Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317610 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262001 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to read her post again. Especially the sentence with the stars (**). Bet you'll laugh just like I did :)
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of it. No one said it was charted as "miscarriage". We all know a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.
We were talking about the D&C procedure, and one is charted as a treatment after **spontaneous miscarriage**, and the other is charted as an elective abortion.
We're not the idiots here.
OBVIOUSLY any intelligent person would have realized I misspoke and meant to type spontaneous abortion. You didn't realize that. No surprise DW.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262002 Oct 4, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Uh ya mun...there is a difference when THAT D & C kills a developing child in the womb.
You're an embarrassment to the gay community.
She's an embarrassment to humanity.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262003 Oct 4, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, so you know what everyone said throughout this whole thread. Arrogant, much?
LOL, perfect and expected reply. Foo says that all the time, but you never reply to her with that. Hypocrite.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262004 Oct 4, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Oopsy... Yeah, Lily you are an idiot. Jesus, the woman never stops her sanctimonious snorefeed:-D
Sorry Toots, I simply misspoke. As I told Katie, intelligent people would have realized I meant to type sponataneous abortion, since it's either miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, not spontaneous miscarriage.

You're another without the intelligence to have figured that out without help.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262005 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I've mistaken nothing. Just answer the question without another dodge.....
Of what relevance is any other defintion of viability to the issue of abortion if Roe v Wade established legal precedent for the definition of viability ?
Are you telling me a physician can ignore the court established legal definition of viability and use a contradictory medical one ? Even if there were one ?
<quoted text>
That's your MO.....you claim to lose interest in conversations as soon as you realize you have no logical response.
I've confused nothing. In fact the RvW court absolutely DID use an existing MEDICAL definition of viability when they established precedent for it's LEGAL definition. Even your PC colleague Conservative Democrat acknowledged this ( you wanna see his post ?). The fact is there is NO medical definition of viability that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance......NONE !
<quoted text>
When the SC set legal precedent for the definition of viability they weren't usurping physicians authority in determining medical procedures you dolt. What they WERE doing however is establishing the legal parameters by which those determinations could be made.
A physician cannot legally make a determination of non viability that ignores the existence of available medical technology.
<quoted text>
You chewed on nothing. You don't have the capability of understanding even the most basic of concepts.
And that's not even what I asked you to chew on.......
What I asked you to chew on was this....and you ignored it....conveniently.....
How can 24 weeks be the point at which a preemie has a chance to REACH viability ? If it has not yet reached viability that would mean it is not yet viable....and we know by definition a non viable preemie cannot survive NO MATTER WHAT medical assistance is provided.
Chew on THAT.
The redundancy of your questions -- which have been answered by me in the past and usually more than once -- is mind-numbing, Doc. I really have no interest. I'm not chicken, not wrong, and not doing this out of convenience.

This is the last time I will honor you with an answer for this topic. Lord knows you don't extend the same consideration to me (a joke according to your loudmouth crassness). Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50. As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability.

Here is some information to help you find the answers you look for. I am done providing them.

http://learnpediatrics.com/body-systems/neona...

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262006 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
The redundancy of your questions -- which have been answered by me in the past and usually more than once -- is mind-numbing, Doc. I really have no interest. I'm not chicken, not wrong, and not doing this out of convenience.
This is the last time I will honor you with an answer for this topic. Lord knows you don't extend the same consideration to me (a joke according to your loudmouth crassness). Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50. As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability.
Here is some information to help you find the answers you look for. I am done providing them.
http://learnpediatrics.com/body-systems/neona...
"Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50. As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability."

LOL, what do you think you're proving with the info on that link? Nothing on that links proves what Doc said wrong about viability being reached in utero. Nothing on that link proves you right about a non-viable fetus "reaching" viability AFTER being born.

Nothing on that links talks about "chances of viability", but of the chances of SURVIVAL, PB. Viablity IS the "chance of survival", it isn't the guarantee of it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262007 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I've mistaken nothing. Just answer the question without another dodge.....
Of what relevance is any other defintion of viability to the issue of abortion if Roe v Wade established legal precedent for the definition of viability ?
Are you telling me a physician can ignore the court established legal definition of viability and use a contradictory medical one ? Even if there were one ?
<quoted text>
That's your MO.....you claim to lose interest in conversations as soon as you realize you have no logical response.
I've confused nothing. In fact the RvW court absolutely DID use an existing MEDICAL definition of viability when they established precedent for it's LEGAL definition. Even your PC colleague Conservative Democrat acknowledged this ( you wanna see his post ?). The fact is there is NO medical definition of viability that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance......NONE !
<quoted text>
When the SC set legal precedent for the definition of viability they weren't usurping physicians authority in determining medical procedures you dolt. What they WERE doing however is establishing the legal parameters by which those determinations could be made.
A physician cannot legally make a determination of non viability that ignores the existence of available medical technology.
<quoted text>
You chewed on nothing. You don't have the capability of understanding even the most basic of concepts.
And that's not even what I asked you to chew on.......
What I asked you to chew on was this....and you ignored it....conveniently.....
How can 24 weeks be the point at which a preemie has a chance to REACH viability ? If it has not yet reached viability that would mean it is not yet viable....and we know by definition a non viable preemie cannot survive NO MATTER WHAT medical assistance is provided.
Chew on THAT.
She clearly doesn't have adult intelligence. I'm not sure she has "intelligence", since intelligence includes an ability to learn and understand, to reason, to use skilled reason, grasping truths etc. She can't do that at all, and turns around trying to project her inadequacies onto others.

You're right, she is incapable of understanding even the most basic concepts. She thinks she has a right to feel frustration toward PLers when she's one of the ignorant buffoons here, for whom we have to Dick and Jane everything.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262008 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
OBVIOUSLY any intelligent person would have realized I misspoke and meant to type spontaneous abortion. You didn't realize that. No surprise DW.
Of course I realized it. That's why I highlighted it instead of keeping it to myself, silly.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262009 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50. As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability."
LOL, what do you think you're proving with the info on that link? Nothing on that links proves what Doc said wrong about viability being reached in utero. Nothing on that link proves you right about a non-viable fetus "reaching" viability AFTER being born.
Nothing on that links talks about "chances of viability", but of the chances of SURVIVAL, PB. Viablity IS the "chance of survival", it isn't the guarantee of it.
Might I suggest you read numbers one and two then?
And what is with differentiating between chance of survival and survival? The discussion (complete with graphs and charts) is about premature birth, how and when physicians will treat, prognosis, and myriad health issues faced by preemies.

For someone who pushes for early delivery based on viability, the information would benefit you and your claim. Perhaps you'll learn something interesting and incorporate it into your thinking patterns, and we'll see the results in your future posts.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262010 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, perfect and expected reply. Foo says that all the time, but you never reply to her with that. Hypocrite.
So, I guess that means that you don't think you know what everyone has posted to me. That was what I was commenting upon. No answer? Pssh, whatever. As for what Foo says to you, why would that be my concern? You are the self-appointed hall monitor of Topix, Lynne, not me. You poor defensive little girl ;-)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262011 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Toots, I simply misspoke. As I told Katie, intelligent people would have realized I meant to type sponataneous abortion, since it's either miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, not spontaneous miscarriage.
You're another without the intelligence to have figured that out without help.
Nah. You really are an idiot, honey. Embrace it:-)

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262012 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
She clearly doesn't have adult intelligence. I'm not sure she has "intelligence", since intelligence includes an ability to learn and understand, to reason, to use skilled reason, grasping truths etc. She can't do that at all, and turns around trying to project her inadequacies onto others.
You're right, she is incapable of understanding even the most basic concepts. She thinks she has a right to feel frustration toward PLers when she's one of the ignorant buffoons here, for whom we have to Dick and Jane everything.
Wow! Look at you projecting again. You are unbelievable. But what can anyone expect from someone who can do no better than repeat and recycle every insult thrown her way even if her target isn't the one who insulted her.

Do you honestly believe JM's hypothetical decision did not match Michael Schiavo's real-life decision? C'mon, really? You're one of the few PL who had no issue with Michael Schiavo removing futile life support per his wife's wishes.

Well, inevitably, you've sealed the fact you lie. You are a known liar and an awful debater. All you do is gossip. It's mind-numbing.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262013 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
The redundancy of your questions -- which have been answered by me in the past and usually more than once -- is mind-numbing, Doc.
The "mind numbing" phrase is mine....referring to your stupidity.
You are not only stupid....you are unoriginal. Get your own material.

I really have no interest.
There you go again. Have no response ? Claim disinterest.
You're way too predictable.
I'm not chicken,
I'll give you that much. Despite being continually embarrassed, you keep coming back for more.

not wrong,
You couldn't be any MORE wrong.
and not doing this out of convenience.
Ignorance and stupidity are the only reasons left.
This is the last time I will honor you with an answer for this topic.
This is like the 26th time you've said "this is the last time..." It's getting old.
Lord knows you don't extend the same consideration to me (a joke according to your loudmouth crassness).


I'd answer any question you have.....as many times as you wanna ask it.
Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50.
What ??? That's what "I" said you fraud. What "you" said was that 24 weeks is the stage where "reaching VIABILITY" was generally 50/50.
Now you can answer the question based on what you REALLY said.....not what you're now fraudulently claiming you said...

If as you said....24 weeks is the point at which a preemie has a 50/50 chance of reaching viability, than that means at 24 weeks it is not yet viable. But how is it possible for a NON VIABLE preemie to REACH viability with medical assistance since we know that by definition a NON VIABLE preemie CANNOT survive no matter what medical assistance is provided ?

As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability.
Whoever said any different ?
Here is some information to help you find the answers you look for. I am done providing them.
http://learnpediatrics.com/body-systems/neona...
Thanks. Directly from your link:

"Improvements of medical technology have increased the viable age for infants with a rising rate of survival for premature infants between 23 31 weeks."

How is it possible for improvements in medical technology to increase the "viable age" for infants, if viability means the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance ???

Also from your link:

"The viability limit differs by age from hospital to hospital, although very few babies have survived being born at the gestational age of 22 weeks, viability limits usually fall somewhere between 23 and 35 weeks."

If , as you say, viability is the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assisatnce, then how could the limit of viability be as early as 23 weeks ? What preemie born at 23 weeks would not require some level of medical assistance ?

You are indeed precious.

Don't ever change.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262014 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I realized it. That's why I highlighted it instead of keeping it to myself, silly.
The chick takes herself way too seriously. I'm still waiting for her to prove that she is capable of being funny. Tick tock, tick tock...

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262015 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
The "mind numbing" phrase is mine....referring to your stupidity.
You are not only stupid....you are unoriginal. Get your own material.
<quoted text>
There you go again. Have no response ? Claim disinterest.
You're way too predictable.
<quoted text>
I'll give you that much. Despite being continually embarrassed, you keep coming back for more.
<quoted text>
You couldn't be any MORE wrong.
<quoted text>
Ignorance and stupidity are the only reasons left.
<quoted text>
This is like the 26th time you've said "this is the last time..." It's getting old.
<quoted text>
I'd answer any question you have.....as many times as you wanna ask it.
<quoted text>
What ??? That's what "I" said you fraud. What "you" said was that 24 weeks is the stage where "reaching VIABILITY" was generally 50/50.
Now you can answer the question based on what you REALLY said.....not what you're now fraudulently claiming you said...
If as you said....24 weeks is the point at which a preemie has a 50/50 chance of reaching viability, than that means at 24 weeks it is not yet viable. But how is it possible for a NON VIABLE preemie to REACH viability with medical assistance since we know that by definition a NON VIABLE preemie CANNOT survive no matter what medical assistance is provided ?
<quoted text>
Whoever said any different ?
<quoted text>
Thanks. Directly from your link:
"Improvements of medical technology have increased the viable age for infants with a rising rate of survival for premature infants between 23 31 weeks."
How is it possible for improvements in medical technology to increase the "viable age" for infants, if viability means the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance ???
Also from your link:
"The viability limit differs by age from hospital to hospital, although very few babies have survived being born at the gestational age of 22 weeks, viability limits usually fall somewhere between 23 and 35 weeks."
If , as you say, viability is the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assisatnce, then how could the limit of viability be as early as 23 weeks ? What preemie born at 23 weeks would not require some level of medical assistance ?
You are indeed precious.
Don't ever change.
Doc? What does Limit of Viability mean to you?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262016 Oct 4, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"Twenty-four weeks is the stage where survival is generally 50/50. As the gestational age progresses, so do the chances of viability."
LOL, what do you think you're proving with the info on that link? Nothing on that links proves what Doc said wrong about viability being reached in utero. Nothing on that link proves you right about a non-viable fetus "reaching" viability AFTER being born.
It's mind boggling.
Both katie and that snivelling little coward of a weasel Vladdy have said that "Non viable preemies cannot survive regardless of what medical assistance is provided."
Yet both have also said that preemies born at 24 weeks have a 50/50 chance of reaching viability.
So being NOT VIABLE they have NO CHANCE of survival regardless of what medical assistance is provided yet they have a 50/50 chance of reaching viability with medical assistance.
Who ? What ? What the fuck ?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#262017 Oct 4, 2012
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
so now you're sidestepping & actually agreeing with me - you know damn well you're less likely to rob a store where you think there are more guns
"they didn't have any of those things to inspire them." - yes robbers, common criminals - but dont you think there's been a rise in the viciousness of random crimes? like Columbine or the Dark Knight shootings? or the number of serial killers we have these days? i'm sure you just think not a things changed in 100 years...
"Criminals take that chance all the time." - yes, but that doesnt mean none of them THINK before acting - even the crazies like the Dark Knight Rises shooter knew better than shoot up a police station, a gun store, a bar in a dangerous neighborhood etc.= he picked a place where he pretty much knew there'd be a tiny chance of getting shot
"I told you the criminal would have no way of knowing how many people inside a place have guns." - KNOWING, thats the wrong word, no one KNOWS who has how many guns, but you dont need t know - you can THINK there's a greater or lesser chance & make a decision based partly on that
a gun store is gonna most LIKELY have more folks with guns on them than a donut shop, for instance - no ones gonna KNOW, but they can make intelligent judgements..........unlike you guys apparenlty, you think there's no difference
"
"so now you're sidestepping"

How can I be sidestepping when I clearly pointed out that you've changed your statement. I say again in accordance with your original assertion...a criminal will not know who has guns when he goes in somewhere to commit a crime. He also won't know how many there might be, and I doubt he's even thinking about it.

"i'm sure you just think not a things changed in 100 years..."

Like I already told you, our population has more than doubled. And so we have more people, more schools, bigger more crowded cities, etc. That still doesn't justify everyone walking around with a gun on them. Then it becomes easier to just shoot someone when they piss you off. You're having a really bad day and some guy enrages you by cutting you off on the road then shoot him. A rude cashier insults you then shoot him. You got a lousy meal at a restaurant then pull out your gun and shoot someone.

How about you look at the other side of things. If people are commonly carrying guns then you'd probably be more likely to end up in a shooting when some pissed off frustrated person goes berserk because something didn't go his way.

Damn, DMV offices all over the country would be nothing but bloody carnage.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262018 Oct 4, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc? What does Limit of Viability mean to you?
The limit of viability is the earliest age at which an infant has a reasonable chance of surviving to the point of sustaining life independently, with OR without the benefit of available medical therapy.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262019 Oct 4, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>The chick takes herself way too seriously. I'm still waiting for her to prove that she is capable of being funny. Tick tock, tick tock...
Aren't we all? Tick tock, tick tock...

:)

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262020 Oct 4, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
The limit of viability is the earliest age at which an infant has a reasonable chance of surviving to the point of sustaining life independently, with OR without the benefit of available medical therapy.
Okay. We might actually be on the same page now.
Medically speaking, the limit of viability is not static. Roe v Wade used the 24wk mark because it's 50/50. It doesn't necessarily mean that each and every fetus gestated to 24wks is viable, though. Roe v Wade also included WITH medical treatment in its definition of viability, but medically speaking, viability means ability to sustain itself independently (meaning without further medical treatment, not never using medical treatment).

Are we on the same page still?

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 289,271
News Student pushes for classmate's deportation, get... 36 min Gettysburg Sausag... 24
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 56 min Prisoner of my Mo... 10,305
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Stragglers 1,603,028
News McCain Will Not Support GOP Health Care Bill 1 hr District10 23
News Climate change computer models totally "wrong" ... 1 hr Fuggleton 1
News Trump endorses boycott of NFL 1 hr Nope 49
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 2 hr freddie 77
More from around the web