Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311610 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.

lifes a beach

Lebanon, PA

#264063 Oct 15, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
So sorry :(
These poor kids can often have developmental disabilities. I don't care how "loving" a household they are placed in, one can not "cure" them of their issues.
FASD kids are well known to have profound issues their entire lives, sometimes manifesting in substance abuse and even criminal behaviour.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/facts.html
Children adopted from Russia, the Ukraine and its environs have been seen to have a higher-than-normal incidence rate of probable FASD, due to the higher-than-average alcoholism rates in these areas.
This is a lifetime "sentence" for these poor kids.
Thank you so much! I can assure you my sister takes the utmost care of all three of them, and they have done better than they would have otherwise but there is still no "true cure". I don't even really know how this topic came up but thank you for realizing the severity of what actually happens to these children. I was not appreciative of the "well, how disabled?" attitude that was coming from the previous poster.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264064 Oct 15, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Where is this legal definition of viability in RvW? I'm pretty sure that when PP sued the state of Missouri that the SC said the term viability is not to conflict with the definition in RvW. RvW says viability is a medical judgment for the physician to make.
Section IX of RvW :

"..."viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

By establishing legal precedent for the definition of viability RvW is NOT taking determinations of viability out of the hands of physicians. Those are still determinations made by physicians on acase by case basis. RvW only states that the viability determination must consider the application of medical assistance.

From Missouri vs Planned Parenthood:

2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160, 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 63-65.
lifes a beach

Lebanon, PA

#264065 Oct 15, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>In my experience, the intellectual deficit is less of a problem than issues related to physical illnesses, behavior, emotional disturbances and mental health. Low IQ isn't usually a cause of unhappiness, from what I've seen.
I believe you are extremely accurate with this- I didn't mean for my statement to come off as a low IQ is the bulk of it, I just didnt have the time to post it all, perhaps I could have chosen a better example; however, that is why I posted the link as well. Good observation though.
lifes a beach

Lebanon, PA

#264066 Oct 15, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Significantly more people are government dependent under Obama than when he took office.
Because that's exactly how he wants it, the more people dependent on you, the more easily you can control things. It's the reason a handout in lieu of a handup has never really worked.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#264067 Oct 15, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
"$5,803,829,964"
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/
This is something that bothers me about our system. Just think if all that $$$$$ could be put to better use?
Thanks LC,very informative link.
From your link,I know many don't like her,but Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) showed NO earmarks in the bills reviewed... I was astonished,even speechless,on that one. She deserves a thumbs up on that,folks,even if you do dislike her.
lifes a beach

Lebanon, PA

#264068 Oct 15, 2012
Tondaleyo wrote:
Another thing, there is a deadly fungus in the corn this year which means there is going to be a shortage in corn which means groceries are going up. The future ain't too bright if Obama gets reelected.
Obama probably planted that fungus himself haha. Sorry, I couldn't resist a good old fashioned conspiracy theory.
Katie

Graham, WA

#264069 Oct 15, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you didn't ???
Post #264011 :
"I provided the link of the medical definition of viability which discussed only physiological capabilities."
Liar.
Not even if one is unable to keep a conversation in context. Stop trying to change my words. We both know I spoke of a specific section of information dealing only with physiological capabilities, not meaning that document was the only info provided. Look who's actually lying here, the accuser.
Guido ? Where does that come from ?
I'm a descendant of the Emerald Isle. I married a guido though....ya racist ya.
I call all bullies Guido, refrencing a fond memory from childhood. Don't worry your little head about it. Nobody's being racist, except maybe you, accuser.
<quoted text>
I overlooked nothing you liar. I read the whole thing. And there are at least FOUR references to the determination of viability hinging on medical assistance. Read it an weep.
Yes, nobody's disputing this. You have continued to miscontrue my words since you claim you didn't misunderstand. You are just arguing by yourself about stuff made up in your head, not actually posted. Mental masturbation.
<quoted text>
Yeah.....those functions assisted by or not assisted by medical treatment.
Ya see genius, those minimal physiological functions can exist...and STILL require artificial support.
You're STILL Stupid.
Yes. Again, nobody's disputed this. What don't you get?
lifes a beach

Lebanon, PA

#264070 Oct 15, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Obama created the deadly fungus in order to what? Knitter, NR referenced me as a "Debbie Downer", but it appears I have stiff competition.
LOL I thought the same thing (as a joke of course), good to see some similiar humor on these threads.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264071 Oct 15, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"An infant cannot be born non viable and then reach viability through medical assistance. It is impossible. By definition a non viable infant cannot survive no matter what medical assistance is provided ( YOUR WORDS )"
Nobody has ever said "...infant [can] be born non viable and then reach viability through medical assistance."

It is your own erroneous interpretation making you claim and/or believe these are my words, "By definition a non viable infant cannot survive no matter what medical assistance is provided ( YOUR WORDS )." I have not ever stated or implied this.
You never have ? Really ???

Post #260621:

"Those who weren't viable didn't survive and wouldn't survive no matter how much medical assistance was used."

YOUR words genius.

You lie once again.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#264072 Oct 15, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't really just say this did you ?.......
"It's not a deterrent"
"Some people might be deterred"
How can some people be deterred by something that is NOT a deterrent ?
If there is an average of one robbery per day at a convenience store and the police subsequently post a uniformed officer in a marked car outside the store and the robberies go down to one per month.......has the posted officer served as a deterrent ???
What does the word "might" mean?

A hypothetical "if" question isn't proof of reality is it? I don't see any uniformed cops being posted at any area convenience stores around here. There is still quite a lot of crimes being committed. Many of them at places that have cameras.
Katie

Graham, WA

#264073 Oct 15, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Section IX of RvW :
"..."viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
By establishing legal precedent for the definition of viability RvW is NOT taking determinations of viability out of the hands of physicians. Those are still determinations made by physicians on acase by case basis. RvW only states that the viability determination must consider the application of medical assistance.
From Missouri vs Planned Parenthood:
2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160, 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 63-65.
It states right above, "It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability..." Why have you been claiming over and over and over the legal definition of viability is contingent upon ALS? As if every preemie born would be subjected to ALS whether the physician deems it appropriate or not. The word ALBEIT is used, imo, as a conjunction and building upon the medical definition.

What you claim, that, "A physician will be making the determination regarding whether or not a newborn is physiologically capable of benefitting from ALS. If he determines it CAN benefit then he will deem it VIABLE.
If he determines it CANNOT benefit then he will deem it NON VIABLE.
Simple as that." http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Again, why would you work to overturn RvW? It would overturn this "legal" definition of VIABILITY, too.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264074 Oct 15, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even if one is unable to keep a conversation in context. Stop trying to change my words.
Change your words ??? I quoted you numbnuts..... VERBATIM !

We both know I spoke of a specific section of information dealing only with physiological capabilities, not meaning that document was the only info provided. Look who's actually lying here, the accuser.
No we both DON'T know that. All is I know is you said you provided a link that discussed only physiological capabilities. Your link clearly stipulates that these physical capabilities must be supported by MEDICAL TREATMENT in order to make a viability determination.
I call all bullies Guido, refrencing a fond memory from childhood. Don't worry your little head about it. Nobody's being racist, except maybe you, accuser.
Now I'm supposed to be a mind reader as far as your childhood history goes. Explain that after you get knocked on your ass for calling someone a racist name. Racist.
Yes, nobody's disputing this. You have continued to miscontrue my words since you claim you didn't misunderstand. You are just arguing by yourself about stuff made up in your head, not actually posted. Mental masturbation.
<quoted text>
Yes. Again, nobody's disputed this. What don't you get?
You're agreeing with everything I'm saying. Just what is it you're disputing ?
Do you even know ???
Katie

Graham, WA

#264075 Oct 15, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You never have ? Really ???
Post #260621:
"Those who weren't viable didn't survive and wouldn't survive no matter how much medical assistance was used."
YOUR words genius.
You lie once again.
Yep, my words. There is no lie, Doc. I've not ever disputed the medical fact that a nonviable preemie will not survive. Sure hope you've seen the correction and realize you've replied above to a post edited badly by me. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You could apologize for all your crappy name calling, too. Otherwise I'll have to start countering your unprovoked attacks.
Tondaleyo

United States

#264076 Oct 15, 2012
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama probably planted that fungus himself haha. Sorry, I couldn't resist a good old fashioned conspiracy theory.
Well, with the drought the yield is down, take what yield there is and more than half have fungus, not a good thing.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264077 Oct 15, 2012
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You're using an illegally run abortion "clinic" as an example?? How does dispute my point that most women don't have LTAs and the ones that do usually have solid reasons? Where do you see the women's reasonings for getting such late term abortions? Please feel free to share...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/kerm...
Btw- in Pa, abortion is not allowed past 24 weeks so I'm not sure how an illegal butcher shop strengthens your argument?
It disputes your point because you're going only by what's reported, and illegal LTA's will not be reported, until the doctor gets caught, then it's made obvious that women aren't having LTA's just because their life is at risk or something wrong with fetus.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264078 Oct 15, 2012
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you joking?! What the heck are you talking about? Prior to 24 weeks, it wouldn't even be known if the fetus was negatively effected so there goes your "mercy killing" argument. It takes years to even examine the full extent of the damage caused by drug abuse of a "mother". Btw, I clicked on the link and I don't engage in links that are obviously politically slanted and feel the need to use the terms "liberals" and "conservatives" when talking about biochemistry and medical health.
Point is, who wants a severely disabled child that isn't their own? Answer: Not many people. You are seriously downplaying the effects of this type of drug abuse and the resulting disabilities. Try having an IQ of 82 and functioning on the level of a 14 year old when one is 21. It's always so black and white for the people who have never seen such heartbreaking things up close and personal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
"Prior to 24 weeks, it wouldn't even be known if the fetus was negatively effected so there goes your "mercy killing" argument."

No, there goes your argument that they would be negatively affected. How do you know? You don't. You're admitting that much with that statement.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264079 Oct 15, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It states right above, "It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability..."
Of course it's not proper to fix viability. Every fetus/preemie is different. That's up to a physician to decide. But he must decide in consideration of medical assistance. What medical assistance may help one 24 week old preemie to survive, may not help another.
Get it genius ?
Why have you been claiming over and over and over the legal definition of viability is contingent upon ALS? As if every preemie born would be subjected to ALS whether the physician deems it appropriate or not.
You're lying again. Stop ! Why do you ignore the posts where I clearly explained that not every preemie is subject to ALS. Only those that the physician determines can benefit from it will it be applied to. If they determine it can not benefit then ALS will not be applied.
Now don't lie again. Liar.

The word ALBEIT is used, imo, as a conjunction and building upon the medical definition.
The medical definition DOES include medical assistance. Where do you think the court got it ?
What you claim, that, "A physician will be making the determination regarding whether or not a newborn is physiologically capable of benefitting from ALS. If he determines it CAN benefit then he will deem it VIABLE.
If he determines it CANNOT benefit then he will deem it NON VIABLE.
Simple as that." http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Again, why would you work to overturn RvW? It would overturn this "legal" definition of VIABILITY, too.
I would work to overturn RvW because of it's permitting legal elective abortions pre-viability....not to overturn it's definition of viability. There are still some things in the decision that are accurate.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264080 Oct 15, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Ask the original poster lilrabbitfoofoo, my only opinion is that it's stupid to argue over funeral vs memorial, why people aren't flying to another country to attend, eulogies and Catholic services. These things don't make the story a fabrication. WTFC's when the bottom line is a woman died making her own choice not to abort a non viable fetus based on
1. Religious beliefs?
2. A failure in communication?
Or so FOO says. How do we know the story is true? We don't, because she lied about the Ariel story and that WAS proven, even though you couldn't see it. Plus she's been proven to be a patholoigical liar. You have tried to prove she isn't and all you managed to prove was you don't understand what you read.

Foo's "niece", huh?

No posts in Foo's words to show she corrected her "typo", to where everyone understood it was a 20 yr old? But posts proving she didn't, at least not in the 6 days that I read.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264081 Oct 15, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>With whom have I damaged my credibility, my friend?
Anyone with intelligence and sense who has integrity in discussion, of course.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264082 Oct 15, 2012
Pluto is a planet wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been to several Catholic funerals but that doesn't mean I know what's done at every funeral. They haven't all been exactly the same. They all had readings, but at times we, the family, chose the psalms and the music. Sometimes the priest spoke from personally knowing the deceased and sometimes he read prayers chosen by the family. One priest did prayers with our family at the funeral home before we went to the church for the funeral.
All the funerals I've been to have had differences from other funerals I've experienced. I'm glad for you that you "know what's done at the funerals" because I only know what's been done at the funerals I've personally attended.
I'll let you have the spotlight on the subject since you seem to have the most funeral knowledge.
Foo and Googleicious were claiming Catholic funerals DO NOT at any time have eulogies. They're wrong.

Even Ladilulu admit a couple Catholic funerals she went to had eulogies.

Maybe PCers need to pay attention to what's posted.

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.

Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 5 min oh snap 48
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 3 hr Quirky 1,028
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 6 hr Solid Blue November 40
News Juan Gabriel brings music, memories to El Paso 7 hr Encore 1
News Clooney's restraining order 10 hr Stoned luck aka l... 100
News Clinton, Trump share a media strategy: avoid it 10 hr LOL 1
News Aisha Hinds cast as Harriet Tubman in 'Undergro... 10 hr Yeah 1
More from around the web