Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 309,247
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. Read more

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284955 Feb 19, 2013
And what the hell is wrong with that? Prevention is good, but doesn't always work. Regardless, the woman doesn't have to remain pregnant.
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not a strong enough message being sent to young women to take precautions and the consequences of not doing so.
The option of abortion has become the alternative to prevention.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284956 Feb 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit.

The viability of a fetus is BEFORE being born, while in utero, and something it's already "reached" BEFORE being born.

You numbskulls will never get it. You're still wrong, and always will be so long as you think viability of a [fetus] has to be "reached" [after] birth. A fetus isn't born, and infant. Viability of a fetus and abortion doesn't have anything to do with a newborn infant.

SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284957 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the earliest gospel was written between 65 and 75 A.D., no, spreading it does not go "back as far as 33 A.D.".
Spreading the beliefs of the religion made sense when the religion was new, and the only form of real communication was word of mouth taken from place to place. Do you REALLY think anyone here, utilizing the internet, hasn't heard of Christianity, and doesn't know what it's about?
What point telling people something they already know, or have access to the knowledge if they want to learn it?
Christianity began when the followers of Christ believed he was who he said he was while he was here on earth. He was the first to spread the gospel.

But I do agree with you that unless someone is in the process of seeking God, no amount of witnessing will convince them to do so.

It's a very personal experience. But it also can't be kept a secret. Otherwise, Christians in many parts of the world wouldn't risk their lives proclaiming to be one after someone shared the gospel. That's how real it is.

Have you read about the man who is imprisoned in Iran, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and became a preacher?

Again, that's how real it is.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284958 Feb 19, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
As far as medical reality goes, yes. The infant has the "potential to survive" or will "eventually be able to survive" is what we mean when we use the term "reach viability". Because given ALS, if the infant does not survive, then the "potential" did not bear out. Thus, the infant was not viable -- even tho, legally it must have been "deemed" viable to qualify for ALS, as Doc said.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284959 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
And what the hell is wrong with that? Prevention is good, but doesn't always work. Regardless, the woman doesn't have to remain pregnant.
<quoted text>
It's why I also support the morning after pill long before a heart starts beating.

The problem is studies have shown the majority of women who use this pill are white educated women.

It was Margaret Sanger who first introduced eugenics and abortion as an option in the U.S. primarily because of her observations of unwanted children in the black community and to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."

Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which evolved into the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952.

Just a fact.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284960 Feb 19, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your source for that last statement?
Common sense.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284961 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "You wrote:
~"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."
In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:
"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
^^^These two statements are contradictory.^^^"

The first was misspoken and I clarified, the word (without) was inadvertantly left out.
Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.

Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest.

Now, how about these statements you made:

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."

Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,

If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.

There is NO DIFFERENCE

Can you agree that there is no difference?
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284962 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I have no problem with weapons; they are tools. Our incursion into iraq had nothing to do with anything BUT oil. All the pilots of 9/11 were from saudi arabia--the country whose royal family had a business relationship with the bush family. Al qaeda had nothing to do with iraq or saddam. Saddam may have hated us, but he wasn't a threat.
BTW--halliburton, the recipient of a no-bid contract from former CEO cheney, went from near-bankruptcy to record profits, thanks to iraqi oil.
<quoted text>
I can only suggest you do a little more reading on the Saudis. They disowned bin Laden and were targeted with several terrorists attacks. They are a staunch ally against terrorism.

Some Americans also joined the enemy. They were from America.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284963 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I wasn't referring to school; I was referring to welfare and WIC.
<quoted text>
Welfare was intended to be a temporary hand up and not a lifestyle.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284964 Feb 19, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Then who is making all these horrible laws trying to make abortions difficult to get?
<quoted text>
The Clintons and Obama want to decrease the number of abortions.

Why shouldn't it be more difficult to get? Might create more of an incentive to prevent it.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284965 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
That was about the BORN infant, "reaching viability", you nitwit.
That's what Katie said. See where she writes, "if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS"...

Katie wrote:
<quoted text>

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."

STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."

(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)

**********

Looks like you agree with us, nitwit.

: D
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284966 Feb 19, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
The Clintons and Obama want to decrease the number of abortions.
Why shouldn't it be more difficult to get? Might create more of an incentive to prevent it.
Do you think healthcare, in general, should be more difficult to get? Like treatment for lung cancer, for example?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284967 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Foo -- did you catch where lilLynne proclaimed she was not interested in having this discussion? That it was a hypothetical I brought up with Doc, blah, blah, blah.
I said the hypothetical you used about artificial wombs one day allowing an 8 week fetus to be viable was ridiculous, and was irrelevant to anything sensible in the here and now. I said I wasn't interested in the sci-fi discussion you were having about that, because I wasn't and am still not.

You had stated, based on your own ridiculous hypothetical of a fetus being viable at 8 weeks, that "viability" could become a non-issue, to which Doc replied that it could mean "abortion" would be a non-issue as well.

Foo stated that abortion would still be an issue and explained why. Doc said "point taken".

I disagreed with Doc that she had a point, and explained why, which was; based on what you and Doc had previously posted about artificial wombs; viability of a fetus at 8 weeks; and viability being a non-issue.

If "viability" would be a non-issue, then it stands to reason so would abortion. If abortion would still be an issue, as Foo stated and for the reasons she stated, then logic states viability would also still be an issue.

I wasn't posting to Foo or you, but to Doc. You're not relevant to what I said to Doc, and neither is Foo. She's already explained herself and I still disagree that she had a point because her point made was made based only on artificial wombs, and not the entire hypothetical you and Doc had been discussing.

She, and now you, are trying to make more of it than it was, and that's just something everyone who's reasonable knows you fools do.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284968 Feb 19, 2013
Post 284403
STO wrote:

<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.

Doc wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284969 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the hypothetical you used about artificial wombs one day allowing an 8 week fetus to be viable was ridiculous, and was irrelevant to anything sensible in the here and now. I said I wasn't interested in the sci-fi discussion you were having about that, because I wasn't and am still not.
You had stated, based on your own ridiculous hypothetical of a fetus being viable at 8 weeks, that "viability" could become a non-issue, to which Doc replied that it could mean "abortion" would be a non-issue as well.
Foo stated that abortion would still be an issue and explained why. Doc said "point taken".
I disagreed with Doc that she had a point, and explained why, which was; based on what you and Doc had previously posted about artificial wombs; viability of a fetus at 8 weeks; and viability being a non-issue.
If "viability" would be a non-issue, then it stands to reason so would abortion. If abortion would still be an issue, as Foo stated and for the reasons she stated, then logic states viability would also still be an issue.
I wasn't posting to Foo or you, but to Doc. You're not relevant to what I said to Doc, and neither is Foo. She's already explained herself and I still disagree that she had a point because her point made was made based only on artificial wombs, and not the entire hypothetical you and Doc had been discussing.
She, and now you, are trying to make more of it than it was, and that's just something everyone who's reasonable knows you fools do.
Hush now.

Go take a nap.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284970 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.
Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest.
Now, how about these statements you made:
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS."
If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Can you agree that there is no difference?
STO: "Well, oddamn, woman! Thanks for finally acknowledging those two statements of yours are contradictory.
Whether you mispoke or were confused, I appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. So we can put that whole deal about you making it the reader's fault (that would be me) to rest."

Putting it to rest would be on you, since you're the one who began it and kept it going, in spite of the fact that I explained that whole thing before you even started with the stupidity about my contradicting myself. I led you to the post in which I clarified what I was saying, and made it before you started in about it, then you continued on with the "you contradicted youself" stupidity.

My 2 statements:~If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS.

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."~

STO: "Look at your statement number 1. If a fetus is removed from the womb and helped with ALS it IS AN INFANT, BORN INFANT,
If a BORN INFANT is on ALS it is still a BORN INFANT.
There is NO DIFFERENCE
Can you agree that there is no difference?"

I can't Dick and Jane it more than I have. There is a difference, and it's an obvious one, except to those who haven't got the adult intelligence and sense to grasp it.

Fetus isn't born, infant is.

Viability or a fetus is determined before birth.
Viability of an infant is determined aftyer being born.

Viability of a fetus is what the abortion issue is about. Viability of a born infant isn't what the abortion issue is about.

Fetus has already reached viability in utero, when a physician determines it's a viable fetus.

That isn't about a born infant. It's only PC dimwits who don't get that.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284971 Feb 19, 2013
*viability [of] a fetus

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284972 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what Katie said. See where she writes, "if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS"...
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's PCers who made the claim about a fetus needing to "reach viability" once born, who backed themselves into a corner with their own ignorance."
STO? Wouldn't the phrase "reach viability" be defined as it is below in Big L's own words? That's how I've openly used it in this discussion. Because, as we know, if the newborn dies in spite of using ALS, then it had not reached viability.
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it."
(...eventually be able to survive... reach viability... same/same)
**********
Looks like you agree with us, nitwit.
: D
Wrong, as usual. None of you can read for comprehension.

Viability of a born infant has nothing to do with a fetus or abortion.

That's where nitwits like you and Katie make their mistake about what viability means in the abortion issue, and exactly why you people prove you don't understand anything about it.

A fetus needing to "reach viability" is something that needs to be done IN UTERO and IS already done IN UTERO when a physician determines a fetus is viable. So, the claims that viability has to do with "reaching viability" once born are patently false, and senseless.

A born infant is a different stage of that human life, and that's exactly WHERE it all makes a difference. Something pea brains like you, Katie, Petey, Chicky et al are too ignorant to understand.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284973 Feb 19, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

You had stated,... that "viability" could become a non-issue,...
No, I didn't.
lil Lily wrote:
Post 284403
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.
Doc wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
STO: "viability" could become practically limitless"

How in the hell can you copy my quote then claim the quote says something enirely different? I never said "non-issue".

What kinda crap you tryin' tuh pull here?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284974 Feb 19, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Hush now.
Go take a nap.
Just admit you were a senseless idiot, like a big boy, and you won't have to come back trying to be witty, when you don't have the ability.

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 'Not going to change': Indiana gov defends reli... 2 min barefoot2626 16
News Indiana officials look to stem religious object... 4 min Mr_SKY 45
News Indiana governor supports clarifying religious ... 6 min Xstain Fatwass Ce... 28
News Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 7 min barefoot2626 1,983
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min NTRPRNR1 320,782
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 9 min nhjeff 529
News Indiana House OKs religious objection bill by w... 9 min Xstain Fatwass Ce... 115
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min PolakPotrafi 1,206,786
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 31 min xxxrayted 464
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 44 min Sunshine 175,808
News Ted Cruz Announces White House Bid 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 368
More from around the web