Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.

Comments (Page 13,725)

Showing posts 274,481 - 274,500 of304,884
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292164
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the cases of "delivery" for preeclampia or eclampsia as the Mayo clinic site stated and the case STO made the claim about, both was about a LIVE fetus, because nothing elsewas stated otherwise."
But you were there, lilLynne!
Doesn't matter that I've already stated I don't know ( I __ DON'T __ KNOW ) if the fetus expired in utero.
Guess you must have stepped out of the room when my mother didn't tell me what I don't know.
Ya ol' crab.
You posted a claim and lied. When you first posted the claim you didn't say any of what you said above. In fact, you didn't make any mention of any of what you said above until I challenged your claim with proof that you were lying.

Your claim in your first post: "STO: "My mom's friend's daughter was 8 months along, and had to have an abortion. I was shocked and asked what happened. Preelampsia."

Your entire post:
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
~"Which do you find more acceptable? An embryo aborted at the 8th gestational week or a life-threatening viable fetus aborted at 32 weeks gestation?"
My mom's friend's daughter was 8 months along, and had to have an abortion. I was shocked and asked what happened. Preelampsia.
I know the daughter was a drug user - meth. I know she was sick for two weeks (including vomiting. don't know if she had the flu or what), and didn't see a doctor. I know her mother has custody of her daughter.
Yeah, for this pregnancy I'd say an abortion at 8 weeks would have been the better choice. Clearly, the woman had no intention of taking care of herself so she would have a healthy pregnancy~

That's all you said, and clearly advocating abortion earlier on, but also claiming abortion was what was needed for "preeclampsia". Not true.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292165
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why so combative in your irrationality?
Have you missed the posts claiming abortion medically means pregnancy ending prior to term? Doesn't matter if it's by delivery or by D&E. Same/same.
Why so uptight?
^^Another ignorant buffon claiming BIRTH and ABORTION are synonymous, and she claims I'm irrational.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292166
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

*buffoon

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292168
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>That's right, but it doesn't state that an abortion is never necessary and no one has said an abortion is always necessary. In some cases it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
Wrong, DELIVERY is what saves the life of the mother, not abortion. Delivery is the goal to try to save the life of fetus as well.
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>The Mayo Clinic said that for this particular women STO is referring to?
Mayo clinic said it about PREECLAMPSIA. What STO posted was complete and proven bullshit that the woman had an abortion because of "preeclampsia".
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>If STO had said an abortion is necessary in all cases of preeclampsia I would tell him he's mistaken. But he didn't say that. He was referring to one pregnancy to which he was relaying second hand knowledge of. This girl was a meth addict also, lord only knows what kind of shape the baby was in when the preeclampsia was diagnosed and what shape she was in physically. The effects of Meth and the effects of preeclampsia on the organs are not much different. I can certainly see why an abortion would have been safer in this case. But I'm no doctor and neither are you so I have no need to prove to you that an abortion wasn't necessary in this particular case.
<quoted text> No you're displaying your stupidity and ignorance in not understanding what you read. No one said an abortion is necessary in all cases.
You're the one displaying ignorance and stupidity...again, while defending the ignorance and stupidity of the other pro-choice IDIOTS here. I wasn't addressing anyone saying "abortion is needed in all cases". I was addressing someone saying abortion was needed for preeclampsia. It is not. Delivery is needed. Delivery and abortion are not synonymous, and neither is birth and abortion.

You're right, you're no doctor and neither am I, but I know how to read for comprehension and I also know what medical sites say, as well has having first hand experience/knowledge of what is done for preeclampsia (my own pregnancy), and eclampsia (the pregnancy of one of my daughters).

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292169
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

(Pre)eclampsia occurs after 20 weeks, and there are treatments to help prevent it from becoming full blown eclampsia before viability.

"Treatment varies widely depending on the severity of the disorder and the gestational age of the pregnancy. Whenever possible, the pregnancy will be allowed to continue until the baby can be born healthy. However, in severe cases of pre-eclampsia and definitely in the case of eclampsia, the baby will have to be delivered, regardless of the gestational age. "

The baby will have to be (delivered), not aborted, "regardless of gestational age".

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292170
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"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. My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. Why that op acts as if I don't know what I'm talking about is beyond me. Apparently STO is right. She was there, a fly on the wall, during all my OB appts.
:-|
You re-quoted from Foo's "news" link about something medical: "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."

Only irrational fools miss what's said in what they quote, as you and Foo did.

Your children were DELIVERED as mine was and my daughter's child was, because that IS the treatment for preeclampsia/eclampsia, as has been proven with (medical) links.

I had preeclampsia before 6 months gestation, as my daughter did. I delivered before it went to eclampsia but my daughter's developed to eclampsia and she had to have labor induced, which didn't work and her blood presure was becoming dangerously high during that time, so she had to have a c-section. Mother and baby survived the eclampsia and the c-section.

NO (abortion) needed for preeclampsia or eclampsia.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292171
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "

Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".

I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292172
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

STO, I don't "hate" you, or Foo (as you claimed) or anyone else here, because you're nobodies to me. You're names on a forum, strangers to me.

What I can't stand is STUPIDITY, and when people act as childish and obnoxious while being stupid as you people do.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292173
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "
Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".
I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.
This is very similar to your claim that using two or more forms of birth control is 100% effective against preventing pregnancy. No birth control is 100% effective, even when combined with other forms. And it took you a lonnnng time to understand what was being said to you and what you thought was being said to you.

This conversation, regarding pre-eclampsia and abortion or early delivery. Please note the medical sites will state induced delivery will cure the pre-eclampsia. Even on a previability fetus.

So, try to figure out what that actually means. What people have actually been saying to you.
Katie

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292174
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

And stop giving WR excuses not to answer the question that was posed to him/her.

What do you prefer? Abortion on an 8wk embryo or abortion on a 32wk fetus?

This was asked to him/her allowing health exceptions for pregnant woman but criminalizing abortion on demand during the first trimester.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292175
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, not by a long shot. no where near anytime soon.
Okay, if you say you won't grow up anytime soon, I'll take your word for it. You should know, after all.

Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292176
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like YOU are the idiot. Nothing there about "lethal force", he was simply found guilty of animal cruelty.
"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty"
had you been involved in this discussion from the beginning you would have seen that this was already addressed. even in cases involving born humans, other than law enforcement officials, one who uses unjustified "lethal force" would not be found guilty of "lethal force" but of a separate crime.
if someone used "lethal force" and shot and killed you without just cause, they would not be convicted of "lethal force", dummy. they'd be convicted of murder, manslaughter, etc.

the person in question here used unwarranted lethal force against an animal and was convicted of a crime.

as i told peter, weigh in when you have a clue.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292177
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>That incident has nothing to do with the policy change.
"The changes come after a highly publicized incident in which officer Thomas Griffin was dispatched to a possible domestic disturbance on East Fifth Street in late April but was sent to the wrong address. There, he encountered resident Michael Paxton and his blue heeler, Cisco".
There is about a 25 pound difference between a mixed Jack Russel and a Blue Heeler. How you thought the two stories were connected to bring about policy change in "lethal force" against a dog is beyond me.
what are you talking about? one link has absolutely nothing to do with the other. they are totally unrelated.

the first link illustrated, that there is in fact a legal context in which the concept of "deadly force" against a non-person exists.
this is a direct contradiction of peter's incorrect asertion to the contrary.

the second link is unrelated to the first and was provided to refute peter's assertion that one could not be convicted of a crime for the use of deadly force against an animal(dog).
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292178
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

5

1

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, if you say you won't grow up anytime soon, I'll take your word for it. You should know, after all.
Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.
nope. not anytime soon. not even close.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292179
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
Katie stated: "My second full term pregnancy was designated high risk right toward the end of the first trimester due to protein in my urine. "
Protein in urine is a sign of preeclampsia, and you said it happened at the end of your FIRST tri-mester (at 3 months pregnant), and yet you also said it was your second "full tern" pregnancy. Obviously abortion wasn't needed even if it preeclampsia had begun as early on as you claim and the pregnancy went to "full term".
I assume you DELIVERED that child and didn't abort it, since full term pregnancies do not need to be aborted due to preeclamspia or eclampsia because delivery is the treatment for it. Which is as I have said from the beginning way back when, when Petey first claimed a late term abortion is needed for eclampsia, and that was a lie.
No one said full term pregnancies required an abortion. 32 weeks is not full term, it's premature.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292180
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
Tick Tock the clock is ticking.
If you've had an abortion
If you are for abortion
If you are gay
If you have lied
If you have stolen anything
If you have fornicated
If you have commited adultery
If you have ever used Gods name in vain
If you have ever been rebellious against good
If you have ever been drunk
Etc. Etc. Etc.
You, yes you need a savior.
Or when YOUR clock stops ticking, you will meet your judge.
This is what you believe...but that doesn't make it a fact.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292181
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty."

Not lethal force.
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
it's common knowledge "and" i looked it up, idiot.
missed the part where the city's law enforcement agency changed their existing, legal policy on the use of deadly force against dogs ?
you ok? you're not trying to post and fellate at the same time again, are you?
<quoted text>
tell you what, idiot....
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20209430/man-co...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292182
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The HYPOCRITE wrote:
<quoted text>
You are known by what you call yourself and you named yourself well. Your hatred knows no bounds.
You're also know by your actions, hypocrite.
worships reality

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292183
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
"Alexander Matthew Good, 27, was found guilty of felony animal cruelty."
Not lethal force.
<quoted text>
miss this one, stupid?

post no. 292098 -

"nope shit for brains. even in cases of unwarranted lethal force against born persons, the perpetrator, unless they are a law enforcement officer, is also not charged with "lethal force" but rather a separate crime."

had mr. good done the same thing to a born person, he would also not have been charged with or convicted of "lethal force".

you "are" an idiot. it is confirmed. it is written.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292184
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. not anytime soon. not even close.
Okay, I agree you won't grow up anytime soon. Not even close. Feel better?

Enjoy your childishness. And your impotence.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 274,481 - 274,500 of304,884
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min nanoanomaly 1,071,177
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min Lab28 222,983
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 9 hr Bruin For Life 26,609
Do you need a loan of any kind?we will be very ... (Aug '13) Jul 7 mutedo 2
Best Logo in the America East Jul 3 Mike Sivo 1
How to recover lost data from iPhone/iPad/iPod- Jul 2 Kelly 6
Antwon White - Guilty (Sep '07) Jul 2 the system smh 21
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••