Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,207
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

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280563 Jan 28, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Klueless Katiekins: "If there WERE a magical moment fetus becomes baby, it'd have to be when the newborn's circulatory system and gas exchange happen on its own WITHOUT help from the umbilical cord. Otherwise, it is equivalent to a fetus."
:Sigh:
Your ignorance is redundant. Remarkable. Here is an excerpt from the Born Alive Infant Protection Act correcting you. Again. Read it slowly...
"...complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes OR has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles, REGARDLESS OF WHEHTER THE UMBILICAL CORD HAS BEEN CUT, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ207/...
Keep right on posting that, NR, and i borrowed it from you. It proves she's a nutcase with her claims.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280564 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're claiming this "...complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes OR has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles, REGARDLESS OF WHEHTER THE UMBILICAL CORD HAS BEEN CUT, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion," is the magical moment fetus becomes baby you cannot claim it's a baby at conception or it's a baby in utero.
If you are not claiming the above is the magical moment fetus becomes baby, then you cannot claim I am wrong either. Because I qualified my answer with the word WERE as it denotes the impossibility of a "magical moment" when fetus becomes baby. Like I've said and linked, it is a process. A long process. Part of the whole process of life.
Katie: "is the magical moment fetus becomes baby you cannot claim it's a baby at conception or it's a baby in utero."

lol, you inept fool. That's when a fetus becomes a newborn INFANT. That's what we've said, "infant", as opposed to "fetus" as you have claimed. Now you're trying to make some other delusional claim? This time about what we've supposedly said? You're such a fool.

Katie: "Because I qualified my answer with the word WERE as it denotes the impossibility of a "magical moment" when fetus becomes baby."

Your qualifier in itself is ridiculous. There's no need for a qualifier since every intelligent adult knows for a fact that a fetus becomes newborn infant upon expulsion from its mother's body. As we have said and proven. You're the one using the term "magical moment", and claiming it's impossible to state when fetus becomes newborn infant. We've proven it's an absolute as to when that happens; immediately upon exiting mother's body, cord attached and whether first breath was taken yet or not. As long as there is LIFE,(beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, OR definite movement of voluntary muscles...), end of fetal life, beginning of newborn infant life. Proven medically and legally. Your proof; non-existant.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280565 Jan 28, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
I've posted for you many occasions the moment medically & legally the preborn baby (fetal stage along human life spectrum) offically moves into the newborn baby stage.
It was right there for you in black and white.
Were you in special ed?
Doubtful, NR. They're much brighter than she is.

She's now trying to claim that you can't claim it's a "baby" in utero because you've stated once born it's a newborn "baby". Baby in utero, newborn baby. Two different phases, one doesn't negate the other. She's a mess.
Kenose

Bellmore, NY

#280566 Jan 28, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There are long lists of would be parents waiting for babies, even those with colic. Why weren't they put up for adoption so that they could share a life with people who want them?
and how many have you adopted?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280567 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta love how Lynnekins makes shit up as she goes along.
Sorry Lynniekins, I've heard her sister, her daugher and the man involved speak on this issue, more than once.
Just one FACT you have wrong - her family DID try to help, they gave her money to go to another state, where she was to go to Catholic Charaties FOR help. Most of the reasoning why she didn't follow up with that is dead with her, but the man she was with sheds some light on the subject in his own words. SOmething you'd know if you bohtered to do your own research and weren't so dead set on playing know it all.
I maintain, if she would have had legal and safe abortion available to her, she would be alive today, just as MILLIONS of women that have had legal safe abortions are. SHe wouldn't have waited until 6.5 months for one thing, something ELSE you'd know if you bothered to do the research you'd have NEEDED to have done to know what the fuck you're talking about. But NOOOOOOOOOOO, you'd rather talk out your behind than have KNOWN FACTS at your disposal.
ROFLMAO! You dope.
Listen, Toots. You've given nothing to prove you're stating facts. I don't believe your word. You've been proven to be a pathological liar, and you think intelligent adults are going to believe you can't find ONE thing on the internet to back what you claim? lol

Foo: "Just one FACT you have wrong - her family DID try to help, they gave her money to go to another state, where she was to go to Catholic Charaties FOR help. Most of the reasoning why she didn't follow up with that is dead with her, but the man she was with sheds some light on the subject in his own words."

