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
270,141 - 270,160 of 305,389 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287627
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

cpeter1313 wrote:
Abstinence works when people decide to be abstinent. Not everyone does, and no one has to. History, btw, is full of people preaching abstinence. The problem? It's completely against most peoples' nature. We have a sex drive; it's one of the strongest drives we have. Not to mention that sexual activity is healthy.
<quoted text>
Yes our "sinful " nature is against abstinence, and sex is healthy for two married people who don't have any std's, and remain faithful, but again our sin nature is against anything healthy or pure.
It desires things that are unhealthy and risky.

We are now becomming a country that enables the sinful behaivor, instead of allowing people to sleep in the bed they make.

I am all for grace, for without it I would be damned, but there is a difference in giving someone grace and mercy, and handing them a do whatever you want, we gotcha covered card.

Just like gay marriage, when that law does get passed, what is to stop a man from marring two men? 10 men? 50 men and 17 goats? 1500 women and 1 man?
Plus it being taught in our schools as normal for any and all.
Where do we draw the line?
is there a line?

Maybe others can read this, since you don't care for normal marriage or kids.

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287628
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text><snipped>
Yes our "sinful " nature is against abstinence, and sex is healthy for two married people who don't have any std's, and remain faithful, but again our sin nature is against anything healthy or pure.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text><snipped>
Maybe others can read this, since you don't care for normal marriage or kids.
With all due respect, Gtown, how can you post these things when you carried on an extramarital affair that resulted in a child out of wedlock? You speak of the importance of marriage and of remaining faithful yet you, yourself, did not honor the vows you've taken with your wife. Considering the history you've shared about it, it seems that you only had an epiphany about how wrong it was to betray your wife when your mistress became pregnant. If it weren't for that, you've given the impression that if you didn't get caught up, you'd still be carrying on with the affair.

Yes, it's great that you found God, yet I find it rather interesting that you don't seem to see the hypocrisy in you preaching about the sanctity of marriage and of sin in general given what you've shared about your past.
feces for wiccans

Falls City, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287629
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
How are you today, STO? It's cold and cloudy here, but it could be worse. We've lucked out with our weather in this area. Hopefully it will warm up on Monday, as we're supposed to go up to my daughter's, and help them build a chicken coop, and raised garden beds :)
Your gonna lay around eating whilst your poor mullet headed beer bellied hubby and family try to work.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287630
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like I hit a nerve. Gtown can't handle being challenged. He's certainly the poster boy for "phony christian".
Well my brother, you're wrong.

It doesn't bother me at all, if the people that think I'm a phony christian, and view you as an example of a "good " christian.

You say I twist scripture? Yet you are the one that says numbers tells us aborting a human life is ok? L o l

So sto, all your friends that don't believe in Jesus Christ -what happens to them when they die?
feces for wiccans

Falls City, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287631
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pathetic. This is the best you've got?
Answer the question
Saturday

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287633
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It doesn't matter who you are abortion is murder. If you continue to support it, then you are supporting actually taking the life of human. When it is legal, you have that right to defend murder. However, it will never be justified to end a life for convience or any other reason unless it is to save the mother's life. There are plenty of people who would love to adopt that baby and love it.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287634
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

feces for wiccans wrote:
<quoted text>Your gonna lay around eating whilst your poor mullet headed beer bellied hubby and family try to work.
Idiots like you usually are unable to understand the difference between your and you're.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287635
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>

So sto, all your friends that don't believe in Jesus Christ -what happens to them when they die?
Only arrogant, religious wackos think they know what will happen after we die.
Gtown71

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287636
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Michelle- wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
With all due respect, Gtown, how can you post these things when you carried on an extramarital affair that resulted in a child out of wedlock? You speak of the importance of marriage and of remaining faithful yet you, yourself, did not honor the vows you've taken with your wife. Considering the history you've shared about it, it seems that you only had an epiphany about how wrong it was to betray your wife when your mistress became pregnant. If it weren't for that, you've given the impression that if you didn't get caught up, you'd still be carrying on with the affair.
Yes, it's great that you found God, yet I find it rather interesting that you don't seem to see the hypocrisy in you preaching about the sanctity of marriage and of sin in general given what you've shared about your past.
Did you ever use the bathroom in your pants?

Yes I had an affair, and a child was born, but should I try and get affairs to be legal?
should I try and get school kids taught, that there is nothing wrong with having an affair?
perhaps have tax payers flip some of the bill, that goes with having an affair?
motel rooms, perhaps some beer or wine?

Have you ever lied?
if someone lies to you, should you be ok with it?
Would you feel like a hypocrite if you got upset with them for lying, knowing that you have lied before?

I'm simply showing how we All have a sin nature, and if we die in that nature, we must pay for our sin.

Every time a preacher preaches, He is a hypocrite,unless he hasn't commited the sin he is preaching on, but just to be clear, Jesus goes on to tell us if you've broke the law in one point, then you will be guilty of all.

He also died for our salvation.

The reason many hate His message, is the feel like what they do is not sin, or they enjoy what they do, and don't want to take any chances that, that may get taken away.

Yes I'm a hypocrite,and that is why it is so easy for me to spot another one.

