Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,600
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

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#244010 Jun 16, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said born. I wonder why she keeps lying about that? Oh I know. We proved SHE'S WRONG.
You only proved you're idiots who have no intelligence.

Chicky: "I never said born."

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
~"That viability means able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed. A full term healthy newborn is born viable."~

I see the word "born" there.
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting you LIED about my position!! Why'd you do that,...? You've made that same claim a few times before and I explained it to you each time YET you keep right on lying you pathetic POS.
You are an ADMITTED LIAR. AGAIN.
Gawd your stupid. Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? I guess you really are that ignorant.
I didn't lie about your position. Your position has always been that "viability" is about born and surviving [without] medical assistance. What kind of stupidity are you trying to pull now? lol.

Here comes the little twists and turns trying to baffle with bullshit and lie about what's said, Chicky, "Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? "

No, I'm not claiming that at all. Never claimed it, never will claim it since viability is about a FETUS before birth, and about its [potential] to survive once born, with or without medical aid.

YOU are the one who claimed viability is "able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed."

You were wrong then and still wrong now, and no, I haven't lied about your position at all.

Epic fail.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244011 Jun 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>We had a couple of posts there which actually pertained to abortion. So much for you being
here only to stand up for the little unborn children, eh?
She is here the narcissism.. Other wise known as the Lynne D Denial Hour. It run in day long marathons..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244012 Jun 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Her dirty laundry is directly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
<quoted text>
And I hear tell it has caused glaciers to melt and might even be responsible for the coming zombie apocalypse..

Ok so maybe not melting glaciers...

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244013 Jun 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>200 miles on a bicycle in 7 days isn't that time consuming. Do you go to the gym or exercise in some way?
Her 300 lb., smoking, drinking hubby goes. Constantly. At least, that's where he SAYS he's going.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244014 Jun 16, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fundies don't know what they're missing!
You are right.. You have to get sweaty with that full body work out. You can not burn off those calories by feeling of guilty.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244015 Jun 16, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not difficult to do. I don't believe even YOU understand what you're talking about.
<quoted text>
Surviving AND developing...which I clearly stated...more than once.
You can't cherry pick one instance where I may not have included "developing" and then try to claim the only criteria is survival.
So by my criteria thay are NOT viable as they do not have the ability to survive and further develop independent of the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
Yes they would be as they'd have the ability to survive and further develop INDEPENDENT of the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
I've never dodged any one of your ridiculous points. Make a point. Ask a direct question. I'll answer it.
<quoted text>
No they're not. Not now anyway.
<quoted text>
As well he should, if that artificial womb technology did not exist.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't. It only would if the technology existed that would enable that fetus to survive and further develop outside the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't. Not if that technology did not exist.
Are you going somewhere with this ?
<quoted text>
The point you said was my " assertion that what is not viable inside the woman's womb is viable outside."
I never made any such assertion. NEVER.
I challenge you to point out where I did. If you do I tell ya what I'll do...even though I've already answered it...I will answer your "state sanctioned illegal abortion" question again.
You can't pass that one up, eh ? Ya dope ya.
STO wrote: "If that womb were artificial, wouldn't the frozen embryo meet your criteria for "viable"? Of course it would. No different than 10 weeks gestation you already agreed met your criteria, if the technology existed."

Doc's reply: "Yes they would be as they'd have the ability to survive and further develop INDEPENDENT of the mother's womb."

Thanks for finally conceding the point. Took long enough.

You say an embryo can fall under the definition of viability, given the hypothetical (artificial womb).

My very simple point that you have yet to grasp is you have narrowed the criteria for viabiliy to a definition that has no basis in the reality of physiology.

An embryo if located in a woman't womb is not viable, nor is it viable in an artificial womb. The reason it would be in the artificial womb is to give it the environment where it can reach viability. If it were truly viable, that environment would be unnecessary. That's been my point all along. But you go ahead and stick to your definition and the preposterous postition it puts you in.

Embryos are viable, he says..but only if they develop outside of a female. Talk about absurd.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244017 Jun 16, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like...Bozo hair? Or Ronald McDonald hair?
A little of both, actually:

http://www.waltsense.com/storage/articles/200...
Katie

Kent, WA

#244018 Jun 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You only proved you're idiots who have no intelligence.
Chicky: "I never said born."
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
~"That viability means able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed. A full term healthy newborn is born viable."~
I see the word "born" there.
<quoted text>
I didn't lie about your position. Your position has always been that "viability" is about born and surviving [without] medical assistance. What kind of stupidity are you trying to pull now? lol.
Here comes the little twists and turns trying to baffle with bullshit and lie about what's said, Chicky, "Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? "
No, I'm not claiming that at all. Never claimed it, never will claim it since viability is about a FETUS before birth, and about its [potential] to survive once born, with or without medical aid.
YOU are the one who claimed viability is "able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed."
You were wrong then and still wrong now, and no, I haven't lied about your position at all.
Epic fail.
VIABLE means simply capable of living. Period. For a fetus it is the ability to live normally outside the uterus. Stop making it more than it is, stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Bitner broke it down for you. Chicky broke it down for you. I've added my two cents in trying to break it down for you. Apparently it is too much for you to absorb and understand. Claim your false victory and be done with it, name-caller. I am.

vi·a·ble

Definition of VIABLE

1
: capable of living <the skin graft was viable> <viable cancer cells>; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus—often used of a human fetus at seven months but may be interpreted according to the state of the art of medicine <a viable fetus is one sufficiently developed for extrauterine survival—Words & Phrases> <the fetus is considered viable when it weighs 500 grams or more and the pregnancy is over 20 weeks in duration—S. W. Jacob & C. A. Francone>
2
: capable of growing or developing <viable eggs>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/viable

(when are you ever going to practice what you preach, hypocrite? you recently posted name-calling is 2nd grade (or something similar)).

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244019 Jun 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like I recently mentioned to La; they minimize the facts, magnify their emotional BS. Then they have the audacity to try and prove us wrong. It's idiotic. And I am feeling like the biggest idiot of all for continuing it.
These people are not wanting to see what the consequences of removing women's reproductive civil rights will be (Brazil, China anyone?). They are not wanting to face it head-on (depleted resources, starvation, not enough fresh water). They only want to "defend" an unformed, insentient ZEF completely lacking in a guaranteed, healthy birth and to hell with everyone else. Even themselves, even their own daughters, their own granddaughters and any generations following (if there are generations following). They refuse to learn. And still point their crooked little fingers at us.
Perfectly said, katie.

When it comes right down to it, this is what we are dealing with here.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244020 Jun 16, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
"BRING it to the point of true viability" ?
Which means it's not yet truely viable correct ? But how can medical technology bring a non viable fetus to true viability when we know that a non viable fetus cannot survive and develop no matter what artificial support/assistance is provided ?
In order for medical assistance to be effective the fetus must first be viable.
You really DON'T know what you're talking about......do you ?
Course I do. So do you.

"In order for medical assistance to be effective the fetus must first be viable."

If a fetus isn't viable, it must have expired, according to your definition. You believe that definition can extend to embryos, given the hypothetical -- artificial uterus.

I'm not talking about disease or deformity. Stage of gestation, only. So don't try that deflective route.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244021 Jun 16, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying you LIED in your emails Lynniekins? The pictures you sent weren't real? The baby you were holding WASNT your grandchild? The pics of your children weren't yours? THe pics of that house wasn't your house?
You're saying you not only spent years of your life lying here, but a year of your life sending pictures of people that weren't you and places that WERENT your home and lying in emails about yoru life for most of 2007?
Well then, you wouldn't mind my posting all of them would you?
Good point.

Post away.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244022 Jun 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
I said, "As for proving you've never "mocked or bashed an abused girl", are you going to try to use the supposed technicality that the mocking and bashing is of a grown woman?"
You replied by admitting you are using a "supposed technicality". In other words STO, that's not a technicality, you're just trying to use it as one, I knew it and you admitted to it. LOL, you're outta your league. Your denial is not supported by any "truth". You're suggesting you've just "teased", which would mean "mocked playfully" about Lynne's abuse when she was a teen, and that's not the truth. There's nothing "playful" about mocking an experience from which someone suffered. There's nothing "playful" about mocking someone for suffering a miscarriage from abuse". There's nothing "playful" about mocking a woman who suffered those things as a teen. AND, the other truth that doesn't support your denials; what you use to mock is experiences someone suffered as a teen, so yes, in fact you mock abused teen girls. If you think that mocking a grown woman for what happened to her as a teen wouldn't be read as mocking ANY abused teen girl, if teen girls were reading your posts, you're out of your mind.
<quoted text>
Yes, actually you did. You just proved it by admitting you "tease" about Lynne's abuse when she was a teen.
There is no technicality. Maybe one you created in your fantasy world, I suppose. I certainly don't have to sign on to your crazy.

Again, you agree that I never bashed or mocked any abused girl. Therefore, sjm's accusations are false.

That's it. Why do you care if I ribbed Lynne, now and then? It was an insult fest. We were both in on it. Back and forth. Around and around. Sh*t, you shoulda seen some of the stuff she said to ME. lol

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#244023 Jun 16, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
A little of both, actually:
http://www.waltsense.com/storage/articles/200...
Ackk!!
Is that Lynne?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#244024 Jun 16, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
A little of both, actually:
http://www.waltsense.com/storage/articles/200...
Who does your mullet? The hairdresser at Wal-mart? You should get your money back.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244025 Jun 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
Katie claimed Doc left off the word "right" in his posts to Bitner and claimed he was lyting when he said he never did; no proof from Katie.
Katie claimed Badaxe was arguing "fetal rights"; no proof. PLers proved he said "fetal viability" and "viable fetus" and proved Katie was lying.
Chicky claims RvW didn't define viability; no proof. PLers proved it did and Chicky was lying.
Foo claims she never mentioned Bangor or Idaho having to do with a former poster; no proof. I proved she did and that she was lying.
CD claims something about a former poster; no proof.
Bitner claimed she never said she "supported a womasn's right to abortion", then claimed she never said she [didn't] support a woman's right to abortion. PLers proved her to be lying each times.
Ladilulu makes all kinds of outlandish claims, all with no proof. PLers prove she lies.
STO claims he's not guilty of certain things; PLers prove he is and that his denials are lies.
PCers lie, PLers prove they're lying. That's the nature of things here. Makes no difference what the subject matter is.
"STO claims he's not guilty of certain things; PLers prove he is and that his denials are lies."

You haven't proven anything, EXcept that I was telling the truth. That's makes you the liar.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244026 Jun 16, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text> Who does your mullet? The hairdresser at Wal-mart? You should get your money back.
Actually, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. The only people that shop there in this area are flea-bitten slobs like you, sweetie.

Don't tease Lynne, hun. She's very sensitive.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244027 Jun 16, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ackk!!
Is that Lynne?
Sure. Why not?

: D

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#244028 Jun 16, 2012
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like I recently mentioned to La; they minimize the facts, magnify their emotional BS. Then they have the audacity to try and prove us wrong. It's idiotic. And I am feeling like the biggest idiot of all for continuing it.
These people are not wanting to see what the consequences of removing women's reproductive civil rights will be (Brazil, China anyone?). They are not wanting to face it head-on (depleted resources, starvation, not enough fresh water). They only want to "defend" an unformed, insentient ZEF completely lacking in a guaranteed, healthy birth and to hell with everyone else. Even themselves, even their own daughters, their own granddaughters and any generations following (if there are generations following). They refuse to learn. And still point their crooked little fingers at us.
Well, Katie, these extreme anti choicers stubborn, willful, ignorance is no reflection on you. I know how you feel about continuing it. Its difficult to let their ignorant bullshit stand unchallenged, especially when they start lying outright about what we have said. Or twisting what we have said to suit their straw man arguments. It doesn't seem to matter that what we have stated and linked and explained is all right there in writing to disprove their deceptive claims.

It is not about saving the fetuses. Its about the power the get when they dream about being able to force their will on others against their own will. The men want to control women who they see as inferior. The women want to control other women they way the men in their lives, or their religions, or their own choices in life, control them. Its almost pitiful. It is definitely contemptible.

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#244029 Jun 16, 2012
LyingLILLynne D is at it again. 7 posts on one page frantically attempting to defend her stupid bullshit.

ANd she thinks she isn't proving she IS Lynne D!! LMAO
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244030 Jun 16, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
"I did what I knew you expected to use to try to prove something, and in doing so I proved that you couldn't prove anything with it."
You repliled to a post of mine, where I challenged you to reply to it in order to prove you are LynneD.
So how can you say that you proved I can't prove anything with it? If you really wanted to prove I can't prove anything with it, you would have kept your pie hole sown shut.
But you didn't.
Lynne, you're Shande to yourself and to everyone who sticks up for you.
CD, Lynne's given all the proof necessary. She refuses to post the words "I do not have the same SS# and DNA as the poster PCers know as Lynne D."

All she'd have to do is post that under her lil Lilly name, and I'd drop it.

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.

Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
topix chat room about anything (Jan '08) 2 hr Big mike 535
Sonic Boom TV Premieres Today on Cartoon Network 3 hr cherryflower 9
Peter Kay is reviving his Brian Potter characte... 7 hr White cop 1
Miller puts own spin on longtime 'GH' character 7 hr Naomi 2
Kirkpatrick family to appear on 'Family Feud' 9 hr Rosemarie 3
Joe Bonamassa, forever a blues purveyor 9 hr Gaggy 1
'Duck Dynasty' wine: Will Bible Belt fans approve? (Nov '13) 10 hr Lola 295
Woody Harrelson didn't known Liam and Chris Hem... Nov 24 howardjhonson 1
Edwina Currie branded 'heartless' after upsetti... Nov 24 howardjhonson 1
Christoph Waltz takes comedy seriously in 'Horr... Nov 24 howardjhonson 1

Entertainment People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE