Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310341 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.

“Nasty Nana”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#264165 Oct 16, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
He's got more of a brain, though.
Actually, so does a tapeworm.
Good morning my Ladi, I see we're full of jokes this morning, I'm a huge fan of practical humour. ;)

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264166 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
Viability is determined WHILE the fetus is IN UTERO. That means, to anyone who has an ability to be logical, that viability has been "reached" at a certain gestational age and weight, BEFORE birth.
yeah but RvW doesn't state when that occurs. RvW states it is a medical judgement made by a physician.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264167 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a footnote from a medical book, it was part of the RvW decision. THEY used the words I quoted, and I quoted it from this site. Maybe you should educate yourself, because you keep trying to argue what you don't know anything about.
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/...
This site shows the RvW decision, and on the page I linked are the words,
"Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
RvW mentioned the gestational age, and physicians use the gestational age along with weight of the fetus to determine viability. Viability occurs WHILE the fetus is IN the womb. Not once born and surviving without medical aid as Katie tries to argue.
59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

[ Footnote 59 ] L. Hellman & J. Pritchard, Williams Obstetrics 493 (14th ed. 1971); Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1689 (24th ed. 1965).

It's a footnote.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264168 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

Ayakaneo has a habit of posting on sunjects she doesn't know anything about.
What are YOU bitching about now Lynne? You're guilty of the same thing, you only like to ACT like you know when you really dont.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264169 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You were implying I was speaking as though I see myself as an expert on it, and that wasn't true.
Its VERY true. You like to act like you're an expert on whatever it is you're bullshitting about at the time Lynnekins.

Clearly, you are incapable of seeing yourself as others see you.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264170 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have anything intelligent, sensible, factual or constructive to post. Your comments are the types of comments forum trolls make..
Says the forum troll AKA Lynne D.@@ The irony!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264171 Oct 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>You know what you know, but you also think you know what other people know and what other people don't know even though you really don't know what other people know or what other people don't know. In fact, you don't know what you don't know because you are a know-it-all and we all know that know-it-alls don't really know nearly as much as they think they know, you know?
ROFLMAO Frighteningly, this actually makes sense and is dead on!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264172 Oct 16, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text> 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.
[ Footnote 59 ] L. Hellman & J. Pritchard, Williams Obstetrics 493 (14th ed. 1971); Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1689 (24th ed. 1965).
It's a footnote.
ROFLAMAO Lynne didn't realise that's where the SC GOT it from.@@ What a dingleberry she is.
Katie

Seattle, WA

#264173 Oct 16, 2012
Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Roe V Wade determined every State has a compelling interest in protecting the viable fetus, and EVERY state can pass laws proscribing abortion at the point in which R v W defined "viable" if they choose to. Even in cases where the fetus is endangering the mothers life the State still has an interest to protect it, but that interest is not as compelling as it's interest in protecting the woman's life, or her right to life. Roe v Wade considers all interests and rights involved in the abortion issue (the fetus has no legal rights) and weighs each right/interest against the others at different stages of the pregnancy when such rights become more or less compelling.
<quoted text>Again, What? The point of "viability" is the point when the State's interest to protect the fetus become more "compelling" than the woman's mere right to medical privacy. No one said that the State's interest was based on the definition of "viable", the States interest is based on it's interest to protect life. The definition only determines WHEN that interest is more compelling than the woman's right to privacy. Sorry, but it seems that you're the one twisting things here.
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Kevin, the "compelling" interest refers to being more intense than a "legitimate" interest if or when a state chooses to override a pregnant woman's reproductive civil rights. The reasons for doing so must go beyond "legitimate" and be "compelling". RvW is about women's civil rights, not fetal rights.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Kevin. The point of viability, medically, is when the fetus or newborn is physiologically capable of surviving. It has nothing to do with Doc's claim that legal viability means, "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." http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
----------
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text> What do you mean "no Kevin" and then repeat what I said? Explain where I said anything different?
<quoted text>Did I ever once say a fetus had rights? In fact,I even went out of my way to say it didn't, why do you always suggest I am saying things I'm not saying Katie?
Roe v Wade was not just about women's civil rights Katie, or else there would have been no circumstance where a state could proscribe abortion. It was also about a State's interest in protecting the life of the fetus, do you really not get that, or do you just refuse to admit it?
No, Kevin, I am not the one twisting things here. You jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion between Doc and me; where Doc's only goal is to discredit me regardless of the facts or truths brought to the table. And time after time, you come back after an absence and usually seem to side with Doc (who is actually the one twisting things). Rather than go into all the dynamics that involves, I wrote "No Kevin," and then reitterated what I've been saying.

So ask yourself this -- if I am saying what you are saying, does that mean we actually agree?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#264174 Oct 16, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't he remind you of Jake, with his ranting and gesticulating and spitting all over the place?
What a maroon.
Well I see what happened. I am discussing fetal viability regarding the word REACH and he's discussing preemie newborn viability. It's two different scenarios. Maybe he is one who also sees fetus as baby and didn't distinguish between the two terms.

He is correct in that determining preemie newborn viability, if its deemed not viable, no amount of medical technology will help it reach viability. This is where those physiological capabilities really come into play. You know, the ones Doc says the legal definition overrode?

Not sure when he decided I was arguing that point, because as far as I know, I haven't. Maybe his own "snare" snared him in the long run...? Is how it seems to me anyway.
<shrug>
Katie

Seattle, WA

#264175 Oct 16, 2012
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you now injecting another poster's quote into what I am saying? Again, my arguement is that the only definition of "viable" that has legal precedence in abortion law is the medical definition that Roe V Wade acknowledged in it's decision, and it includes "albeit by artifical aide".
Because you responded to a post directed to Doc and seemed unaware of what was being discussed while trying to "educate" me, while stating I was "twisting" things, and implying I didn't understand what Roe v Wade entails.

Also, like NR, you have stated I believe women have absolute rights over their pregnancies right up until the cord is cut. You mind explaining how you jumped to this erroneous conclusion and managed to ignore mutliple posts from me stating, clearly, I believe in the progressive, reasonable, restrictions on abortion as fetus reaches viability. That when fetus reaches viability, while technically termed a fetus still, I personally believe it's a baby with ability to survive (provided nothing's horribly wrong and unhealthy), and that while the states "may proscribe" abortion late in pregnancy, women are not duty-bound to die for the fetus if their life/health are in jeopardy.

I don't get why you (and others) believe off the wall crap and ascribe it to me as if it's mine. Almost demanding I believe as you say I do. What don't you get about my position?
Katie

Seattle, WA

#264176 Oct 16, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>yeah but RvW doesn't state when that occurs. RvW states it is a medical judgement made by a physician.
My perspective is some posters seem to want the courts to determine medical issues. Especially regarding women's reproductive rights. They usually deny it, but it's still apparent by their posts. jmo
grumpy

Garnerville, NY

#264177 Oct 16, 2012
Tondaleyo wrote:
<quoted text> The price of food won't be falling because of Obama. We have to pay more taxes so he can give out more food stamps because he is going to add more tax on the people who own businesses which will make the employer not able to pay his employees. And that corn thing? You know the fungus? That problem will make your groceries cost a whole lot more.
You must have just emigrated from the South Seas and I doubt that you are as sexy as you were as a young girl.. But you need more education.
Food Stamps are TRADED at the store for food. It's the store owner who winds up with the money. In poor neighborhoods "No food stamps" means "No business" for store owners.
Romney concern for small business doesn't include small store owners.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264178 Oct 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
My perspective is some posters seem to want the courts to determine medical issues. Especially regarding women's reproductive rights. They usually deny it, but it's still apparent by their posts. jmo
Let's petition the courts to sterilize all women that are beyond childbearing years because they can't reproduce and watch em come crawling out of the woodwork declaring an infringement on their right to a non-reproductive life.

“Atheist and Skeptic”

Since: Mar 11

Kuiper Belt

#264179 Oct 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It really seems like the two sides speak different languages since no common vocabulary as been agreed upon.
A moment ago, I deleted a response to you regarding *Triple L's claim it seemed like gestational age was the measurement [for viability]. In a link provided today, it states weight is the measurement physicians use for assessing viability. Dropped from 600 grams to 500 grams (iirc), this weight usually corresponds with the gestational age about 22-24 weeks. It's a distinction important to physicians, like proper terminology, so it's important to me. But I'm wondering if it would become a war of words rather than an interesting factor in determining viability.
*Triple L is the name I've given her to encompass her prior SNs with her current SN.
I didn't know they used weight for assessing viability. I actually thought it was mostly lung functioning capability. It does make sense that there would be more than one criteria.

“Atheist and Skeptic”

Since: Mar 11

Kuiper Belt

#264180 Oct 16, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
But...but...but Pluto, Lynne NEVER EVER EVER misconstrues ANYTHING because her comprehension is SO far above everyone elses!!! And dont you know that EVERYONE that dares speak up to Lynniekins or says anything she doesn't approve of, they're a liar. Doesn't matter WHAT the subject is - you know, water isn't really wet LIAR! LOLOLOL!
<<<<tongue FIRMLY in cheek>>>>
When did Lily morph into such a pompous ass? She's become a real boor!

“Atheist and Skeptic”

Since: Mar 11

Kuiper Belt

#264181 Oct 16, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
I think as she ages she deteriorates and becomes more and more of a bitter old crone.
She really comes off like she thinks she's so superior to everybody else. She's a legend in her own mind.

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#264182 Oct 16, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO Frighteningly, this actually makes sense and is dead on!
Foo! Off topic. Finished "My Sister's Keeper" and "The Horse Whisperer". Both bittersweet reads. What else do you recommend? You have now become my "go to" person for reading recommendations.

In other news on this thread - viability is still being debated and Obama is heckbent on making silver spooners pay their due in taxes. Romney, in the mean time has built his platform on ... okay, what exactly are his plans? IDK.

“Atheist and Skeptic”

Since: Mar 11

Kuiper Belt

#264183 Oct 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Much more than once in awhile. It's been done at every Catholic funeral I've been too, and I've been to more than just a few.
I'm going to go by MY experiences, not yours. I came from a Catholic family. And I have also been to plenty of Catholic funerals.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#264184 Oct 16, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Let's petition the courts to sterilize all women that are beyond childbearing years because they can't reproduce and watch em come crawling out of the woodwork declaring an infringement on their right to a non-reproductive life.
Better yet, let's push for legislation that states that MEN can only have sex for procreation purposes, and it MUST be within the confines of a marriage.

This is *precisely* what the religious right is pushing for so, by golly, let's enforce it.

No more mistresses, hookers, male prostitutes for these old boys. Limit them to sex to create children, then lop em off.

Think they'll go for it?

lol

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min ChristineW 244,887
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 21 min Incognito4Ever 1,263,834
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 4 hr IBdaMann 6,472
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) 6 hr bernarlyn 33
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr tom wingo 29,852
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 29 RiccardoFire 201,846
News San Diego State basketball: Four-star prospect ... Jul 25 Fart news 2
More from around the web