our lives, and we can either try and justify them, or agree with God, that they are not good.
Most real christians know when something is wrong, even if they struggle with that sin on a daily bases, they still know it is wrong.
They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer.
Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion.
He is a mess.
Gods salvation is for all.
Atheist, wiccans, and even many who think they already are.
God didn't say that you will know who they are, becouse they tell you, but by their fruit.
"They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer."

See sjm! That's equivalent to "No it's not!"

lol

"Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion"

And nary a peep of proof.

Attack? You're lying.

I don't try to "make the Bible" do anything. You're lying.

Lying is a sin, ya know. You're a compulsive liar. You should ask YHVH in the name of His Son, YAHU'SHUAH, to guide you in your struggle with lying.

Maybe it's residue from the adultry thing. It's not like you told your wife you were cheating. You lied to her. Still got that problem/sin to overcome. Get to it. Start here. Stop lying about the Bible and topix posters.


“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287961 Mar 4, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What if it isn't a homicide but self inflicted. The only difference is, one is a crime the other is not, but the process was the same. Does that explain it?
No it doesn't. It's precisely the difference in the process that qualifies it as a crime.
Your reference to suicide is also not relevant as the comparison has always been a "natural" occurring death vs intentional death caused by outside influence....and the difference between those two.
I've said it a few times, women do not have a constitutional right to have an abortion,
I agree. But unfortunately the SC erroneously interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to choose to legally abort. Women do, contrary to your belief, currently have a Constitutional right to choose to abort.
women do not need a constitutional right to choose what to do about her own pregnancy. It was physicians who needed the protection from being criminally prosecuted for performing them after the illegalization in the mid 1800's.
Regardless of who was criminally prosecuted, if induced abortion were indeed the same as miscarriage as you claim, there would have been no need for RvW.
<quoted text>It is quite possible some physicians were prosecuted because according to the Journal of American Medicine women were often harassed and denied medical care until she confessed to having had an illegal abortion. What if she didn't and it was a natural abortion? Basically the Salem witch trials all over again. "Confess and name your co-conspirators or else". It was physicians who wanted it illegal and it was physicians who were the biggest supporters of legalization a century later.
What you're talking about is women being forced to falsely confess to obtaining an illegal abortion despite it being a legitimate miscarriage. Not even sure what your point is with this.
My point was no one was EVER prosecuted for a LEGITIMATE naturally occurring miscarriage.
If as you say there is "no difference" between a miscarriage and an induced abortion, then why were these women being forced to confess to something that was no different than a naturally occurring miscarriage ?
Where are you going with this inanity ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287962 Mar 4, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I only asked a question. No need to get pompous.
Ahh lighten up. That's not being pompous. What's REALLY pompous is believing your posts are so shrewd and astute that someone would feel the need to have them removed.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287963 Mar 4, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"By the way you STILL have not answered my RvW question. RvW said that they need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.....the clear implication being that if they DID know, then they would take steps to legally protect that life. If they did not know the answer however, then how could they possibly render a decision that indicated they knew exactly when life did NOT exist ?(pre viability)"
I did answer....twice. Obviously you don't think I addressed this question adequately. I will concede that I may not be understanding what you're asking. It sounds convoluted. Let me try to clarify your question....
Let me clarify. You may have addressed the question but you did not answer it. And in that regard I really should apologize because in fact, there really is no answer. Their statement that they "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and the decision they ended up rendering.....are totally incompatible.
The Court did not know the answer to the question of when life begins.
You feel if they did however answer that question, they would possibly make a ruling on RvW that opposed their current ruling.
I don't know what ruling they would have made. That would be pure speculation. What I do know is they would have had to know for certain that life did NOT exist prior to viability for them to have made the decision they did.
You also think that perhaps they did really know the answer since they were able to claim when life does *not* begin.
Okay, what criteria did they use to decide when life does *not* begin? That was part of my original answer. Life begins at conception (imo),
That is not what they were referring to when they mentioned the "difficult question of when LIFE begins".

but when does that life pass from being simply functioning cells to a living being/person.
THAT is what they were referring to.

If you killed off an amoeba would you really care about the loss of that life? Yet, if you killed off the cells just hours after conception some people here would call that the murder of a human being...so it's not about what the z/e/f is at the time of an abortion, but what it is meant to become. The dividing line is that some people will say it's a zygote or an embryo...no more than that, while others say it's a human being or a "potential" human being.
The Court deals with law, but their opinions/decisions have to be based on something more concrete than just the concept of law. The Court can claim it is a human "being", a person, at the moment of conception and so abortion would then become murder at any stage of gestation, but the court still needs a concrete foundation on which to base that decision.
The zygote/embryo is human, no question there, but it comes back to the question of: is an unborn human a "person" or a "being" and I think that is the huge fork in the road.

So what criteria did the Court use to decide when life "does not begin"?
By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability. For if it did and/or if there was a possibility it did ( they acknowledged that possibility existed when they said they could not resolve the question of when life begins ) then they would have been compelled to protect it.

Just one of the reasons ( not the only one ) why RvW was a terrible decision.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#287964 Mar 4, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
According too Foo, Jews don't consider a fetus a person, so why the name, circumcision and burial.
The BABY was born idiot - it wasn't a fetus. You are a really stupid piece of shit.

That said, you DO understand that this baby didn't have a funeral, right? It is from a Hasidic community, and was most likely buried in a section of the Jewish cemetery that has unmarked graves for instances like this. MOST orthodox cemeteries have this kind of area, tho some differ on if the graves are marked or not. Where my mom's stillborn is buried is not marked for example, but the one where my cousin's stillborn IS marked, but with a generic marker.

Why they're named and circumsised depends on the sect of Hasidim they're from. If you actually gave a shit, you could research the reasons for it yourself.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#287965 Mar 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>

By rendering a decision that gave women the right to choose to legally abort prior to viability without restriction and without the need for justification, they were effectively saying that life did NOT exist prior to viability.
Abortion has no restriction during the first trimester. Following that, states can regulate. Therefore your above premise is false.

Anyway, as you pointed out, the question is what type of life is that life prior to viability? It is developing, unknown, and unaware.

So is it worth more than/equal to a woman's civil rights to personal privacy and bodily autonomy? To the point where following through with the pregnancy will cause harm to the pregnant woman and/or the fetus/baby?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#287967 Mar 4, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. It's precisely the difference in the process that qualifies it as a crime.
Your reference to suicide is also not relevant as the comparison has always been a "natural" occurring death vs intentional death caused by outside influence....and the difference between those two.
<quoted text>
I agree. But unfortunately the SC erroneously interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to choose to legally abort. Women do, contrary to your belief, currently have a Constitutional right to choose to abort.
<quoted text>
Regardless of who was criminally prosecuted, if induced abortion were indeed the same as miscarriage as you claim, there would have been no need for RvW.
<quoted text>
What you're talking about is women being forced to falsely confess to obtaining an illegal abortion despite it being a legitimate miscarriage. Not even sure what your point is with this.
My point was no one was EVER prosecuted for a LEGITIMATE naturally occurring miscarriage.
If as you say there is "no difference" between a miscarriage and an induced abortion, then why were these women being forced to confess to something that was no different than a naturally occurring miscarriage ?
Where are you going with this inanity ?
Your reference to abortion being murder is also not relevant. No matter how it happened, natural, induced, or self inflicted it's still an abortion and neither are murder. There is no such thing as a miscarriage, they are all abortions. Why can't you bring yourself to say natural abortion?
Gtown71

United States

#287968 Mar 4, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"They bible doesn't even have to point out why some things like abortion is wrong, it is a no brainer."
See sjm! That's equivalent to "No it's not!"
lol
"Sto- is the first one, I've ran across, that says they are a christian, yet only plays patty cake with those who even curse his God, while attacking other christians, ans trying to make the bible condone abortion"
And nary a peep of proof.
Attack? You're lying.
I don't try to "make the Bible" do anything. You're lying.
Lying is a sin, ya know. You're a compulsive liar. You should ask YHVH in the name of His Son, YAHU'SHUAH, to guide you in your struggle with lying.
Maybe it's residue from the adultry thing. It's not like you told your wife you were cheating. You lied to her. Still got that problem/sin to overcome. Get to it. Start here. Stop lying about the Bible and topix posters.
I would comment, but your post was barely worth this :)
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#287969 Mar 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said Comstock was a Catholic, Inky. If I remember correctly, he was an anti-contraception "christian" who thought he had the "right" to poke his self-righteous nose into every woman's sexual and reproductive decisions.
As to what you "seriously doubt," it is irrelevant to me. As far as I'M concerned, any woman who takes that "birth control is a sin" B.S. seriously and keeps popping out one kid after another IS being brainwashed. Thank goodness I kicked THAT toxic religious baggage to the curb over 20 years ago. It's wonderful how much freedom a woman has when she ISN'T mentally shackled to a religion that treats women like brood mares for the church.
Oh, oh. Feel bad for your hubby. Sounds like you will have the old strap-on again tonight. Do you scream, " I am the man, I am the man"?
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#287970 Mar 4, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it is your opinion. it's not mine. my opinion is that i do not support a woman's right to choose.
<quoted text>
your point was and always has been that your personal opinion regarding abortion "makes no difference" to the woman exercizing her right to choose. well your opinion regarding her right to choose is equally irrelevant.
there is no debate regarding a woman's right to choose. it is the law of the land. the only debate continues to be arguing your opinion as to whether or not you support that right or you don't.
<quoted text>
idiot, what you were asking her is irrelevant. i know what i was asking you.
<quoted text>
you'll never be manipulated into answering because you remain a pusillanimous coward. you can however, be manipulated into continuing to provide ridiculous explanations for why you won't respond.
She loves to play word games. It seesm to be her thing. She admitted long ago she is proabortion. She slipped up in one of her semantic games. Now she just ignores the discussion because she doesn't want to ne honest with you.

She supports the right of women to freely choose an abortion. Therefore, she is proabortion. Simple really. Her opinion is that she is only supporting their right to choose but not accepting the consequences of her supprt.

It is a very convenient pagan game of illogical thinking. Be for anyhting and bear responsibility for nothing. A cornerstone of their belief ystem.

They have a god for it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#287971 Mar 4, 2013
Cancer is a DAMNED good reason to remove testes, ovaries, uteri, etc. Nor is it always medical; I've seen film from auto accidents that included objects jutting out of bodies in REALLY inconvenient places.
Removing a woman's breasts against her will would be criminal, but how often does that happen?
Forum wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you take out your organs after God put
them there?
They are yours.
Men remove womens breasts because they are criminals.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287972 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's born, right? A baby, right?
Why are you confused? Why do you think I am confused?
Because you have changed your position. Good for you.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287973 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
STO is NOT "...convinced that numbers 5 is justifying women killing their unwanted child."
Take a refresher in reading comprehension.
Abortion was used as a means to determine a woman guilty of adultery during biblical times. That's what Numbers 5 is about and what STO's been discussing. Pregnant woman drinks the bitter water and either aborts and guilty of adultery or she does not abort is innocent of adultery and able to receive her husband's seed.
Seems silly, doesn't it? But that's how it was back in the iron age. And that's according to my NIV bible over 20 years old now. You notice STO uses the KJV, not the NIV? Yet both say the same thing. Go figure.
Where in Numbers 5 does it say that the wife was pregnant?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287974 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
For cryin' out loud. And how does the test determine if she cheated? By aborting a pregnancy causeed by another man. I've already evidenced this with translations.
You don't have to accept it. I don't really care. But if you want to argue the opposite, then get your proof together. Give a rebuttal. "No it's not!" is not a rebuttal.
It doesn't say that. You are reading what you want into it to amke you case for the jews forcing abortion on a woman. If that's what you want to follow as a course of action for treating women, go ahead but I don't believe for one minute that God would approve of such an idea.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287975 Mar 5, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "the BABY was born by C-section" confused you?
You truly are stupid.
It's a baby from day one for me. Katy's confused.

).
This is what Katie said.

I maintain, a fetus determined to be viable who is delivered and attached to ALS, but dies anyway, was obviously not viable. It was unable to survive outside the womb.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287976 Mar 5, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
THIS baby was not viable due to injuries sustained by his mother and him.
Grow up already. Why would you deliberately make yourself look so dumb?
He wasn't viable because he was born too early, just like many abortions.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#287977 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is trying to justify abortion. It needs no justification. It's a medical option for unwanted/unhealthy pregnancies.
STO, as far as I understand it, is disputing the oft made claim that abortion is forbidden due to what the bible says. Well, in Numbers 5, it wasn't forbidden. It was used to determine if a woman was guilty of adultery.
I don't know why, after all this time, you haven't used the excuse of Jesus' coming to wipe out the old ways of the old testament. Just as I don't know why you cherry pick parts of the old testament to confirm your own prejudice and hypocrisy.
Where does it say 'pregnant wife' in Numbers?

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) 8 min No Surprize 1,153,926
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Brian_G 49,182
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 hr scirocco 71,008
Mix-And-Match Home Design (Mar '08) 9 hr William Walker 2
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 hr TRD 68,882
Nassau County Court and Family Court judges (Nov '08) 22 hr Careless Crecca 69
Middletown Police Handcuff 10-Year Old Girl Dur... Thu I call cops Pigs 1
Wethersfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:04 pm PST