Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 318271 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.

Katie

Auburn, WA

#287304 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?
Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion.

I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional. Then they mix it up. Like you did above saying, "Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287305 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't discussing "most prolifers". I was discussing the premise of the entire PLM (being as I just read and linked the history of it for Ink recently).
I disagree, though. I do not believe there can be equal rights between woman and fetus. Woman's rights trump fetus' since it is unformed, unkown, and unknowing. That doesn't necessarily equate to disrespecting or not protecting it, imo.
So killing it ,for no other reason than you don't want it, equates to respect and protection to you?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287306 Feb 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It couldn't BE regulated enough for you. But tell me, HOW regulated would it really be if illegal? Would you rather they were done by anyone at any time? Because THAT is what would occur if abortion was made illegal. No regulations at all, no oversight at all. Would THAT be better than what we have now?
Using this rational, nothing should be illegal.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287307 Feb 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I missed that "no". Okay, so you're not happy with the fact that most women decide to do this early. Would you be happier if there would no regulations at all?
Those regulations did a lot of good in the case of Gosnel's "clinic", didn't they.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287308 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion.
So what are your thoughts on regulating gun ownership? Enforcing the rules and regulations already in place for gun ownership? Keeping weapons out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable? Do you agree with regulations on weapons or not?
"What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion."

So was I.

What does gun ownership have to do with abortion?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287309 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Those regulations did a lot of good in the case of Gosnel's "clinic", didn't they.
The exceptions don't disprove the rule. Didn't you ever learn that?

Still, you'd be HAPPIER if all abortions were performed under those circumstances?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287310 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Because as someone who dislikes abortion, I am pleased knowing it takes place earlier and earlier. Rather than later when the fetus is more developed, more formed, closer to viability.
I do not see an embryo as equal to a fetus. I do not see a fetus as equal to a newborn. I do not see a newborn equal to a teenager. I do not see a teenager as equal to a 70-something year old man or woman.
Neither the newborn nor teenager have the same civil rights as the 70-something year old person. Why should an embryo or fetus?
But you don't get to legally kill the newborn or the teenager.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287311 Feb 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't.
It isn't what?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287312 Feb 27, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
This whole disagreement over viability has really gotten down to splitting hairs, imo.
Splitting hairs ? I strongly disagree. It's not splitting hairs when you have nudniks like chicky, moncie, etc.claiming that an infant is NOT viable if it requires any artificial assistance at all to survive. And that is not my interpretation of what they are saying. They flat out said it.
I'll say you are right regarding the strict legal definition. Thus, "viable" does include with ALS.
Of course it does.
Your issue is with the phrase "reach viability", and when you apply the strict legal definition, I agree, there is no room for "reach viability".
By definition it is impossible. And I disagree that it is only when you apply the strict legal definition. RvW's definition IS a medical definition. There is no medical definition of viable that defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
A physician has to have some benchmark to gain permission to use whatever resources are available to help the infant hopefully survive.
I'm guessing that is why there is a legal definition. Without it, insurance companies may be making that determination, instead of the MD.
You're losing me here. The benchmark is simply his medical judgement. If he believes an infant possesses the minimum basic function that it can benefit and survive with ALS he will deem it viable and apply ALS.
Explain to me the circumstances under which an insurance company would ever make that call. Cause I don't see it.
I use the phrase "reach viability", not in the legal sense, but in medical reality. The medical reality is probably often unknown to the experts when they deem an infant "viable".
In some cases perhaps....like when the infant is, in the MD's judgement, on the viability "bubble". He might err on the side of caution, deem it viable and apply ALS.....with the actual viability still to be determined. I don't doubt that there are otherwise, numerous cases where an MD would be very comfortable in making a viability determination.
If an MD does make a determination of viability but the infant dies anyway despite all medical efforts, then it was, in hindsight, never viable. If it survives then the determination of viability
( at the time it was made )was in fact correct. Where does the concept of reaching viability ever make sense ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287313 Feb 27, 2013
(cont)
For example, their opinion may rest upon the resources available given one medical facility as opposed to another. Say, an infant is delivered in an ambulance 20 miles away from the local country hospital that is not equipped to treat a severely premature infant. They may say that infant is not viable. But delivered at a faciility that specializes in severely premature infants, they may say that infant is viable.
Exactly. Same as if an infant born 100 years ago is deemed non viable but the same exact infant born today would be deemed viable.
The determination of viability is always made based on "available" medical technology.
Back to the hypothetical, artifical womb. A fetus at 10 weeks is not viable in a woman's womb, and tho it can be deemed legally viable if there is a chance to successfully move it from natural womb to artifical womb, it really is not viable in the sense it can survive without A womb.
It would be viable in the sense that the artificial womb is, by definition ALS. While I understand what you are saying, if the concept of an artificial womb ever did become a reality, then the definition of viability would have to be totally reconsidered in order for the concept of "reaching viability" to have any real meaning.
Thus, I would say it needs to be in that natural or artifical womb to "reach viability" -- to survive outside of the necessary environment which will bring it to the point of needing no medical assistance.
An exception or an exclusion of an artificial womb as ALS would need to be made in order to validate the concept of "reaching viability".
So, I see both sides. Strict legal definition enables the MD to do whatever is possible to give that infant a shot. But the legal definition does not necessarily speak to the medical reality (often unknown), which may be better described as potentially viable.
Sorry but I don't see it. Even the medical definition of non viable does not allow for the concept of "potentially viable". That concept exists, by current definition ( legal or medical )only if the fetus remains in the natural womb.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287314 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion.
I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional. Then they mix it up. Like you did above saying, "Soooo, if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"
"Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion."

Is the fetus partially born?

"I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional."

If you did then you would agree that it's hypocritical to charge someone with assulting an unborn child, when you say that there are no children in the womb.

My question still stands:

"if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287315 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Using this rational, nothing should be illegal.
You mean rationale?

Let's try to focus here. Would you be HAPPIER with no regulations at all? With the mafia running abortions?

I mean, I have no doubt that the thought of more women dying doesn't bother you. There is no doubt in my mind that your first thought would be that she got what she deserved. I actually have no memory of you mentioning the woman Gosnell killed (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am), and you only mention women dying when it can serve your agenda. But, do you REALLY think it would be better without any regulations or oversight AT ALL? If ALL abortions were done under the circumstances that Gosnell operated under?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#287316 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't what?
You really couldn't work out what I meant for yourself? Maybe you should re-read your question and my answer again.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#287317 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
This is exactly what I've been speaking to, STO.
No it isn't. YFrankly you don't know what you're speaking to.

And that, to me at least, it seems as if Doc is A-OK with the courts determining when viability is as opposed to the physicians.
The key being when you say "to me at least". To you at least, does it seem that water runs uphill ?

I've seen him say the determination will always rest with the physicians, but if artificial surfactant and artificial womb become the norm, then based on the legal use of viability, it seems as if the courts are determining it, not the physicians.
Hogwash. Even in the event of the advances you mention, who is it that would still be determining if an infant has the capability of benefitting from artificial surfactant ? Or if an infant has the ability to be successfully transplanted into an artificial womb ? And thus determining whether or not it is, by definition, viable ? Not the courts genius.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287318 Feb 27, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The exceptions don't disprove the rule. Didn't you ever learn that?
Still, you'd be HAPPIER if all abortions were performed under those circumstances?
"The exceptions don't disprove the rule."



Good point, but yet you condem Catholic hospitals for not performing abortions. It is rare that an abortion is necessary. Why should they be forced to perform abortions when medically necessary abortions are the exception, not the rule?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287319 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
So killing it ,for no other reason than you don't want it, equates to respect and protection to you?
Did I say that?
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287320 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why ask me? You should know it's because the PLM used emotional wording in their legal documents. Like when they referred to the D&X as a "partial birth" abortion."
Is the fetus partially born?
"I prefer using clinical terms, the PLM prefers emotional."
If you did then you would agree that it's hypocritical to charge someone with assulting an unborn child, when you say that there are no children in the womb.
My question still stands:
"if it is not an unborn child when a woman aborts it, then why should it be an unborn child when someone else kills it?"
You realize the hypocrisy lies with the PLM's wording, its emotional manipulation? I prefer clinical terms. So let's reword your question, maybe then you'll see the point I'm making. "If it is not a fetus when a woman aborts it, then why should it be a fetus when someone else kills it?"

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287321 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say that?
You implied it if this:

"I disagree, though. I do not believe there can be equal rights between woman and fetus. Woman's rights trump fetus' since it is unformed, unkown, and unknowing. That doesn't necessarily equate to disrespecting or not protecting it, imo."

refers to abortion.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#287322 Feb 27, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You realize the hypocrisy lies with the PLM's wording, its emotional manipulation? I prefer clinical terms. So let's reword your question, maybe then you'll see the point I'm making. "If it is not a fetus when a woman aborts it, then why should it be a fetus when someone else kills it?"
It's either a fetus, or unborn child, both times or neither time.
Katie

Auburn, WA

#287323 Feb 27, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"What's not regulated enough? Fetal homicide laws or abortion? I was talking abortion."
So was I.
What does gun ownership have to do with abortion?
We're discussing regulations. Maybe you've missed the news recently, but there are a bunch of people who are FOR regulating abortion beyond necessary means while they're NOT FOR guns being regulated at all. You see a double standard there? You were just talking double standards, remember?

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) 2 min My New Alias RULES 1,618,379
News REFILE-Trump tries to sell tax reform to Democrats 2 min Putins Glock Holster 2
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Jack in the Box 36,465
News Trump gets Obamacare reform started 6 min CodeTalker 83
News Poll: Big partisan gap in views on gender equal... 9 min CodeTalker 7
News Bump Stock Ban: Just the Tip of the Iceberg 10 min frankspeak 1
News Michelle Obama: 'Any woman who voted against Hi... 10 min Carpenter 434
News Sessions: Comey Fired for 'Error' in Handling C... 11 min CodeTalker 11
News Trump: Drug czar nominee pulls his name from co... 1 hr BHM5267 55
News US Sen. John McCain receives Liberty Medal from... 1 hr spud 52
More from around the web