A "growth," a "sack of cells," and a "not yet..." Vague. All "potential somethings" are currently an actual something. What is it?

I believe the applicable words are blastula, zygote, and fetus. There may be more applicable words, but those are the monikers that "it" goes by. There are also designations such as "first trimester" which also tell us what it is. I prefer for the sake of a logical argument the notion that it is a X with a potential to be Y.


Again, science says that an egg left to itself remains only that. An egg. A sperm left to itself remains that, a sperm. A liver, kidney, lung or anything else with human DNA never has the potential to be a human being. Only when an egg and a sperm come together does the inherent capacity of it change.

Yes Luke, but we're talking about degrees of potential. So that sperm and those eggs all have the potential to become living beings albeit a small one. Ad argumentum, the liver, kidney, etc. are very close to being able to be made into human life via human cloning.

The point is to recognize that there is a great deal of ambiguity as to when the zygote, fetus, blastula, etc. actually is recognized to be alive. You say conception, I say viability. Considering abortions are not given after the 24th week, for what it's worth, it seems medical "science" (placed in quotes due to previous discussions as to the applicability of science to a question such as this) has deemed viability as the point at which life begins.

Abortions are performed after 24 weeks. Sometimes up to 26 weeks or more, and on healthy babies (yes, I said babies).

This article is from testimony in the US House of Representatives during debate over the partial birth abortion ban, which was passed by congress in I believe 1996, but vetoed by President Clinton. It was passed again and signed into law by President Bush in 2003, but was struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/shafer.htm

I'm against abortions following the point of viability. I think that's pretty clear from my above posts. I don't like D&E procedures at all. I do understand that they make up a very small percentage of all abortions performed. With the D&X procedure, you're actually talking about a very small percentage of the abortions performed.

As to the 26 week story above, this is certainly the exception and not the rule. There are very few doctors who would perform this procedure past the 24th week.

I want to point out that well-spoken, yet hollow responses to questions are attempts to muddy the waters. I am asking a simple straightforward question. If the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being (which is a logical assumption based on the Law of Biogenetics) then the burden of proof is on others to show evidence for what that "thing" is. Scientific questions require scientific answers, not philosophical ones. Midtowner has very articulately side-stepped my direct question appealing to science. He's twisted my argument into philosophical opinion. He's colorfully assessed my "qualitative analysis" and recommended I use "quantitative" instead (or was it the other way around?) He's called a human embryo a "growth" and a "sack of cells" but never said what that growth or sack of cells actually is. It seems to me that all this dancing hasn't lead to a clear answer on his part.

Leaving the abortion debate on the sideline, if anyone can simply show me that the product of two human beings is NOT a human being, I will concede my point. However, science shows (not to mention everyone who has seen a dog have puppies or a horse give birth or a woman have a baby) that animals reproduce after their own kind. Rabbits always beget rabbits, frogs beget frogs, turtles beget turtles and humans beget humans. Assuming we use the philosophical device of reason, rationale and logic to arrive at facts and truths rooted in scientific evidence (as well as witnessing births for ourselves), nobody has ever rationally claimed that the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but don't frogs and turtles beget eggs? At what point does what is inside of that egg become a frog or turtle? You can tear open a freshly laid turtle egg and there will be nothing but egg stuff. Frogs drop their eggs on the bottom of the pond and the daddy frog comes along and adds his two cents worth...the question remains the same, WHEN can you call those things or sack of cells frogs or turtles?

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but don't frogs and turtles beget eggs? At what point does what is inside of that egg become a frog or turtle? You can tear open a freshly laid turtle egg and there will be nothing but egg stuff. Frogs drop their eggs on the bottom of the pond and the daddy frog comes along and adds his two cents worth...the question remains the same, WHEN can you call those things or sack of cells frogs or turtles?

Frogs and turtles beget frogs and turtles. But in these cases the egg is either fertilized inside the mother's body then laid after fertilization or laid, and then fertilized. Once it is fertilized (the sperm and egg come together) it has a distinct genetic code different from either parent.

