Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,122
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
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294219 Apr 29, 2013
PLAYA I could not reply on your long post

PLEASE see my post to Ocean about tge ultrasounds. They are a tool for the docs and maybe they should be part of the protocol ..Maybe in an early pregnancy tge can see an ectopic one. You mention vaginal ones..good. anyway please read post to Ocean.

On child abuse..you ars absolutely right. WE as a society need to protect all children. I would like to see them get eye for eye treatment..unfortunately in a lot of cases they are passing on what they got..Sadly.
if I was on a jury for a child molester..and could I would sentence them to stuff I cannot put in print..

Thing is I have no control over any of it..asI have been repeatedly tokd here. But as a society the ending or abusing of innicent life IMHO..diminishes us..

Akso on tge ultrasound..we ars not tgat frail as I said to Ocean that changing our mind IF WD LOOK at an ultrasound makes us weak. And if ut makes abortion even one iota safer..it should be required..we have technology to use.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294220 Apr 29, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention it's incorrect. If sin entered the world, it entered by way of Eve. She was the first to disobey, but then again it doesn't say she knew about the instructions God had given Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Isn't it just like a man to forget to tell his wife something important like that? I bet he thinks it was an apple too.
..

Hate laughing at anything on belief..but lol..

Actually I think he gave her too much info ss in dobt touch it. Thus it was easier for the serpent to tempt her. Or so sme scholars believe.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#294221 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
PLAYA I could not reply on your long post
PLEASE see my post to Ocean about tge ultrasounds. They are a tool for the docs and maybe they should be part of the protocol ..Maybe in an early pregnancy tge can see an ectopic one. You mention vaginal ones..good. anyway please read post to Ocean.
On child abuse..you ars absolutely right. WE as a society need to protect all children. I would like to see them get eye for eye treatment..unfortunately in a lot of cases they are passing on what they got..Sadly.
if I was on a jury for a child molester..and could I would sentence them to stuff I cannot put in print..
Thing is I have no control over any of it..asI have been repeatedly tokd here. But as a society the ending or abusing of innicent life IMHO..diminishes us..
Akso on tge ultrasound..we ars not tgat frail as I said to Ocean that changing our mind IF WD LOOK at an ultrasound makes us weak. And if ut makes abortion even one iota safer..it should be required..we have technology to use.
A WOMAN being forced to look at, or even voluntarily looking at, an ultrasound won't make the abortion any safer.

Still waiting for you to address my one post about the abortion rates in countries where it is currently illegal, and in Canada where there are no legal restrictions.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#294222 Apr 29, 2013
Just a suggestion; we all have to find our own path.

I find it interesting that my post to you got a negative icon. Hmmm...
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I used anti-depressants for a while when I kept having miscarriages....and hated the 'out of body' feeling they left me with. I really don't have any interest in using them again. But thanks for the suggestion.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#294223 Apr 29, 2013
Name these scientists.

By your logic, foreskins are a part of a man's life. Having them removed is a form of insanity.
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there are those who contend that people should not hurt themselves. That people who are mentally unstable should receive help. It has been speculated by scientists, that preganant women going for an abortion are suffering from a form of temporary insanity,or a type of panic attack. The abortionists use this as a way to take advantage of vulnerable womnen and give them an abortion. Medicine should help these women to understand that being pregnant is natural and not fear it. Preganancy is part of a woman's life. The idea that unborn children are easily disposable "mistakes" is indeed a form of insanity.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294224 Apr 29, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>This might come as a shock, but Prophets are not held in high esteem in the Old Testament. It was the Priests, who performed all religious acts. The prophets were enemies of the Priests.
The irony is that those whom opposed the Priests in Jerusalem were the Pharisees (prophets) so Jesus would have been a Pharisee and in Christianity Pharisees are hipocrites.
Jesus. Who wss NOT a Pharisee was put to death fir political reasons more than religious..though it was all tied together. NOT even sure that the High Priests of Herods time were even of the tribe of priests..Herid was an Idumean not even Jewish.

But Jesus knew he would be sacrificed and asked God to forgive his killers.

He was loved by many of His followers who were Jews. He preached peace and love.

Unfortunately many Jews havs been persecuted on the lie that they killed Jesus..THOUGH IF ONE LOOKS CLOSELY at those like Hitler..he was no mire a folloer of Jesus than the man in the moon.
The Jews had things ..money..land etc that they wanted. IT WAS all a sham an excuse ..in his case..he wanted all the things everyone had
Jesus never said to kill those who do Not believe inHim..that is human sin. Not Gods plan
We believe Jesus came to sacrifice for us on the Cross but to leave us with a way to come to God in love..repentance and peace.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#294225 Apr 29, 2013
Yes, but it only boils because the stove is a direct conduit to "god's glory."
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>The boy is a true moron Bit. His idea of 'scientific method' is watching water boil.
Gtown71

United States

#294226 Apr 29, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>I said the Topix Community. A community is a little bit larger than one or two ppl.@@ dealing with a damn 4th grader here.
Tell that to your friend foo, she feels she speaks for all of y'all :)

