Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

No Relativism wrote:

So Chicky's granddaugher was born Wednesday, but Katie didn't correct her. She didn't inform Chicky that her granddaughter was still a fetus until 48 hours after deliver...because newborn Chicky's brain needed to develop a bit more.
Interesting.
Maybe the Katie Rule only applies for the babies of prolife parents/grandparents.
~~ shrug ~~

Correction: It's NR's Rule. NR's false version of Katie's position. Here is my position again.

realkatie wrote:

<quoted text>
This has been my consistent claim from day one, that technically a fetus transforms into baby with first breath and cut cord. My personal belief is that it's a baby at viability. There is a lot more to this personal belief, but Lord knows I do NOT want to cause you any more confusion. Look how badly you've dealt with it so far.
Just for that reason, we'll take this one more time and real slow.
The parameters involved labor and delivery for the hypothetical of "The exact moment fetus becomes baby." There are three stages beginning with labor and ending when the placenta is delivered.
http://www.babycenter.com/stages-of-labor
During these stages, physiological changes occur which enables fetus to sustain life independently outside the womb, unattached to umbilical cord.
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/artic...
Triple L claimed instantaneous change once head exits woman while I claimed it was a process and later included information regarding fetal-neonatal brain changes upon birth.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.answers.com/topic/brain-developmen...
That you take all this info and twist it into something it's not overlooks the fact we all agreed it's a baby once it breathes.
The debate is over. I provided my claim and my back-up, and it was not successfully refuted by you or your buds. Game over. Time to move on. Nothing to see here.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
"And that part [of the movie] was very funny."
As expected, a proabort who enjoys adoption as the butt of a "joke." The "joke" eluded that those adopted are violent & murders; yet, it is Bitner who openly supports intentionally killing "a human" in utero.
Proaborts like Bitner are not "prochoice." They are proabortion. Bitner is not pro-adoption. She is proabortion.
THAT is why she finds inappropriate adoption jokes so "funny."

I don't believe you have said whether you have seen the movie or not. You are obviously not understanding the joke. There is no credible reason to think the humor comes from suggesting that Loki is evil because he is adopted. When I saw the movie, the theater laughed at the line, and it was not because the crowd was biased against the adopted. I hope an inability to get jokes is a new feather in your cap, cause it is also pretty funny.

Badaxe wrote:

<quoted text>Most "Men" I know would beat a rapist to death with their bare hands if given the chance. Should we all generalize women as what a Susan Smith, Andrea Yates or Casey Anthony did? Idiot!

What? I am an Idiot? The motive for Roe v. Wade was rape. Is everyone on drugs or something? International whatever. This started all based on rape; that girls and women are being raped and thereby are involuntarily impregnated. Not just you but what the hell? Doesn't anyone know this? It's not a matter of choice, it is a legal matter based on crime with a medical outcome. Who doesn't KNOW THAT?!

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Good. Then you agree that viability couldn't possibly be placed at conception either.
<quoted text>
No they don't.
I am "anti-choice" and I do not place viability at conception. You've yet to explain that contradiction.
<quoted text>
I know. Why is that ? Why do you keep posting something that is false ?
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Because they DON'T.

One last time:
Given: Viability is when restrictions on abortion begin.
Given: Anti-choicers believe restrictions begin at conception.
Therefore, anti-choicers place viability at conception.

summeroflanning wrote:

<quoted text>
What? I am an Idiot? The motive for Roe v. Wade was rape. Is everyone on drugs or something? International whatever. This started all based on rape; that girls and women are being raped and thereby are involuntarily impregnated. Not just you but what the hell? Doesn't anyone know this? It's not a matter of choice, it is a legal matter based on crime with a medical outcome. Who doesn't KNOW THAT?!

That would be harsh - suggesting you are an idiot. However at the time in Texas the only legal abortions would have been done if the pregnant woman would die otherwise. That was the premise - that a raped woman should also be able to seek remediation.

The actual outcome which was too late for the liar McCorvey is that women have a right to privacy - which falls under Amendment 14. Absolutely was not decided on rape. Otherwise, that would still be the case.

If you are interested in this topic, read up. There's no shortage of information available.

summeroflanning wrote:

<quoted text>
What? I am an Idiot? The motive for Roe v. Wade was rape. Is everyone on drugs or something? International whatever. This started all based on rape; that girls and women are being raped and thereby are involuntarily impregnated. Not just you but what the hell? Doesn't anyone know this? It's not a matter of choice, it is a legal matter based on crime with a medical outcome. Who doesn't KNOW THAT?!

No. The motive for Roe v. Wade was to make safe abortion available to all parts of society. Up until then, safe abortion was available only to those who could afford a trip to a country where safe abortion was available.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, it did no such thing. It ALLUDED that the murderer was not really his brother, not that he was a murderer because he was adopted.
You just cannot be honest, can you?

"It ALLUDED that the murderer was not really his brother." - Bitner

My mom was adopted. And, her brother was really her brother...because she was adopted into the family as their daughter and sister.

You can't even get that right.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be harsh - suggesting you are an idiot. However at the time in Texas the only legal abortions would have been done if the pregnant woman would die otherwise. That was the premise - that a raped woman should also be able to seek remediation.
The actual outcome which was too late for the liar McCorvey is that women have a right to privacy - which falls under Amendment 14. Absolutely was not decided on rape. Otherwise, that would still be the case.
If you are interested in this topic, read up. There's no shortage of information available.

Do you agree with Bitner that "a human" exists in utero?

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
"And that part [of the movie] was very funny."
As expected, a proabort who enjoys adoption as the butt of a "joke." The "joke" eluded that those adopted are violent & murders; yet, it is Bitner who openly supports intentionally killing "a human" in utero.
Proaborts like Bitner are not "prochoice." They are proabortion. Bitner is not pro-adoption. She is proabortion.
THAT is why she finds inappropriate adoption jokes so "funny."

I happen to agree with you. It is downright rude and insensitive to make jokes like that. I don't know why some think that it is ok to do. There is a show on TV that showed coming attractions that joke about foster care kids (the b in apartment something or other). I swear that it is so hurtful to tease folks like that.

Disrespectful and distasteful.

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>
One last time:
Given: Viability is when restrictions on abortion begin.
Given: Anti-choicers believe restrictions begin at conception.
Therefore, anti-choicers place viability at conception.

A random demarcation (viability) was established by an ignorant SCOTUS.

Regardless, I'm surprised you need someone to explain to you that prolifers do not consider viability to begin at conception.

We believe that life begins at conception and must be valued & respected. Viability is a medical term indicating when a preborn baby can survive outside mom w/ medical support, as needed.

Your A = B, C = D, therefore B = D does not fly. At all.

A = prochoicers
B = viability
C = prolifers
D = life begins at conception

Pay attention. What doc is saying is valid, and easy to comprehend for the average mind.

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
"It ALLUDED that the murderer was not really his brother." - Bitner
My mom was adopted. And, her brother was really her brother...because she was adopted into the family as their daughter and sister.
You can't even get that right.

I got it just fine. I've seen the movie, twice.

You are the one who is wrong.

Carbon-12 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe you have said whether you have seen the movie or not. You are obviously not understanding the joke. There is no credible reason to think the humor comes from suggesting that Loki is evil because he is adopted. When I saw the movie, the theater laughed at the line, and it was not because the crowd was biased against the adopted. I hope an inability to get jokes is a new feather in your cap, cause it is also pretty funny.

"I hope an inability to get jokes is a new feather in your cap, cause it is also pretty funny." - Johnny Carbon-12

Now, Johnny, you know I laugh at appropriate jokes AND at your ignorance.

Speaking of "pretty funny"......

_______

"Yes the woman who is preganant with a son has a penis." -Johnny Carbon-12

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
_________

"Women and men are nearly identical." -Johnny Carbon-12
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
________

"Human sexuality is fluid." Johnny Carbon-12

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
________

"Men essentially have a clitoris subjected to different hormones. The difference between woman and man is very slight." - Johnny Carbon-12

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you agree with Bitner that "a human" exists in utero?

Yo, we covered this before - it's not fish or fowl - by process of elimination and based on location - yes, a developing human.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I got it just fine. I've seen the movie, twice.
You are the one who is wrong.

Bitner: "It ALLUDED that the murderer was not really his brother."

NR: "My mom was adopted. And, her brother was really her brother...because she was adopted into the family as their daughter and sister. You can't even get that right."

Bitner: "I got it just fine. I've seen the movie, twice. You are the one who is wrong."

^^^ Bitner is running from her idiotic statement.^^^

^^^ When wrong & in doubt, Bitner tries to change the subject.^^^

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Yo, we covered this before - it's not fish or fowl - by process of elimination and based on location - yes, a developing human.

"yes, a developing human" - Junket

That's not what I asked. Bitner did not include a qualifier.

She said "a human."

I ask again, do you agree with Bitner that "a human" exists in utero?

realkatie wrote:

<quoted text>
Correction: It's NR's Rule. NR's false version of Katie's position. Here is my position again.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

NR: "So Chicky's granddaugher was born Wednesday, but Katie didn't correct her. She didn't inform Chicky that her granddaughter was still a fetus until 48 hours after deliver...because newborn Chicky's brain needed to develop a bit more."

Katie: NR's false version of Katie's position.
________

Thanks for asking:

"there is no "exact moment" as fetus changing to baby is a process begun during labor and continuing after delivery well into the first 24-48hrs after childbirth. The brain continues to adjust for life outside the womb, see." - Katie
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
_________

You're welcome.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but you're the one hiding, behind your lies.
Yes, the fetus is human. No, I have NOT "acknowledged" that the fetus is "bruttally executed". And I most certainly have not indicated that I don't care about the "human being in utero".
You're nothing but a lying POS.
But that comes as no surprise. You always have been. Again, if you can't make your point without lying, you've already lost the argument.

"Yes, the fetus is human." - Bitner

No, dear. Please don't do your little dance of changing "a human" (noun) into your comfort zone of "is human" (adjective).

When you do this, it appears you are backpedalling and don't believe what you say. When you play the "noun to adjective game," it makes you look like a hypocrite. I don't want you to be a hypocrite. I'm caring that way.
________

"You're nothing but a lying POS." - Bitner

Hang in there, dear. We realize you spoke truth when rightly declaring "a human" exists in utero.

We also realize that you are stomping your feet impotently. Why? Because you disclosed that although you know "a human" is intentionally killed during an aboriton, YOU continue to support the brutal act.

You had a hard enough time trying to lie to yourself, now you have to face others after you "spilled the beans" on what you know: A little human is in the womb....and brutally killed......and YOU support this execution publicly.

Poor thing..........you even took it a step further this week:

"Call a fetus a "human being" all you like. A woman will STILL have the right to make her own choice regarding her own uterus and pregnancy."

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

Dig your hole deeper, and stomp your feet more violently. Have a nice (adjective) day (noun), dear.

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>She did ? Where was she before that ?

You mean the useless wad of cells aka pre viable fetus? Located in a uterus, you drooling moron! Where tf do ya think she was, dummy, shopping at Macy's? Oh I know. You thought she was floating in limbo waiting for your imaginary friend to breathe a soul into her at first breath like the fairy book says! Silly child, that's a myth. Much like all of your goofy mental illness fueled OPINIONS. Hope that clears things up for you, screwy.

No Relativism wrote:

Now, Johnny, you know I laugh at appropriate jokes AND at your ignorance.

I know what you think you do. The reality is a bit different.

No Relativism wrote:

<quoted text>
"yes, a developing human" - Junket
That's not what I asked. Bitner did not include a qualifier.
She said "a human."
I ask again, do you agree with Bitner that "a human" exists in utero?

Hmmmm. I'll stand by my answer - a developing human. If Bitner wishes to question my response, no doubt she'll do so. I tend to think she's aware that you are looking for a loophole.