Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Judged:

2

1

1

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
"What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks."
Prove Badaxe said that.
No one said that artificial assistance is "required". Prove Doc, Badaxe or I said that.
Chicky: "The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way.
It only indicates the point at which the states [can restrict] her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life."
Be sure to let Katie know that. She tried arguing that RvW was clear that the state's interest is [not] in the interest of preserving "potential life". She even argued stating that it wasn't about fetal rights, and yet, you admit that it's about preserving fetal life.
Also, can you read your own post for comprehension?
You just admitted that a state's right to [restrict a woman's right to elective abortion][is no indication that her "right to privacy" is affected in any way.] It's that a state "can restrict her right to elective abortion." Exactly as PLers have said all along; elective abortion is not about a [right to privacy] and a [woman's right to privacy isn't affected] even if she wouldn't have a right to elective abortion.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, she WON'T, because he didn't, but I know what you mean.

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me where he argued fetal rights ?
He's been doing it for months as you say so it shouldn't be that hard for you to find one example.:-)

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignorance plus arrogance does not equal intelligence.

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Thou doth protest too much!
I haven't even looked for these posts yet. I know they are there. What are you or Doc even worried about?

Me being right?

Trying to egg me on, nag me, magnify the issue, or anything else you dream up because you're bored isn't going to resolve this any quicker. If you guys want it resolved so effin bad, dig for the posts yourselves.

Or call a truce and be done with it. All I asked Doc to do was admit that we both behaved badly and move on. He was unreasonable and unwilling.

Judged:

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you to demand anything from me in a post to somebody other than yourself about something other than yourself, little naked emperor? Go put your clothes back on before making any more demands of me.

Judged:

2

2

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
The point was the disagreement. The point was Kevin's inaccurate perspective of my stance and stating it as fact. The point was different interpretations. You, as always, only see the obvious....

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. I lumped BadAxe with you and Lynne D in a post written personally snarky for Lynne D. I know you have to accuse me of lying because you've got nothing else.

All you have are empty accusations. And that's nothing new.

Judged:

2

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Damage control !
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

2

2

1

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey doc.. you really should know better..
Well then you are a fool that plays with sock puupets.. So here is the rest that you left out..
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth - 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/42...
"2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 410 U. S. 160, 410 U. S. 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 428 U. S. 63-65."
Note the words flexibility of the term Viability that is recognized in Roe..
Flexibility.. You know what you try to do to facts, truth, and anything that makes you look like a village idiot.
But for you doc I am going to spell it out in part.
In context what was being discussed was that in Roe there was discussion of viability. That the term was very flexible in terms of Viability..
I know shocking that after all this time you really can not get anything right. But then you would had to have grown a brain. Something that I see you still have not been able to accomplish.

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Thou doth protest too much!
I haven't even looked for these posts yet. I know they are there. What are you or Doc even worried about? Me being right? Trying to egg me on, nag me, magnify the issue, or anything else you dream up because you're bored isn't going to resolve this any quicker. If you guys want it resolved so effin bad, dig for the posts yourselves. Or call a truce and be done with it. All I asked Doc to do was admit that we both behaved badly and move on. He was unreasonable and unwilling.

Judged:

1

1

1

Kenose wrote:

<quoted text>
To them, you are "pagan" if you believe in anything different than themselves. To them, if you worship any other God besides their own, you worship "the devil".
It's the ol' "I can only see the world in black and white". Tom Tom is like Annikan Skywalker, "if you're not with me, you're against me". They only think in extremes.

Judged:

1

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. Get a clue you ignorant, arrogant imbecile.

Judged:

1

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you're babbling. It's embarrassing.
Just show me where Badaxe argued fetal rights. He's been doing it for months according to you. Show me ONE example.
Or you can find where I left off the word RIGHT and accused Bitter of supporting abortion.
There's two projects for you. That oughta keep you busy.
Or you can say you're tired of arguing nonsense ( as you usually do when you know you're wrong ) and decline to answer either.
Guess which option YOU'RE gonna take ?

Judged:

1

1

1

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
The term elective abortion, insofar as this thread is concerned, has always meant the type of abortion a woman can have without intervention of the state. Nice try, Lynne, but that dog won't hunt.
A woman can elect either to have an abortion, even post viability,(when the state's compelling interest in protecting potential life has already kicked in), if the pregnancy will threaten her life, or her health. She can also elect not to have that abortion. So, for all practical purposes, the woman does not give up her right to an elective abortion, at any time during her pregnancy.
Besides, the state's compelling interest in preserving potential life, does not affect her right to privacy, because she still retains a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her pregnancy. Neither her, nor her doctor, can breach the physician/patient privilege, unless clear and unambiguous statutory provisions are in place, and ONLY to the extent those statutory provisions require information be given. Further, and notwithstanding that there are barriers to what the state can ask for from the physician, bear in mind that the state's interest does not kick in until she's made the decision to abort after the point of viability. So, her privacy is still paramount.
In Florida, for example, the woman does not have to disclose the reasons why she's elected to abort, after viability has been attanied. She only has to certify, in writing that she's been informed of the reasons why she should abort, and she voluntarily concedes to the procedure. She does not have to state the reasons for her consent. So, her privacy, again, is still paramount.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm...

Judged:

1

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
"Thou doth protest too much!"
Projection...again.
"I haven't even looked for these posts yet. I know they are there. What are you or Doc even worried about? Me being right?"
^^^Looks like "Thou dost protest too much!"
Senselessness...again. Expecting you to prove your claims is us being worried about YOU being right? lol.
"If you guys want it resolved so effin bad, dig for the posts yourselves."
Senseless. It's not up to us to look for posts we know don't exist, to prove YOU wrong. YOU made the claim and it's up to you to provide the posts you claim do exist that supposedly would prove YOU right. You haven't in...we're nearing a year soon, because you know you couldn't find what you've already tried to find. You already admitted to looking a certain place but couldn't find them yet, and you've been making excuses ever since. Now you claim you didn't even bother looking when that's yet another lie.
It's YOU, that if YOU were so sure they existed, you'd have found them by now...not still making excuses for not finding them 8 months later. You'd have provided the proof by now if for no other reason than to vindicate yourself and shove it in our faces like you would love to do, but know you can't.
You're not dealing with dummies...we are.

Judged:

1

1

1

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
In my area? At least $700 per month for Catholic school.
One on the island here even wrote to the Vatican for support, but was summarily declined.

Judged:

1

1

1

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Evidently you didn't read the article. 40 ARE THRIVING in one diocese and there are many thousands more. Sad part is all schools , esp the public schools have a lower rate of students due to contraception being used and aborting the unborn. The Culture of Death has aborted the future of the United States.

Judged:

1

1

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
There she goes with the "worried" nonsense again. If we were worried ya dolt we wouldn't mention it. We'd be afraid you might find something. You've got major issues.
<quoted text>
Not in a million years.
<quoted text>
Guess what....I HAVE ! Know what I found ? Yeah....you guessed that too.
Someone else you know also looked, at my request. Guess what they found also ?
<quoted text>
You lied about what I had said. Bottom line. Now back it up and prove your assertion or admit you lied and THEN I'll declare a truce.

Judged:

1

1

1

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>You won't ever understand how stupid you look, because you don't even have the intelligence to understand the meaning of the word DEFINE, which is where you went wrong in the first place, in trying to accuse us of being wrong.

"They also discussed that viability happens at live birth, doctors said so,..."

That's what YOU got from what was said, proving you can't read for comprehension.

"Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

["Physicians and their scientific colleagues..."] have regarded quickening...["with less interest and have tended to focus [either][upon conception],[upon live birth],[or][upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable,"]...[" that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."]

Again you stated, "They also discussed that viability happens at live birth, doctors said so,..."

Wrong, because 1st of all, they were talking about WHEN LIFE BEGINS, not about when viability is.

They stated that [life begins] EITHER, upon conception, live birth OR at viability. They then DEFINED what [they meant] by viability and at what point viability would come into play with regard to [when life begins]; "that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

That section is about their school of thought about WHEN LIFE BEGINS, not about viability. They mention viability and stae specifically what viability means.