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287637
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever use the bathroom in your pants?
You're comparing adultery to urinating/defecating in your pants?
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I had an affair, and a child was born, but should I try and get affairs to be legal?
Adultery may be morally wrong but it's not illegal.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
should I try and get school kids taught, that there is nothing wrong with having an affair?
Why would you speak to school children about adultery when they're not old enough to be married?
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
perhaps have tax payers flip some of the bill, that goes with having an affair?
If your mistress and her child are on Public Aid/Medicaid, then they're already footing the bill. Then again, what does this have to do with cheating on your wife and impregnating your long time mistress?
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
motel rooms, perhaps some beer or wine?
Again, what on earth does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever lied?
Yes.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
if someone lies to you, should you be ok with it?
Depends on the lie although I'd wonder why they felt they could not come to me with the truth.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you feel like a hypocrite if you got upset with them for lying, knowing that you have lied before?
If I constantly harped on people and demanded that they do not lie, when I've lied myself, then yes, I would feel and would be a hypocrite.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply showing how we All have a sin nature, and if we die in that nature, we must pay for our sin.
Unless the Good Lord has come down and spoken to you about he has in store for each and everyone in their afterlife, you do not know what the payment is for sin, if there is any payment at all.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time a preacher preaches, He is a hypocrite,unless he hasn't commited the sin he is preaching on, but just to be clear, Jesus goes on to tell us if you've broke the law in one point, then you will be guilty of all.
He also died for our salvation.
Right.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason many hate His message, is the feel like what they do is not sin, or they enjoy what they do, and don't want to take any chances that, that may get taken away.
Actually, I don't believe that folks hate the Good Lord's message at all. I think they hate how some people beat the Good Lord's message over their heads, how some people think they know the Good Lord's message better than anyone else or that they twist the Good Lord's message to suit their agenda.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I'm a hypocrite,and that is why it is so easy for me to spot another one.
You've spoken that you did not let God into your life until after you got caught up and impregnated your mistress. You carried on an affair for a long time and if pregnancy did not occur, you'd still be doing wrong behind your wife's back. You didn't need God until you were up shite's creek without a paddle. So why should anyone listen to you when it comes to God, sin and the sanctity of marriage? Think about that and perhaps you'll understand why some folks are not receptive to your message and feel you're not qualified to lecture anyone about God, sin and the sanctity of marriage.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287638
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

feces for wiccans wrote:
<quoted text>Answer the question
Question? All I saw were the typical rantings of yet another insecure male. First thing your ilk always thinks is that women you can't browbeat must be fat man-hating lesbians.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287639
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:
For Sue and Doc (not ignoring you Doc),
"In Fetal Homicide Statutes:
Laws that treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double murder arguably affirm fetal rights in a statutory manner. Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will, it could be argued that the state's interest in protecting potential life is unrestricted in cases of fetal homicide. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter of whether fetal homicide, on its own, may constitute grounds for capital punishment."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/f...
Not sure what this is except something that once again confirms what I've said....that fetal homicide laws to designate limited legal rights upon a fetus. They must or the fetus could never be a considered a victim of homicide.

As far as you ignoring me you certainly are. You ignored my response to STO which you indicated you couldn't wait to see.
You ignored his response to me in which he basically agreed that the concept of reaching viability ( outside of the hypothetical artificial womb ) was impossible.
And you ignored my direct question where I asked you to give me any scenario ( just make one up ) where an infant can currently "reach" viability with medical assistance ?

That's a lot of ignoring.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287640
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>There is no difference in the process. They both die, they both get expelled, both pregnancies are terminated.
Absurd. Ya mean a similar end automatically means a similar means ?
Cardiac arrest due to a congenital heart defect and cardiac arrest induced by a fired bullet into the heart both result in a stopped heart and death for the victim. Does that mean the processes were the same ?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287641
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You may call what you wish.
I'm just saying that before God opened my eyes, I knew what abortion meant :the death of a baby, but back then death meant very little to me, and seeing all the starving kids in the world, I felt most kids were better off aborted.
Unless they had a great home to go to.
If you want to call bs, call it on the "good " home part.
They are very few good homes, but it doesn't give anyone the right to choose who lives or dies.
Abortion kills babies. You are either FOR the killing of babies, or against it.
Stop trying to ride the imaginary fence.
You, sto, foo and some others like to say you are for a womans choice?!?!?
Well these women are choosing to kill an unborn child, regaurdless what you wish to label it.
Atleast cd -knew what he stood for, and knew like I always have, is that during an abortion the "life " of a human being is being snuffed out.
And most choose to give birth vs abortion. It's pretty obvious women make the choice we all support more often than the alternative. Ya'll talk like there are no babies being born at all lol.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287642
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Did you know that both Bitter and Vladdy have said that an infant can "reach" viability with medical assistance ?
elise in burque wrote:
Lol! Funny stuff!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287643
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that, but unless I'm mistaken, the discussion had been about STO's "artificial womb" hypothetical, in the future, where a fetus at 8 weeks could be "viable", according to his thinking.
He stated "viability" could become "pracically limitless", to which you replied that in that case, so could abortion.
How could "viability" be practically limitless,(keep in mind he used the point of 8 weeks), if he was talking about women becoming pregnant naturally, without artificial wombs? If viability would be practicially limitless due to artificial wombs, then abortion would be a non-issue in such cases, and is why I disagreed with her having a point about that. If a woman would be using asn artificial womb, she wouldn't be wanting to abort her developing child.
My understanding was that the dicussion based on STO's hypothetical was only about artificial wombs and the possibilities [they] allow about viability. That it was not a discussion that included natural pregnancies; viability in that regard, or abortion in that regard.
I didn't think the discussion expressly excluded natural pregnancy. My understanding was what effect an artificial womb would have on the concept of fetal viability, period. Even if an artificial womb existed woman would still be getting pregnant naturally. Under those circumstances a 10 week old fetus could technically be considered viable because by definition it could be removed from it's natural womb and kept alive artificially until such time that it could survive independent of ANY ALS. STO believed that since the artificial womb was still technically a womb, then the fetus at 10 weeks would not be considered viable.
In any case if the woman decided she wanted to abort at 10 weeks would she agree to have the fetus transplanted into an artificial womb ? Some might not. And in that sense abortion as an issue would not go away. That was my point.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287644
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd. Ya mean a similar end automatically means a similar means ?
Cardiac arrest due to a congenital heart defect and cardiac arrest induced by a fired bullet into the heart both result in a stopped heart and death for the victim. Does that mean the processes were the same ?
What's the difference if the victim died? Zero. The heart stopped in both instances. What's the difference if a fetus is naturally aborted or electively aborted? Nothing. They both die and the process of termination is the same.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287645
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"The benchmark is simply his medical judgement. If he believes an infant possesses the minimum basic function that it can benefit and survive with ALS he will deem it viable and apply ALS."
Right, and that would be regardless of the medical definition of viable -- even if it is not 500 g and 24 weeks, the physician makes the call. If an insurance company said to the MD, "no, it doesn't fit the definition. We don't see the likelyhood of it surviving. We're not paying for the resources." Call me cynical. I put little past the power of $$$.
But it's still a medical judgement based on the current medical/legal definition.
If the legal definition was "24 weeks and 500g" PERIOD and the fetus weighs in at 499g then yes the insurance company could intervene. But as the definition exits today it is STILL a medical judgement. I don't see any circumstances under which an insurance company could override the judgement of an MD.
"Where does the concept of reaching viability ever make sense ?"
From your next post:
" While I understand what you are saying, if the concept of an artificial womb ever did become a reality, then the definition of viability would have to be totally reconsidered in order for the concept of "reaching viability" to have any real meaning. "
"An exception or an exclusion of an artificial womb as ALS would need to be made in order to validate the concept of "reaching viability". "
and
"Even the medical definition of non viable does not allow for the concept of "potentially viable". That concept exists, by current definition ( legal or medical )only if the fetus remains in the natural womb."
Judging by your statements, I think you understand my all points.
I do. And I think you understand mine.
To sum it up, the concept of "potentially viable" may only be applied to the the natural womb -- like you said. However, a fetus at the same gestational stage in the hypothetical artifical womb would be considered "viable", even tho, in reality it is "potentially viable". In both scenarios, the fetus would have to "reach viability".
I don't think there's anything we disagree on here. The bottom line here is that outside of the concept of the not yet plausible "artificial womb" the concept of "reaching viability" with medical assistance, outside the natural womb, is impossible.

Hear that Kate ?
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to examine both side's POV, even if we disagree, in the end. It's good to know exactly what one is diagreeeing with, even if it boils down to nuance.
The thing is I don't believe we do disagree. Oh sure, we do disagree on the fundamental issue of abortion but on this specific issue we are on the same page. And I still want to remind you that we are dealing with more than nuance here when you have those on the other side STILL maintaining that an infant that requires ANY artificial assistance at all to survive.....is not viable.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287646
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>What's the difference if the victim died? Zero. The heart stopped in both instances. What's the difference if a fetus is naturally aborted or electively aborted? Nothing. They both die and the process of termination is the same.
Zero difference ? Then why don't we just shitcan all of our homicide laws ? After all there is no difference between someone dying of a heart attack due to a congenital defect and someone dying of a heart attack induced by a fired bullet.
And relative to abortion if there is no difference then why did we need the RvW decision at all ? After all was anyone ever prosecuted, even prior to 1973, for a naturally occurring miscarriage ? If not then why would anyone have been prosecuted for an induced abortion ? I mean there's no difference between the two right ?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287647
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Doing good, Bit. It's sunny/overcast off and on, here. We've had some great weather the past few days. Warm and sunny. Ya know, we Californians aren't happy unless the weather is perfect. Couldn't cut it where you live. lol
Fresh eggs and vegetables. Wish I had a green thumb. My granddad did. I did not inherit his expertise. I kill air plants (no one told me you had to water them now and then! they're called "air" plants!).
I'm married to the Plant Guy. I learned :) I did once kill a rosemary, over watered it.

It's great, enjoying all our fresh and canned veggies from the garden all year. A lot of work, but worth it, I think :)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••