Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 313187 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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321596 Feb 4, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-...
It was worth the chance. Matteo may have been proud of his mother and dad for trying to save his sister.
To whom was it "worth the chance," Ink?

You?

The hospital, covering its own ass?

The father of that 'child' and their OTHER child, who may now be the subject of ridicule about his rotting mom, didn't think it was 'worth the chance'.....but your opinion should trump HIS?

Was it worth the chance to her? She didn't say so before she died, knowing she was pregnant....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321597 Feb 5, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>To whom was it "worth the chance," Ink?
You?
The hospital, covering its own ass?
The father of that 'child' and their OTHER child, who may now be the subject of ridicule about his rotting mom, didn't think it was 'worth the chance'.....but your opinion should trump HIS?
Was it worth the chance to her? She didn't say so before she died, knowing she was pregnant....
It was worth a chance to Ink, and that's all that really matters to Ink.....HER feelings......HER experience......HER wants.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321598 Feb 5, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>To whom was it "worth the chance," Ink?
You?
The hospital, covering its own ass?
The father of that 'child' and their OTHER child, who may now be the subject of ridicule about his rotting mom, didn't think it was 'worth the chance'.....but your opinion should trump HIS?
Was it worth the chance to her? She didn't say so before she died, knowing she was pregnant....
She didn't know she was going to die while pregnant. My opinion doesn't trump anybody's, it wasn't in my hands but I can see both sides.

Would you ridicule the other child about his "rotting mom"? Is that the way liberals would treat him or the family? I know pro life people wouldn't do that.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321599 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't know she was going to die while pregnant. My opinion doesn't trump anybody's, it wasn't in my hands but I can see both sides.
Would you ridicule the other child about his "rotting mom"? Is that the way liberals would treat him or the family? I know pro life people wouldn't do that.
She knew death during pregnancy was a possibility, though, Ink. She specifically did NOT provide for that outcome, with a stipulation that she be kept on a vent in the event she did die.....did she.

She was a paramedic, with empirical knowledge of what happens to a brain-dead body on a ventilator. Even a pregnant body. If she'd wanted to be kept on one, for the sake of her fetus, she'd have said so.

She said she didn't.

As far as ridiculing Mateo, of course >I< wouldn't - but I'm no longer a child, nor is Mateo going to grow up in a vacuum. He has a history now, thanks to the State of Texas, which used his mother as a political football in an effort to further political careers, and 'protect' the hospital from consequences it didn't care to risk. And his family may face financial ruin as a result of the hospital bills for "care" they didn't ask for, but were forced to endure anyway.

You might find that acceptable, but I don't.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#321600 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't know she was going to die while pregnant. My opinion doesn't trump anybody's, it wasn't in my hands but I can see both sides.
Would you ridicule the other child about his "rotting mom"? Is that the way liberals would treat him or the family? I know pro life people wouldn't do that.
I guess you are blind to the ridicule on this thread from your fellow, fake pro life wackos. how convenient for you !!!
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321601 Feb 5, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>She knew death during pregnancy was a possibility, though, Ink. She specifically did NOT provide for that outcome, with a stipulation that she be kept on a vent in the event she did die.....did she.
She was a paramedic, with empirical knowledge of what happens to a brain-dead body on a ventilator. Even a pregnant body. If she'd wanted to be kept on one, for the sake of her fetus, she'd have said so.
She said she didn't.
As far as ridiculing Mateo, of course >I< wouldn't - but I'm no longer a child, nor is Mateo going to grow up in a vacuum. He has a history now, thanks to the State of Texas, which used his mother as a political football in an effort to further political careers, and 'protect' the hospital from consequences it didn't care to risk. And his family may face financial ruin as a result of the hospital bills for "care" they didn't ask for, but were forced to endure anyway.
You might find that acceptable, but I don't.
Like I said, I can see both sides and I think each side was trying to do the right thing. You on the other hand have it all sewed up as a political conspiracy to take away the dead woman's rights. You have also determined that the family was not covered by insurance even though both worked for the state or local government and all citizens are required by law to be insured. You make a lot of assumptions.
grumpy

Bridgeport, CT

#321602 Feb 5, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
grumpy: "The cancer cell doesn't differentiate like DNA of the mother. It's human with a difference in DNA"
_______
grumpy: How can this DNA result say it's the mother's DNA. It was from her malignant tumor.
Molecular genetic patholigist: Even though she's experienced abnormal gene mutations, it's clearly still her DNA.
grumpy: But it has to say that the DNA sample from her tumor indicates the tissue is from a different human - or I'll look like an ass on Topix.
Patholigist: From what you've already said, I'd have to agree that you're an ass.
Check a Biology book to find the meaning of "differentiation".
Bongo

United States

#321603 Feb 5, 2014
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
EarthOneDeadChild: "A child who also had severe brain damage from lack of oxygen...that baby is going to be a severly brain damaged adult."
You're speculating and assuming the worst in order to 'justify' your knee-jerk response: Killing.
Your post isn't about abortion. Your post supports euthenasia.
We love laughing at you Bozo Boy!!
Bongo

United States

#321604 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, I can see both sides and I think each side was trying to do the right thing. You on the other hand have it all sewed up as a political conspiracy to take away the dead woman's rights. You have also determined that the family was not covered by insurance even though both worked for the state or local government and all citizens are required by law to be insured. You make a lot of assumptions.
You stink.
grumpy

Bridgeport, CT

#321605 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, I can see both sides and I think each side was trying to do the right thing. You on the other hand have it all sewed up as a political conspiracy to take away the dead woman's rights. You have also determined that the family was not covered by insurance even though both worked for the state or local government and all citizens are required by law to be insured. You make a lot of assumptions.
How can you say both sides were trying to do the right thing!
The hospital was trying to generate income and avoid legal problems. The family was trying to preserve the quality of life of the family.(unless someone would have adopted the baby???)
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321606 Feb 5, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention, that what 'care' she received was not "Keeping her alive," anyway....she was on a vent, not full-on life support....and she was DECOMPOSING around that political football of a fetus.
One wonders how this will all affect her living child, 16 month old Mateo, as his mom's story made national news: Her corpse deteriorated for public consumption, and advancement in the career of some politician in Texas. How will this be beneficial to HIM?
(Well, that only matters, if one concerns oneself with something other than FETUSES.)
How can one decompose while her heart is beating?

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321607 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
How can one decompose while her heart is beating?
Brain death is defined as an irreversible absence of brain function. Unlike all other tissue, the central nervous system (comprised of the brain, brainstem, and spinal cord) does not have the capacity to heal or regenerate. Once it is dead, it stays dead. As long as a brain dead patient is kept on a ventilator, the heart will still beat, the lungs will still function, the kidneys will still make urine, and muscle reflexes will still exist. But without brain function, the person is gone.

Physiologically it is the same as cardiac death where the heart stops and all organs then fail. "Brain dead" is physiologically (and legally) exactly the same as "dead". And no court order can change that.

Patients that are on life support, and brain dead, begin to decompose slightly: they often slough off their intestinal linings, their skin can become purplish and swollen, their eyes are sunken and cloudy,their kidneys stop functioning, etc. Their heart may be pumping but the majority are not perfusing their tissues well and there is cellular death, but no cellular regeneration.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321608 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
How can one decompose while her heart is beating?
Hopefully this will help you understand. The body starts shutting down.

Compliments of:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/Page...

Confirmation of death

In the past confirming death was straightforward – death occurs when the heart stops beating and a person is no longer breathing. In turn, the lack of oxygen as a result of no blood flow will quickly lead to the permanent loss of brain stem function.
Now confirmation of death can be more complex as it is possible to keep the heart beating after the brain stem has permanently stopped functioning. This is as a result of keeping someone on a ventilator thereby allowing the body (and the heart) to be artificially oxygenated.
But once the brain stem has permanently stopped functioning there is no way to reverse this and the heart will eventually stop beating even if a ventilator has been used.
To save family and friends from unnecessary suffering, once there is clear evidence that brain death has occurred the ventilator is turned off.
Da Pope

New Britain, CT

#321609 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
How can one decompose while her heart is beating?
I think all Christian women should be rounded up in their parish at least once a month and questioned about what they're doing sexually and reproductively by their priest. They should answer questions about how often they have sexual relations with their husbands and if they're only having sex to procreate and the priest can do a finger up exam to make sure everything up in your privates is doing ok. When a woman gets pregnant the priest should accompany her to all prenatal exams to make sure all is going according to god's will. The priest should also be in the delivery room sitting right next to the obstetrician and then the priest should get to be in the room with the new mother supervising the breast feeding making sure all is going according to god's plan.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321610 Feb 5, 2014
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Hopefully this will help you understand. The body starts shutting down.
Compliments of:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/Page...
Confirmation of death
In the past confirming death was straightforward – death occurs when the heart stops beating and a person is no longer breathing. In turn, the lack of oxygen as a result of no blood flow will quickly lead to the permanent loss of brain stem function.
Now confirmation of death can be more complex as it is possible to keep the heart beating after the brain stem has permanently stopped functioning. This is as a result of keeping someone on a ventilator thereby allowing the body (and the heart) to be artificially oxygenated.
But once the brain stem has permanently stopped functioning there is no way to reverse this and the heart will eventually stop beating even if a ventilator has been used.
To save family and friends from unnecessary suffering, once there is clear evidence that brain death has occurred the ventilator is turned off.
There was no question as to whether she was brain dead. She was. Decomposition was the point.
Da Pope

