Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 322477 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.

Katie

Auburn, WA

#291162 Mar 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Classification of Abortion
Type
Definition
Early
Abortion before 12 wk gestation
Late
Abortion between 12 and 20 wk gestation
Spontaneous
Noninduced abortion
Induced
Termination of pregnancy for medical or elective reasons
http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gyne...
You are showing off you idiocy again.

Classifying the word abortion into spontaneous, noninduced, induced, and termination does not change the definition of abortion -- pregnancy ending prior to term. All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term.

But keep proving me right, Sue. It'll help you make up for coming out of the gate in attack mode the other night.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#291163 Mar 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"induced abortion that brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation."
"spontaneous abortion that occurring naturally."
http://medical-dictionary.th efreedictionary.c...
From the very first definition that I supplied.
But it doesn't change the definition of pregnancy ending prior to term.

That is your claim. That induced abortion is somehow *different* than spontaneous abortion. And it's not.

You keep showing it's not. You keep highlighting it is only an emotional difference for those who cannot accept not all women accept their unplanned pregnancies.

The definition of abortion does NOT say pregnaccy ending naturally prior to term. It'd have to say exactly that for you to be correct.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#291164 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear. You do have some issues. What we don't share is your self deception. Abortion kills a child and it is morally wrong.You delude yourself that it doesn't and that because it is legal, it is moral.
People can convince themselves of anything and learn to believe it.
Then don't have an abortion, Ink.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291165 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You are showing off you idiocy again.
Classifying the word abortion into spontaneous, noninduced, induced, and termination does not change the definition of abortion -- pregnancy ending prior to term. All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term.
But keep proving me right, Sue. It'll help you make up for coming out of the gate in attack mode the other night.
"All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term."

EXACTLY. This is what I have been saying.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291166 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
But it doesn't change the definition of pregnancy ending prior to term.
That is your claim. That induced abortion is somehow *different* than spontaneous abortion. And it's not.
You keep showing it's not. You keep highlighting it is only an emotional difference for those who cannot accept not all women accept their unplanned pregnancies.
The definition of abortion does NOT say pregnaccy ending naturally prior to term. It'd have to say exactly that for you to be correct.
What difference does it make? Everybody knows what an abortion is and a spontanious abortion is commonly called a miscarriage. No one is confused about which is which.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#291167 Mar 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term."
EXACTLY. This is what I have been saying.
But it doesn't change anything -- except to those who cannot accept other women would reject their unplanned pregnancies.

That's what your position boils down to ... and you want to steal women's rights to privacy and autonomy out from under them because of it. Like that isn't a destructive force with a different set of consequences you won't bring yourself to admit exist.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291168 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
But it doesn't change anything -- except to those who cannot accept other women would reject their unplanned pregnancies.
That's what your position boils down to ... and you want to steal women's rights to privacy and autonomy out from under them because of it. Like that isn't a destructive force with a different set of consequences you won't bring yourself to admit exist.
"But it doesn't change anything -- except to those who cannot accept other women would reject their unplanned pregnancies."

But there IS a difference.

"That's what your position boils down to ... and you want to steal women's rights to privacy and autonomy out from under them"

No, I want to take away their right to kill.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291169 Mar 29, 2013
bman wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? No such thing as a double homicide for a pregnant woman?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6385208/
No, there's not moron.

"a double homicide" is singlar AND plural as you keep writing it. Impossible.

From your link:

"Six men and six women convicted Peterson Friday of the first-degree murder of his wife, Laci, and the second-degree murder of the fetus."

He wasn't convicted of HOMICIDE at all.

Moron.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291170 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
But it doesn't change anything -- except to those who cannot accept other women would reject their unplanned pregnancies.
That's what your position boils down to ... and you want to steal women's rights to privacy and autonomy out from under them because of it. Like that isn't a destructive force with a different set of consequences you won't bring yourself to admit exist.
"reject their unplanned pregnancy" is that the same as rejecting their unborn son or daughter?
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291171 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Then don't have an abortion, Ink.
I won't but aren't you the one who doesn't think abortions should be done after 20 weeks?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#291172 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you did judge him as swine, a liar, a hypocrite and a jackass just in this one post.
Want to backpedal on the judging thing?
If it walks like a hypocrite and quacks like a liar, it's a lying hypocrite. That's not judging. That's discerning by observation. Judging would be me telling him I know for certain he is going to hell or is working for Satan. Like some of you do to me everytime you disagree.

I'm just correctly applying scripture in calling him "swine". I gots pearls, darlin'. I'll cast them when the Good Lord guides me to do so. He's not worth it...yet.

: D

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291173 Mar 29, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember talking to you about the sacred name, YHVH. I gave you a link you said you were going to share with your Rabbi.
Speaking of which, I need to go to my mail and dig through. My rabbi moved to Israel, and we corrispond often. He sent me a few months ago a link to some new scholarly articles on that, which I beleive you'd be interested in. I'll try to play around and find them tonite and PM the links to you.
I'm always interested to hear from you, having studied your faith, Judaism, since Christianity can't be understood without knowledge of the OT.
Gtown's head would explode if he knew the OT had been translated into many many many languages by JC's time. Don't tell him. He thinks the Bible should be read in English as is. No translating and God forbid no comparision to other translations -- like Coptic.(fascinating nuances and levels of understanding one would miss if all they did was read the King James or any other English translation. I guess he thinks French and Spanish speaking folks don't have French and Spanish translations -- lol).
I find it intersting, and very confusing - why so many different versions of the Christian bible exist - many of which actually contradict each other.

While I understand that the ancient languages may not translate well in all instances to English for example (let alone to French or Spanish LOL), most words DO have specific meanings, and it seems that some Christian bibles are more commentary in how they're translated, than actual scripture.

In the Jewish faith, there's really NOT many different versions or translations of the Tanakh. The 1962 JPS translation is generally acknowledged as the most literally accurate translations of the Tanach, and is used worldwide by most, be they reform, conservative, orthodox or whatever, as it uses the Masoretic Text of the Aleppo Codex as its base. While there's different publishers with very minor differences, there's no actual different "versions" of the Tanakh like there are for the christian versions of bibles.

Thoughts?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#291174 Mar 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.
Thanks Bit. Looks like I ruffled Ink's duck feathers. lol

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291175 Mar 29, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>

Classifying the word abortion into spontaneous, noninduced, induced, and termination does not change the definition of abortion -- pregnancy ending prior to term. All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term.
Katie, I mean no harm, but I think that's what Sue's been trying to say....

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291176 Mar 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"All it does is show different ways it ends prior to term."
EXACTLY. This is what I have been saying.
LOL I should have read ahead again. Sorry ladies!
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#291177 Mar 29, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
If it walks like a hypocrite and quacks like a liar, it's a lying hypocrite. That's not judging. That's discerning by observation. Judging would be me telling him I know for certain he is going to hell or is working for Satan. Like some of you do to me everytime you disagree.
I'm just correctly applying scripture in calling him "swine". I gots pearls, darlin'. I'll cast them when the Good Lord guides me to do so. He's not worth it...yet.
: D
Try and get out of it but it was judging by any standard.

In black and white you judged him to be swine, a liar, a hypocrite and a jackass.o don't say you don't judge or you will look like all the things you called him.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#291178 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie, I mean no harm, but I think that's what Sue's been trying to say....
Thank you.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#291179 Mar 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which, I need to go to my mail and dig through. My rabbi moved to Israel, and we corrispond often. He sent me a few months ago a link to some new scholarly articles on that, which I beleive you'd be interested in. I'll try to play around and find them tonite and PM the links to you.
<quoted text>
I find it intersting, and very confusing - why so many different versions of the Christian bible exist - many of which actually contradict each other.
While I understand that the ancient languages may not translate well in all instances to English for example (let alone to French or Spanish LOL), most words DO have specific meanings, and it seems that some Christian bibles are more commentary in how they're translated, than actual scripture.
In the Jewish faith, there's really NOT many different versions or translations of the Tanakh. The 1962 JPS translation is generally acknowledged as the most literally accurate translations of the Tanach, and is used worldwide by most, be they reform, conservative, orthodox or whatever, as it uses the Masoretic Text of the Aleppo Codex as its base. While there's different publishers with very minor differences, there's no actual different "versions" of the Tanakh like there are for the christian versions of bibles.
Thoughts?
I think, in an effort to further simplify the King James, most versions of the Bible have lost the original meanings (because they substitute words that get further and further away from the basic translation).

As a young student, myself, I have to rely on scholars, long dead, to get translations, as close as possible.

What do you thinnk of...

http://www.biblestudysite.com/30.htm

The Companion Bible is my main tool. It's a wealth of information. Poke around the appendices, if you have time. The Serpent in Genesis is particulary interesting, and a good starting point for Christians who think a snake told Eve to eat an apple. lol
STO

Vallejo, CA

#291180 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Try and get out of it but it was judging by any standard.
In black and white you judged him to be swine, a liar, a hypocrite and a jackass.o don't say you don't judge or you will look like all the things you called him.
: P ~~~

Nuh uh.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#291181 Mar 29, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Try and get out of it but it was judging by any standard.
In black and white you judged him to be swine, a liar, a hypocrite and a jackass.o don't say you don't judge or you will look like all the things you called him.
Actually, it was stating facts. YOur kind dont like facts very much.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,660,694
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Anthony Ramon 35,127
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 18 hr Wisdom of Ages 11,926
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) 19 hr illikad 14
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep '17 The pope 258,482
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web