Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311215 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.

grumpy

Garnerville, NY

#262876 Oct 9, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
<quoted text>II&#65533; What are the Catholic Principles of Morality in regard to abortion?
a) FIRST PRINCIPLE: "Any direct attempt on an innocent life as a means to an end - even to the end of saving another life - is unlawful.&#65533; Innocent human life, in whatsoever condition it is found, is withdrawn, from the very first moment of its existence, from any direct deliberate attack.&#65533; This is a fundamental right of the human person, which is of universal value in the Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden within the womb of the mother, as for the life already born and developing independently of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during or after its birth.&#65533; Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of the development of life born or still unborn, in profane and ecclesiastical law and in certain civil and penal consequences, all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(2)
b) SECOND PRINCIPLE: "Every human being, even a child in the mother's womb has a right to life directly from God and not from the parents or from any society or authority.&#65533; Hence there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral 'indication' that can offer or produce a valid juridical title to a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life; that is to say, a disposal that aims at its destruction whether as an end or as a means to another end, which is, perhaps, in no way unlawful in itself."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(3)
I thought the Catholic Church permits abortion to save the life of the mother.
That seems to fly in the face of these principles.
Anonymous

Cleveland, GA

#262877 Oct 9, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"yes, but they also didnt have security CAMERAS & things that deter criminals FAR more than back then "
LMAO!!!! Security cameras aren't deterring crimes. Every day footage from security cameras is being shown in the media to help in the search for criminals. Crooks still rob places that have security cameras all the time.
"if i know a room is full of guys with guns, why ON EARTH would i pull it out in anger???"
For the same reasons all those guys in the old West did it.
"im not stupid"
LMAO!
yes, when they wear a MASK stupid..........and even then, you cannot say that its not a deterrant when youve got security cameras OUTSIDE of homes, banks, police stations, schools that can view criminal activity BEFORE it enters the establishment..........not to mention, cameras arent just about eyeing the criminals face, they deter crooks from pulling shit b/c they KNOW 1) their actions are on film 2)their face MAY be on film & 3) they know they have less time to commit the crime before security or cops show up

so in your fantasy world, cameras have no purpose, they dont deter anyone, installing security cameras in banks has no affect on anyone..........RIGHT

"For the same reasons all those guys in the old West did it." - WRONG stupid, youre act as if you were there & saw random shootings by dumbasses all the time........IF this were the case, then i suppose everyone in the west was stupid, highly reactionary, & willing to get shot dead..........

"Yep, come on Marv, i'll show that bartender to serve me a bigger drink! imma pull my .38 on his ass, i'll probably get shot dead by 4 other people before i get near the door, but at least ill have my drink! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!"

yes..........that is how the wild west was......you're right!
Anonymous

Cleveland, GA

#262878 Oct 9, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"aside from illega arms (which you cant do stats on) WHY would this be true? you know damn well peopl in the southeast & rural towns are generally more comfortable with guns --- so why would there not then be MORE of them???"
All I said was that there is no reason there WOULD be more. YOU want to claim there WOULD be, then it's up to you to prove that.
"okay listen, you cant just say "non sequitor, i disagree" & have THAT be our argument - i can do the same, by arguing gravity is different in GA than in NY, by just SAYING "nope, non sequitor, i disagree" ..........but hwo does that make me soun? STUPID, thats how, & it proves nothing
the question is WHY do you disagree, WHY does Bitner feel that there is no such thing as deterrant by guns???"
Obviously, you don't know what a non sequitur is. Look it up. I CAN just say that I disagree. It's up to YOU to prove you assertions, it's not up to me to have to disprove them.
"explain away, im still waiting.........."
I don't have to. PROVE your assertion that the gun laws are to blame for the shootings in public places, which was your original claim.
"yawwn, b/c u CANT coward.........."
No, because I don't HAVE to address everything under the sun.
"and the queston wast about LOOSENIGN gun lawsto deter criminals
it was would you be deterred from criminality in a place wher there are likely more guns..........now, try & answer the question, bc you NEVER once did:"
No, when this whole thing started, you tried to claim that the stricter gun laws were to blame for the shootings in places such as schools and movies.
"if you're gonna rob a store, do you A) go into a place thats filled with people who most likely WONT be armed, or do you B) go to a place thats probably filled with ARMED citizens?"
Again, PROVE "probably". Until you prove your premise, there is no question to answer.
"tick tock boy....."
Stop being a whiny little girl.
so why is it that hollywood/the media/liberals in general have the stereotype that southerners are gun wielding, have lots'a guns, etc.?

i guess you totally disagree with that then huh?

