Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309877 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.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#262332 Oct 6, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Seattle," as you can see, I don't get onto these threads too much anymore...
I suppose this is a case of you and I viewing the evidence presented to us and arriving at completely different conclusions.
The interesting thing about you, "Moon," and "Pete," is that the three of you can come off quite strongly in stressing your opinions from time to time...perhaps that's the common thread that compels you to continue conversing with one another.
I don't "know" either "Moon," or "Pete," terribly well so if I'm to assign motives here it's merely speculation...nothing more.
I'd wager that "Pete" uses the "Vlad" avatar much in the same way Lady Gaga used her "Meat-Dress": in an effort to shock not for the "shock-value" but to raise awareness of the viciousness some people have to endure because of their sexual orientation.
The reasons "Moon" targets Christianity as enthusiastically as she does is not merely an attempt to discredit the religion in and of itself, but to call to account those who publicly claim their personal "righteousness" yet thoroughly fail in the proverbial "Litmus Test" when their faith is put into daily practice regarding their dealings with others who may or may not happen to share that faith.
Nice to see you back.

:)

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#262333 Oct 6, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Oops.
Sorry, Sassy. I got you and Knit mixed up.
That's very easy to do since they're both faux-Christian morons.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262334 Oct 6, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. We might actually be on the same page now.
Almost. But still not quite there.
Medically speaking, the limit of viability is not static.
Correct. And the fact that it is NOT static directly contradicts your definition of viability. For if the definition of viability was the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance as you claim....then advances in medicine would have no impact on the limits of viability.
Roe v Wade used the 24wk mark because it's 50/50.
50/50 what ???
It doesn't necessarily mean that each and every fetus gestated to 24wks is viable, though.
No it doesn't. You are correct. But by your definition...NO fetus gestated to 24 weeks could ever be viable since you maintain it has a 50/50 chance of REACHING viability....which means it has not yet reached viability. And if it has not yet reached VIABILITY....then that means it is NOT yet viable. And if it is not viable it cannot survive no matter what medical treatment is applied(your words). So by your definition NO fetus gestated to 24 weeks could ever be viable since every fetus born at 24 weeks needs some level of medical treatment, even the one that ultimately end up surviving.
Roe v Wade also included WITH medical treatment in its definition of viability,
Yes it did. And as a result it established legal precedent for the definition of viability for the purpose of abortion statutes. So of what relevance would any other definition be as it relates to the issue of abortion ?
but medically speaking, viability means ability to sustain itself independently (meaning without further medical treatment, not never using medical treatment).
No, medically speaking it does not mean that at all. There is no medical definition of viability that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical treatment.
Are we on the same page still?
Nope. There's still some work to be done.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262335 Oct 6, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>If you work a day shift on a busy floor you won't be sitting much. However, depending only how well your circulatory problem is managed, you should probably try to get onto a mother/baby unit, because you will be active but not usually very hectic. Those patients are usually healthy. You will have to be an RN to work in most hospitals. Yeah, some nurses get burned out, but most just move to a different speciality, venue, schedule, etc. You have to love this job:-)
Really ? You sound like you speak from a wealth of experience. How long is it that you've been a nurse.....20,30 years ???

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262336 Oct 6, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Elise is making herself look really stupid if she thinks people buy her "i am a RN "story.
A 55 yr old woman...going to school for nursing...yet is on here round the clock .....AND hasnt worked in years? How does she survive with no income?
By her own admision she hasn't yet worked one day as a nurse.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262337 Oct 6, 2012
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Roe v Wade used the 24 week mark because it was the earliest, as of the time of the decision, known point that a fetus could be viable, albeit with artifical means. Roe v Wade wanted to err on the side of caution when it came to protecting the State's interest in protecting a "viable' fetus. All the arguments from the PC side about the definition of "viable" not including "albeit by artifical aide" is irrelevant in abortion law, since Roe v Wade set the legal precedence for the definition of viability. I dont get why you all even waste your time with your "medically speaking" arguments since it has no standing or legal precedence in abortion law over Roe v Wade's definition. Personally, I think if there is any question of whether the fetus is viable or not than it's a whole different consideration than just the woman's right to medical privacy, obviously Roe v Wade agrees, as I think most PC people do.
Exactly. I asked katie the same question. Even if there was a medical definition of viability that defined it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance ( there isn't ), of what relevance would it have to abortion or abortion statutes ?

Did ya see where Vaddy the coward had the little atrophied nads to call someone else stupid for saying a fetus could be viable at 24 weeks ? He then went on to condescendingly correct that same poster by saying that at 24 weeks the fetus was not viable...but rather had a 50/50 chance of REACHING VIABILITY.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262338 Oct 6, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
By her own admision she hasn't yet worked one day as a nurse.
You don't actually need to work as a nurse to call yourself a nurse. You need to pass the exam and get your degree first.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262339 Oct 6, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>What if it doesn't have a heart beat?
<quoted text> But if it has no brain, and no heartbeat, and you killed it, do you still get smacked by Mel?
Look, hon, we all know a human is a human - but we American humans also sanction death on a case by case basis through our judicial and legal systems. Just because they're 'cuter' than the average home invader, doesn't mean they're any less dangerous. The US has the second-highest maternal death rate in the industrialized world. Most murdered pregnant women here are killed by their significant other. Pregnancy, gestation, and delivery are WAY more dangerous than legal elective abortion. Women have the same rights to risk assessment and self defense as men, even (and perhaps especially) when we are pregnant.
<quoted text>It's human. It's just not a person yet. There's a vast difference, in a free society, between a group of undifferentiated cells, and a person. There just is.
<quoted text>We do it with other mammals every day. Think veal. Think drowned puppies and kittens. Think mink.

Here's a question for you: What makes homo sapiens sapiens so frigging special that we have to pretend through legislation to 'guarantee' its chance at life?
There is already legislation that demonstrates that we as a society consider homo sapiens to be "friggin special".
Do we have laws whereby we can be convicted of murdering anything but a homo sapien ?

As for the guarantee of a "chance at life"....there is no such "chance" involved at all. That life already exists. That is a matter of scientific FACT. What we have done as a society is arbitrarily declare that LIFE unworthy of any protection simply due to the venue in which it exists and its stage of development.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262340 Oct 6, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>Does a man own his penis because it's his penis regardless of where it is? Yes. Really bad analogy Sassy.
Maybe it wasn't the best of analogies. Why not ask Bitter if she's in a jewelry store and attempts to steal a diamond ring by ingesting it, does she own it because it is inside of her ???

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#262341 Oct 6, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>You don't actually need to work as a nurse to call yourself a nurse.
What does this even mean ? So anyone who has never worked one second as a nurse can still call themselves a nurse ?

You need to pass the exam and get your degree first.
To what.....work as a nurse ? Or call yourself a nurse ? Or both ?

“Live in purple”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#262342 Oct 6, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this even mean ? So anyone who has never worked one second as a nurse can still call themselves a nurse ?
<quoted text>
To what.....work as a nurse ? Or call yourself a nurse ? Or both ?
Okey dokey "Doc" Debagg.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#262343 Oct 6, 2012
Purple Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okey dokey "Doc" Debagg.
High Five!

: D

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#262344 Oct 6, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost. But still not quite there.
<quoted text>
Correct. And the fact that it is NOT static directly contradicts your definition of viability. For if the definition of viability was the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance as you claim....then advances in medicine would have no impact on the limits of viability.
Then the information that fetal viability has been being determined since before there were advanced medical technologies or otherwise more sophisticated than holding a mirror to the nostrils has escaped your thought process. Medically speaking, determining viability is based on factors involving fetus' physiological capabilities independent of the umbilical cord, not dependent upon advanced medical technologies. Because of this, I see no contradiction in my claim.
<quoted text>
50/50 what ???
What? You don't remember?
You discuss it in the paragraph below, so I'll discuss it there, too.
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. You are correct. But by your definition...NO fetus gestated to 24 weeks could ever be viable since you maintain it has a 50/50 chance of REACHING viability....which means it has not yet reached viability. And if it has not yet reached VIABILITY....then that means it is NOT yet viable. And if it is not viable it cannot
survive no matter what medical treatment is applied(your words). So by your definition NO fetus gestated to 24 weeks could ever be viable since every fetus born at 24 weeks needs some level of medical treatment, even the one that ultimately end up surviving.
Well, I'm pretty sure I've typed potential viability instead of reaching viability and that both phrases are interchangeable. You write above as if there were no such thing as potential viability, that a fetus was either viable or nonviable. There is a gray area up to certain gestational age and the 24wk mark falls within it, creating that chance of survival or ability to reach viability at a rate of 50% yes, 50% no. Am pretty sure links were provided in the past discussing this while you were too busy to learn in your attempts to discredit me and the continual claim you've repeated above. More fool you, I guess.

Here's a link discussing viability back in the late '60s and early '70s (pertinent time frame to RvW). Like the legal profession, medical professionals go by rules, regulations, and ethics established hundreds of years ago or more. All while updating and advancing, building upon old knowledge and adding to present day technologies.

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/hand...
<quoted text>
Yes it did. And as a result it established legal precedent for the definition of viability for the purpose of abortion statutes. So of what relevance would any other definition be as it relates to the issue of abortion ?
I do not agree there was a legal precedent set; meaning a legal definition of viability would dictate physicians how to determine viability based on technology. As in forcing physicians to use respirators for preemies each and every time they are born struggling to breathe. There would be instances this would not be appropriate and who better to determine that than a physician? The way you word this, it sounds as if you want the legal system to determine health care rather than the physician and instead of regulating it. This is what I'm speaking to here, every time you've brought this up and feigned misunderstanding.

"H-5.989 Freedom of Communication Between Physicians and Patients
It is the policy of the AMA:"
http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-E...
first two pages
<quoted text>
No, medically speaking it does not mean that at all. There is no medical definition of viability that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical treatment.
See first link.
<quoted text>
Nope. There's still some work to be done.
Good luck!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#262346 Oct 6, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I forgot that Lynne is truly crazy. I had no idea she was talking about a discussion we all had in January. My gawd, to me that feels like years ago. Does she have nothing to took about but Topix bullshit? What a freaking freak!
So. Foo, Sassy says that you claimed that a D&C is an abortion, even when there is no product of a pregnancy in the uterus. True?
False. All I've said is what you and dozens of others have said, INCLUDING medical sites. A D&C is a D&C no matter WHAT the purpose its being done for. Nothing more, nothing less.
Huskerlicious

Muscotah, KS

#262347 Oct 6, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
False. All I've said is what you and dozens of others have said, INCLUDING medical sites. A D&C is a D&C no matter WHAT the purpose its being done for. Nothing more, nothing less.
And abortion is murdering a living human being no matter WHAT.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#262348 Oct 6, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to see you back.
:)
Thank you Milady.

:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#262349 Oct 6, 2012
Huskerlicious wrote:
<quoted text>And abortion is murdering a living human being no matter WHAT.
No Knutbar, its not. If it was, any of us could abort you legally abd be done with your stupid ass.

No "living human beings" are "murdered" by abortion.

Deal with it stupid.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#262350 Oct 6, 2012
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>My point was, before you tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term you should be willing to bare some of the consequences of such demands, such as adopt a child or two. Especially when the poster pointed out that adoption was an alternative.
So only someone who adopted children can say that? I don't think so. I mean, it's all fine and dandy to spew an opinion and I see it more as a do as I say, not as I do sorta thing.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#262351 Oct 6, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite.
There are babies waiting to be placed, as well. They often have health and/or other dysfunctions that make them difficult to place. Some are FASD babies, or are born addicted to drugs, or have profound physical/developmental abnormalities unrelated to substance abuse.
These special needs kids need truly special parents.
Ya, I know that. I was just speaking of children/babies with no such problems. There's no problem finding parents for them, but with special needs? yup, I guess

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#262352 Oct 6, 2012
ABCya

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Yeah 1,233,051
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 3 min Le Jimbo 588
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min messianic114 163,957
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min RayOne 182,439
News When It Comes to Dealing With Illegal Immigrati... 6 min DeportNow 17
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 7 min WeTheSheeple 67
News Ireland same-sex marriage 10 min Fa-Foxy 62
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 20 min spocko 2,280
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 22 min loose cannon 189,898
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr -Friendly Poster- 328,447
More from around the web