Once the sperm and the egg join, the process is set in motion to create a human. Before that it would never develop into a human. For example, I jack off, and my sperm go down the toilet.

I've noticed a lot of the time that most anti-abortionists are men. Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

So you'd rather kill the baby? Wow, that's class. Murdering babies and all.

I'd like to know you people's opinion...is this a baby? Yes or no.

http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/images/pagemaster/24_week_fetus.jpg

Frogs and turtles beget frogs and turtles. But in these cases the egg is either fertilized inside the mother's body then laid after fertilization or laid, and then fertilized. Once it is fertilized (the sperm and egg come together) it has a distinct genetic code different from either parent.

RIGHT ON, SO WHY WOULD ANYONE ARGUE DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO ANY OTHER CREATURE THAT REPRODUCES ITSELF? :congrats:

I'd like to know you people's opinion...is this a baby? Yes or no.

http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/images/pagemaster/24_week_fetus.jpg

YES! Absolutely!

I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

YES! Absolutely!

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

I'd guess about the same....probably a 20 week fetus.

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

So are you saying that it isn't a baby, isn't human or isn't alive? It's just a fetus?

At 20 weeks, no.

So are you saying that it isn't a baby, isn't human or isn't alive? It's just a fetus?

There must be a reason why the word is used, if the word wasn't succinctly correct, they wouldn't need it or use it. By the way, of course a fetus is alive, so is a head of lettuce before we pick it and eat it. I'm not suggesting that we eat fetuses, I am saying that just because something is alive, it doesn't make it untouchable or viable or a baby. Furthermore, I don't pretend to know what most of you seem to have figured out all by yourself. All of your FACTS or TRUTHS are your facts, not necessarily everyone's facts or truths. Believe it or not, everything cannot be either condemmed or approved by referencing your Bible, or any holy book for that matter. Just because it's your reference, doesn't mean it is everyone's

There must be a reason why the words baby, child, and adolescent are used, instead of human. I don't see the difference here. Fetus is just the name given to a stage of life. Isn't any different from child, adolescent, or adult.

Here are some pictures you need to see:

http://www.mswm.org/mswm/abortionhorror.jpg

http://www.mswm.org/mswm/abortionhorrible.jpg

I don't apologize for the pictures. Folks, these are real.

There must be a reason why the words baby, child, and adolescent are used, instead of human. I don't see the difference here. Fetus is just the name given to a stage of life. Isn't any different from child, adolescent, or adult.

You are absolutely correct! Those are words to describe the different phases of something living, I have never denied that, I never said that a 4 wk old fetus is not alive, have I? I never said that a head of lettuce was not alive. I never said that a bunch of mistletoe was not alive, but it is, however a parasite.

I don't apologize for the pictures. Folks, these are real.

This appears to be a partial birth abortion, with the rt shoulder altered or excised to facilitate delivery, is that correct? Would you rather both the mother and child die a lenghthy and horrible death ,as both would likely have done, or deal with the issue in a purely pragmative manner? And by the way, we all know why you used this photo, shock value has it's value, right?

The first is at 20 weeks, the second is at 24 weeks.

Here's an aborted baby at 20 weeks. So are you telling me this isn't a human being?



Your photo is of a dead 20 week fetus, this photo is of a dead adult female human being Am I saying that neither was ever alive before their demise? NO! Am I saying that both were human beings, no.

http://classiccarriages.tripod.com///femalecorpse.jpg

Your photo is of a dead 20 week fetus, this photo is of a dead adult female human being Am I saying that neither was ever alive? NO! Am I saying that both were human beings, no.

http://classiccarriages.tripod.com///femalecorpse.jpg

I'm lost. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm lost. What does that have to do with anything?

You asked if what your photo depicted a human being? I said that it depicted a dead 20 wk old fetus and showed you a photo that depicted a dead human being, not a fetus. If you can't make the distinction nor get the point, I don't know how else to relate to you.

Jack, I don't see how the pictures are really even relevant unless you're just trying to persuade via an emotional appeal. The discussion here (until the pictures) was focused on what the fetus is and whether it's alive, not what it looks like when it is removed.

Also, the D&E procedure is used pretty seldom compared to other methods. It's funny that the pictures/emotional appeals seem to gravitate that direction. Consider that we've now decided to argue about just a small slice of the pie -- 10-12% by any estimates I've looked up.

Alright, can we call a halt to posting of the gorey images like those above and delete the existing ones? They are unbelievably offensive and only serve to distract from reasoned discourse. We don't post explicit homosexual scenes when discussing gays do we?

Your photo is of a dead 20 week fetus, this photo is of a dead adult female human being Am I saying that neither was ever alive before their demise? NO! Am I saying that both were human beings, no.

http://classiccarriages.tripod.com///femalecorpse.jpg

The difference is that the woman was not killed intentionally, or if she was, someone paid for it. The baby was killed intentionally, usually for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, which are a very small percentage of abortions. If the pictures elicit a shock or an emotional response, there is probably a good reason for it... because anyone who condones this kind of thing needs to see exactly what they are doing. They're not removing a mass of cells, but what is clearly a young human being. Viable are not, that is a human child.

Jack, I don't see how the pictures are really even relevant unless you're just trying to persuade via an emotional appeal. The discussion here (until the pictures) was focused on what the fetus is and whether it's alive, not what it looks like when it is removed.

Also, the D&E procedure is used pretty seldom compared to other methods. It's funny that the pictures/emotional appeals seem to gravitate that direction. Consider that we've now decided to argue about just a small slice of the pie -- 10-12% by any estimates I've looked up.

Firstly, I didn't start with the photos, but you have to admit that an aborted fetus does resemble a fetus inutero. Many adamant right to lifers like to use photos for shock value alone, to more humanize the fetus. We were asked if we could look at that photo and say that it wasn't a human being or a baby or whatever, other than a fetus. I stated that I agreed that it was once alive and that appeared to be approx a 20 wk fetus. Then I produced a photo of a human being, not a fetus for comparison...I chose a dead one because a photo of a dead fetus was shown. I acknowledged that in my opinion, both were obviously living prior to their demise, the 20wk fetus being a fetus and the dead adult female being a human being. I have never said that a fetus wasn't alive, I just never said that it was a human being at that point. I don't know how else to explain myself, I am not trying to be cryptic. One more thing, it is obvious that this scene in the photo is not a regular hospital setting. You would NEVER see buckets of blood and used instruments lying around. In a medical setting, even the dead deserve and receive more modesty and respect than depicted in those fetus photos..obviously perfect material for abortion center picket signs

Pics will be removed shortly.

Jack, I removed the posts of the pics.. for argument sake feel free to provide a link to the photos so that people can go at their discretion and see them if they Choose to do so.

I believe the applicable words are blastula, zygote, and fetus.

All of those are indeed stages of development. Science tells us that the blastula, zygote or fetus in a seal, say, is different than that of a human being. That is my point. What is it? In a woman, it is a blastula, zygote or fetus of a human being.


So that sperm and those eggs all have the potential to become living beings albeit a small one.

They have no inherent capacity to become a human being. Honey, by itself has no capacity to become sweet cream. Butter, by itself has no capcity to become sweet cream. Together, when combined, it can become sweet cream (through a process).

At what point does what is inside of that egg become a frog or turtle?

Only when it is fertilized does it have the inherent capacity to become a frog or turtle (or a human being).

Jack, I removed the posts of the pics.. for argument sake feel free to provide a link to the photos so that people can go at their discretion and see them if they Choose to do so.

Thank you...although, I do think that the poster did it with the best of intent. If someone is passionate about a subject, it is understandable. We just all have to understand and keep in mind that our opinion is just that, ours and we shouldn't expect others to just adopt it because we believe it to be so.

Thank you...although, I do think that the poster did it with the best of intent. If someone is passionate about a subject, it is understandable. We just all have to understand and keep in mind that our opinion is just that, ours and we shouldn't expect others to just adopt it because we believe it to be so.
We have a good, healthy, debate going on here, so please leave the pictures out of it. If you feel a picture is needed, please post the URL. Otherwise, the pic will be deleted, and you will receive a warning.

We have a good, healthy, debate going on here, so please leave the pictures out of it. If you feel a picture is needed, please post the URL. Otherwise, the pic will be deleted, and you will receive a warning.

Which is EXACTLY what I did

All of those are indeed stages of development. Science tells us that the blastula, zygote or fetus in a seal, say, is different than that of a human being. That is my point. What is it? In a woman, it is a blastula, zygote or fetus of a human being.

The blastula, etc. has no inherent capacity to become anything either -- it requires a human host. We're distinguishing between different types of steps required in the process towards viability. Conception is no different than gestation -- it's just another process.

And science doesn't "tell us" anything about what the blastula etc. are. It tells us that it has human DNA. That it is a living human being is a determination that science simply cannot make.


They have no inherent capacity to become a human being. Honey, by itself has no capacity to become sweet cream. Butter, by itself has no capcity to become sweet cream. Together, when combined, it can become sweet cream (through a process).

So it would be equally as sinful to not make sweet cream? I can follow that. :)

I have never said that a fetus wasn't alive, I just never said that it was a human being at that point.

"Fetus" is a general description. If you say "fetus", it is logical to ask "what kind of fetus?" Perhaps I can try to expalin this whole fetus vs. human being thing with an analogy:

Fetus is to Vehicle as Human Being is to Ford

Just like you can ask "what type of vehicle is it?" you can ask "what type of fetus is it?" As I've pointed out, for example, a seal fetus and a human fetus are completely different.

My point: a fetus in a woman is the fetus of a human being.

Lastly, because "fetus" is a stage just like "child" is, you could have logically asked "I have never said that a child wasn't alive, I just never said that it was a human being at that point." This illustrates my point. "Fetuses" are humans, "children" are humans, "adults" are humans. Therefore, scientifically, there is no debate as to it's humanity. The debate begins whether it's OK to take the life of a human being at that stage of development.

Jack, I don't see how the pictures are really even relevant unless you're just trying to persuade via an emotional appeal. The discussion here (until the pictures) was focused on what the fetus is and whether it's alive, not what it looks like when it is removed.

Also, the D&E procedure is used pretty seldom compared to other methods. It's funny that the pictures/emotional appeals seem to gravitate that direction. Consider that we've now decided to argue about just a small slice of the pie -- 10-12% by any estimates I've looked up.

I don't see any emotion persuasion there. The pictures just show you exactly what abortion is. Problem is people like you try to ignore the fact of what abortion really is. These babies being aborted are not a ball of cells. They are human beings with hands, eyes, feet, arms, etc.

Anything about about 4 weeks looks like a human.

Alright, can we call a halt to posting of the gorey images like those above and delete the existing ones? They are unbelievably offensive and only serve to distract from reasoned discourse. We don't post explicit homosexual scenes when discussing gays do we?

Are you afraid to see what abortion really looks like? Maybe before you comment on your position about abortion, you need to take a minute and think about what abortion really is. It's the innocent killing of a helpless human being, that has a brain, arms, legs, eyes, a head, etc.

Firstly, I didn't start with the photos, but you have to admit that an aborted fetus does resemble a fetus inutero. Many adamant right to lifers like to use photos for shock value alone, to more humanize the fetus. We were asked if we could look at that photo and say that it wasn't a human being or a baby or whatever, other than a fetus. I stated that I agreed that it was once alive and that appeared to be approx a 20 wk fetus. Then I produced a photo of a human being, not a fetus for comparison...I chose a dead one because a photo of a dead fetus was shown. I acknowledged that in my opinion, both were obviously living prior to their demise, the 20wk fetus being a fetus and the dead adult female being a human being. I have never said that a fetus wasn't alive, I just never said that it was a human being at that point. I don't know how else to explain myself, I am not trying to be cryptic. One more thing, it is obvious that this scene in the photo is not a regular hospital setting. You would NEVER see buckets of blood and used instruments lying around. In a medical setting, even the dead deserve and receive more modesty and respect than depicted in those fetus photos..obviously perfect material for abortion center picket signs

Think again. I've seen an abortion clinic. It's not rosey. The pictures actually look better than what you see in real life. It is a bloody mess. Worse than what the pictures show. They open the lady up, crush the baby's head, crack its spine, cut its arms and legs off....it's very very very bloody. And after the procedure, they do leave the tools around. That's part of the clean up process.

