Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 320416 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.

Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288091 Mar 5, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there was no autopsy, there will be no ME testimony.
The court will rely on what the hospital tell's them happened, just as the family spokesperson did.
But please, feel free to keep ignoring the FACT that at 7 months gestation, a birth is NOT considered "extreme prematurity".
Obviously they were mistaken, if they even made the statement at all. Its not like "news" hasn't made up sound bites before just to have something to say.
Your claim of a 5.5 month old birth would be "extreme prematurity".
From Newsday. Everone is reporting the same thing.

Separately, the Brooklyn Orthodox community where the Glaubers are from is offering a $15,000 reward for information leading to Acevedo's arrest. The Glaubers' premature son was delivered by cesarean section shortly after the early Sunday morning hit and run but died a day later of "extreme prematurity," according to the city medical examiner's office.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288092 Mar 5, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
with respect to the cause of death the facts are already out slick.
who says because there was no autopsy that means the ocme did not examine the child? of course they did. they are going to release an official cause of death statement sight unseen? based on what -- hearsay? conjecture? assumption?
and where are these official hospital statements you people keep blabbering about? can you provide just one?
She thinks they are going to release a statement based on what the family friend said.

I think it must be Millertime for her.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#288093 Mar 5, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't you answer my questions?
Because she isn't an authentic person.
worships reality

United States

#288094 Mar 5, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there was no autopsy, there will be no ME testimony.
The court will rely on what the hospital tell's them happened, just as the family spokesperson did.
But please, feel free to keep ignoring the FACT that at 7 months gestation, a birth is NOT considered "extreme prematurity".
Obviously they were mistaken, if they even made the statement at all. Its not like "news" hasn't made up sound bites before just to have something to say.
Your claim of a 5.5 month old birth would be "extreme prematurity".
wrong again slick. babies born anytime before 37 weeks are considered premature. anytime before 28 weeks -- extremely premature. since this womans length of pregnancy and all gestational ages in general are estimates anyway, and since 7 months pregnancy equates to roughly 28 weeks, a designation of extremely premature could have very well been applicable in this case.

http://www.curoservice.com/parents_visitors/p...

again, where are these official hospital statements? can you provide even one?

worships reality

United States

#288095 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She thinks they are going to release a statement based on what the family friend said.
I think it must be Millertime for her.
"yes, although we have not seen the child and have not done any examination, based on the statements of the family's next door neighbor, moishe strom, and what we have read in the newspapers, we are releasing an official cause of death statement."

are these idiots for real?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288096 Mar 5, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't you answer my questions?
Your inane question above leads me to believe all survived outside the womb whether they were attached to ALS or not. Which would mean all were viable.
<shaking head, grabbing tylenol>

That was my answer goofy. You wrote just below it.

WTF is wrong with you and Ink that you think these things?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288097 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are really stretching to find a German to interpert Chaldean. Even in your lexicon, I don't see where she is brought before the priest because she is pregnant.
You ask where. I show you, step by step, and as I knew you would, you dismiss all the evidence for no reason.

You're as dishonest as they come.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288098 Mar 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Because she isn't an authentic person.
Ha! Shows what you little you know. All you have are lies, deception, and a weak foundation. So you project outward. Must be my turn.

(you are acting like a rabid dog)
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288100 Mar 5, 2013
Bit-O-Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Ink isn't very intelligent. I am most doubtful she's intellectually honest OR smart enough to follow those simple directions.
Ink is most definitely intellectually dishonest.

She asked for information, proof. I gave it to her. But that isn't good enough because ???

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#288101 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, all delivered babies are newborns, even the dead ones. What are you thinking, Ink? Are you going to claim an embryo is a newborn? That a fetus is a newborn?
What's she trying to prove?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288103 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
Num 5:21 Then the priest 3548 shall charge 7650 the woman 802 with an oath 7621 of cursing 423, and the priest 3548 shall say 559 unto the woman 802, The LORD 3068 make 5414 thee a curse 423 and an oath 7621 among 8432 thy people 5971, when the LORD 3068 doth make 5414 thy thigh 3409 to rot 5307, and thy belly 990 to swell 6639
rot
H5307 = to fall
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/l...
Gensenius's Lexicon:
Read the defintion. About a third down you will see...
"Specially to fall is used of -(a) a fetus which is born"
Then a few more lines down...
"In Chaldee, specially is used of an abortion"
Read the rest of that portion of the definition and you'll see Numbers 5:21 is used as an example.
Sorry. It wouldn't let me copy and paste the Hebrew defintion. But you can check for yourself.
**********
I corrected my original post to include link. I added "Gensenius's Lexicon" to direct the reader where to look for definition of translated word : rot (in English). naphal = Hebrew
Hope that's clear enough.
I dunno, STO, you forgot to mention the link where they should "click here" to read it in full. Before they accuse you of lying, y'know?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#288104 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Aborted through forced early delivery? D&X procedure? Not exactly the same thing, convoluted Catholic unapologetic woman. There vyou go, making distinctions where none exist and not seeing distinctions where they do exist.
She's mixing terms as if they are exactly the same. Ink is always obtuse; it's her "debating" style. I wonder why she can't just be up front and honest. She's sneaky and smarmy. Ugh.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288105 Mar 5, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>What's she trying to prove?
Your guess is as good as mine, elise.
Off the top of my head, I'm sure it amounts to abortion is wrong.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#288106 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your guess is as good as mine, elise.
Off the top of my head, I'm sure it amounts to abortion is wrong.
Lol. Of course, she thinks, by asking her endless, inane questions, she will prove that. Her little tactic hasn't ever worked but she keeps trying. She's got stamina, like a yapping lap dog, I'll give her that.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288107 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno, STO, you forgot to mention the link where they should "click here" to read it in full. Before they accuse you of lying, y'know?
I already knew Ink would dismiss the evidence, no matter what.

First it was, "Maybe some abortion activists have added it to some version of their own bible.", so I correct her and tell her I'm using the KJV. Which she should have already known.

Now, she's dismissing the scholarship of the translator. No reason. Just because.

Then asks a question in hopes of deflecting from the facts she can't accept.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288108 Mar 5, 2013
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Lol. Of course, she thinks, by asking her endless, inane questions, she will prove that. Her little tactic hasn't ever worked but she keeps trying. She's got stamina, like a yapping lap dog, I'll give her that.
Heh! Yapping/rabid, same dif, right?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#288109 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I already knew Ink would dismiss the evidence, no matter what.
First it was, "Maybe some abortion activists have added it to some version of their own bible.", so I correct her and tell her I'm using the KJV. Which she should have already known.
Now, she's dismissing the scholarship of the translator. No reason. Just because.
Then asks a question in hopes of deflecting from the facts she can't accept.
It's such a dishonest means of communication, STO. What's the point? What's in it for her? I think in Ink's case, she's gone overboard in personifying the embryo/fetus. It's so odd.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#288110 Mar 5, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's such a dishonest means of communication, STO. What's the point? What's in it for her? I think in Ink's case, she's gone overboard in personifying the embryo/fetus. It's so odd.
What gets me is nothing is good enough.

Does she and sjm and Gtown, etc. expect me (or anyone else) to know ancient Hebrew, then on top of that have access to the existent manuscripts that are kept behind glass in museums all over the world?

C'mon now.

They don't want to study, and they are scared to death of anyone that does.

Science and biology are the work of the devil, ya know! Don't bring that into the discussion.

God forbids killing, except when He doesn't.

Who do they think they're kidding?
No Relativism

United States

#288111 Mar 5, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said any such thing. Your comment was that Catholic Charities raises more money than any charity in the world, it does not.
There is no evidence that CC does more than United way, or the Red Cross for that matter - number 2 on that list.
<quoted text>
Again, your claim was 20% of all patients are seen at Catholic hospitals. You were wrong.
As usual.
You mean like YOU trying to make your claims fit your agenda when the FACTS dont fit?
Face it No Relevance, the best part of you ran down your slut grandma's leg.
You made an ass out of yourself. Now you're just digging your turd hole deeper.

I clearly said Catholic Charities helps more poor & needy than any other organization. I never mentioned how much they make in donations.

Would you like for me to repost my/your tweets to PROVE you wrong? Again? We both know you would be proven wrong.

I enjoy it when you're wrong......you cope by producing more lies to cover up the previous lie. Poor emotional intelligence.
__________

You said Catholic Hospitals treat 4% of patients in America. That is way, way, way off the mark. A monkey could've picked up your lie.

One in six patients are treated at Catholic hospitals.
__________

Please push the issue, dear. Every time you use lies to futily undo previous lies, I expose you further for the chronic liar that you are.

Imbecile.
Gtown71

United States

#288112 Mar 5, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read my post??
Numbers 5:21
I linked you the translations.
WHAT are you missing?
They are not missing anything.
YOU ARE MISSING ALOT.

When I wrote about paul saying if it would be possible for him to be accursed from.Christ for his brethrens sake, and how many people tie being ACCURSED FROM CHRIST = GOING TO HELL.
you called me a liar, and that I was using the Word of God wrong to fit my wants.
Yet anyone who reads numbers 5 cannot seem to find an abortion, or even a pregnant woman.
Even reading the strongs definition for fall, bitter water, it still is not there sto.

You truly want it to be there, so it eases your mind, but it is not.
it is not going to be.

It never was.

Keep playing patty cake with those you call "friends "
those who curse your God, and more.
those who will go to Hell when they die "according to your God ".

Those who's blood will be on your hands, for spending all your time making harsh comments toward other christians, while talking out of your head about how much of a scholar of the bible you are.

Now go ahead, and drum up the drama on your reply as usual.

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
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 48 min NEMO 5,744
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 1 hr Princess Hey 17,721
Russia's "Dead Hand" Protects N Korea 2 hr The Last Warrior ... 16
jets talk back (Dec '07) 2 hr Paul Yanks 15,216
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 3 hr Paul Yanks 341,970
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 64,155
Planning to propose to my Filipina girlfriend. ... 4 hr The Last Warrior ... 2

New York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages