Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 308,960
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. Full Story

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#241112 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for clarifying my beliefs ;)
A woman who kills her kids(offspring)..kills her kids(offspring).
Location of that child is irrelevent. Who CARES if Mom kills in the womb, the crib or the bathtub? NOBODY.
The SCOUTS cares. You don't matter.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#241113 May 31, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
I'd like to know how the posts PCers make with personal opinions and attacks of PLers refute the lies they post on the topic of abortion.
(That was to say ~refutes what we post that refutes their lies posted~)
Everything I have is either true or clearly my personal opinion. I haven't lied about anything, as far as I remember. I insult you because you are an ass. What's wrong with that?
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241114 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> I understand perfectly. You think that a full term born baby is not viable if it can't survive without any intervention including a ventilator or even oxygen.
I never said any of the above. An infant or adult may be injured or ill and may need a ventilator...or even oxygen.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241115 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, you did. Post #241028
No. You said the infant could not survive independently.

sassychic wrote:

<quoted text> The baby can't survive independently.Period. "

"Period". That means, no matter what, including using any medical means available.

You should try following your own posts. Not fair you trying to make me responsible for your words.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241116 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text>WTH are you talking about princess? STO made a.statement that a "baby that needs support is not viable" . PERIOD.
You are lying. I never posted "baby that needs support is not viable". Nope.

I'd challenge you to find the post with that quote but we both know it's not there, so let's just agree you're lying. As usual.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241117 May 31, 2012
sassychic wrote:
<quoted text> lol STO said it's not viable. So, tell him.
I did? Nope, again. Why lie? Don't answer that. I know the answer: Your position is so weak, you hafta. If you didn't, your fantasy world would fall apart.

Did I not differentiate between lack of development and injury/disease/illness? Several times.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241118 May 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>If you replied that any woman who claims she was raped should be given permission to abort her pregnancy immediately, I would agree with you.
Hell, that wouldn't work. If all you had to do was claim rape with no substantiation required then you'd effectively have legal elective abortion again. The premise was elective abortion was illegal. Give me something realistic here. Work with me.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#241119 May 31, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>The SCOUTS cares. You don't matter.
Lol! I crack myself up, sometimes!

The SCOUTS care but they don't really matter, either. The SCOTUS probably matters more:-D
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241120 May 31, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, now, STO. Triple L isn't really a hypocrite. She's just misunderstood, taken to task for posting what she posts without knowing what she's posting. She means what she says, but isn't sure what meanings her sayings say, y'know? And most of all, sweet innocent LyingLynneLily only does unto others what others have done to her (or what she imagines they've done to her) and so is always right, always justified. Don't you know who she is?! Yeah me neither. If I had to guess, I'd say she's a former 12-Stepper that Mr. Stephen King has run across in meetings, who subsequently gave him the idea for Nurse Annie in "Misery".
Hi STO :)
This is too funny, Katie. The serious part, tho, is that she "does unto others what others have done to her (or what she imagines they've done to her) and so is always right, always justified." Back in her "Lynne D." days she claimed to be a Christian, and her behavior is way off of that.

Ya gotta wonder how far her doing unto others has gone. I mean, her dad beat her and some 25 yr old scum screwed her when she was only 15 years old. Scary mix. I'm sure what we know of her here only scratches the surface.

“YEAH, read it and weep Knit”

Since: Apr 12

Love animals more

#241121 May 31, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
In skanky's case half a brain would be an improvement.
Hey Lalu
Have you heard of this case ??
This is what happens when people ignore animal abusers ..

