Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 315295 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

#262662 Oct 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I have just come back on this thread after days away and I may have to be brought up to speed because I don't understand why she refused an abortion. The Church does not expect any woman to give up her life for a fetus.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
Foo claimed she made the choice for religious reasons, and made sure everyone here knew she was Catholic. FACT is, it was a decision she made based on her own conscience.

Foo was just using her story as an excuse to once again bash pro-life Catholics, irrationally.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262663 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text>Prove an abortion was necessary to save mom.
If the story is true, Foo said it was a non-viable fetus. Delivery would have also resulted in the child dying, so mother probably didn't want that either.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262664 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
A person's child is not their body or body part. He or she is a separate human life. By 7 weeks, that human life has a gender.
Semantics Lil. Gender has nothing to do with ownership.

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#262665 Oct 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that they felt that there were still some possibilities to save both the mother and child. We will never know. I don't remember the exact quotes from the doctors if there were any.
Ink, pro-life doctors in the case of the 9 year old child all agreed that her uterus was going to burst. I think 4, if not 5, were involved in the consultation. They were (of course) ex-communicated as was the Mother of the pregnant child.

Not sure about the other situation, but "who" thought that a possibility existed to save both? Certainly not a medical professional - unless you know differently?
hmmm

United States

#262666 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> """My BIL's sister just died this afternoon""" "
1. Your BIL 'S sister is your SIL
@@
2. She 'supposedly' died and yet you announced this like ten posts later after giggling and attacking people on topix? In fact, WHY would you be on topix if a family member died ?
Uh....yeah....we believe you @@
Tell me..was Ariel kidnapped again by any chance?
3. This woman made HER CHOICE regardless of what you control freaks don't agree. Butt out!
Agree. Notice the stupid posts made from *Texas*, LOL, It was Foo . Foo's never been to Texas.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262667 Oct 8, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
My take is that Foo's post was reinforcing the very real fact that some LTA's or post-vi's *are* done to save the life of the pregnant woman.
This mother-to-be opted to take her chances and paid the ultimate price. Hopefully, she was armed with all the facts. Guess it could depend on where she was being treated?
(Very sorry, Foo.)
Whatever Foo's point was got lost in her attacks, her irrational accusations, dishonoring this woman's memory and choice, and that exploitation of this woman's story.
hmmm

United States

#262668 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text> Many Drs will disagree that it is "necessary" to kill in order to save mom post viability.
Yep
Kenose

Brooklyn, NY

#262669 Oct 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, she is not pro choice. She is only pointing out that PCers only respect the choice to abort and don't respect the choice to not abort regardless of the outcome. If the story is real, she didn't have to die.
Welcome back, Hippo. We didn't miss you.
Ink

Feasterville Trevose, PA

#262670 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo claimed she made the choice for religious reasons, and made sure everyone here knew she was Catholic. FACT is, it was a decision she made based on her own conscience.
Foo was just using her story as an excuse to once again bash pro-life Catholics, irrationally.
I don't really believe her story because a religious catholic woman would have no reason to die, according to Catholic doctrine.
Katie

Graham, WA

#262671 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text>You are dead wrong katie. The ONLY tkme that anD&C will be instrumental in ending a pregnancy is withan ELECTIVE abortion.
A spontaneous/miscarriage abortion means the baby is dead...no longer developing...which means the pregnancy is over. The deceased baby will then be rejected by the body and ejected.Sometimes a Dr will do a D&C if they feel it necessary to clean out uterus.
But the pregnancy isn't over until the uterus is empty of all contents of conception. Period. From the loss of the embryo/fetus until uterus is bright, shiny, and ready to go again, it is all part of the abortion process. I posted an excellent link yesterday, but learned today it didn't post. I posted a follow-up to it, but that didn't post either. It did have Jill Stanek in it, using the same logic Triple L and you are, though. I think somebody in Topixland either wants you to remain ignorant or really believes in you. I pick the former. Bet you'll go for the latter.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262672 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
If the story is true, Foo said it was a non-viable fetus. Delivery would have also resulted in the child dying, so mother probably didn't want that either.
A late term non-viable fetus?@@

HOW CONVENIENT.

Also...fooL called.her supposed "non-viable" fetus "her baby". That's why i know shes bullsh*tting.

Anyway....the girl made her choice EVEN if the Drs could've saved her by...say..removing the uterus.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262673 Oct 8, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>I do not care what was said when I wasn't here posting. I have not implied it was written "abortion procedure D&C" in a patients chart. I told you time and again it was coded, charted, and transcribed as an abortion procedure with the distinction of the type of abortion. I said it several times and even put it in ALL CAPS for you.
<quoted text>What treatment is used for uterine conditions? D&C. Is an abortion no matter what type of abortion a uterine condition? Yes.
You're an epic fail.
"I told you time and again it was coded, charted, and transcribed as an abortion procedure with the distinction of the type of abortion."

