Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>Apparently you need to join the birther cause na dbe an nother Orlyntaitz.. the Opinion is is not The Decision of the court.

The Opinion talks about how the Decision was made. it is not The Decision.

I now really understand how the republican/tea bagger/birther stay in business. Fools like you just keep right on believing in any fool thinmg that is sold to you by the far right.

Sheesh you can take any part of the Opinion out of context, but it is still not the Decision any more than the Concurrence or the Dissent.

Yep.

BadDope is just embarrassed that he made such a big damn name calling, foot stomping, chest beating, deal about his claims, only to find out he'd made a mistake.

He is humiliated that it was me that showed him that mistake.

He attacked me immediately upon my return posting here for no reason other than I've humiliated his dumb ass before and he just can't get over it. He could have ignored my return. He could have remained posting civilly, but his knuckle dragging misogyny got in his way. Again. Badaxe can't stand to have some uppity woman be smarter or stronger than him.

So now he is going to go on pretending he was right, even in the face of the FACTS, because his overly dramatic emotional pride won't let him admit he is WRONG.

Whatever.

Damned.

On second thought, there are in fact some cases where "Sass" actually might have a point...

http://news.yahoo.com/phoenix-police-mom-forg...

Mom-of-the-Year award to this one!

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
All that just to reiterate how stupid you are. LMAO.
You even added a your own erroneous interpretation of the discussion in a weak minded attempt to cover your stupidity. "Quickening" is NOT "the event" you moron. The historic point of VIABILITY IS the event being discussed. How desperate of you. Wtf is wrong with you?? Try reading for comprehension and not making shit up to cover your profound ignorance.
So as I said, "viable," 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." IS NOT the definition used by the SCOTUS in its ruling, dear. Anymore than the others, including quickening, live birth, or conception, also mentioned in that paragraph, you mindless twit. Roe did NOT define viability. It used it as a point in time, you blithering buffoon.
Although now you do seem to be recognizing your mistake. Did you get daddy/hubby to explain it for you?
You are a lot slower that BadDope. He saw his mistake but doesn't have the cojones to admit it, with all his superior honesty and integrity. He just keeps pretending he was right while failing to prove it. Just like you.
Kathwynn and I are correct and YOU ARE STILL WRONG.
Morons.

You're too stupid for words.

Chicky:
"You even added a your own erroneous interpretation of the discussion in a weak minded attempt to cover your stupidity. "Quickening" is NOT "the event" you moron. The historic point of VIABILITY IS the event being discussed. How desperate of you. Wtf is wrong with you?? Try reading for comprehension and not making shit up to cover your profound ignorance."

RvW
"As we have noted, the [common law] found [greater significance][in quickening.][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."

"...that event" is referring to "quickening", you uneducated pea brain, and how [common law] found greater significance in [quickening] as to the point of when "life begins", not "viability".[Physici ans and their scientific colleagues] are the ones who saw quickening with less interest and focused more on conception, live birth or when the fetus becomes "viable", which they go on to define what they mean by "viable", giving the precise meaning to which they refer, as to when "life begins".

The entire context:
"There has always been strong support for the view [that life does not begin] until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. 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."

(cont.)

(cont. to Chicky)

Chicky: "Roe did NOT define viability. It used it as a point in time, you blithering buffoon."

I said, "The definition of viable" [mentioned] in RvW,...", I have stated the definition of viability which includes "albeit with artificial aid", is the one RvW USED to define the point in time that states can ban abortions if they choose. Your inability to read for comprehension isn't anyone else not stating facts.

Chicky: "Roe did NOT define viability. It used it as a point in time, you blithering buffoon...Although now you do seem to be recognizing your mistake."

You and Katie were the ones who took us saying "RvW defined viability" as being that they actually created that definition, you big dummy. It was already medically defined and the SCOTUS judges [used that] definition of viability [in their decision], which is what we have all said. That definition, by the way, that proves your claims of what viability is within the abortion issue to be completely false.

RvW did use that definition which includes "albeit with artificial aid", and that alone is what destroys your ignorant arguments that "viability" means born and surviving [without] artificial aid. End of argument. Epic fail on your part.

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Fact: You're a moron that just figured out how arrogant and ignorant you are and are PROJECTING that onto those that PROVED YOU WRONG!!!
What a demented clown show you are...

Hardly, bonehead. You just got OWNED...again. You're just too stupid to see it.

Badaxe wrote:

<quoted text>Yet you named me in the post as being included as one who was unreasonable. If you want to address Lynne personally, leave me out of it, or expect me to respond, as I said in my response.

You've decided you know more based on a portion of a discussion. You have not included the rest of the discussion, but you have ignored posts and links from me, Chicky, and others showing you your error. You continue to believe you know more. I continue to believe you are of the same school of thought as Doc and Lynne D, JM and K&P. They don't seem to mind when medical procedures are legislated by attorneys rather than by practiced by physicians. You don't seem to mind either.

Now, I notice you didn't comment on this piece posted yesterday. It was difficult because Topix actually pulled it (it's posted under my registered name). Here it is. It's a paragraph included in the same discussion as what you refer to as "the definition" of viability. I believe this portion blows away your theory. Blows it right outta the water. What say you, BA?

"In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive.[n63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [p162] courts have squarely so held.[n64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.[n65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem.[n66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Let's put this out there for all to see --

"Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
It's not wise to only focus on one aspect of a complex decision. And it's not wise to count your chickens before the eggs hatch.

(from Topix)
"Please refrain from posting profanity or offensive material.
Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator."

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep.
BadDope is just embarrassed that he made such a big damn name calling, foot stomping, chest beating, deal about his claims, only to find out he'd made a mistake.
He is humiliated that it was me that showed him that mistake.
He attacked me immediately upon my return posting here for no reason other than I've humiliated his dumb ass before and he just can't get over it. He could have ignored my return. He could have remained posting civilly, but his knuckle dragging misogyny got in his way. Again. Badaxe can't stand to have some uppity woman be smarter or stronger than him.
So now he is going to go on pretending he was right, even in the face of the FACTS, because his overly dramatic emotional pride won't let him admit he is WRONG.
Whatever.

Not Badaxe, Doc or I were mistaken. It was you, Katie and Kathy boy who were. You're just all to ignorant and senseless to realize it.

#241540 -- can anyone see it?

er mixed it up --#241450 -- can anyone see it?

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text>Not really, where I come from we are the most orthodox , we are thriving.

The Catholics are thriving in Nebraaaaska.

wow

yeah, topix is biased.

i am outta here.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't you do yourself a favor and get new material, you OCD twit. You've been posting the same idiocy for how long now? Since 2006?
The only people who can stand you are other little PC twits.
I can only be flattered that the idiots here like you can't stand me.

Lily, you could almost (almost) skate with your last comment - except for one little niggling problemo. There are at a couple of "PL" posters that find you to be overbearing and obnoxious. Meanwhile your "target" has established amicable relationships with posters from both sides of the debate.

So scratch your head and think - is it me? Yes dear, it really is you. I doubt a change in topic would change your insufferable craving for "superiority". There's something damaged about you - and I find myself wavering between dislike and pity for you.

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't have a problem with perverts raping children, their pervert bosses moving them around to rape more children, then lying to hide the child rapes, protect the pervert rapists, further violating their child victims, paying off the pervert child rapists, lie about paying off the pervert child rapists, and THEN the richest entity on earth filing for bankruptcy to avoid financial compensation to victims they served up to perverts for sexual sacrifice??
What kind of corrupt, sick, POS are you??
Those are the actions of a rancid, corrupt, filthy, institution, and its putrid minions that should be disbanded, prosecuted, and burned at that stake. You know, the RCCs favorite form of torture and murder, remember?

Hey, remember , you work for the Church, don't bite the hand that feeds ya.

Katie wrote:

yeah, topix is biased.
i am outta here.

Katie, could be caught in the topix filter. Happens to me, when I just post a standard greeting. Change a few words and try again? Or ask topix - what's up with my posts? Or PM me, and I'll post whatever it is. There's got to be a good reason, and I don't think it's because topix is biased.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
Lily, you could almost (almost) skate with your last comment - except for one little niggling problemo. There are at a couple of "PL" posters that find you to be overbearing and obnoxious. Meanwhile your "target" has established amicable relationships with posters from both sides of the debate.
So scratch your head and think - is it me? Yes dear, it really is you. I doubt a change in topic would change your insufferable craving for "superiority". There's something damaged about you - and I find myself wavering between dislike and pity for you.

LOL, my not being liked by ignorant fools doesn't make me damaged. The damaged ones are the ignorant fools who think they can argue senselessness and be taken seriously as being intelligent. People like Foo and Chicky aren't overbearing and obnoxious, and you're not someone who's blind to the truth about that. Sure thing, toots.

I stand corrected. I shouldn't have said "little [PC] twits" because there are a couple of people who [claim] to be PL who are the same type of people as you PCers. Those are the only people who would associate themselves with the likes of any of you PC.

More accurately stated to Foo; 'The only people who can stand you are other little twits.
I can only be flattered that the idiots here like you can't stand me.'

Better, you little nitpicker? Foo has "established amicable relationships" with anyone who's as senseless, ignorant and a hater of those who are more intelligent than them and who OWNS them in debate, as she is. Whether they call themselves PC or PL makes no nevermind.

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text>So, a guy going to a seminary will be a Rabbi? LOL. A man going to a seminary is a candidate for the priesthood and learns to be a priest. Six to eight years of seminary .

Six to eight years to learn a mythology? Damn, they must be the bottom of the intelligence barrel.

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text>Hey, remember , you work for the Church, don't bite the hand that feeds ya.

It doesn't feed me. My full time job does that, dummy. The RCC is my charity work remember? They don't pay enough to be considered a real job. Your cult is so foul it is rich yet files bankruptcy and pays nearly slave wages to it workers.

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Excuse me, they don't teach creationism like fundementalist Christians, gosh you are such a bigot.

Yeah, the church is really start to move forward at a glacial pace. It only took the church until 1992 to exonerate Galileo for being right about the Earth orbiting around the Sun. lmao!!

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep.
BadDope is just embarrassed that he made such a big damn name calling, foot stomping, chest beating, deal about his claims, only to find out he'd made a mistake.
He is humiliated that it was me that showed him that mistake.
He attacked me immediately upon my return posting here for no reason other than I've humiliated his dumb ass before and he just can't get over it. He could have ignored my return. He could have remained posting civilly, but his knuckle dragging misogyny got in his way. Again. Badaxe can't stand to have some uppity woman be smarter or stronger than him.
So now he is going to go on pretending he was right, even in the face of the FACTS, because his overly dramatic emotional pride won't let him admit he is WRONG.
Whatever.

And evidently he does not being wrong when a man points out to him that his position is indefensible as well.

Well he joins the other antichoicers skankdog, lynne D., and knutter to name three, for really being just that stupid.

Katie wrote:

yeah, topix is biased.
i am outta here.

What was it?