"stricter gun laws were to blame for the shootings in places such as schools and movies." - NO no, thats not what i meant - no stricter gun laws dont CAUSE the shootings, im saying they dont HELP.........having a "gun free zone" does not prevent shootings, it prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves when there IS a massacre

"No, because I don't HAVE to address everything under the sun." - no, you'd rather blahh blahh/bitch on about how special you are, & how you dont have to do anything - when in reality youre working far more to explain why you DONT have to explain, than if you were to simply explain.........but alas, i cant cure stupid

"it's not up to me to have to disprove them." - WRONG idiot, if you wish to debate me, then you need to DEBATE me;..........simply saying "i disagree", that is NOT "debate"..........i ASSumed you knew that, but i was wrong, obviously you cant keep up with me as youre either too stupid or too stubborn to admit you're wrong

so, man up, & back it up........debate, otherwise stop messaging me entirely, im sick of it

so here it is, try again, i'll rephrase to make it idiot proof:
"if you're gonna rob a store, do you A) go into a place thats a "gun free zone" (so people most likely WONT be armed), or do you B) go to a place that has no rules against guns & is most likely filled with a bunch of redneck good ole boys?
Anonymous

Cleveland, GA

#262879 Oct 9, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"you may or may not get punched in the face for trying to lift random people's wallets, right? simply not knowing but being sure its a good possibility that you will get hurt IS or ISNT a deterrant?"
No. If I thought I had any right to steal from someone, simply the fact that I might get hurt doing so would not deter me. What DOES deter me is that I have no right to do so.
well arent you the self righteous one

"the fact that I might get hurt doing so would not deter me." - oh WHORESHIT, you're not Robocop & you're not Batman, you cant tell me you're so MANLY, so baddass that nothing deters you except the righteous call of right/wrong

you're telling me, if you were gonna lift someones wallet, you had to choose from a 5'7 45 year old guy - or a 6'2 225 pound 25 year old..........you're telling me you would have NO quarrels with lifing EITHER wallet........you wouldnt care which..........

LOL! you're SO BADASSS!

whats your phone #, im hiring you as my security guard!

why havent you applied to the Secret Service?

Navy Seals?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#262880 Oct 9, 2012
corgilicious wrote:
Gianna Beretta Molla (1922-1962)
photo
Gianna Beretta was born in Magenta (Milan) October 4, 1922. Already as a youth she willingly accepted the gift of faith and the clearly Christian education that she received from her excellent parents. As a result, she experienced life as a marvellous gift from God, had a strong faith in Providence and was convinced of the necessity and effectiveness of prayer.
She diligently dedicated herself to studies during the years of her secondary and university education, while, at the same time, applying her faith through generous apostolic service among the youth of Catholic Action and charitable work among the elderly and needy as a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. After earning degrees in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Pavia in 1949, she opened a medical clinic in Mesero (near Magenta) in 1950. She specialized in Pediatrics at the University of Milan in 1952 and there after gave special attention to mothers, babies, the elderly and poor.
While working in the field of medicine-which she considered a “mission” and practiced as such-she increased her generous service to Catholic Action, especially among the “very young” and, at the same time, expressed her joie de vivre and love of creation through skiing and mountaineering. Through her prayers and those of others, she reflected upon her vocation, which she also considered a gift from God. Having chosen the vocation of marriage, she embraced it with complete enthusiasm and wholly dedicated herself “to forming a truly Christian family”.
She became engaged to Pietro Molla and was radiant with joy and happiness during the time of their engagement, for which she thanked and praised the Lord. They were married on September 24, 1955, in the Basilica of St. Martin in Magenta, and she became a happy wife. In November 1956, to her great joy, she became the mother of Pierluigi, in December 1957 of Mariolina; in July 1959 of Laura. With simplicity and equilibrium she harmonized the demands of mother, wife, doctor and her passion for life.
In September 1961 towards the end of the second month of pregnancy, she was touched by suffering and the mystery of pain; she had developed a fibroma in her uterus. Before the required surgical operation, and conscious of the risk that her continued pregnancy brought, she pleaded with the surgeon to save the life of the child she was carrying, and entrusted herself to prayer and Providence. The life was saved, for which she thanked the Lord. She spent the seven months remaining until the birth of the child in incomparable strength of spirit and unrelenting dedication to her tasks as mother and doctor. She worried that the baby in her womb might be born in pain, and she asked God to prevent that.
A few days before the child was due, although trusting as always in Providence, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child:“If you must decided between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child - I insist on it. Save him”. On the morning of April 21, 1962, Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you», the mother died. She was 39 years old. Her funeral was an occasion of profound grief, faith and prayer. The Servant of God lies in the cemetery of Mesero (4 km from Magenta). Today she is a Saint, if the Church allowed abortion to save her life....she wouldn't be worthy of being a saint would she.
They can keep their 'sainthood', and I'll keep my freedom to choose whether or not I become a mother or a corpse.

