Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,850
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

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#261927 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Enjoy it. Your boy got smoked. If it were a fight the ref would've stopped it on an early TKO.
The teleprompter stooge was in rare form.....stumbling, stuttering, staring down, no eye contact, confused. Uhh-ing and duh-ing his way to an embarrassing showing.
From what I've seen, well-trained attorneys don't make eye contact when they're not speaking and are conditioned to stare downward so as not to intimidate. Thought you'd know that.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#261928 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I've seen, well-trained attorneys don't make eye contact when they're not speaking and are conditioned to stare downward so as not to intimidate. Thought you'd know that.
Whatever you say.
Better get right on the phone to the stooge's campaign headquarters and tell them to issue a press release explaining that the reason your boy looked befuddled, confused, and just plain disinterested is because......well.....that's the way attorneys are supposed to look.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#261929 Oct 4, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Describing your typical date with a woman ^^^
Thanks for sharing!
Anytime needle nose !

What a drubbing huh ? Did he even want to be there ?
In any case, just one more reason for those like you and me to vote for Romney......right ? Ya phony ya.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#261930 Oct 4, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Doc deserves respect for two reasons:
1. He's consistent
2. He's honest enough to call himself a hypocrite.

He has mine, for what it's worth.
How could ya not ?

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#261931 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you say.
Better get right on the phone to the stooge's campaign headquarters and tell them to issue a press release explaining that the reason your boy looked befuddled, confused, and just plain disinterested is because......well.....that's the way attorneys are supposed to look.
He is not my boy.
He issued the dead of an American without due process.
Parents of said American have filed suit.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#261932 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not speaking of how Roe v Wade included "albeit with medical assistance". That's a legal distinction, not medical (the word albeit clues us in to the difference between the two). In the past I was and am still only speaking of the medical definition of viability.
Tell me something genius.....of what relevance is any other definition of viability to the issue of abortion, if in fact RvW established legal precedence for the definition of viability as it applies to abortion ???

By the way, 24 weeks is NOT the point at which a preemie has a chance of "reaching viability".
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a preemie to be born NON VIABLE and then REACH viability via medical assistance because by definition a NON VIABLE preemie CANNOT survive no matter how much medical assistance it is provided.

Chew on that one for a while then get back to me.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#261933 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I've seen, well-trained attorneys don't make eye contact when they're not speaking and are conditioned to stare downward so as not to intimidate. Thought you'd know that.
Hey Katie!

He didn't show the confidence of the 2008 debates imo.

(didn't know that about attorneys, just thought it was part of their snake like characteristics ;)

“I call it as I see it”

Since: Aug 07

New York

#261934 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you say.
Better get right on the phone to the stooge's campaign headquarters and tell them to issue a press release explaining that the reason your boy looked befuddled, confused, and just plain disinterested is because......well.....that's the way attorneys are supposed to look.
Well good afternoon Doc! Try not to be so judgemental regarding obamas performance. It wasn't a fair debate.
Obama was denied the use of a Teleprompter. My understanding the NAACP is preparing an official complaint with the justice department claiming that the debate was racially bias. Be well.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#261935 Oct 4, 2012
Bronto wrote:
<quoted text>
Well good afternoon Doc! Try not to be so judgemental regarding obamas performance. It wasn't a fair debate.
Obama was denied the use of a Teleprompter. My understanding the NAACP is preparing an official complaint with the justice department claiming that the debate was racially bias. Be well.
Ya mean like the FDNY exam ?

I heard that a sample question from that "biased" exam was...."What part of the body does a firefighter wear gloves to protect?" I kid you not.

Be well.

“OUCH”

Since: Mar 07

Russell Springs, KY

#261936 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I've seen, well-trained attorneys don't make eye contact when they're not speaking and are conditioned to stare downward so as not to intimidate. Thought you'd know that.
Speaking of lawyers,kids really do say the darnest things..LOL
"My daddy is a movie actor and sometimes he plays the good guy and sometimes he plays the lawyer."--Harrison Ford's son

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261937 Oct 4, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>
No now here you go again, they don't say it's not her child as in it's not her possession, you confuse "her child" as in ownership to "her child" as in the cycle of life. I've never seen anyone say it's not her child but I've seen them say it's "not a child" as in the cycle of life. You're so hell bent on needing proof, and claiming crap where is your proof that they say it's not her child and not a child?
<quoted text> But is it a contradiction? If yes, then I'm not the only one with "idiot" friends. If no, then it is your view.
<quoted text> But you just said those weren't your words or your view now you're saying "whenever i've stated the fetus is separate" as if you have said it. You just contradicted yourself. Out right lied.
"I've never seen anyone say it's not her child but I've seen them say it's "not a child" as in the cycle of life."

Either it's her CHILD or it isn't. Make up your mind.

"You're so hell bent on needing proof, and claiming crap where is your proof that they say it's not her child and not a child?"

I am talking about PCers saying it's not a child. Biologically, it is a child, specifically it's HER child.

"But is it a contradiction? If yes, then I'm not the only one with "idiot" friends. If no, then it is your view."

I have never said anthing about "ownership" but about a biological fact that what's in utero is the woman's child, a separate human life from her. What you're bringing up is only your idiocy having nothing to do with anything I've said, or my views.

But you just said those weren't your words or your view now you're saying "whenever i've stated the fetus is separate" as if you have said it. You just contradicted yourself. Out right lied."

No I didn't. It's you who is twisting what's been said to mean something other than it did.

PCers say it's not a child. I said it is, biologically, and biology proves it.

That human life is separate from her body. The fetus in utero is not her body, it's the body of her biological [child]; your "ownership" and "possession" bullshit aside, because those are your views and words which have nothing to do with what I've said, not mine.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261938 Oct 4, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Yes i get the whole relation thing you're pushing. But I'm asking you who has ownership? If no one has ownership then the fetus must be a separate entity. If it's a separate entity then yes it most certainly contradicts your claim that you've never said it or it wasn't your view.
Your reasoning is off the topic of what I'm talking about and also senseless. I'm talking about biological relationship and you're talking ownership, 2 different things having nothing to do with one another.

Our children are not possessions we own, and if you think in those terms, I pity your children.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261939 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Because in the hypothetical, you were the decision maker, you had POA. In the hypothetical you made the decision to withhold life-saving treatment for your daughter based on HER decision "NEVER [to] kill her child."
You say I make no sense because you still don't understand how choice works for everyone. You, an American citizen, are free to make that decision. Sure we razz you about hypothetically letting your daughter (and her fetus) die while you defend yourself that you're looking out for her spiritual well being. But the couple of times I've pointed it out, you've disappeared and ignored this one teeny tiny little fact.
Your hypothetical decision was no different than Michael Schiavo's real-life decision. Legal and made in the patient's best interest and based on what she'd have wanted.
"Because in the hypothetical, you were the decision maker, you had POA. In the hypothetical you made the decision to withhold life-saving treatment for your daughter based on HER decision "NEVER [to] kill her child.""

If it's a hypothetical, then we can include that hypothetically, if Sassy has medical POA, then hert daughter had it specifically stated not to ever allow her unborn child to be aborted. End of story with that ridiculous hypothetical.
She didn't kill her daughter, and it WASN'T something that happened in REAL life. You PC need to get over it already and move on, because the only ones who see any sense in what you people keep doing with this hypothetical, are all those of you who are senseless.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261940 Oct 4, 2012
*Specified in the Medial Directive.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261941 Oct 4, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Stop being such a deceitful dumbass. An elective abortion procedure DELIBERATELY kills an existing, alive humams life. A procedure to remove a deceased humans life that died via miscarriage is not "an abortion".
You sound like a freakin moron.
A woman going in for a D & C AFTER a miscarriage is not going in for an abortion.
A woman going in for a D & C to kill her baby is having an abortion.
Write it down so you dont forget this time and repeat your stupidity.
That's too logical. They don't do logic.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261942 Oct 4, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>No, you're making up your own definitions. A baby is a young child newly or recently born so it can't be the stage prior to birth, it would have to be the stage after birth correct? So if a fetus is aborted, it can't be a baby.
She didn't make up definition, NW. That's a definition that already exists, and adults with intelligence have the ability to read for comprehension and have the sense to already know this fact.Just because "baby" also means other things, doesn't mean definition 2 is null and void. Obviously Sassy hasn't made up defintions. PCers do that, not PLers.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby

ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#261943 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me something genius.....of what relevance is any other definition of viability to the issue of abortion, if in fact RvW established legal precedence for the definition of viability as it applies to abortion ???
By the way, 24 weeks is NOT the point at which a preemie has a chance of "reaching viability".
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a preemie to be born NON VIABLE and then REACH viability via medical assistance because by definition a NON VIABLE preemie CANNOT survive no matter how much medical assistance it is provided.
Chew on that one for a while then get back to me.

You are misunderstanding or mistaking what's been said by me and others, Doc, and don't seem to be in any hurry to actually do anything about it except claim, "I'm right you're wrong, you're weak, I'm strong, blah, blah, blah." I've lost interest in this conversation since you seem to want to confuse legal and medical terms. AND you don't seem to have any issue with politicians determining medical procedures rather than the physicians and patients involved. There, done chewing. Had to spit it out.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261944 Oct 4, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, "we" do which has been established in case law for some time now.
"We conclude that preembryos are not, strictly speaking, either "persons" or "property," but occupy an interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life. It follows that any interest that Mary Sue Davis and Junior Davis have in the preembryos in this case is not a true property interest. However, they do have an interest in the nature of ownership, to the extent that they have decision-making authority concerning disposition of the preembryos, within the scope of policy set by law."
http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/chil...
Note the court ALSO said that the embryo's are not persons OR property, but ARE "owned".
Personally, I find this part of the discussion to be interesting, tho I suspect you'll spend more time trying to discount it than to actually understand it, because after all, you dont actually CARE about facts or anything. But I digress....
Its not about abortion, but your comment that we dont "own" what's IN our bodies,(or in this case, the ability to be in our bodies - as other cases DID also decide ownership there as well) is simply, once again, WRONG.
"Its not about abortion, but your comment that we dont "own" what's IN our bodies,(or in this case, the ability to be in our bodies - as other cases DID also decide ownership there as well) is simply, once again, WRONG."

No, it's not wrong, because the human life in utero is a separate human life, the woman's biological child, and we don't OWN our children. We have guardianship over them. Anyone who thinks in terms of "possession" and "ownership" of a human child is someone who's not a reasonable person.

You were only right with your 1st 4 words having to do with what you posted: "Its not about abortion". RIGHT. What you posted had nothing to do with anything. Divorced people fighting over possession of their frozen embryos was what you posted about.

I'm talking about a fetus in utero. A human life with a beating heart.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261945 Oct 4, 2012
We have guardianship over our children which means; we're the ones responsible for watching over them, guarding them, PROTECTING them.

Parents don't OWN or have possession of their children.
That whole line of reasoning is irrational.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#261946 Oct 4, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Katie!
He didn't show the confidence of the 2008 debates imo.
(didn't know that about attorneys, just thought it was part of their snake like characteristics ;)
Heh! Am not sure if it's an across-the-board trait, but I've gotten very familiar with it lately. Am thinking it's done out of respect. One thing I liked during the debate was their civility toward each other. It'd be refreshing if the majority of politicians would go back to putting aside their differences to work together and actually solve problems.

Personally, I'm not too fond of either candidate at this point. Obama, imo, is sorta like the outgoing governor here. She was elected for her second term, but not by me. I did vote for her in the first term, but definitely not the second.

This year I may just write in a name. Walt Disney for President!! Or Captain Hook! Wait... Tom and Jerry for Pres and VP? Putty Tat and Tweety Bird would make a good team, eh? j/k

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 4 min Obskeptic 1,134
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Yeah 1,115,490
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Bozo the Clown 228,597
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Bruin For Life 27,596
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 10 hr Michele 345
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue Carol 280
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Mon El SupremoS 201,038

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE