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

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#292053 Apr 9, 2013
Fu** your god. You can worship as you please, but no one else has to.
bitlerisalwayswrong wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, that is so cold hearted. Ever think that the Image and Likeness of God should be respected? You know abortion is destroying the Image and Likeness of God. So if you support abortion you are supporting a very, very evil act of destroying God's own Likeness and Image Even if the child is unborn or just born and takes a breath. Do you hate God so much you want to destroy God's Image?
Petey is wrong again

Falls City, NE

#292054 Apr 9, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Fu** your god. You can worship as you please, but no one else has to.
<quoted text>
Conscience bothering you I guess, Why would you get sooooo upset, hmmm?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#292055 Apr 9, 2013
bitlerisalwayswrong wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, that is so cold hearted. Ever think that the Image and Likeness of God should be respected? You know abortion is destroying the Image and Likeness of God. So if you support abortion you are supporting a very, very evil act of destroying God's own Likeness and Image Even if the child is unborn or just born and takes a breath. Do you hate God so much you want to destroy God's Image?
"You know abortion is destroying the Image and Likeness of God."

So is your horrid faux-Christian personality. BTW, you have no proof there even is a God.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#292056 Apr 9, 2013
The term is "annoyed", mosquito.
Petey is wrong again wrote:
<quoted text>Conscience bothering you I guess, Why would you get sooooo upset, hmmm?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#292057 Apr 9, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
don't put quotes around a term that the poster did not use. it's deceitful.
since abortion means the termination of a pregnancy your explanation why a post birth abortion is not possible, is accurate. please explain similarly how a post birth termination is not possible.
Well, I did phrase it badly. What I meant was that the poster I answered used both phrases to mean the same thing. And he DID use the phrase "post birth abortion" on one of the other threads he spammed with his nonsense question, and it was the first time he did so. Because of that, I knew what he meant by "post birth termination". And I responded to that.
worships reality

AOL

#292059 Apr 9, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You were talking about it in the criminal sense. Cptr and I are both discussing it in the medical sense. It's you who should, "...weigh in on discussions only when you have a clue as to what you're talking about."
self defense "is" a legal term. it's not a medical term. it's the term used to legally justify an action.

you made the analogy. don't try to hide from it now.
worships reality

AOL

#292060 Apr 9, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
He's answering your question.
no he's not. you don't even know what my question was, do you? if you did then you'd never say he was answering it.

bitner said that post birth abortions and post birth terminations were the same, and that both were non existent. since i agreed that post birth abortions were indeed non existent, i asked her to similarly explain how post birth terminations were non existent.

grumpy was saying that they were not non existent. he was saying they happen.

so how is that possibly answering my question?

The last line of your posts asked and he answered. All that crap above is just crap, a distraction. Why so quarrelsome?
why so stupid?
worships reality

AOL

#292061 Apr 9, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I did phrase it badly. What I meant was that the poster I answered used both phrases to mean the same thing. And he DID use the phrase "post birth abortion" on one of the other threads he spammed with his nonsense question, and it was the first time he did so. Because of that, I knew what he meant by "post birth termination". And I responded to that.
phrasing it badly is an understatement.

but back now to the original question - should the termination of a living, delivered product of a botched abortion, be considered murder?
Katie

Renton, WA

#292062 Apr 9, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
self defense "is" a legal term. it's not a medical term. it's the term used to legally justify an action.
you made the analogy. don't try to hide from it now.
Who's hiding?
Not me?

It's also used in the medical sense.
Look it up.(hint: organ donors)
Ocean56

AOL

#292064 Apr 10, 2013
Katie wrote:
"The only safest way to cure pre-eclampsia is to abort or deliver the child. If pre-eclampsia is not very serious, then a woman can continue with her pregnancy and deliver her baby normally. In case the problem is very serious, premature delivery of the baby takes place."
My youngest was born under these circumstances. After I was admitted to the hospital on Christmas Eve following an OB appt. My oldest went full term, but the pre-ecclampsia began rearing its ugly head toward the end of that pregnancy.
Same here, Katie! Despite the anti-choice false claims or implications that all pregnancies are a walk in the park with no health risks or complications during pregnancy or at delivery, many women, myself included, have experienced both.

It's why the ONLY person who makes the decision to continue the pregnancy or not is the WOMAN who is pregnant.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#292065 Apr 10, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
phrasing it badly is an understatement.
but back now to the original question - should the termination of a living, delivered product of a botched abortion, be considered murder?
That was not the original question. I already answered the original.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#292067 Apr 10, 2013
Petey is wrong again wrote:
<quoted text>Conscience bothering you I guess, Why would you get sooooo upset, hmmm?
Typical forum troll behavior @@

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#292068 Apr 10, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
no he's not. you don't even know what my question was, do you? if you did then you'd never say he was answering it.
bitner said that post birth abortions and post birth terminations were the same, and that both were non existent. since i agreed that post birth abortions were indeed non existent, i asked her to similarly explain how post birth terminations were non existent.
grumpy was saying that they were not non existent. he was saying they happen.
so how is that possibly answering my question?
<quoted text>
why so stupid?
And the original poster linked an article that doesn't use the terms post birth abortion or post birth terminations. The question given to PP was on what should happen to a baby born after a botched abortion.
The OP also said PP "defends the practice of post-birth terminations of babies born due to botched abortions". That is not true.
PP plainly stated "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider"
PP also said in a written statement that "Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond, and Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care," "In the extremely unlikely event that the scenario presented by the panel of legislators should happen, of course Planned Parenthood would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#292069 Apr 10, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>And the original poster linked an article that doesn't use the terms post birth abortion or post birth terminations. The question given to PP was on what should happen to a baby born after a botched abortion.
The OP also said PP "defends the practice of post-birth terminations of babies born due to botched abortions". That is not true.
PP plainly stated "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider"
PP also said in a written statement that "Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond, and Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care," "In the extremely unlikely event that the scenario presented by the panel of legislators should happen, of course Planned Parenthood would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant."
The desperation of the fetus worshippers is pathetic.
Katie

Renton, WA

#292071 Apr 10, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>And the original poster linked an article that doesn't use the terms post birth abortion or post birth terminations. The question given to PP was on what should happen to a baby born after a botched abortion.
The OP also said PP "defends the practice of post-birth terminations of babies born due to botched abortions". That is not true.
PP plainly stated "That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider"
PP also said in a written statement that "Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond, and Planned Parenthood physicians provide high-quality medical care and adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care," "In the extremely unlikely event that the scenario presented by the panel of legislators should happen, of course Planned Parenthood would provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant."
But none of that mesh's with the fundies' desperate claims to the contrary, Ayaka. The "debate" style they use is so dishonest. It's pathetic!

Thanks for providing what was stated.
Katie

Renton, WA

#292072 Apr 10, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same here, Katie! Despite the anti-choice false claims or implications that all pregnancies are a walk in the park with no health risks or complications during pregnancy or at delivery, many women, myself included, have experienced both.
It's why the ONLY person who makes the decision to continue the pregnancy or not is the WOMAN who is pregnant.
Exactly, Ocean! What do the nosy parkers know about all these strangers' pregnancies anyway? Not a damn thing!! You'd think they want the gov't, the clergy, and other nosy parkers like they are involved in their pregnancies (or their wives', daughters', nieces', etc.).
The Prince

Phillipsburg, NJ

#292073 Apr 10, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Typical forum troll behavior @@
Tyocal deflection of guilt from a proabortion pagan.
worships reality

United States

#292075 Apr 10, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's hiding?
Not me?
It's also used in the medical sense.
Look it up.(hint: organ donors)
you're funny. do you think the concept or the definition of self defense ( the right to defend one's person or property against a perceived threat ) changes because it may be used in a medical context?

in the case of abortion and the right to terminate a fetus "postviability", that right is, as I said,
Is rooted firmly in the concept of self defense. the previability right to abortion however, is not. and that is what you tried to claim.

read and learn:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/ma...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#292077 Apr 10, 2013
ANNNDDDDDDDDDD, your definition of self-defense is still irrelevant. Women can use their OWN standards to decide if they wish to take the risks of pregnancy, not yours. In the first trimester, they don't even have to give a reason.
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
you're funny. do you think the concept or the definition of self defense ( the right to defend one's person or property against a perceived threat ) changes because it may be used in a medical context?
in the case of abortion and the right to terminate a fetus "postviability", that right is, as I said,
Is rooted firmly in the concept of self defense. the previability right to abortion however, is not. and that is what you tried to claim.
read and learn:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/ma...
Katie

Renton, WA

#292079 Apr 10, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
you're funny. do you think the concept or the definition of self defense ( the right to defend one's person or property against a perceived threat ) changes because it may be used in a medical context?
in the case of abortion and the right to terminate a fetus "postviability", that right is, as I said,
Is rooted firmly in the concept of self defense. the previability right to abortion however, is not. and that is what you tried to claim.
read and learn:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/ma...
Yes, I've read it. It offers good analogies. You are stating medical self-defense is an either/or concept regarding life of mother (just as the author uses that concept as an analogy). I read the same thing and see it overlapping. Medical self-defense in determining abortion the right choice early on in unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy. In thinking things through making the determination, the woman's thoughts would likely include her health at the end of pregnancy as well throughout, beyond just thinking of delivery and a newborn.

From your link:
"Part II discusses one context in which medical self-defense has already been recognized: Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey secure not just a previability right to abortion as reproductive choice, but also a separate postviability right to abortion as medical self-defense when pregnancy threatens a womanís life. And it canít be that a woman has a constitutional right to protect her life using medical procedures, but only when those procedures kill a viable fetus; given that Alice has a right to defend herself even when doing so means aborting a viable fetus, Ellen and Olivia should have the same right to defend themselves through other medical procedures. Alice is free to have surgery in which a doctor inserts devices into her body to excise a fetus that, tragically, threatens her life. Ellen should likewise be free to have a procedure in which a doctor inserts chemicals into her body to destroy a tumor that threatens her life. And the government should not place substantial obstacles in the way of Oliviaís having a procedure in which a doctor inserts an organ into her body to replace a failing organ that threatens her life."
<SNIP>
"Finally, the Conclusion argues that a right to medical self-defense is not only logically supportable, but also viable both in political debate and in the judicial process. Both liberal and conservative judges and voters may be open to it, and I hope that the analogies in this Essay can be used to help persuade them."
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/ma...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Tony Rome 1,115,150
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 15 min Jay 343
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 30 min tarmo 1,119
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 228,566
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Trojan 27,589
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) 20 hr 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