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/body-parts-susp...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#241122 May 31, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
When i first came on to these boards myself. The whole issue of choice was a something that i was only at best peripherally aware of at the time.
After seeing what the "prolife" people had to say. I went looking into ROe and realized far from what was being said on that side of the aisle.
Roe V Wade offered the best legal compromise. Everything dealing with this issue in a constitutional manner was addressed by both Roe and all subsequent Decisions.
It is unfortunate that the so called "prolife" (antichoice) members really do not see that they are in fact working against there own best interests.
Roe made it clear that a woman is responsible for her own decisions concerning her pregnancy. There by in a very large part eliminated any excuse that she kept or adopted out her child as being the fault of either society or organization.
That the State has no reason or right to demand a woman give up her medical privacy. Which in a long ways means that we men have that same right to our medical privacy.
So I agree a real man understands that we can not demand that a woman submit to a morality that might not be hers.
The fact that I feel it's wrong for us to attempt to impose a system of beliefs on everyone else who may or may not happen to share them is the main reason I've decided on the position I've taken.
I suppose it could be argued that Civil-Rights legislation, legislation that granted women the right to vote, Roe-v-Wade, the current fight over equal rights for gay people to marry might be viewed by those who oppose(d) them as an "imposition" on their system of beliefs by the "State."
The reason I'm not as sympathetic to those who think this way is because I see their views as "regressive" instead of "progressive."
"Traditionalists" or, "Cultural-Conservatives, " want to "get-back" to a "better" time. An imaginary "Golden-Age" when everyone "felt-the-same-way... " They'd like to revert to a time when they felt that everyone was happier, better-off, and more in-tuned with their way of thinking/ viewing the world.

This is of course only my opinion.

I agree that "Roe" offered the best legal compromise, and I've said before that the basic definition of "compromise" seems to be an agreement that neither party is particularly happy with...

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241123 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>You're almost getting it, but not quite there.
I've been there for a while. I'm waiting for you toots.
Doc: "If the preemie ended up dying despite all assistance possible, then that means the physician's original determination of viability was wrong."
Yet, that's your one and only criteria -- the physician's best guess. Thus, if the physician determines that assistance is the proper course to take, and the preemie dies, then you're both wrong and it was never viable.
"Both" wrong ? Who else besides the physician is making the viability determination ? Even those that vehemently disagree on the definition of viability can agree that medical professionals are the only ones qualified to determine viability/non viability.
And the determination is hardly a "guess". It's an intelligent and rational and informed determination made by a licensed, trained and experienced professional upon his examination of the infant.
Guess ? What a dope.
Determining viability before the preemie is physiologically capable of being independent is a crapshoot. There are no hard and fast rules.
It's not a crapshoot at all. You've got a real way with words don't you? Doctors making "guesses" instead of educated and informed decisions. Now crapshoots ? I'm no doctor but I do know there are preemies born so early and underdeveloped that a doctor can make an accurate and certain determination of non viability. Conversely there are preemies born late term where it is relatively easy for a physician to determine viability, even if temporary artificial support is required. Granted there may be preemies born in that gray area where a physician is not quite certain whether or not it is viable. In those cases they would most likely err on the side of caution and assume viability and apply medical support as necessary. Only time will tell if their assessment was correct.
What I've been saying is viability, in it's most pure form, is the point at which it does not need assistance to develop to a state of independence.
And you'd be wrong. If a physician determines that a preemie is sufficiently developed so that it is capable of developing further, even with artificial support, to a point where it no longer needs that support, then it is viable at THAT point and NOT at the point that it reaches complete independence.
I'm not discussing life support in the sense of it's being injured or diseased.
I know you're not. And neither am I.
If medical technology reached a point where a 10 weeker could be put in an artifical womb to the point it could be removed and survive without assistance, would you say it was viable at 10 weeks gestation? I'm guessing you'd say yes, since that's your basic argument, here.
No need to guess. The answer would be yes. The key is "available medical technology". And that's not MY argument. That is a fact.

Bottom line here is this. Your position does not hold up. You are declaring that if in a physician's determination, a prematurely born infant may need artificial support to further develop to a point of complete independence,then that infant has not yet reached viability. If it is not yet viable then it must be non viable. But we know that a non viable infant, by definition, does not have the ability for further development and will NOT survive no matter how much artificial support is provided.
So why would a physician prescribe medical assistance for an infant that is, by your definition....NON VIABLE ???

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#241124 May 31, 2012
pupsee wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Lalu
Have you heard of this case ??
This is what happens when people ignore animal abusers ..
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/body-parts-susp...
Tell me, you think animal abuse is worse than abortion? Animals do not have a soul like what we have, we are made in God's Image, animals aren't. So , why are you so upset over animal abuse and not abortion?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#241125 May 31, 2012
lost-cause wrote:
<quoted text>
You too John.
Can't imagine waking up pissed at the world everyday.
I'll be perfectly honest and confess that I'm amazed she hasn't imploded yet.
That that amount of bitterness, hostility, and sanctimoniousness could be localized in one individual is nothing short of astounding.
Certainly couldn't imagine waking-up next to that every morning...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#241126 May 31, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been there for a while. I'm waiting for you toots.
<quoted text>
"Both" wrong ? Who else besides the physician is making the viability determination ? Even those that vehemently disagree on the definition of viability can agree that medical professionals are the only ones qualified to determine viability/non viability.
And the determination is hardly a "guess". It's an intelligent and rational and informed determination made by a licensed, trained and experienced professional upon his examination of the infant.
Guess ? What a dope.
<quoted text>
It's not a crapshoot at all. You've got a real way with words don't you? Doctors making "guesses" instead of educated and informed decisions. Now crapshoots ? I'm no doctor but I do know there are preemies born so early and underdeveloped that a doctor can make an accurate and certain determination of non viability. Conversely there are preemies born late term where it is relatively easy for a physician to determine viability, even if temporary artificial support is required. Granted there may be preemies born in that gray area where a physician is not quite certain whether or not it is viable. In those cases they would most likely err on the side of caution and assume viability and apply medical support as necessary. Only time will tell if their assessment was correct.
<quoted text>
And you'd be wrong. If a physician determines that a preemie is sufficiently developed so that it is capable of developing further, even with artificial support, to a point where it no longer needs that support, then it is viable at THAT point and NOT at the point that it reaches complete independence.
<quoted text>
I know you're not. And neither am I.
<quoted text>
No need to guess. The answer would be yes. The key is "available medical technology". And that's not MY argument. That is a fact.
Bottom line here is this. Your position does not hold up. You are declaring that if in a physician's determination, a prematurely born infant may need artificial support to further develop to a point of complete independence,then that infant has not yet reached viability. If it is not yet viable then it must be non viable. But we know that a non viable infant, by definition, does not have the ability for further development and will NOT survive no matter how much artificial support is provided.
So why would a physician prescribe medical assistance for an infant that is, by your definition....NON VIABLE ???
Doc: "No need to guess. The answer would be yes. The key is "available medical technology".

This sums up your position. You know at 10 weeks gestation, it is not viable. Yet, if an artifical womb were available to gestate it to a state of viability, you'd consider it viable. Even though it's not. Else it wouldn't need further gestation.

That's the crux of our disagreement.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241127 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most doctors", and they could be wrong, as you admitted.
Of course they could be wrong. Doctors are not infallible.
" A BABY BORN AT 24 WEEKS WOULD GENERALLY REQUIRE A LOT OF INTERVENTION, POTENTIALLY INCLUDING MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND OTHER INVASIVE TRATMENTS FOLLOWED BY A LENGTHY STAY IN A NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT(NICU).
And if the fetus continues to develop to term, it wouldn't need said intervention to bring it to the point of development when it would no longer need assistance -- because it's already reached that milestone of development. That would be viability.
Of course it would be viable. No one ever made the statement that artificial support was a requirement of viability. But that doesn't mean a fetus born at 24 months that would require assistance to further develop would be considered non viable. That is insanity. You've yet to address the point that 24 weeks has been widely established by medical professionals as the "limit of viability" and this is because that is the point at which history has shown that an infant has a 50/50 of survival. But how could a 24 week old infant survive or further develop WITHOUT medical assistance ?
I can't agree with the wishy-washy version of viability. It has developed to a point of surviving independently or it hasn't.
So don't agree with it. It won't change it. The legal and medical definition of viability is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it. And no definition....legal OR medical...defines it exclusively WITHOUT medical assistance.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#241128 May 31, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me, you think animal abuse is worse than abortion? Animals do not have a soul like what we have, we are made in God's Image, animals aren't. So , why are you so upset over animal abuse and not abortion?
People who commit ritualistic animal abuse tend to go on to commit violence toward people. Women who have abortions and physicians who perform the procedure are not psychotic, no matter what you may think of them. You really don't know much, do you?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#241129 May 31, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me, you think animal abuse is worse than abortion? Animals do not have a soul like what we have, we are made in God's Image, animals aren't. So , why are you so upset over animal abuse and not abortion?
Your religion may state that animals don't have souls as people do.
Far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you from that belief.
I'd wager that an awful lot of pet-owners might disagree with you.

"Knit," a common trait shared among serial-killers is that a good many of them have had a history of abusing/torturing animals--especially during childhood.
People who do those things do so out of a sense of fury, or sadistic delight.
I sincerely doubt any abortions are performed with those being their foremost intentions.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241130 May 31, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc: "No need to guess. The answer would be yes. The key is "available medical technology".
This sums up your position. You know at 10 weeks gestation, it is not viable.
At this time, with the medical technology currently available, yes, it is non viable.

Yet, if an artifical womb were available to gestate it to a state of viability, you'd consider it viable. Even though it's not.
Even though it's not ??? But it is. If the medical technology existed that allowed for further development of a 10 week old infant to a point of complete independence then it would be considered viable at 10 weeks.
Else it wouldn't need further gestation.
That's the crux of our disagreement.
The crux of our disagreement remains your inaccurate definition of what viability means.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#241131 May 31, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, if someone presents a scenario - even just philosophically - that involves *requiring* a rape/incest/pedophile victim report their rape in order to consider their *previously obtained* abortion legal, I find that disturbing.
Mind you, he kept squirming and changing his "scenario" (without admitting that he was changing, he just acted as if he felt that way all along and we were too "dopey" to interpret it that way. He's a liar.) because it was so incredibly offensive at the outset.
What's the point of speculating about a hypothetical if it is completely unreasonable and offensive? He has tipped his hand, e. He completely blows off the emotional component of rape, and that it is incredibly difficult to prove. At first he wanted the victims to *prove* the rape before being permitted to get an abortion, and when that didn't fly, he kept altering his stance.

Don't let him fool you.
Yeah....don't you dare let Doc fool you ! He is a a misogynistic control freak whose only goal is to punish rape victims, punish women for having sex, and to insure that the elderly and pregnant never get a seat on the subway. And damnit, you'll lie as much and as long as it takes to prove it.
And that book of Doc's.....'To Serve Man'.......it's...it's......
it's a COOKBOOK !!!

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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min USAsince1680 1,192,293
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Homeboi 19,642
Veteran Democratic Sen. Mikulski won't seek re-... 21 hr Le Duped 18
Four shot in Hillen neighborhood of Northeast B... Mar 1 Sad 1
In Maryland, economic angst breaks through the ... Mar 1 Brad 1
Do you think global warming is here? Mar 1 Brad 1
Rams Head president 'embarrassed and humiliated... Mar 1 Brad 1

Winter Storm Warning for Baltimore County was issued at March 04 at 1:31PM EST

Baltimore Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:02 pm PST

NFL12:02PM
Baltimore Ravens ask Lardarius Webb to take pay cut
Bleacher Report 2:09 PM
Fact or Fiction: What Can We Expect for Redskins' in FA
Bleacher Report 7:39 PM
How Should the Redskins Fill Their Biggest Holes?
Bleacher Report 3:59 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report 2:22 PM
Latest Rumors Around Chris Canty