New Britain, CT

#321611 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
How can one decompose while her heart is beating?
Since you're experiencing this you tell us.
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321612 Feb 5, 2014
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Brain death is defined as an irreversible absence of brain function. Unlike all other tissue, the central nervous system (comprised of the brain, brainstem, and spinal cord) does not have the capacity to heal or regenerate. Once it is dead, it stays dead. As long as a brain dead patient is kept on a ventilator, the heart will still beat, the lungs will still function, the kidneys will still make urine, and muscle reflexes will still exist. But without brain function, the person is gone.
Physiologically it is the same as cardiac death where the heart stops and all organs then fail. "Brain dead" is physiologically (and legally) exactly the same as "dead". And no court order can change that.
Patients that are on life support, and brain dead, begin to decompose slightly: they often slough off their intestinal linings, their skin can become purplish and swollen, their eyes are sunken and cloudy,their kidneys stop functioning, etc. Their heart may be pumping but the majority are not perfusing their tissues well and there is cellular death, but no cellular regeneration.
Not everyone would agree with your statement. I would like to know if that is your own idea.

Evidence is offered by Dr. Alan Shewmon, Professor of Pediatric Neurology at UCLA Medical School. In a July 1997 address to the Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics, Shewmon cites 140 cases of prolonged survival — for months, sometimes years — by brain-dead patients. In the most extraordinary of these cases, the patient has survived fourteen years. During that time, multiple tests have been performed, and detected no brain function. Yet the patient has grown, overcome infections, and healed wounds. Like many such patients, he has survived without extraordinary medical intervention beyond a ventilator and nursing care.

How can a patient with no apparent brain function continue to live, assimilate food, grow, and demonstrate other signs of life for a period of years? One is forced toward either of two possible conclusions, either of which strikes at the basic premises of the argument for brain death. It is possible to argue that modern medicine cannot accurately detect the presence or absence of brain function. Alternatively, one could argue — as Shewmon did argue in his Linacre address — that these patients do indeed lack brain function, but are nevertheless living human beings, who derive their bodily unity not from a central coordinating organ like the brain, but from the "mutual interaction among all the parts of the body."

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#321613 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone would agree with your statement. I would like to know if that is your own idea.
It's the explanation the doctor who presided over my son's case gave us, when my son was pronounced brain dead, the day after he collapsed from a brain aneurysm. We elected to let him stay on the vent until recipients were found for his organs - a process that took approximately 48 hours - and we were also told that if the harvest team couldn't start in 72 hours, his organs wouldn't be viable enough to transplant.

Why would anyone allow a loved one to remain attached to a ventilator for fourteen years - and why did they then 'pull the plug'?

Tired of waiting? Got a bit pricey? Or was the poor corpse just too pathetic to keep flogging at that point?
Ink

Havertown, PA

#321614 Feb 5, 2014
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>How can you say both sides were trying to do the right thing!
The hospital was trying to generate income and avoid legal problems. The family was trying to preserve the quality of life of the family.(unless someone would have adopted the baby???)
The hospital was trying to follow the Texas law.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#321615 Feb 5, 2014
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone would agree with your statement. I would like to know if that is your own idea.
Evidence is offered by Dr. Alan Shewmon, Professor of Pediatric Neurology at UCLA Medical School. In a July 1997 address to the Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics, Shewmon cites 140 cases of prolonged survival — for months, sometimes years — by brain-dead patients. In the most extraordinary of these cases, the patient has survived fourteen years. During that time, multiple tests have been performed, and detected no brain function. Yet the patient has grown, overcome infections, and healed wounds. Like many such patients, he has survived without extraordinary medical intervention beyond a ventilator and nursing care.
How can a patient with no apparent brain function continue to live, assimilate food, grow, and demonstrate other signs of life for a period of years? One is forced toward either of two possible conclusions, either of which strikes at the basic premises of the argument for brain death. It is possible to argue that modern medicine cannot accurately detect the presence or absence of brain function. Alternatively, one could argue — as Shewmon did argue in his Linacre address — that these patients do indeed lack brain function, but are nevertheless living human beings, who derive their bodily unity not from a central coordinating organ like the brain, but from the "mutual interaction among all the parts of the body."
There are other neurology specialists who will tell you that a brain dead individual is dead and is only artificially kept alive. Without a ventilator the patient would automatically die. Also, many brain dead patients are vented until their organs are harvested so others can live.

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) 6 min Cheech the Conser... 1,478,930
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 32,711
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Into The Night 10,654
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Sun RiccardoFire 201,892
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sun Rosa_Winkel 258,461
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Jan 14 Buffalo Bull 74
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Dec 20 san isidro company 42
More from around the web