Plus I noticed she said I do mean things to jews. Lol

My salvation is based on a Jew.:)

May God bless the Jews :)
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294227 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the situation in countries where abortion is currently illegal prove your speculation wrong.
I don't know if you addressed my post from yesterday, or if you didn't see it, so I'll ask again. Are you aware that in Canada, a country that has NO legal restrictions to abortion, there were only slightly more than 64,000 abortions in the latest recorded year, and have had less than 4,000,000 performed since abortion was decriminalized?
RvW doesn't give anyone a "pass", it gives women a choice, and the best possibility of doing what many would do anyway safely.
On the Canada thing..and I did not see it..anyway I have no answer. OBVIOUSLY they are doing something else to prevent pregnancy or having mord babies.

But I cannog imagine that having somd rsstri tions here. A few. Makes womdn have mord. If tgat is what yoh mean..its illogical. Bug maybe I am misunderstanding the post?

IF THEYard hsving so many fewer..Thsnk God and wd should figurs out wht becsuse abortion is Not Criminalized here. So that is not why. So whatever else they are doing ..we should too.

Of course I think even 64 thou is high also bug nothing like here.
razzmatazz

Falls City, NE

#294228 Apr 29, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Rose. Many so called "christians" here, such as Gtown and Tomtom (who you just responded to), Knutter among others - consistantly demean Jews and anyone else of different faiths. I apologize to YOU and to other actual Christians if I come across as harsh, but having one's faith constantly demeaned and bastardized by these fools is ridiculous, PARTICULARLY when they whine that its done to them constantly.
I gave a link in my previous post you may find interesting.
LOL, we don't demean Jews. You demean God by believing in the slaughter of the unborn.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294229 Apr 29, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you read that of all (100%) the women at risk for unintended pregnancy 11% did not use contraception the month they got pregnant, would't you automatically realize 89% did use contraception the month they got pregnant?"
Not if they aren't using conraception correctly and/or consistantly. They might as well not be using contraception at all.
So you cannot state how the op was using a misleading number? I'll tell you what, the differentiation was with those at risk for unintended pregnancy. The op wasn't using a misleading number as you claimed.
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294230 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. No woman is required to look at an ultrasound in an OB/GYNs office, Rose. And one is not required to be performed on any pregnant woman there unless the doctor thinks it's necessary. And even then, a woman can refuse to even have one.
You are wrong. In NO other medical situation is a person forced to have a medically unnecessary procedure in order to have another legal procedure done. None. And you really need to stop ignoring the fact that we are not talking about anything OTHER than a doctor being FORCED to perform one, and her being FORCED to look at/hear about one by law.
If a woman chooses to look, and changes her mind, that is one thing. If she is FORCED to look, that is manipulation, and that's another. Just like it is if a woman's husband browbeats her into having an abortion. BOTH are wrong. Those laws are not done for the purpose of information, but to manipulate the outcome. That is wrong. Period.
YOU are assuming she doesn't already know what's there. And there is no evidence, in states where these kinds of laws are already in place, that it has changed even ONE woman's mind in the first place. Yet they've had to pay for an unnecessary medical procedure with no other purpose that to TRY to change her mind, because some busybodies want to affect the outcome. It's none of their business.
WHO should make our medical decisions for us, Rose? Us, with the expert advice of our physicians? Or politicians who have no medical training, and who are just trying to fulfill a political agenda?
But who says it is medically unecessary.. and how can they firce her to look at it.

In yhe case of OBs who deliver babies..at some point they are going to fo sn ultrasound as part of care..for msny reasons. But it is standard care these days..whether or not the eoman looks at it is not relevant to hef care.

Yes in my day docs did not use them..There were none but I do belirve it is the standard of care now. I kearned a lot from the pregnancies of mh kids. So manh yools the docs havs snd use them. Yhey dont just go by feel now.

Perslnally think thst maybe thr docs want the uktrasounds to know mord about the abortion.
Yes it costs. But it would have to be safer. Shd can close her eyes..but zi bet at a lot of clknucs the screen is not even in her line if sight if she chooses nof to see. And I jmagine a lot choose not to.
Her lookkng is not as important ad the doc seeing. BUG it is tgerd for her to see if she WANTS to. IT SHOULD be. IMHO
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294231 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yes, but it only boils because the stove is a direct conduit to "god's glory."
<quoted text>
Heh! Funny, Cptr!!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#294232 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
On the Canada thing..and I did not see it..anyway I have no answer. OBVIOUSLY they are doing something else to prevent pregnancy or having mord babies.
But I cannog imagine that having somd rsstri tions here. A few. Makes womdn have mord. If tgat is what yoh mean..its illogical. Bug maybe I am misunderstanding the post?
IF THEYard hsving so many fewer..Thsnk God and wd should figurs out wht becsuse abortion is Not Criminalized here. So that is not why. So whatever else they are doing ..we should too.
Of course I think even 64 thou is high also bug nothing like here.
What I am saying is that your speculation that without RvW people would be more "responsible" is incorrect, based on the facts at hand. Again, you failed to address my point about the abortion rates in countries where it is currently illegal being about the same as here.

And we don't have SOME restrictions or just "a few", we have quite a few in many states, and people on your side of the debate are promoting more and more on a daily basis.

You do realize that if abortion were illegal, there would be NO restrictions or oversight at all, right?
rosesz

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#294233 Apr 29, 2013
PLAYA it was mh prdvious post to Bigner not Ocean. On yours I coukd nog get the scroll to get to reply on the quote part. SORRY

Ladt 2 posts to Bitner kn ultrasound

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#294234 Apr 29, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Just a suggestion; we all have to find our own path.
I find it interesting that my post to you got a negative icon. Hmmm...
<quoted text>
I'll get it together eventually...and then I'll probably forget where I put it!!

The negative icon thing doesn't surprise me at all...there are so many negative folks in here, that it's a surprise my posts don't get more of them....

:)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#294235 Apr 29, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
But who says it is medically unecessary.. and how can they firce her to look at it.
In yhe case of OBs who deliver babies..at some point they are going to fo sn ultrasound as part of care..for msny reasons. But it is standard care these days..whether or not the eoman looks at it is not relevant to hef care.
Yes in my day docs did not use them..There were none but I do belirve it is the standard of care now. I kearned a lot from the pregnancies of mh kids. So manh yools the docs havs snd use them. Yhey dont just go by feel now.
Perslnally think thst maybe thr docs want the uktrasounds to know mord about the abortion.
Yes it costs. But it would have to be safer. Shd can close her eyes..but zi bet at a lot of clknucs the screen is not even in her line if sight if she chooses nof to see. And I jmagine a lot choose not to.
Her lookkng is not as important ad the doc seeing. BUG it is tgerd for her to see if she WANTS to. IT SHOULD be. IMHO
Haven't you been paying attention? The laws are the they doctor MUST perform and ultrasound, even when it is not medically necessary, and that they MUST either show her, or describe to her, the ultrasound in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. THAT is what we are objecting to. NO ONE is objecting to a woman looking if she chooses. No one.

If a doctor doesn't think it's medically necessary, then it is. If he doesn't, then it's not. But the law takes away from him that judgment call that only he is qualified to make. And there is NO medical reason to try to force a woman to look at it, or hear the fetus described by law.

HOW will her looking at it make the procedure safer when it's the DOCTOR performing it? Please don't ignore this question.

And no, you are wrong about obstetricians. They MAY at some point SUGGEST an ultrasound. Yes, it falls under routine care. But they are not required to do so by law, and the woman can refuse to have it done. NO ONE is trying to force it on the woman under those circumstances. And there is no medical reason to require one by law for all abortions.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#294236 Apr 29, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you been paying attention? The laws are the they doctor MUST perform and ultrasound, even when it is not medically necessary, and that they MUST either show her, or describe to her, the ultrasound in order for her to be allowed to have an abortion. THAT is what we are objecting to. NO ONE is objecting to a woman looking if she chooses. No one.
If a doctor doesn't think it's medically necessary, then it is. If he doesn't, then it's not. But the law takes away from him that judgment call that only he is qualified to make. And there is NO medical reason to try to force a woman to look at it, or hear the fetus described by law.
HOW will her looking at it make the procedure safer when it's the DOCTOR performing it? Please don't ignore this question.
And no, you are wrong about obstetricians. They MAY at some point SUGGEST an ultrasound. Yes, it falls under routine care. But they are not required to do so by law, and the woman can refuse to have it done. NO ONE is trying to force it on the woman under those circumstances. And there is no medical reason to require one by law for all abortions.
I wrote a post addressing this last night that's gone unanswered. And how there are lawsuits in the works regarding the forced ultrasound unconstitutional. Guess we'll have to wait and see how this turns out before Rose is willing to venture her idea may not be such a hot one after all.
Gtown71

United States

#294237 Apr 29, 2013
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>I said the Topix Community. A community is a little bit larger than one or two ppl.@@ dealing with a damn 4th grader here.
To be fair -I did use the word represent :)

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#294238 Apr 29, 2013
Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of the time, dummy. Other times its lying, scheming, anti choicers LIKE YOU, reporting every posts in an effort to get me banned like RC admitted. It sure is amusing when one on your side has a fit of conscience, comes clean and admits the deception from you reprehensible liars,, huh? Don't think I don't know your part in all of that.
Like with Lyin lily/lori/lynne/pervsevere and BS'er.
:-D
You are,'t worth that much if my time.

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) 7 min Portlandia 1,156,418
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 21 min Brew In 28,505
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Uncle Sam 233,210
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 4 hr litesong 2,743
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... 18 hr yinefsfgd 3
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Fri zubedaanur 693
UConn vs. Duke Monday night 9pm ESPN2 Dec 25 ivyawe 1
More from around the web