So? Still doesn't justify them USING her and not protecting her dignity or her self-respect with that photo and her story. Her story isn't about legla/illegal abortion. Her story is really about abuse; an affair with a married man; (in the 1960s, big time taboo then), her pregnancy by another man while still married to her own husband; and aborting her VIABLE unborn child.

She died because of her last wrong choice after a long list of wrong choices she had made for herself.

THAT's the story her pro-choice family and PCers try to ignore for "abortion rights". You don't post anything that rebuts what I've said about how this woman has been USED by her family and PCers, and how her dignity and self-respect has not been protected. She wasn't protected in life, and she's not protected in death. That's disgusting.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280569 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? You are not disproving my opinion. Maybe my opinion is outdated. Maybe your info is bad. Maybe your info isn't the protocol used in most full term deliveries (which is what we're discussing). Maybe you're just trying to win a pissing contest. WTH knows or cares?
What I do know is your link doesn't work. No working link, no credibility.
"Error Detected - The page you requested cannot be found.
Please report this error to contactcenter@gpo.gov.
Please provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred.
Thank you for your patience.
Please consider the following resources:
FDsys Home Page
GPO Home Page
GPO Site Map
GO BACK"
Katie: "What I do know is your link doesn't work. No working link, no credibility.
"Error Detected - The page you requested cannot be found.
Please report this error to contactcenter@gpo.gov."

I had no problem getting to the page he linked. Here's what i found on it just now:

"107th Congress Public Law 207]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ207.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 926]]





Public Law 107-207
107th Congress

An Act


To protect infants who are born alive. <<NOTE: Aug. 5, 2002 -[H.R.
2175]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2002.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 8.`Person',`human being',`child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant

``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person',`human
being',`child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``8.`Person',`human being',`child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.

Approved August 5, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2175:
----------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Mar. 12, considered and passed House.
July 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.

<all>

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280570 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it being legal or not WAS the problem, since she couldn't GET THE ABORTION EARLIER LEGALLY Lynne, you MORON.
Her husband wasn't even living in the state. That only became an issue when he announced a sudden and surprise visit. Failing to be able to get a legal abortion in the months prior, her hope had been to have the baby and put it up for adoption and he'd have never been the wiser.
Yes, it BECAME FEAR of her abusive husband would do if he found out that led to that last, desperate, tragic act. HAD the abortion she originally WANTED been available safe and legally, she'd be alive and nobody would know her name.
THese are FACTS....
None of which you've substantiated with anything but your own words. Sorry, not facts until you can substantiate it.

I have learned from experience watching you here, that your reading comprehension SUCKS, and your versions of what people have said is worse.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280571 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking physiologically. Quit moving the goal posts in this long ago discussion that shoulda been over when I gave my answer the first time.
What is your objective here? To discredit me? To win? To prove something?
Physiologically, it's a newborn infant upon exiting mother's body. No longer fetus, no matter how many times you want to claim that cord cut and breathing is when changes occur from fetus to infant. NOTHING MEDICAL backs your claim. Are you brain damaged? WTH?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280573 Jan 28, 2013
Katie: "What is your objective here? To discredit me? To win? To prove something?"

LOL, what is YOUR objective, Toots?

You've already discredited yourself; you lost this debate from the first post you made with your opinion, based on what you claimed was fact which wasn't; and you haven't proven a thing except that you're an uneducated and ingorant buffoon who thinks she knows it all and keeps proving she doesn't know anything.

It's beyond you to stop defending your stupidity. When you PCers post stupidity, PLers wiull reply with the proven facts. Don't like it? Stop posting ignorance and stupidity.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#280574 Jan 28, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Physiologically, it's a newborn infant upon exiting mother's body. No longer fetus, no matter how many times you want to claim that cord cut and breathing is when changes occur from fetus to infant. NOTHING MEDICAL backs your claim. Are you brain damaged? WTH?
How is any newborn physiologically different than a fetus whose cord hasn't been detached and who hasn't begun to breathe without it, yet?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280575 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO Isn't it cute when Lynne tries (and fails) so DESPERATLY to justify "someone ELSES" life issues?
BTW Lynne, you were NOT LEGALLY an adult when these things happened. Having a kid, getting pregnant or marrying young doesn't make one LEGALLY an adult. Age of majority was STILL 21 back then....?
I reply with facts on whatever topic I have some facts. The facts of Lynne's life have been posted by Lynne, and linked several times.

Foo: "Having a kid, getting pregnant or marrying young doesn't make one LEGALLY an adult. Age of majority was STILL 21 back then."

Yes, you ignorant buffoon, it does. Once MARRIED, the minor is then legally an adult. In order to GET married, legally, they have to be considered an adult first, in most states, often parents have to sign to allow the marriage. But once married, that person is considered a legal adult able to make their own legal decisions in their life.

The rest of your post ignored because it's more of your uneducated stupidity.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280576 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO Isn't it cute when Lynne (sic) tries (and fails) so DESPERATLY to justify "someone ELSES" life issues?
...
Not like you do that, right? You're not justifying Gerri Santoro's
"life issues", are you?

You're so inept in discussion.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280577 Jan 28, 2013
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>
and how many have you adopted?
Are you against child abuse? How many children have you removed and saved from abusive parents, hypocrite?

You think because people don't adopt that they don't have a right to speak against something, you nitwit?
Gtown71

United States

#280578 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO You're full of shit.
<quoted text>
Sorry Chuckles, no, there are NO absolutes when it comes to faith and religion.
That's what makes each relationship so private and unique.
<quoted text>
Nope.
<quoted text>
I dont keep Him locked away from others in the appropriate situations during appropriate times and discussions. Appropriate suitations include those for whom I have love and respect. I have neither for you.
I dont keep my Lord, my child, my wife, or any person I love locked away from others either, as many here can attest.
<quoted text>
See? THere you go LYING and bearing false witness AGAIN.
<quoted text>
No, its a PRIVATE relationship. Privacy and the appropriacy of keeping some things private is something you dont seem to have a good grasp on.
<quoted text>
I'm not uncomfortable at all talking about real issues. I dont have any issues regarding my relationship with my Lord.
I'm 1000%+ comfortable with my relationship with G-d. I simply dont feel a need to discuss Him with the likes of you, OR to babble on endlessly about it. You clearly have ZERO respect for others beliefs, so why SHOULD I?
You've not told me anything about your god, for me not to respect.

Plus are you absolutly sure that there are no absolutes?
Gtown71

United States

#280579 Jan 28, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're LYING yet again. Where EXACTLY did I ever "blame" ANYONE other than how the LAW let her down?
And where EXACTLY did I "DEFEND" the picture of Gerri Santoro? I posted it as a FACTUAL example of what happens and how women died when religious fools briefly took away the right of CHOICE from them. Period. There's no defense necessary.
Correcting yours and Lynne's stupidity is not defencse, its refuting garbage with FACTS.
<quoted text>
Clearly you are, or you woudldnt feel a need to babble on endlessly about it ALL the time as if it matters at the end of the day to anyone BUT you.
Clearly you ARE extremely insecure about the strength of your faith, or you wouldn't be so OBVIOUSLY threatened when people of OTHER faiths tell you frankly, that you're full of shit.
To US, you ARE 100000% full of crap. Your faith is YOURS. Your story is YOURS. Not anyone elses. After the first 10 times hearing it, its old. Topix is NOT your personal pulpit, and we are NOT your parishoners.
Want to preach? Go find a church. You've testified. Endlessly. Can you even express a thought WITHOUT going on about how you 'found g-d'? I doubt it. YOU are the poster child for an uneducated extremist, someone that's incapable of rational, independant, intellectually honest thought.
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO Clearly many's sarcasm goes over your head and between your knees. LOLOL! To Skanky and the one or two other idiots that egg you on, you're a useful idiot, nothing more. Hell, the ones that are giving you 'positive feed back" @@(Feedback is one word by the way moron) are as phonly in their "faiths" as you are turning out to be.
People can be both religious AND faithful, or simply just spiritual and be able to have whole discussions WITHOUT having to rant on about their religion incessently.
Now you're free to rant on endlessly, and uselessly here - that's your right and America is great that way. But WE are in return, free to call you out for the asshole you are. Deal with it.
You seem to love to rant more then any, but at the same time you use words like us and we, as if all others are in agreement with you. Lol

And I'm the insecure one?

You seem to have graduated from the school of Bill and Hilliary Clinton.

You say things like you never blamed anyone for the ladies death, but then say it was religeous idiots who took away her right?

I truly think you have done this for sooo long. That even you believe what you say to be true.

You still haven't talked about a god, for me to either respect or not, and the only time you speak of religion, it is in a very negative note.

I believe all that you write toward me, is no more than your inner person trying to send you a message.

What "we " call a not from the counter of the obvious.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#280580 Jan 28, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
How is any newborn physiologically different than a fetus whose cord hasn't been detached and who hasn't begun to breathe without it, yet?
The cord not being detached has nothing to do with. I've already posted before that the changes (circulatory) occur at first breath, and that first breath can happen as soon as baby is expelled from mother's body and placed on her abdomen/chest, cord is still attached. Physiologically, no longer a fetus but newborn infant still attached to cord. Your claims about a "process" that takes "24-48 hours" has nothing to do with a newborn infant still "technically" being anything but a newborn infant.
Katie

Puyallup, WA

#280581 Jan 28, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The cord not being detached has nothing to do with. I've already posted before that the changes (circulatory) occur at first breath, and that first breath can happen as soon as baby is expelled from mother's body and placed on her abdomen/chest, cord is still attached. Physiologically, no longer a fetus but newborn infant still attached to cord. Your claims about a "process" that takes "24-48 hours" has nothing to do with a newborn infant still "technically" being anything but a newborn infant.
You are changing the parameters again. I clearly stated cord not cut, not exchange of gases except through the cord. Newborn hasn't breathed on its own. Therefore, you agree with what I've said since the beginning. Took you long enough.

Good night.

The End!
Anonymous

Jefferson, GA

#280582 Jan 29, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
"banks"
Do banks still get robbed?
"office buildings"
Did the World Trade Center have armed guards?
"the white hosue"
Cuz Dick Cheney might be lurking in the bushes.
exactly.........so since those places still get attaced, you're admitting to everyone one here that security guards do absolutely NOTHING and are therefore useless........

?????
Anonymous

Jefferson, GA

#280583 Jan 29, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll refresh your memory.
What should a 16 year old girl do if she gets pregnant from a one night stand with an 18 year old boy?
Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you have enough money to get wasted every night, you have enough money to adopt kid/s.
You must be very young.
Wait, wait, wait. If you need money, go the foster care route. OMG, those poor kids........
if "I" get wasted every night? "I" do not, but if i did, i still wouldnt have the vast amount of money it would take to adopt/raise a kid

"What should a 16 year old girl do if she gets pregnant from a one night stand with an 18 year old boy?" - what? wait, so b/c a guy happens to be 2 years older than the mother the mother should therefore kill the unborn, not allow it a chance to live? b/c the dad is TWO years older ?
Ocean56

AOL

#280584 Jan 29, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
I wonder how many catholic idolaters would be willing to adopt this woman's kids, just so the kids can have an enjoyable life.
Probably not one of them. Their "job," as they see it, is done; the kids were born. Who cares about them after they're born.
That's their f*cked up M.O.
Exactly, C.D. But what else can we expect of a religious ideology that forbids all forms of reliable birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place? Very little, if anything at all.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 13 min Who 47,477
Giants talk back (Dec '06) 26 min jimi-yank 3,062
jets talk back (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 9,328
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 1 hr jimi-yank 309,279
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 1 hr Maude 15,550
Topix most fooled and laughed at poster (Apr '13) 2 hr jimi-yank 80
What's wrong with Tman, good ole Momma Chamberlin 2 hr jimi-yank 143
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 5 hr the real deal 11,001

New York News Video

New York Dating
Find my Match

New York Jobs

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]