And you wwere wrong. You proved you were wrong with the post of codes, DW. You proved with that post that the "procedure" a D&C was charted, coded, transcribed is a "dilation and curettage procedure". PERIOD.

The [purposes] for that procedure doesn't change what that procedure is called.

After miscarriage the [purpose] the dilation and curettage procedure was clearly stated in your post with codes, as "Dilation and curettage for the surgical management of an incomplete abortion."

"Dilation and curettage" = procedure.

"Surgical management of an incomplete abotion + purpose after miscarriage.

PROOF from your own codes that it's not coded, charted or transcribed as "an abortion procedure" or an "abortion" when used after a miscarriage.

You were wrong, you proved you were wrong. I understand what I read, but it doesn't look like you do.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262674 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what I was disagreeing with, because you didn't even have any idea what Sassy and I had taken issue with.
You should really just drop it at this point because you're not displaying any ability to read for comprehension, and you're not helping make the PCers point. You've helped make ours. lol.
I don't care about what your issue is, you were posting misinformation about the D&C procedure. You know all about miscarriages, all about pregnancy, all about abortion, D&C's, medical terminology, medical coding and charting yet you haven't shared what your occupation is or experience in the medical field. One can assume that since you know so much about the field you are in the medical field. Oh wait, you have family members in the medical field and they tell you. LOL. You are willfully ignorant, you're a forum troll just like your friends and nothing more.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262675 Oct 8, 2012
"Dilation and curettage" = procedure.
"Surgical management of an incomplete abotion" [=] purpose after miscarriage.
hmmm

United States

#262676 Oct 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I have just come back on this thread after days away and I may have to be brought up to speed because I don't understand why she refused an abortion. The Church does not expect any woman to give up her life for a fetus.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
Here is the full article, just partial is getting posters questioning why the Church would all ow a mother to abort her child. The article is about tubal pregnancies. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#262677 Oct 8, 2012
Kenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Please apply your statement to those who choose to have an abortion.
Why should I? I'm not the one claiming to be pro-CHOICE. You people are. My statement had to do with you people being hypocrites in the claims you're pro-choice.
sassylicious

Jackson, NJ

#262678 Oct 8, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
But the pregnancy isn't over until the uterus is empty of all contents of conception. Period. From the loss of the embryo/fetus until uterus is bright, shiny, and ready to go again, it is all part of the abortion process. I posted an excellent link yesterday, but learned today it didn't post. I posted a follow-up to it, but that didn't post either. It did have Jill Stanek in it, using the same logic Triple L and you are, though. I think somebody in Topixland either wants you to remain ignorant or really believes in you. I pick the former. Bet you'll go for the latter.
Women have abortions and at a later date (due heavy bleeding) will go to hospital. They get a D&C if a part of the baby has been left behind or some remenant of what you referrd to as 'conception'. According to you, she is pregnant?

Lala agrees with me that it's not.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262679 Oct 8, 2012
sassylicious wrote:
<quoted text>You are dead wrong katie. The ONLY tkme that anD&C will be instrumental in ending a pregnancy is withan ELECTIVE abortion.
A spontaneous/miscarriage abortion means the baby is dead...no longer developing...which means the pregnancy is over. The deceased baby will then be rejected by the body and ejected.Sometimes a Dr will do a D&C if they feel it necessary to clean out uterus.
Wrong.
corgilicious

United States

#262680 Oct 8, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Then why did the church take an opposing stance with the Brazilian girl and the nun in Arizona? Any idea?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Some people are saying the Brazilian incident never really happened, that it is a false story made up by planned parenthood. The nun who was excommunicated admitted she was wrong i n doing w hat she said she did and is not excommunicated anymore.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#262681 Oct 8, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
"Dilation and curettage" = procedure.
"Surgical management of an incomplete abotion" [=] purpose after miscarriage.
It says abortion, the distinction being (which i said many many times) is the type. Abortion = spontaneous, missed, threatened, elective, failed attempt = distinction

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Realtime 1,566,383
News The Latest: Trump talks 'new immigration system... 2 min CodeTalker 5
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 min Buck Crikkk Crockkk 17,322
News In video: Donald Trump tells Boy Scouts - Washi... 5 min TrumpRant 39
News GOP favor dropping tax beneficial to blue states 7 min CodeTalker 7
News President Trump's new message man Anthony Scara... 10 min The FACTory 123
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 10 min old_moose 564
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 hr Chris Jarvis 8272 280,061
News Can Trump pardon anyone? Himself? Can he fire M... 9 hr old_moose 110
More from around the web