Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 326626 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

#264295 Oct 18, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she does realize. And the fact is, it doesn't matter where it came from. It's legal precedent.
I'm surprised at you.
You're right, of course I realize it. Ayakaneo was trying to negate what I had given her from the RvW decision in answer to her question, as though it was JUST a footnote from a medical book. When it wasn't just that, it was THE specific medical definition accepted and used by the SC in it's decision about "viability".

It not only proved it was a medical definition that included "albeit with artificial aid", but it stated right in what I provided to Ayakaneo, that it said viability could be as early as 24 weeks.

I answered her question, gave the proof FROM the RvW decision, and that should have ended that.

Except it didn't. Not for idiots who think the definition RvW used coming from a medical book negates it all.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264296 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://preemies.about.com/od/preemieagesandst...

"Over half of premature babies born between 23 and 24 weeks of pregnancy will survive delivery and live to see life outside of the NICU. Babies born before 23 weeks may survive - the youngest preemie ever to survive was Amillia Taylor, born at only 21 weeks and 6 days gestation - but 23 to 24 weeks is often considered the age of viability for premature babies."

("Over 1/2" survive born at 23 and 24 weeks)

Survival rates are going up.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/20...

"Survival increases dramatically with each additional week that babies are able to stay in the womb:

Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows."

http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx...

"about 50 percent of babies born at 24 weeks survive, "

Will you be dismissing this info because it didn't comje from the person you asked to prove it? It is what it is.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264297 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you don't even know what I've been 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.
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. You've insisted it does. We disagree. And based on all I've read, I'm not the one who's incorrect.
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.
"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. "

LOL, and you think you have intelligence and make sense? You don't have the intelligence or sense to understand that the LEGAL definition in of viability in the RvW decision IS the accepted MEDICAL definition of viability. The USED a MEDICAL definition in their LEGAL decision about viability.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264298 Oct 18, 2012
That medical definition used for the legal decision about viability included "albeit WITH artificial aid".

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#264299 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
..."I answered her question, gave the proof FROM the RvW decision, and that should have ended that."...
You really are an egotistical bag of goods. How ever do you manage to fit your head thru doorways?
Katie

Graham, WA

#264300 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie argues that medical definitions don't include "albeit with artifical aid", and argues that the definition that's important in the viability issue is one that doesn't include artificial aid.
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.
Katie also tries to argue that viability is something that means born and surviving without medical aid, at which point the baby "reached" viability. Viability is clearly defined as something being about a fetus in utero, and at a certain gestational age in utero, that they have already "reached" BEFORE they're born.
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.
Viability is the potential to survive, or the chances of surviving with or without medical help. Viability at 24 weeks is a 50/50 chance of survival, with or without medical aid. 50% will survive with the help of medical aid, and 50% won't survive despite having medical aid. That's what the 50/50 means.
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?
Chicky argued that we were claiming RvW created the definition, when not one person said that. We said RvW definied viability in its decision, and it has. THAT definition is they one THEY used.
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.
Katie

Graham, WA

#264301 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
http://preemies.about.com/od/preemieagesandst...
"Over half of premature babies born between 23 and 24 weeks of pregnancy will survive delivery and live to see life outside of the NICU. Babies born before 23 weeks may survive - the youngest preemie ever to survive was Amillia Taylor, born at only 21 weeks and 6 days gestation - but 23 to 24 weeks is often considered the age of viability for premature babies."
("Over 1/2" survive born at 23 and 24 weeks)
Survival rates are going up.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/20...
"Survival increases dramatically with each additional week that babies are able to stay in the womb:
Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows."
http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx...
"about 50 percent of babies born at 24 weeks survive, "
Will you be dismissing this info because it didn't comje from the person you asked to prove it? It is what it is.
Yes, it is and it shows increased survivability above the 50/50 mark. Which is part of the long, drawn out point. Thank you for doing Doc's work for him. I am sure he appreciates it.

This is what I am speaking to which often seems overlooked or ignored when you guys argue for the sake of arguing instead of sharing ideas in order to solve real-world problem.

"Question: What Is a Micro Preemie?

Answer:
A micro preemie is a baby born weighing less than 1 pound, 12 ounces (800 grams) or before 26 weeks gestation. Because they are born months before their due dates, micro preemies face long NICU stays. Although many extremely premature babies grow up with no long-term effects of prematurity, others face severe health problems throughout life."
http://preemies.about.com/od/preemiehealthpro...

My question is: Who is caring for these babies? Who pays for these medical services? Are these doomed to be part of the cuts politicians are currently considering?

When you argue that women should not legally be allowed to abort unhealthy/life threatening late term pregnancies, but should deliver instead, who pays for it? Hospital stays are not inexpensive. A friend recently stayed and was charged $100K for 4 days. That was before insurance kicked in. How many preemies born have insurance to cover the costs? Do you know?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264302 Oct 18, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an egotistical bag of goods. How ever do you manage to fit your head thru doorways?
It's not "egotitistical" to know someone has been proven wrong, especially when it's someone who arrogantly tries to claim they're right, and proof never backs their claims.

None of you really understands the meanings of words, and it's not egotitistical to state that either. You all prove that as being a fact.

Most of your friends are the boasters here; about their intelligence, their knowledge etc. and I do enjoy proving they're not any of what they claim.

I use the words PCers use, with us, against them. Like when they claim higher intelligence or try to downgrade our intelligence, or when they think they're proving we're wrong when all they prove is they can't read for comprehension. It does take intelligence to be able to understand what you're reading, which clearly most PC lack. That's not egotististical to do that, or make the claims I do about PCers.

Don't think you can accuse me of being egotistical, just because you PCers are so inept, and it can be proven by me. That's not about me, that's not about being egotitistical. It's about you people arguing about topics you have no knowledge of, and many of you trying to condescend to us as though you have superior intelligence to those of us who do have knowledge of the topics we post on.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264303 Oct 18, 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.
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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#264304 Oct 18, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is and it shows increased survivability above the 50/50 mark. Which is part of the long, drawn out point. Thank you for doing Doc's work for him. I am sure he appreciates it.
This is what I am speaking to which often seems overlooked or ignored when you guys argue for the sake of arguing instead of sharing ideas in order to solve real-world problem.
"Question: What Is a Micro Preemie?
Answer:
A micro preemie is a baby born weighing less than 1 pound, 12 ounces (800 grams) or before 26 weeks gestation. Because they are born months before their due dates, micro preemies face long NICU stays. Although many extremely premature babies grow up with no long-term effects of prematurity, others face severe health problems throughout life."
http://preemies.about.com/od/preemiehealthpro...
My question is: Who is caring for these babies? Who pays for these medical services? Are these doomed to be part of the cuts politicians are currently considering?
When you argue that women should not legally be allowed to abort unhealthy/life threatening late term pregnancies, but should deliver instead, who pays for it? Hospital stays are not inexpensive. A friend recently stayed and was charged $100K for 4 days. That was before insurance kicked in. How many preemies born have insurance to cover the costs? Do you know?
"Yes, it is and it shows increased survivability above the 50/50 mark. Which is part of the long, drawn out point. Thank you for doing Doc's work for him. I am sure he appreciates it."

I didn't do Doc's work for him, I did it for myself, because I too know you're wrong and can prove it. I read your post and replied with what I knew to be true, and replied because you're wrong, not because I was doing anything for anyone else.

Again I don't have time right now to reply to your stupidity in any detail. Will look at it when I do.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#264305 Oct 18, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Flattery will get you "everywhere" babe...
;P
ya tease
Katie

Graham, WA

#264306 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "egotitistical" to know someone has been proven wrong, especially when it's someone who arrogantly tries to claim they're right, and proof never backs their claims.
None of you really understands the meanings of words, and it's not egotitistical to state that either. You all prove that as being a fact.
Most of your friends are the boasters here; about their intelligence, their knowledge etc. and I do enjoy proving they're not any of what they claim.
I use the words PCers use, with us, against them. Like when they claim higher intelligence or try to downgrade our intelligence, or when they think they're proving we're wrong when all they prove is they can't read for comprehension. It does take intelligence to be able to understand what you're reading, which clearly most PC lack. That's not egotististical to do that, or make the claims I do about PCers.
Don't think you can accuse me of being egotistical, just because you PCers are so inept, and it can be proven by me. That's not about me, that's not about being egotitistical. It's about you people arguing about topics you have no knowledge of, and many of you trying to condescend to us as though you have superior intelligence to those of us who do have knowledge of the topics we post on.
Which is your priority here?

"...proving they're [PCers] not any of what they claim.

"...use the words PCers use, with us, against them."

"...you PCers are so inept, and it can be proven by me."

Does discussing real-world problems have a place here?
Katie

Graham, WA

#264307 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.
These are not falsehoods. These are clarifications FOR your benefit. For anyone's benefit so this conversation can move forward or be finished. Wasting your time attempting to prove me wrong is only setting the conversation back. What is your priority here? Real adult discussion or the finger-pointing blame-game?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#264308 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not Lynne, I'm Lily, but facts are not your forté.
Given its a known FACT that you ARE indeed the poster that posted here as Lynne D, I'd say facts are very MUCH my forte Lynniekins.
"I dont. I think she's pollyparroting you and that's about it."
I haven't been "pollyparroting" anyone. I happen to fully understand what viability means, how RvW defined it, and from where they got the definition.
ROFLMAO **pat pat** Okay Lynniekins, whatever you say....@@
It's PCers who don't understand anything about ........ balance of bullshit deleted for redundant stupidity........
Yeah Lynne, we get it. YOU know everything and anyone that doesn't agree with you knows nothing. Same shit, different day. What a pathetic narcissist you are.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#264309 Oct 18, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like you've made friends with your new laptop. Which one do you have?
A black one that has a pretty little case about the size of my forearm (hand included)... there's a cool little design on it too.

It folds.

Ummmmm the keys are silent. ummmm it's this year! has a whole bunch of pluses to it. don't need headphones to listen to music,,,,

ummmm It's become my best friend cause I don't like have any.....I can pretend to be busy on it so I'm not disturbed by like people... but a lot of them don't take the hint,,, must be because they think I'm approachable... unless I put on Rap Crap music, but then we all suffer (including me, and I can't have that),,, I save that for the truly unbearable interrupters!

Ya,,, ummm .......ya

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#264310 Oct 18, 2012
oh oh wait wait,,, I forgot......$(%&*!($*& %

nevermind, forgot again....
What was the question?
1 post removed

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#264312 Oct 18, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an egotistical bag of goods. How ever do you manage to fit your head thru doorways?
Not to meantion that oversized welt on her back.

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#264313 Oct 18, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "egotitistical" to know someone has been proven wrong, especially when it's someone who arrogantly tries to claim they're right, and proof never backs their claims.
None of you really understands the meanings of words, and it's not egotitistical to state that either. You all prove that as being a fact.
Most of your friends are the boasters here; about their intelligence, their knowledge etc. and I do enjoy proving they're not any of what they claim.
I use the words PCers use, with us, against them. Like when they claim higher intelligence or try to downgrade our intelligence, or when they think they're proving we're wrong when all they prove is they can't read for comprehension. It does take intelligence to be able to understand what you're reading, which clearly most PC lack. That's not egotististical to do that, or make the claims I do about PCers.
Don't think you can accuse me of being egotistical, just because you PCers are so inept, and it can be proven by me. That's not about me, that's not about being egotitistical. It's about you people arguing about topics you have no knowledge of, and many of you trying to condescend to us as though you have superior intelligence to those of us who do have knowledge of the topics we post on.
Beg pardon your Royal Highness. The only thing you've "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt, is your skill in twisting. The only "knowledge" that you possess is anecdotal. You've been to Catholic funerals, which makes you an expert. You know for a fact that, etc. because it happened to someone you know.

Condescend? That would tickle me, if the fact of the matter is that your posts drip with arrogance. Almost all of them. Please bring Persevere back. That persona was at least somewhat humble.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#264314 Oct 18, 2012
R C Honey wrote:
oh oh wait wait,,, I forgot......$(%&*!($*& %
nevermind, forgot again....
What was the question?
I was promised cookies amd milk, where the h*ll are they?

“Make time ”

Since: Sep 09

for contemplation

#264315 Oct 18, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to meantion that oversized welt on her back.
You would think her hand would hurt from all the patting she gives herself. Nearly daily she returns in order to give thanks and praise to herself.

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) 2 min RoxLo 1,684,584
News More texts turned over from FBI agent taken off... 2 min Cath League of Du... 6
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Quivering lip Lib... 52,746
News Trump: a year since his election, how do voters... 4 min spud 1,177
News US marches for women's rights slam Trump, encou... 4 min davy 28
News The Latest: California senators want details on... 5 min Giant fan 2
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 8 min hypocrite cake to... 623
News What will Republicans say to justify condoning ... 10 min davy 73
News GOP committee blasts 'Schumer shutdown' as chai... 2 hr Red Crosse 105
More from around the web