Hint: I'm guessing she didn't have sainthood anywhere in mind, when she made this choice.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#262881 Oct 9, 2012
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
"so why is it that hollywood/the media/liberals in general have the stereotype that southerners are gun wielding, have lots'a guns, etc.?
i guess you totally disagree with that then huh?"

I couldn't care less. The fact is, you blamed ME for that sentiment, and I've not said a word on the subject.

"NO no, thats not what i meant - no stricter gun laws dont CAUSE the shootings, im saying they dont HELP.........having a "gun free zone" does not prevent shootings, it prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves when there IS a massacre."

That's the same thing, really. And I'm saying that I disagree that the thought that there MIGHT be other guns there is in anyway a deterrent.

"no, you'd rather blahh blahh/bitch on about how special you are, & how you dont have to do anything - when in reality youre working far more to explain why you DONT have to explain, than if you were to simply explain.........but alas, i cant cure stupid"

Your non sequiturs are not my responsibility.

"WRONG idiot, if you wish to debate me, then you need to DEBATE me;..........simply saying "i disagree", that is NOT "debate"..........i ASSumed you knew that, but i was wrong, obviously you cant keep up with me as youre either too stupid or too stubborn to admit you're wrong."

It's your assertion, it's up to you to prove it.

"so, man up, & back it up........debate, otherwise stop messaging me entirely, im sick of it."

Little Girl, YOU are the one who needs to back yourself up. Again, as it stands, you are merely expressing your opinion. I have countered, saying that I disagree with your opinion. If you want to assert that your opinion is also fact, then it's up to YOU to "back it up".

"so here it is, try again, i'll rephrase to make it idiot proof:
"if you're gonna rob a store, do you A) go into a place thats a "gun free zone" (so people most likely WONT be armed), or do you B) go to a place that has no rules against guns & is most likely filled with a bunch of redneck good ole boys?"

Oh, so now it's ROBBING a place, not just shooting people. You and your tangents.

If you have to go THIS far afield to attempt to make a point, you've already lost the debate. Again, your non sequiturs are not my responsibility. Your question has nothing to do with the point. It is, in fact, pointless.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262882 Oct 9, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
http://www.calendarforlife.org /
http://pro-lifeactionnetworkblog.blogspot.com...
Just in case anyone is interested in actually DOING something to further increase the restrictive abortion laws in America...rather than yammering on about them here...
I can practically guarantee you won't see the overturn of Roe V Wade, but at least you can make it more difficult, dangerous, and deadly to get an abortion.
You go, girls.
You too, guys.
Get out there and make a difference!!
Lol... You're funny!
corgilicious

United States

#262883 Oct 9, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>They can keep their 'sainthood', and I'll keep my freedom to choose whether or not I become a mother or a corpse.
Hint: I'm guessing she didn't have sainthood anywhere in mind, when she made this choice.
Saint Gianna interceded a prayer and a woman who had a severe stroke was cured. Saint Gianna is with God. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-cat...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#262884 Oct 9, 2012
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
"well arent you the self righteous one"

No, just honest.

"oh WHORESHIT, you're not Robocop & you're not Batman, you cant tell me you're so MANLY, so baddass that nothing deters you except the righteous call of right/wrong."

I'm not "manly" at all, Moron. I'm a woman, as I've told you at least a dozen times. My answer was truthful. You just didn't like it, because it doesn't enable your idiocy.

"you're telling me, if you were gonna lift someones wallet, you had to choose from a 5'7 45 year old guy - or a 6'2 225 pound 25 year old..........you're telling me you would have NO quarrels with lifing EITHER wallet........you wouldnt care which..........
LOL! you're SO BADASSS!"

No, I'm telling you that having no right to steal from someone is what deters me from doing so. And that if I DID think I had that right, the thought of getting hurt would not deter me. I said NOTHING about any attributes of the person in your stupid hypothetical. You keep adding to your scenarios just because you don't get the answers you want. Tough shit, Little Whiny Girl. Not my fault you can't stick to the point.

"whats your phone #, im hiring you as my security guard!
why havent you applied to the Secret Service?
Navy Seals?"

Aw, Widdle Girly Girl didn't get the answer she wanted. Oh well.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#262885 Oct 9, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
While I read the article concerning this poor little girl,I didn't understand the church. I always thought the double effect would always come into play,especially that this was a child herself. Here's an article Age,I'm still confused.:(
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2010/10/princ...
OL! I've read the passage a few times and I'm still unclear.
From your link: "If a necessary treatment brings about the death of the child indirectly it may be allowable."

I believe it's the word "necessary" that is bothersome. Who decides in what could amount to a life/death situation and after the event who rules whether it was in fact "necessary"? Don't hospitals (and their lawyers) have medical procedure reviews periodically?

There's no doubt in my mind (none) that the child in Brazil would have died without intervention. How often do 9 year olds successfully deliver even one baby?

For some that wish to aspire to sainthood - this is clearly black and white. For others, mitigating circumstances would prevail. If the pregnant woman's life isn't considered worth saving, she's merely a child bearing vessel and I find that notion distasteful.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262886 Oct 9, 2012
OLD LADY wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Learning is a good thing,don't you think? Especially,if your not sure, of something.:)
Sure if you're not Catholic nothing wrong in learning, wanting to understand their doctrine.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#262887 Oct 9, 2012
Using "catholic" and "morality" in the same sentence may be grounds for a frqaud conviction. What's the official word on schtupping altar boys and nuns?
corgilicious wrote:
<quoted text>II&#65533; What are the Catholic Principles of Morality in regard to abortion?
a) FIRST PRINCIPLE: "Any direct attempt on an innocent life as a means to an end - even to the end of saving another life - is unlawful.&#65533; Innocent human life, in whatsoever condition it is found, is withdrawn, from the very first moment of its existence, from any direct deliberate attack.&#65533; This is a fundamental right of the human person, which is of universal value in the Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden within the womb of the mother, as for the life already born and developing independently of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during or after its birth.&#65533; Whatever foundation there may be for the distinction between these various phases of the development of life born or still unborn, in profane and ecclesiastical law and in certain civil and penal consequences, all these cases involve a grave and unlawful attack upon the inviolability of human life."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(2)
b) SECOND PRINCIPLE: "Every human being, even a child in the mother's womb has a right to life directly from God and not from the parents or from any society or authority.&#65533; Hence there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral 'indication' that can offer or produce a valid juridical title to a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life; that is to say, a disposal that aims at its destruction whether as an end or as a means to another end, which is, perhaps, in no way unlawful in itself."&#65533; Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951.(3)

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#262888 Oct 9, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
OL! I've read the passage a few times and I'm still unclear.
From your link: "If a necessary treatment brings about the death of the child indirectly it may be allowable."
I believe it's the word "necessary" that is bothersome. Who decides in what could amount to a life/death situation and after the event who rules whether it was in fact "necessary"? Don't hospitals (and their lawyers) have medical procedure reviews periodically?
There's no doubt in my mind (none) that the child in Brazil would have died without intervention. How often do 9 year olds successfully deliver even one baby?
For some that wish to aspire to sainthood - this is clearly black and white. For others, mitigating circumstances would prevail. If the pregnant woman's life isn't considered worth saving, she's merely a child bearing vessel and I find that notion distasteful.
Well said!

And I'd only want to add that the RCC leadership is NOT qualified to make a medical determination for all cases.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262889 Oct 9, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Lol... You're funny!
I'm going to do the fasting thing, I need lose a few pounds.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#262890 Oct 9, 2012
So, a woman with gifts in the healing arts is brainwashed from birth to think of her life as totally expendable. She has a dangerous pregnancy with a fairly predictable outcome, and chooses to die instead of trying again with a more stable outcome. She leaves behind a child with no mother, and who knows how many people suffer because she is no longer around to practice medicine.

A complete frigging waste. All predicated on the woman-hating principles of the RCC. They even canonize her, which costs the church nothing and reinforces the role of women as baby-making non-entities.
corgilicious wrote:
Gianna Beretta Molla (1922-1962)
photo
Gianna Beretta was born in Magenta (Milan) October 4, 1922. Already as a youth she willingly accepted the gift of faith and the clearly Christian education that she received from her excellent parents. As a result, she experienced life as a marvellous gift from God, had a strong faith in Providence and was convinced of the necessity and effectiveness of prayer.
She diligently dedicated herself to studies during the years of her secondary and university education, while, at the same time, applying her faith through generous apostolic service among the youth of Catholic Action and charitable work among the elderly and needy as a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. After earning degrees in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Pavia in 1949, she opened a medical clinic in Mesero (near Magenta) in 1950. She specialized in Pediatrics at the University of Milan in 1952 and there after gave special attention to mothers, babies, the elderly and poor.
While working in the field of medicine-which she considered a “mission” and practiced as such-she increased her generous service to Catholic Action, especially among the “very young” and, at the same time, expressed her joie de vivre and love of creation through skiing and mountaineering. Through her prayers and those of others, she reflected upon her vocation, which she also considered a gift from God. Having chosen the vocation of marriage, she embraced it with complete enthusiasm and wholly dedicated herself “to forming a truly Christian family”.
She became engaged to Pietro Molla and was radiant with joy and happiness during the time of their engagement, for which she thanked and praised the Lord. They were married on September 24, 1955, in the Basilica of St. Martin in Magenta, and she became a happy wife. In November 1956, to her great joy, she became the mother of Pierluigi, in December 1957 of Mariolina; in July 1959 of Laura. With simplicity and equilibrium she harmonized the demands of mother, wife, doctor and her passion for life.
In September 1961 towards the end of the second month of pregnancy, she was touched by suffering and the mystery of pain; she had developed a fibroma in her uterus. Before the required surgical operation, and conscious of the risk that her continued pregnancy brought, she pleaded with the surgeon to save the life of the child she was carrying, and entrusted herself to prayer and Providence. The life was saved, for which she thanked the Lord. She spent the seven months remaining until the birth of the child in incomparable strength of spirit and unrelenting dedication to her tasks as mother and doctor. She worried that the baby in her womb might be born in pain, and she asked God to prevent that.
A few days before the child was due, although trusting as always in Providence, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child:“If you must decided between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child - I insist on it. Save him”. On the morning of April 21, 1962, Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you», the mother died. She was 39 years old....

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#262892 Oct 9, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said!
And I'd only want to add that the RCC leadership is NOT qualified to make a medical determination for all cases.
Thank you, Bit!

Mother seems to get hot under the collar when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. She's also not happy about "artificial" birth control. What do all those things have in common?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#262893 Oct 9, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, Bit!
Mother seems to get hot under the collar when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. She's also not happy about "artificial" birth control. What do all those things have in common?
Hmmm....gee....fewer Catholics in the world, maybe? Less money in the collection plate? Less power and influence for Mother? All of the above?:-D
Katie

Graham, WA

#262894 Oct 9, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
About time ? About time for what ? I've sidestepped nothing.
I tackle your nonsense head on.
I disagree and am not in favor going off on unrelated tangents with you.

[QUOTE<quoted text>
The courts are already in women's health issues. Just who was it that made it legal for you to obtain a pre viability elective abortion ? Ya dope ya.
<quoted text>
What ?!? You not only implied it....you SAID it !
You said viability is the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. So by your definition a physician could NEVER make a determination of viability if the preemie needed any medical assistance whatsoever. That's no implication on your part. That is FACT.[/QUOTE]

No, it's you misrepresenting what I said VIABILITY meant medically. But you knew that, yet you still try to attach personal meaning of it to me (as if I would rather the newborn be left alone to die).

That was a BS maneuver begun by NR. Are you trying to continue where he left off?

You still haven't managed to answer if you want the legal community all up in women's personal health issues, although above you sorta agree you do when claiming the legal system is already up there (and completely overlooking the legal community has no intruding voice during the first trimester).
<quoted text>
Damn right they are. Because they are adhering to the legal definition of viability. which means the ability to survive with or without medical assistance. As per Roe v Wade they MUST consider available medical technology when making a determination of viability.
That's your interpretation. I have agreed to disagree. Before any physician can determine if ALS will be beneficial, they have to determine if newborn is physiologically capable. If they determine newborn is not, the door is left open in case it is. I've never said any different. And it's not difficult to understand before one reaches step two or three in a process, they must first accomplish step one. Your POV glaringly overlooks step one when you insist RvW demands physicians consider ALS as a pre-req to viability.
They wouldn't be able to adhere to YOUR fairy tale definition because if they did, they could NEVEr detrmine a preemie was viable if it needed any medical assistance at all.
<quoted text>
They already are.
<quoted text>
It has always been up to the physician and his patient. But that doesn't the physician and patient can ignore the legal precedent set by RvW.
Who has said or encouraged any different, Doc? Why do you post as if you think I want physicians ignoring benefits of ALS? You do know ALS doesn't benefit every newborn every time, don't you? Physicians need to be the ones to make that determination, not the courts.

Thinking outloud == You write as if you think physicians and their patients spin the wheel and pick who lives or who dies by lottery. And it seems you try to attach this thinking to me when it won't stick. Then you start with the name calling. Imo, the problem is yours.
<quoted text>
I'm not muddying any waters. I couldn't be making it any clearer. You're wrong on viability.
And when are you going to provide a medical definition of viability that backs yours ? WHEN ????
I've provided a legal AND medical definition that backs mine.
You're clear on points that don't address my words. I do not believe I'm wrong on what medically constitutes VIABILITY. If you weren't so damn obstinate and saw my points the first few times around, this would be a dead topic.

If I am wrong regarding VIABILITY then I guess all us taxpayers can look forward to every newborn receiving every type of available ALS regardless of its appropriateness or if it's beneficial. Per Doc's version of RvW anyway.
corgilicious

United States

#262895 Oct 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So, a woman with gifts in the healing arts is brainwashed from birth to think of her life as totally expendable. She has a dangerous pregnancy with a fairly predictable outcome, and chooses to die instead of trying again with a more stable outcome. She leaves behind a child with no mother, and who knows how many people suffer because she is no longer around to practice medicine.
A complete frigging waste. All predicated on the woman-hating principles of the RCC. They even canonize her, which costs the church nothing and reinforces the role of women as baby-making non-entities.
<quoted text>
You are very wrong.
corgilicious

United States

#262896 Oct 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
So, a woman with gifts in the healing arts is brainwashed from birth to think of her life as totally expendable. She has a dangerous pregnancy with a fairly predictable outcome, and chooses to die instead of trying again with a more stable outcome. She leaves behind a child with no mother, and who knows how many people suffer because she is no longer around to practice medicine.
A complete frigging waste. All predicated on the woman-hating principles of the RCC. They even canonize her, which costs the church nothing and reinforces the role of women as baby-making non-entities.
<quoted text>
http://www.zenit.org/article-28851...

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cutting of pastor's role called 'vindictive' (Oct '08) 14 min Bruser 8,263
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 20 min NEMO 10,744
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 41 min jimi-yank 39,518
News Home Depot worker's 'America Was Never Great' h... 42 min WEfought4U 6
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 42 min jimi-yank 328,604
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 2 hr rainmaker2016 14,258
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr tina anne 59,532
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages