Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
No he didn't ya moron. Every post Tap answered was directed specifically to him. The only reason you thought it was directed at me was because Kathy addresses Tap as Doc in every post. That's because like you, she is obsessed with Doc.
And you're the guy we're supposed to believe just bypasses and doesn't read ANY of my posts right ? Pffft.....

Judged:

1

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>lol, Tap was pretending to be your alias. He's effing with us; that's funny. I like him.

Judged:

1

1

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>lol, Tap was pretending to be your alias. He's effing with us; that's funny. I like him.

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:

It's okay--the chicken is underaged.
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
What does this even mean ? Regardless of what kind of medical assistance or artificial support is needed and regardless of what it is needed for, if a preemie can survive and further develop, even with medical assistance, to a point where it can survive independently without the need for assistance, then it is VIABLE.
You tried to pull this with me before....then with Badaxe....and now with me again. It's not gonna work. Never did I ever say that medical assistnce is a requirement for viability. How could you even deduce that based on anything I've said ?
I've only maintained that the need for medical assistance does not preclude viability. And that is a FACT.

Doc Degall wrote:

Ridiculous. Do you think a physician would withold medical assistance because he believed the preemie only had a 40% chance to survive ?

Doc Degall wrote:

Besides, the 50/50 criteria is not a before-the-fact determination. The reason 24 weeks was chosen as the limit of viability is because based on actual medical records AFTER THE FACT, records showed that in fact, 50% of fetuses born at 24 weeks survived.

Doc Degall wrote:

Now I ask you, do a little research on the development of a typical 24 week old fetus and tell me how many of those that survived do you think required medical assistance

Doc Degall wrote:

Regardless of whether it was done to save a life or if it was done as a precaution, the requirement of medical assistance does NOT preclude viability.

Doc Degall wrote:

It could be either depending on the individual circumstances.
The bottom line here is that BC believes that if ANY medical assistance or artificial support is necessary, then the preemie is NOT viable. She believes for example, that an otherwise healthy preemie born at 34 weeks that might need some temporary artificial assistance to breathe.....is NOT viable.
You've agreed yourself this is absurd.
Nothing more need be said.

lost-cause wrote:

<quoted text>
"Why do you put that word in quotes?"
Well, shit happens. It's obvious that spelling correctly has nothing to do with "intelligents".
"I pay myself on the back because it obviously bugs you people when anyone else does what you pea brains do. lol"
Show one post where I've patted myself on the back, "bonehead".

Judged:

2

2

2

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Did the doctors relieve your lymphodema yet?

Judged:

1

1

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>I don't who kathy is doc.. But if any I that alcoholic infused post of yours is about you forgetting that you were using your sock puppets account.. You can spin it any way you want.

you got confused. Yet again and answered with wrong sock puppet. Deal with it you drunk. you can not keep it straight which sock puppet you are using to answer a post.

But then you once proclaimed that you were a lawyer.

Something that I had demonstrated was not close to a fact long before CD ever showed up.

You are to use your own word "a Mess".

Judged:

1

1

1

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh well the4n I guess that makes all the difference to knutter...
After all it didn't bother the pedophile priests..

Judged:

1

1

1

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>You asked Pippy if she knows of any preemie, born at 24 weeks gestational age that did not require medical assistance. http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T833...

The reasonable inference of that statement, given the 50/50 requirement for viability, which regards mostly the ability to breathe, is that a viable fetus, by virtue of being at the "magical" 24 week gestational age, would require medical assistance, of a respiratory type.

Doc Degall wrote, "Ridiculous. Do you think a physician would withold medical assistance because he believed the preemie only had a 40% chance to survive ?"

Yes. 40% chance of survival describes a non-viable fetus. No medical insurance would cover respiratory assistance to a non-viable fetus, and unless the parents certify they are prepared to pay out of pocket for such treatment, it will not be initiated. Doctors, and hospitals, have a financial interest in the services they provide.

Doc Degall wrote, "Besides, the 50/50 criteria is not a before-the-fact determination. The reason 24 weeks was chosen as the limit of viability is because based on actual medical records AFTER THE FACT, records showed that in fact, 50% of fetuses born at 24 weeks survived."

The 50/50 criteria may have ensued from post partum statistics of babies born at 24 weeks gestational age. But, if you can find a doctor who would risk delivering a fetus at less than 24 weeks gestational age, rather than put the mother on bedrest and medication, I'd like to know about it.

Doc Degall wrote, "Now I ask you, do a little research on the development of a typical 24 week old fetus and tell me how many of those that survived do you think required medical assistance"

No Prob. Two questions; 1- are you using the term "required" in the definitive? 2- What medical assistance?



Doc Degall wrote, "Regardless of whether it was done to save a life or if it was done as a precaution, the requirement of medical assistance does NOT preclude viability."

Agreed. However, you're using the word "required" when discussing a baby born at 24 weeks gestational age. Given your statement above, the word "required" should not be used.

Doc Degall wrote, "It could be either depending on the individual circumstances.
The bottom line here is that BC believes that if ANY medical assistance or artificial support is necessary, then the preemie is NOT viable. She believes for example, that an otherwise healthy preemie born at 34 weeks that might need some temporary artificial assistance to breathe.....is NOT viable.
You've agreed yourself this is absurd.
Nothing more need be said."

Chicky, is this in fact your position?

Judged:

1

1

1

the show must go on wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Knutter!!{{{waving}}}} Hi!!
It's sooo easy to hate catholics because of devil spawn like you!!
Have a nice day!!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you just officially and specifically deny that you are Lynne D?

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Not on everything.
But when she's right....she's right.

Judged:

3

3

2

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
What does this even mean ? Regardless of what kind of medical assistance or artificial support is needed and regardless of what it is needed for, if a preemie can survive and further develop, even with medical assistance, to a point where it can survive independently without the need for assistance, then it is VIABLE.
<quoted text>
You tried to pull this with me before....then with Badaxe....and now with me again. It's not gonna work. Never did I ever say that medical assistnce is a requirement for viability. How could you even deduce that based on anything I've said ?
I've only maintained that the need for medical assistance does not preclude viability. And that is a FACT.
<quoted text>
Regardless of whether it was done to save a life or if it was done as a precaution, the requirement of medical assistance does NOT preclude viability.
<quoted text>
It could be either depending on the individual circumstances.
The bottom line here is that BC believes that if ANY medical assistance or artificial support is necessary, then the preemie is NOT viable. She believes for example, that an otherwise healthy preemie born at 34 weeks that might need some temporary artificial assistance to breathe.....is NOT viable.
You've agreed yourself this is absurd.
Nothing more need be said.

Judged:

3

3

3

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Hi Ladi, did the doctors clear up your lymphodema yet? Did TLC call you to do a new half ton lady reality show?

Judged:

1

1

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
They're ignorance is amplified in their stupid choices to keep arguing with us and trying to oppose THE FACTS.

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Seem's YOU are the idiot since you claimed that since NOBODY would know, when in fact, we ALL know. You also claimed you didn't SEE THEM. You didn't qualify that with WHEN, but gooooooood try.
Pity it was as abysmal failure as you are!
"No, I don't know what posts you've seen, and since you won't back your claims about what you've seen, it seems none of us will know."
Nice try at backtracking AGAIN Lynniekins, but hey, that's all you know how to do since you dont know how to THINK before you speak. ROFLMAO!!!!!

Judged:

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
See Lynniekins, here's the thing. EVERYONE knows what you said by now. YOU denying it is really COMPLETELY meaningless. His claim is 100% true, but hey, if you feel a burning NEED for some more whipping, by all means, prove he DIDN'T see what EVERYONE has seen in the links that have been ENDLESSLY provided for you.
Oh and hey - YOU wrote them, and while we know you LOVE to see your name on this forum, its much more fun to watch you twist and shout as you desperately try to evade what YOU said as usual.