Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 345636 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.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264352 Oct 18, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont. I think she's pollyparroting you and that's about it. But hey, that's what useful idiots are good for y'know?
What are you surprised at? Roe ~v~ Wade may be legal precedent, but "viability" IN AND OF ITSELF is not. Viability is a medical issue, that will vary from time to time, circumstance to circumstance, and all RvW does is recognize that, and they used a medical text to made that part of the determination as part of their decision.
What I'm surprised at is that you would even argue this. It's basic stuff. Is it just because it's me on the other side ? Or that you are trying to come to the aid of one of your woefully miguided PC cronies ?
Of course viability is a medical issue. And no one is saying that the SC took the determination of viability out of the hands of medical professionals in every individual case. What the SC DOES do however is establish a legal precedent for the DEFINTION of WHAT viability is.....not WHEN viability is. And that definition says that doctors MUST consider available medical technology when making a determination of viability. What the SC also did was establish that viability CAN ( not that it absolutely does in every case )occur as early as 24 weeks and as such States can proscribe abortion after that time if they so choose.
Now tell me where we disagree.
And of course it matters where it came from. If one of the Justices back then just pulled a random number from their ass and tried to use it as part of their decision, based on NOTHING, it wouldn't have held up over time and WOULD have been overturned.
To ME, what they based what became their view of viability ON certainly does matter. These are Justices, not doctors, and they had to come to this conclusion based on something, so the source of that IS potentally important for FUTURE discussion and decisions.
Personally, if it was revisited, the number would likely change given the medical technology of today and how the times for viability HAS changed since RvW. In fact, I think that if it were revisited today, issues would come up that weren't possible back then, such as the ability of medicine to keep people alive far beyond what some think they should.
Issues such as the costs - medical, social, economic and more, of keeping a neonate alive well before they could have been back then. I would also hope they would look at the fact that in the decades since the original decision, the BULK of women are NOT trying to abort after viability. 98% of abortions ARE done in the first trimester - something there were no statistics on then, and THAT is not in debate for the USSC, they clearly said its a woman's right PERIOD in that time period.
If the limit of viability would change if it were revisited....based on the "medical technology of today"( and you're right it most likely would )....then how can anyone possibly entertain the notion that viability is defined as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance....as clueless katie claims ?
1 post removed

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264354 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
All anyone needs to do to find a specific post regarding my grievances with you is read the VIABILITY discussion. These are running concurrently with (your lame attempts defending yourself while attacking me) this one. You're gonna need to find someone else to hold your hand here, Doc. I am not it.
See if NR will let you borrow his blow-up dollies. You need to go pound on female flesh, use those. I am not your whipping post.
You make general unsubstantiated unspecific claims about what you are disputing and when I ask you to BE SPECIFIC you cite a paragraph of yours where you make nothing but more general unsubstantiated unspecific claims....then tell me if I want specific examples I should go find them myself.

You are precious.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264355 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're gonna have to prove your stats that 50% of preemies born at the 24wk gestational week survive. Your stats above do NOT match what I've read. Before this goes any further, prove yourself correct. Until then, I disagree based on your inaccuracy.
http://www.umm.edu/pregnancy/000147.htm

Now based on the fact that it is established medical fact that approximately 50% of infants born at 24 weeks survive....answer this question....

Were those infants born at 24 weeks that survived....VIABLE at the time of their birth ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264356 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you don't even know what I've been saying.
I know EXACTLY what you are saying.
Shows me your comprehension is lacking regardless of how often you claim otherwise. I do not believe these definitions are contradictory. Have never said it, claimed it, or otherwise implied it, either.
Yes you have. You acknowledge that the legal definition of viability includes medical assistance yet claim that the medical definition of viability is the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. What could be more contradictory than that ???
You claim that I confuse the medical and legal definitions of viability....yet how could I confuse two definitions that are not contradictory ???
What I have been saying this whole time, over and over and over and over again, plus one more time, is that the legal definition does not override the medical definition of viability.
Why would it even need to ? They are not different.

You've insisted it does.
No I haven't. What I've said is that the legal definition "IS" the medical definition. Even Foo Foo acknowledged that the RvW court used the medical definition in their decision.
We disagree. And based on all I've read, I'm not the one who's incorrect.
Really ??? Let's see some of what you've read. Give us some links. Let's see you come up with a medical definition of viability that EXCLUSIVELY defines it WITHOUT medical assistance.
You took a simple statement made two years ago and have run so far with it, you don't remember the premise or context. All you've tried to do with this is discredit PCers. As if this were an US Against THEM conversation. If that's how you wanna roll, then I will continue looking at you like the thief you are in your blatant deceptive attempts at stealing my civil rights. Unlike your side, I will not just hand 'em over.
I remember the context and premise fine. It's YOU that's been running from it for two years.