I agree that the pictures were graphic and it was in better taste to list links only, but personally, I think many of you pro-choice people don't even have the slightest idea what an abortion looks like, nor do you have any idea what the fetus looks like that's aborted. I'd say those pics are pretty close to reality. As I said, they probably make things look better than reality.

I think you guys need to educate yourself on what actually goes on in an abortion clinic before you make comments. Obviously, you guys are maknig comments without even having first hand knowledge of what the procedure looks like.

The blastula, etc. has no inherent capacity to become anything either -- it requires a human host. We're distinguishing between different types of steps required in the process towards viability. Conception is no different than gestation -- it's just another process.

You know.....a man that's just had a heart attack and is in the hospital recovering has no inherent capacity to live any longer either....his body requires round the clock treatment with anticoagulants, anti-hypertensive meds, etc. Does that mean the adult with the MI should be left to die? It's the same thought process. The man is dependent on the hospital host.

A baby requires parents to feed it. Otherwise, it will die. So, without parental support, it doesn't have the capacity to become anything either. This it is dependent on a parental host.

Truth is, when we as doctors take the Hypocratic oath, we're making an oath to preseve life, save life at all costs. Abortions and assisted suicide (another topic we've already discussed) violates every oath a doctor makes! He's guilty of violating the very oath he made in order to become a physician. IMO, there's something unethical about that.

Guys, from now on if you have pictures to post that prove your point, but ride the fence, please just use links. Obviously porn will be deleted no matter the case, but pictures of this nature would probably better be listed as a link. That gives others the option to view them if they choose to. If they don't want to see the graphic nature of the pics, they don't have too. Also, if the pictures are graphic, please put a warning above the links.

Thanks, Patrick, moderator.

You know.....a man that's just had a heart attack and is in the hospital recovering has no inherent capacity to live any longer either....his body requires round the clock treatment with anticoagulants, anti-hypertensive meds, etc. Does that mean the adult with the MI should be left to die? It's the same thought process. The man is dependent on the hospital host.

A baby requires parents to feed it. Otherwise, it will die. So, without parental support, it doesn't have the capacity to become anything either. This it is dependent on a parental host.

Truth is, when we as doctors take the Hypocratic oath, we're making an oath to preseve life, save life at all costs. Abortions and assisted suicide (another topic we've already discussed) violates every oath a doctor makes! He's guilty of violating the very oath he made in order to become a physician. IMO, there's something unethical about that

Are you a doctor, Patrick?

Are you a doctor, Patrick?

Almost. I'm working on medical school as we speak.

Almost. I'm working on medical school as we speak.

That's awesome, and I sincerely mean that. I don't know why you were in an abortion clinic setting and am very curious to know, but I'm sure you and everyone else knows that there are different qualities of all kinds of clinics, abortion clinics included. I don't know just how familiar you are with a surgical setting, but blood is not allowed to just COLLECT in a bucket, and even if there is considerable bleeding, it is suctioned as it comes so that it can be measured and what can't be suctioned, is covered with sterile drapes, layer after layer if necessary. Even the sponges are counted and if the large sponges are soaked, they are either squeezed for measuring or the blood loss is estimated to determine if it needs to be replaced. Now, I don't believe that one can compare an illegal, alley front abortion clinic with a legally regulated, ethical, yes, I said ethical, women's clinic. The photos that you presented are not typical and if you don't know that, then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Surgery is inherently not the most appetizing of scenes, that also applies to orthopedic or thoracic surgery as well. In a proper or reputable medical setting, one would never view a complete torso, dead or alive, unless it was being prepared for autopsy, and then, even then, some parts are respectfully draped. When you are referring to Hippocratic Oath taking, are you referring to THE Hippocratic Oath or A Hippocratic Oath? As far as THE Hippocratic Oath, I can agree that it would be hard to reconcile facilitating abortion, but A Hippocratic Oath would hardly be an issue. I am curious as to which you are referring?

