Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[AyakaNeo]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
"If the fetus is dead the woman is still pregnant and an abortion is performed to terminate the pregnancy and evacuate the uterus. An abortion is an abortion is an abortion as far as medicine is concerned...
... We all know what all these terms mean..."
lol sure you do, miss forum medical expert.
How do doctors perform an abortion AFTER an abortion already occurred? They DON'T, because it's not necessary to abort an abortion.
A miscarriage IS an abortion, a spontaneous abortion, and you claim doctors then perform an abortion using a D&C, AFTER a pregnancy already spontaneously ABORTED? No, they use a D&C simply to remove what already spontaneously aborted. It's not documented as "an abortion".
"I don't know why you go on about that and about D&Cs, Lily. "
Because of fools who keep posting misinformation and then lie about it.

Really mrs I have medical professionals in my family and I've asked them? LOL what a crock. Put them on, I'll talk to them.

[carolo43]

Supreme Court ruled on that law 40 years ago.

[R C not funny]

R C Honey wrote:

oops, too eagerly waiting for a pistoning!

:)

[Lori in Maine]

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Lynne wants to be "RIGHT". Captial letters, unquestionably "RIGHT". Beyond that, she wants respect, something she will NEVER get here.

She was such a fool in her atrociously messed up past that now she's trying so hard to come off as superior in every way. She tries to make it seem like her shit doesn't stink because she was so much of a pathetic loser in her past. She really just stinks beyond belief of arrogance. She makes a big fool of herself with her high and mighty act and her snot nose is so far up in the air bugs are probably flying into it. She just plain stinks of arrogance and narcissism. Her head is so effin fat that her shirt necks are probably stretched to the point of ripping.

[realkatie]

_Bad Axe wrote:

<quoted text>OK, so show case precedence where this definition has been accepted over Roe v Wade's definition. Understand that Roe v Wade set the point that a State could proscribe abortion, with extreme exceptions, at viability, it's definition of viability, that is all that is relevant to abortion law. I dont know why you refuse to admit this Katie, R v W made it a point to include what it's definition was and that definition has held, until another definition is accepted then the legal definition of "viable" includes "albeit with artifical aide".
BTW, that means that as advancements in medical technology are made then it would move up the point when a fetus may survive, "albeit with artificial aide", it will also move up the point at which a State can proscribe abortion, this is your real problem with this, isn't it? Well the, rather than deny what is obvious to everyone, including the courts, why not just admit that you do not agree with Roe v Wade?

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Your own link is swarming with evidence that refutes your definition and backs up mine.
You continually provide links that prove you wrong.
How stupid is that ?

Hi Kevin, welcome back. Hello, Doc, you seem prickly as ever.

My point all along has been a lot more simple than what it's become with your added demands and false claims above. From the beginning I've said it seems you've placed more emphasis to the phrase, "...albeit with artificial aid" than is actually there. That it seems you want the courts to determine health care rather than physicians. I've said this to others who are of a similar belief as you.

Physicians look to physiological capabilities to determine viability, to determine if the newborn has what it takes to benefit from ALS. That's it, the reason why I've continually said medically, VIABILITY means without medical assistance.

The addition of "...albeit with artificial aid" did not and does not alter the medical definition of viability. It does leave the door open for technological advancements, but it doesn't demand or force the legal gestational age a preemie must be treated because the courts cannot determine that, only physicians can. My concern has been your willingness to want the courts to determine health care rather than leaving it up to the physicians.

However, now add your insistence that "states' compelling interests" must mean some kind of opening for legal protection of the fetus over the woman. It actually means the state has to have a compelling interest -- more intense than a legitimate interest -- because reproductive rights are termed fundamental rights.

Hope this has cleared things up once and for all. This is beyond boring and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you want to insist your perspectives are correct and mine are wrong, have at it. I will agree to disagree and move on.

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>It's also used for the same purpose to remove tissue after an elective abortion, there is no difference in the treatment.
<quoted text> Again it's the same treatment regardless of the type of abortion.
<quoted text>You've called them up and asked them? Put them on, because when I do the coding for billing purposes it's coded as "abortion" with spontaneous, missed, threatened, complete, elective and a lot more being the distinction.

You people are dense.

A D&C is a D&C no matter what it's used for, whether it's fo a woman who's not even pregnant, a woman who had a miscarriage or a woman who has an induced abortion. NO ONE is disputing that.

[A D&C for treatment] after a miscarriage is NOT charted as "an abortion". The *miscarriage is charted as an *abortion, a *spontaneous one. NOT the procedure to treat it.

I don't have to "call them and ask them". It's come up in discussion before with my family members years ago, and through the years, as well as other medical issues being discussed that I had a curiosity about.

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>Really mrs I have medical professionals in my family and I've asked them? LOL what a crock. Put them on, I'll talk to them.

LOL, sure, Toots. I don't need to prove anything to ignorant and senseless fools. I'll just keep posting the sensible facts and intelligent people can decide for themselves which makes more sense.

Calling a D&C after a miscarriage/spontaneous abortion "an abortion", or calling a D&C after miscarriage/spontaneous abortion a [treatment for spontaneous abortion].

[OLD LADY]

_Bad Axe wrote:

<quoted text>I responded to a poster who said that aborting a fetus at just about any stage was "killing a human", and then her answer to it all was adoption. I'm sorry, but it's just not that simple. I dont really know your opinions on this OL so I'm not directing this at you, I'm just going to state my view on this.
So many on the PL side want to make real life decisions for women who find them self with an unwanted pregnancy, yet they look at the world through rose colored glasses immune to reality, or worse, they think their "god" will make everything work out alright for that woman and child, again, immune from reality. The reality of outlawing abortion is that it will overburden the adoption system and many babies, kids will wind up in homes only to be abused. Many women who chose not to give up the babies will raise them in dysfunctional, neglectful homes. The reality is that our jails are filled with people that grew up in such homes and are a danger to society, to you, and your family. I live near Detroit and every night on the news is another story of an unfortunate kid, or woman, or father killed for a few bucks or their car, or some other stupid reason. God didn't save those victims, and the perpetrator wasnt saved by a loving family or community so that his life worked out happily ever after.
I know that many on the PL side say that people have to be responsible for their actions and should never abort, well I say, the PL side has to be responsible for their solutions, and forcing women into unwanted motherhood, or over whelming the adoption system is not a reasonable answer in today's society. The answers have to start with birth control and limited unwanted pregnancies, and unfortunately, yes, allowing abortion in early stages of pregnancy.

Sadly,I know the reality of poverty,Kevin. I also understand God doesn't fix everything, that's our job,to do,if we possibly can. I've tried to ask folks on here,for solutions on poverty,thinking that the main reason for abortion. The more I dig,the more I think I'm wrong. I think solutions,should come from us all,but how can that happen,especially after reading this forum? I'm not against all forms of birth control,and you'll probably will ask me,which ones are you for? All forms of barrier methods,which seems not to work as well as others. Improvement to them would be great. Many women would be horrified if they thought,taking chemical birth control would cause an abortion,no matter what they believe. I confess,I would be. I've looked at so many sites,both pro-life and pro-choice that gives different answers,which includes doctors,scientists,etc. I'm not sure who to believe. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough,and the truth be known,I'd really like to believe the pro-choice side on this one. Forcing removal of a fertilized egg, before or after implantation, is something that I wouldn't want for me. I would just like a straight truthful answer,on this one,if there is one. Not an iffy one. Have a good Sunday,Kevin..:)

[R C Honey]

As much as it would pain some of you, I must bid adieu!

ya ya,, again,, BUT, this time it's different!

maybe in a long while I will troll those deserved!

[AyakaNeo]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
You people are dense.
A D&C is a D&C no matter what it's used for, whether it's fo a woman who's not even pregnant, a woman who had a miscarriage or a woman who has an induced abortion. NO ONE is disputing that.
[A D&C for treatment] after a miscarriage is NOT charted as "an abortion". The *miscarriage is charted as an *abortion, a *spontaneous one. NOT the procedure to treat it.
I don't have to "call them and ask them". It's come up in discussion before with my family members years ago, and through the years, as well as other medical issues being discussed that I had a curiosity about.

It's charted as an abortion, miscarriage is not a medical term. Because miscarriage is not a medical term it will not be recorded, coded or transcribed as a miscarriage. It is an abortion, with the distinction being elective, spontaneous, missed, threatened, complete, incomplete and a whole slew of other words to describe the abortion. This is 2012, not 1979.

[AyakaNeo]

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, sure, Toots. I don't need to prove anything to ignorant and senseless fools. I'll just keep posting the sensible facts and intelligent people can decide for themselves which makes more sense.
Calling a D&C after a miscarriage/spontaneous abortion "an abortion", or calling a D&C after miscarriage/spontaneous abortion a [treatment for spontaneous abortion].

If you don't need to prove anything why do you C&P posts from January? What you mean to say is I'm not going to prove I'm lying. You make yourself look a fool every time you type the same diatribe over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over about how every one but you and a few others are ignorant, and senseless. I am an intelligent person, I have more intelligence than you because I know how D&C's are coded and charted for any abortion whether it's spontaneous, elective, missed, threatened, complete or incomplete. Unless you are an ICD-9 coder or have access to medical records you don't know how it's charted, coded or transcribed. I know you have neither otherwise you would not have needed to "ask your family members".

[Long Night Moon 13]

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>But that's okay, they're on HER "side". LOL!

Exactly.

[John-K]

R C Honey wrote:

As much as it would pain some of you, I must bid adieu!
ya ya,, again,, BUT, this time it's different!
maybe in a long while I will troll those deserved!

Adieu my friend!

If you don't mind my asking, what's transpired to elicit this sort of post from you...?

[Anonymous]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
"actually yes you have, wiesel, when you say that people have no way of knowing where there are going to be more guns - when you say you disagree that a shop in a small southern town is gonna have more guns statistically than a shop in a liberal city wit tight gun laws, like DC, ten YES your claim is that you dont think there's necessarily anymore gun in any place over the other ---------- there IS.......deal with it"
I LIVE in a small southern town, Idiot. I said NOTHING about geography, or politics. I SAID that even with no gun laws, there is no reason to believe there would be any more guns in any given location. That's not the same thing. YOU deal with it.
"my god liberal stupidity knows no bounds - it WOULD, the same way a black dude walking into an Alabama redneck bar of all whites is PROBALBY gonna end up with some negative attention against the black guy........again, he doesnt KNOW anyne there is bigoted, but he doesn have to, he's a rational person who uses his brain.........."
Non sequitur. Stop going off on tangents. You have no focus.
"same reason a crook is less likely to rob a gun shop, he doesnt KNOW people inthere are carrying, but he doesnt have to, he uses good & logical judgement..........get it?"
Again, I disagree. You can repeat it all you like, it's just your opinion.
"now BOY, listen here, if you'r gonna debate, you cant just run from questions (thats the cowards way out, & its been a fav. or yours, Bitners, LNMoons & others for years).........STOP SIDESTEPPING & answer the question:
if you're gonna rob a store, do you A) go into a place thats filled with people who most likely WONT be armed, or do you B) go to a place thats probably filled with ARMED citizens?"
Listen up, you whiny Little Girl, your question HAS been answered. You don't get to change it up just because you didn't get the answers you wanted the first time.
I disagree that a loosening of gun laws would be a deterrent to someone going in and shooting a bunch of people in a public place. And THAT was your original contention. I'm not going to address every fricken other thing under the sun. Piss off, LITTLE GIRL.

"is no reason to believe there would be any more guns in any given location" - aside from illega arms (which you cant do stats on) WHY would this be true? you know damn well peopl in the southeast & rural towns are generally more comfortable with guns --- so why would there not then be MORE of them???

"Non sequitur. Stop going off on tangents" - okay listen, you cant just say "non sequitor, i disagree" & have THAT be our argument - i can do the same, by arguing gravity is different in GA than in NY, by just SAYING "nope, non sequitor, i disagree" ..........but hwo does that make me soun? STUPID, thats how, & it proves nothing

the question is WHY do you disagree, WHY does Bitner feel that there is no such thing as deterrant by guns???

explain away, im still waiting..........

"I'm not going to address every fricken other thing under the sun." - yawwn, b/c u CANT coward..........and the queston wast about LOOSENIGN gun lawsto deter criminals

it was would you be deterred from criminality in a place wher there are likely more guns..........now, try & answer the question, bc you NEVER once did:

if you're gonna rob a store, do you A) go into a place thats filled with people who most likely WONT be armed, or do you B) go to a place thats probably filled with ARMED citizens?"

tick tock boy.....

[Anonymous]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
"REALLY? wow, armed citizens who deter criminals, SUCH TERROR! "
You have yet to prove your assertion that it deters criminals. You already admitted that criminals won't know who has a gun, so how would they be deterred by what they don't know.
" why dont you go find some stats"
Funny coming from you since you keep making remarks claiming they're "facts" yet you haven't shown a shred of proof. We were talking about citizens commonly carrying guns and if you think that wouldn't lead to spontaneous shootings then I say you're naive. Do you actually think it doesn't happen? And yes, many people would not feel comfortable out in public places knowing most everyone has a gun on them.
And by the way...the 2nd amendment refers to militias.
"OUCH, logic hurts....."
When am I going to see you use some?
"you're also so idiotically assuming that those who kill family members only do so b/c they have access to guns, that they WOULDNT DARE use knives, baseball bats, blunt objects, their bare hands..........idiot"
I never said that at all. Since you have now admitted that people will do such crazy things, would you now want these crazy fools walking around in public with guns on them?
"cops face 100 times the "stress" you speak of & 99.99 percent of them dont take their guns out & shoot others...."
Cops are trained law enforcement people. That's their job. They know what they may face every day. And yes, there are cops out there who snap and do the wrong thing, but we still need law enforcement, but we don't need any average angry nut (like you) walking around with guns.

"Cops are trained law enforcement people. That's their job" - BULLSHIT, youre making the claim that b/c their trained to use their weapons that that alone is what keeps them from going on shooting rampages, well BS - if cops, who face 100x the stress we do can go an entire career (& most do) WITHOUT shooting innocent people in the street, than dont tell me some average joe is likely to do so......JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GUN..........are you retarded? seriously

"You have yet to prove your assertion that it deters criminals" - holySHT, are you really this stiupid? thats like asking "how could a school bully possibly be deterred from picking on EVERYONE in the class, he doesnt know whose gonna fight back & who doesnt..........well DUH lady, the bully is deterred b/c he knows theres a great chance he WILL get his ass kicked

same logic, question: you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?

..........what i thought, right on target ..........

lets hear your answer...

[Anonymous]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, it seems to be killing you, since you're one of the stupidest people on here. And the most unstable. And the angriest. And the most naive.
Again, back in the original Old West discussion most men were carrying guns, right out where they could be seen, and they had shotguns in their houses, and there was plenty of crimes and killings and violence. Whole gangs of thugs robbing and killing and they knew most men had guns, and they committed crimes anyway.

yes, but they also didnt have security CAMERAS & things that deter criminals FAR more than back then - those days you could likely get away with anything in small towns with small security forces

today, there's little chance of getting away with shootings anyway..........so with the added deterrant of other citizens ready to kill you to save their lives, we are EVEN safer

so the question is why do you think that MORE people with guns (lets say almost all carried) would NOT deter you from pulling your gun out in anger?

dont know about you, but im not stupid or that crazy - if i know a room is full of guys with guns, why ON EARTH would i pull it out in anger???

tell us...

[lil Lily]

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text> It's charted as an abortion, miscarriage is not a medical term. Because miscarriage is not a medical term it will not be recorded, coded or transcribed as a miscarriage. It is an abortion, with the distinction being elective, spontaneous, missed, threatened, complete, incomplete and a whole slew of other words to describe the abortion. This is 2012, not 1979.

"It's charted as an abortion, miscarriage is not a medical term. Because miscarriage is not a medical term it will not be recorded, coded or transcribed as a miscarriage."

Once again for the intellectually challenged.
I said, "A D&C for treatment] after a miscarriage is NOT charted as "an abortion". The *miscarriage is charted as an *abortion, a *spontaneous one. NOT the procedure to treat it."

Am I stating it's charted as a "miscarriage"? NO, I'm stating the D&C is charted as a treatment for what? A spontaneous abortion. Or it will be incomplete abortion. But the D&C itself is not an abortion, it's a treatment procedure FOR, in the case of miscarriage, a spontaneous abortion.

You always come back replying with redundant stupidity, and I call it stupidity because at this point it's very clear you can't read for comprehension and keep repeating what I'm saying as though i haven't said it.

[Anonymous]

John-K wrote:

<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Seattle," as you can see, I don't get onto these threads too much anymore...
I suppose this is a case of you and I viewing the evidence presented to us and arriving at completely different conclusions.
The interesting thing about you, "Moon," and "Pete," is that the three of you can come off quite strongly in stressing your opinions from time to time...perhaps that's the common thread that compels you to continue conversing with one another.
I don't "know" either "Moon," or "Pete," terribly well so if I'm to assign motives here it's merely speculation...nothing more.
I'd wager that "Pete" uses the "Vlad" avatar much in the same way Lady Gaga used her "Meat-Dress": in an effort to shock not for the "shock-value" but to raise awareness of the viciousness some people have to endure because of their sexual orientation.
The reasons "Moon" targets Christianity as enthusiastically as she does is not merely an attempt to discredit the religion in and of itself, but to call to account those who publicly claim their personal "righteousness" yet thoroughly fail in the proverbial "Litmus Test" when their faith is put into daily practice regarding their dealings with others who may or may not happen to share that faith.

no, i mean the guy actually defends Vlad, says he was a great man, etc.

Moon hates Christianity, not just the so called "hypocrites" & there are many - she hates every bit of it, what it represents, the supposed fact that it oppresses rights, its people, everything..........i mean literally, she wont tell you she respects ANY of it, try asking her

people like that hate it either b/c of past experiences which theyve projected to the whole religion, or in some cases theyre simply demonic, tools of the devil, even possessed

"account those who publicly claim their personal "righteousness" " --------- BS, i dont know a single conservative on here who "claims righteousness" in ANY form - honestly, people like her call us all hypocrites if we dont act & speak a certain way, & even if we do that we're still hypocrites for not being pro-abortion b/c that means we're mysogynists

[LiIrabbitfoofoo]

lil Lily wrote:

262172
Oct. 7, 2012
Post 262413
Foo: "If a woman has a dead fetus in her, then yes, it IS an abortion procedure to get rid of the dead fetal matter."

Foo is saying a D&C "IS an "abortion procedure" after miscarriage.

Uh no. Damn you're stupid Lynne, and you claim OTHERS have reading comprehension issues? I didn't say SHIT about a miscarriage you dunce.

Oct. 6, 2012
Post 262234
Foo: "...I at NO time EVER made the claim that a D&C is an "abortion procedure for the treatment of an incomplete spontaneous abortion"..."
She said she never claimed it, "at NO TIME EVER", but she made the claim a day later. Just as she made the claim back in Jan of this year.

Learn to READ Lynne you idiot.

I said, and YOU quoted: "If a woman has a dead fetus in her, then yes, it IS an abortion procedure to get rid of the dead fetal matter." The dead fetal matter BEING THE FETUS you dumbass.

I said nothing about an 'incomplete spontaneous abortion' you idiot.

I THEN gave the example of a woman who had a fetus that died in utero, one of twins, and the dead fetus was ABORTED while the live one was left to complete gestation.

Foo's such a mess and such a patholigical liar, she can't even recognize she's made 2 statements that completely contradict one another. Funny stuff.

ROFLMAO!!! Yet the ONLY "mess" here is YOU Lynne. I didn't say anything that was contradictory. Its YOU that can't read for comprehension you poor pathetic schlub.

[LiIrabbitfoofoo]

lil Lily wrote:

Foo, Carbon, CPeter and Elise are PCers who have claimed that a D&C after miscarriage is an abortion procedure, and it's now been proven to Ayakeno, who claimed, "No one said a D&C for a spontaneous abortion was an elective abortion."

Foo, Cpeter and Elise have NEVER claimed that a D&C AFTER a miscarriage is an abortion procedure Lynne, you moron.

What we are saying is that its the SAME PROCEDURE NO MATTER WHAT ITS FOR OR WHEN IT IS.

The **PROCEDURE** is the D&C. WHat its FOR is irrelevant.

A D&C is a D&C. G-dDAMN you're dense Lynne.