You can prove that you're not running by answering directly.....this simple question.....

Would a premature infant born at 34 weeks old who is otherwise healthy but may require some temporary artificial assistance to breathe....considered viable ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264357 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
"Overrode ?? Where did I say that ? You lie again. All I said was that the legal definition stipulated that if those physiological capabilities you speak of require medical assistance to continue....the preemie is STILL considered viable. You dope.
Overrode ??? Stop making things up."
Then what are you arguing about, Doc? Do you even know?
Your definition of viability that's what. It's wrong . 100%
If you're of the belief that the medical definition holds precedence over the legal definition of determining viability,
I'm not. I'm maintaining they are the same. Understand ? Are you stupid ?
where is your argument?
Right in front of you. Maybe one day you'll find the courage to face it.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264358 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have time right now to prove the many falsehoods you've typed in this one post. I'll get back to it when I have more time.
You have made the claims I said you made, and I will find them, just don't have time right now for that.
One being "Katie also tries to argue that viability is something that means born and surviving without medical aid, at which point the baby "reached" viability. " which you now claim is not correct. That you didn't make that claim.
She has no shame. How can she say she has never made the claim that viability means the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance when she has to know it is so easy to prove.
She's batty.
Anonymous

Montezuma, GA

#264359 Oct 18, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Good afternoon "Seattle."
My friend, if nothing else, it would appear that you've got an ample amount of "time" on your hands so I really don't think my request was that unreasonable.
"Moon," has already provided me with her version of the posts listed above, now I'm simply asking you for yours--and some evidence to back them up since you're the one asserting that she's made slanderous remarks with regards to all Christians.
I personally don't recall telling you that no one here "hates" Christianity but, if I had, it was probably something in the context of, "none of the people you're accusing of hating Christianity actually hates Christianity," or some variant of that. I will, of course, defer to you on this one...
Well, yes, the term "proabort" is insulting in and of itself as it completely misconstrues the intentions of people whom happen to be "Pro-Choice." It implies that anyone who happens to be "PC" really just views abortion as a convenient alternative to carrying a pregnancy to term and that's simply not true.
The term "Proabort Pagan," as our good friend "Tom-tom" uses it is meant to be insulting but actually belies his ignorance of both Paganism, and people whom are "PC."
Reread my last sentence a couple of times--you're bright enough to get it after a couple of tries...
Best,
John.
" I really don't think my request was that unreasonable." - areyou serious ? you realy think i should spend literally hours on end trying to find where these people have been unreasonable......just so you can have an inkling of how stupid they are???? you cannot be serious.......why dont i just give you my car for th week while we're at it

""Moon," has already provided me with her version of the posts listed above, now I'm simply asking you for yours" - moon is a known liar, so areothers, why would you believe her? for instance, she's now claiming that b/c we have crime, Cops & security guards do not deter criminality WHATSOEVER........eithr she's ungodly stupid, or she's lying, as usual

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264360 Oct 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Too late. You've already agreed. You agreed that an officer parked on the side of the highway is a deterrent to speeders....despite the fact that some would STILL speed.
It's a fact that the criminal justice sytem itself is a deterrent....,yet we still have crime.

http://webscript.princeton.edu/~psych/psychol...

Too bad. And if you don't care about some of what I've told you, then don't read my posts. That would be more effective then bitching about it.
The concept that the existence of crime is proof that something cannot be a deterrent was shot down....with extreme prejudice.
I don't need to bitch about it. You acknowledged it yourself.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264361 Oct 18, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't tell me you were "barely following" our discussion after fussing about this one point for the past few days. LMAO!!
The point I was fussing about for two days was your statement that something cannot be a deterrent if crime still exists. That and that alone. Provide any post that shows me even remotely "fussing" about anything but THAT specific assertion.

LMAO ??? You pulling a Biden and laughing inappropriately at things that aren't even remotely amusing ?

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264362 Oct 18, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it did nor did I ever say it was not a medical judgement. RvW did SPECIFICALLY say that viability CAN occur as early as 24 weeks and that States could proscribe abortion at that time and they would be within their Consititutional right if they chose to do so. No case has ever successfully challenged the RvW definition of viability.
Try to be accurate about what others are saying.
What was the purpose of saying the definition of viability was a footnote ? Does that alter the fact that it was included in the SC's opinion and therefore established legal precedent ?
It's not a definition of viability. "Can", "Could" are ambiguous, it does not have legal precedent because if it did physicians would face criminal charges for performing an abortion when a fetus COULD be viable. And that is what RvW says about 24 weeks and "could, may, can" be viable.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264363 Oct 18, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked where it was stated in RvW and she gave it to you. What more do you want ? It's origin is immaterial. It was acknowledged and stated in their decision. As such it is legal precedent.
The SC held in Missouri vs Planned Parenthood case that the Missouri statute definition of viability did not conflict with the RvW definition....not a medical book's definition.
It's origin is not immaterial when RvW does not define viability as a fetus that could live outside the womb albeit with medical aide at 24 weeks.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#264364 Oct 18, 2012
SeattleVehix44 wrote:
<quoted text>
"obviously they don't "deter criminality".--- OH MY GOD, lady, really? did your dad bounce you on your head too many times as a child? i dont think i cant take your stupidity too much longer.........."cops DO NOT deter criminality", lady, how can you think this when you KNOW that if we DIDNT have cops, there would be FAR MORE crime than WITH cops?
explain how it is not a deterrant to criminals from, say, robbing a bank when there's security cameras, guards, & cops outside??? you're really claiming that it makes NO difference to criminals whether or not there are cameras, security guards & COPS nearby???
whats next, you're gonna say cops with radar guns dont deter speeding?
thats a valid question, actually, do cops with radar guns deter speeding or NOT?
Have you ever not seen news footage of a bankrobber in a bank where there is a security camera or security guard? A cop with radar deters speeding until you are out of range of the radar. You were speeding before you were in range, slowed down when in range and speed again when you're out of range. If the threat of punishment doesn't deter crime, nothing deters crime. There are steps to preventing the likelihood of a crime, but nothing deters it.
1 post removed

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#264366 Oct 18, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>That is a footnote from a medical book. RvW does not specifically state at what stage a fetus is viable.
It is a footnote from a Supreme Court decision, also known as "legal precedence". Roe v Wade states at which point a fetus "could" become viable, and since this is the point that a woman's right to privacy no longer supersedes a State's interest to protect the developing life of the fetus, then this is very a crucial definition. As I've said, Roe v Wade did not look for the exact point where viability is certain, it erred on the side of caution as to when viability "could" be possible. Roe v Wade was not the extremist decision that many claim it to be.
1 post removed

“qui tacet consentire ”

Since: Oct 12

Detroit

#264368 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you responded to a post directed to Doc and seemed unaware of what was being discussed while trying to "educate" me, while stating I was "twisting" things, and implying I didn't understand what Roe v Wade entails.
LOL, I have been arguing this with you since I challenged anyone to support Chicky's foolish arguments and you obliged. Your arguments are not consistent to those of the Roe v Wade decision, yet you say that you support the decision, that is the basis of my arguments with you.
Katie wrote:
Also, like NR, you have stated I believe women have absolute rights over their pregnancies right up until the cord is cut. You mind explaining how you jumped to this erroneous conclusion and managed to ignore mutliple posts from me.
LOL, you have no problem comparing me to NR yet you have the audacity to ask me why I extend you no respect and compare you to the PC extremists here? Come on Katie.....
Katie wrote:
I don't get why you (and others) believe off the wall crap and ascribe it to me as if it's mine. Almost demanding I believe as you say I do. What don't you get about my position?
This, coming from someone who continually misrepresents what I've said? Don't look for sympathy here, in fact, let me ask you a question that would put all my extremist accusations against you to rest. In what cases would a State's interest to protect a developing fetus supercede a woman's right to personal autonomy?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#264369 Oct 18, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
Alright,,, my piece
I don't like the word "retarded", I hate it in fact...
just sayin
Me, too. More importantly, almost all developmentally disabled people hate it. Some ignorant people think it's a politically correct thing. It's not. It's a human decency thing.
5 posts removed

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264375 Oct 19, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a definition of viability.
Pay attention. THIS is the definition of viability included in RvW :

"viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

No one has said that the reference to 24 weeks was part of the viability definition.

"Can", "Could" are ambiguous, it does not have legal precedent because if it did physicians would face criminal charges for performing an abortion when a fetus COULD be viable.
Physicians WOULD face criminal charges for doing elective abortions ( with the exception of reasons of mothers health/life )after 24 weeks in States that have, as per RvW, chose to procribe abortion after 24 weeks gestation. My State (NY) being one of them.

Pay attention.

And that is what RvW says about 24 weeks and "could, may, can" be viable.
Exactly. And as such, States that wish to proscribe abortion after 24 weeks, would be able to do so and be within their Constitutional right.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#264376 Oct 19, 2012
AyakaNeo wrote:
<quoted text>It's origin is not immaterial when RvW does not define viability as a fetus that could live outside the womb albeit with medical aide at 24 weeks.
No it doesn't. Whoever said it did ? You're combining two separate statements and calling that the RvW definition of viability.

The definition of viability as I wrote it above IS the definition from RvW and it most definitely IS legal precedent.
1 post removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264378 Oct 19, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get something straight once and for all. This conversation has gotten out of control. Some of it's my fault because I enjoyed watching how far you and Doc were willing to run. But enough's enough already.
I do NOT argue, per se, what you're claiming above. The simple point is that the medical definition of VIABILITY is only concerned about physiological capabilities. That is and has been my claim all along. I believe I've been very clear about this.
From this point forward, if anything else (like what you've written above) is being attributed to me by others, those others are choosing to lie about my position.
<quoted text>
No, you are incorrect. I have not made this claim. You and others have attributed this to me, but it is not mine. It is yours, stemming from your imagination and being flung at me like the dung it is.
What I've said is that determining viability begins at the 24wk mark per RvW. Physicians will not usually resuscitate a preemie newborn at 23wks gestation, but there are exceptions made when appropriate. Links have been provided stating this very thing. Now as medical technology permits, the gestational week is dropping. Currently I think it's 22wks. But fetus/newborn needs to meet the physiological criteria of capability of surviving BEFORE determining ALS is appropriate and/or beneficial.
What I've written above and what you've written above do not match. Besides your point above overlooks preemies born unexpectedly. Those will require the determination of viability as well. IOW, VIABILITIY (along with the medical and legal definitions of it) is not just applicable to the abortion aspect of pregnancy.
<quoted text>
Do 50% of all preemie births at the 24wk survive or does it mean there is capability of half the births surviving? And for how long? This is important. As important as knowing how many annual preemie births occur at the 24 week mark. Do you know the answer to this, Triple L?
<quoted text>
RvW added to the medical definition of VIABILITY with the conjunctive phrase "ALBEIT with artificial aid". The medical definition is only concerned with physiological capabilities of suriving. RvW built upon this by adding medical technology to the definition, but it did not change the medical definition. THAT has been the point all along. It is a distinction you and others have chosen to argue about rather than incorporating into your thinking process.
My following post will be in reply to this one. Yours is too lengthy to allow for all that I have to counter it with.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264379 Oct 19, 2012
Katie said, "At 24 weeks gestation, fetus has a 50/50 chance of reaching viability (physiologically capable of suriving outside the womb). "

No, fetus has a 50/50 chance of [surviving] outside of the womb, with or without medical aid.

Katie: "At 26 weeks gestation, fetus has an even better chance of reaching viability. "

No, viability has already been reached by a certain gestational age, and at 26 weeks, healthy fetuses have already reached viability in utero.

Katie: "Left to gestate longer, an even better chance of self-sustained survival outside the womb. "

Since viability is already reached IN UTERO and allows for survival outside of the womb to include with medical aid, "self-sustained survival" isn't an issue in the determination of age of "viability".

I said, "Katie also tries to argue that viability is something that means born and surviving without medical aid, at which point the baby "reached" viability."

Yes, you used the word "reached" and claim a fetus at 26 weeks still has to "reach" viability, which is WRONG. It's been clearly stated in medical definitions, including the medical definition that RvW accepted and used in their decision, that viability is the [potential] to survive, the percentages are the [chances] of surviving outside of the womb, with or without medical aid.

A fetus already "reached" that [potential](viability) by a certain gestational age and weight. Usually 28 weeks and as early as 24 weeks.

Katie: "Do 50% of all preemie births at the 24wk survive or does it mean there is capability of half the births surviving?"

Viability IS capability. THAT's what "viability" is about when referring to a fetus. Not definite survival, but the capability of survival. How many times do you need to be told that in determining whether or not a fetus is viable, there is never a guaranee of survival outside of the womb, yet viability is STLL determined at a certain gestational age and weight.

Katie, "RvW added to the medical definition of VIABILITY with the conjunctive phrase "ALBEIT with artificial aid".

Prove it.

Katie: "The medical definition is only concerned with physiological capabilities of suriving."

Operative word, "capabilities". Not guarantees of surviving.
3 posts removed

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264383 Oct 19, 2012
Pluto is a planet wrote:
<quoted text>
Lily is insufferably arrogant.
LOL, thank you. Means I'm accomplishing some of what I want to do here, while owning PC idiots who have no knowledge of the topics they post on.

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 Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 min Mothra 40,554
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min USAsince1680 87,124
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,779,905
News H. Clinton: Separating families at border a 'mo... 6 min Annie Oakly 3
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 7 min Quirky 186
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 10 min RiccardoFire 5,195
News Trump again blames Dems for forced separation o... 12 min Lawrence Wolf 48
News Trump's land of delusion 19 min RiccardoFire 679
News Nancy Pelosi blasts 'the hypocrisy of all peopl... 1 hr OccupyThis 152