You know.....a man that's just had a heart attack and is in the hospital recovering has no inherent capacity to live any longer either....his body requires round the clock treatment with anticoagulants, anti-hypertensive meds, etc. Does that mean the adult with the MI should be left to die? It's the same thought process. The man is dependent on the hospital host.

Not quite. It's only the same if you ignore the innate differences between the two. It's even more impossible for you to reconcile these two if you'll reread some of my earlier posts that suggested that the point at which life begins is the point at which the fetus is viable with whatever medical technology is available. At 24 weeks, a fetus won't survive without major medical care, it is, however capable of survival (somewhere in the 40% range). The heart attack patient probably has a considerably higher chance of survival than 40%.

Compare this to say a 15 week old fetus. Chances of survival with any medical treatment are still zero.


Truth is, when we as doctors take the Hypocratic oath, we're making an oath to preseve life, save life at all costs. Abortions and assisted suicide (another topic we've already discussed) violates every oath a doctor makes! He's guilty of violating the very oath he made in order to become a physician. IMO, there's something unethical about that.

Whether it is alive, as discussed before is a matter of opinion. You should know this better than anyone.

That's awesome, and I sincerely mean that. I don't know why you were in an abortion clinic setting and am very curious to know, but I'm sure you and everyone else knows that there are different qualities of all kinds of clinics, abortion clinics included.

I actually requested to shadow one day in an abortion clinic a few years back.


I don't know just how familiar you are with a surgical setting, but blood is not allowed to just COLLECT in a bucket, and even if there is considerable bleeding, it is suctioned as it comes so that it can be measured and what can't be suctioned, is covered with sterile drapes, layer after layer if necessary. Even the sponges are counted and if the large sponges are soaked, they are either squeezed for measuring or the blood loss is estimated to determine if it needs to be replaced. Now, I don't believe that one can compare an illegal, alley front abortion clinic with a legally regulated, ethical, yes, I said ethical, women's clinic. The photos that you presented are not typical and if you don't know that, then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

Actually I'd say the procedures in an abortion clinic aren't very similar to those in a typical surgery setting. I've been in both. Since the baby is being removed and cut apart, there's not as much oversight on what happens the blood. It is clear that the picture Jack posted was real, but the bucket was probably thrown in to make it appear worse.


Surgery is inherently not the most appetizing of scenes, that also applies to orthopedic or thoracic surgery as well. In a proper or reputable medical setting, one would never view a complete torso, dead or alive, unless it was being prepared for autopsy, and then, even then, some parts are respectfully draped.

I don't know. We view the complete torso when preping a guy for surgery.


When you are referring to Hippocratic Oath taking, are you referring to THE Hippocratic Oath or A Hippocratic Oath? As far as THE Hippocratic Oath, I can agree that it would be hard to reconcile facilitating abortion, but A Hippocratic Oath would hardly be an issue. I am curious as to which you are referring?

Upon graduation, all medical doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath.

Whether it is alive, as discussed before is a matter of opinion. You should know this better than anyone.

I think that's the best way to view this issue.

This is the original Hippocratic oath. It was changed though after Roe. v. Wade.

swear by Apollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo) the physician, by Æsculapius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius), Hygeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygeia), and Panacea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panacea), and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary) to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

[/B]

I actually requested to shadow one day in an abortion clinic a few years back.

[/B]

Actually I'd say the procedures in an abortion clinic aren't very similar to those in a typical surgery setting. I've been in both. Since the baby is being removed and cut apart, there's not as much oversight on what happens the blood. It is clear that the picture Jack posted was real, but the bucket was probably thrown in to make it appear worse.



I don't know. We view the complete torso when preping a guy for surgery.



Upon graduation, all medical doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath.

[B]

Whom did you shadow Patrick and do you feel that one day as a shadow gave you a realistic picture of what a legal, ethical women's clinic is like? Patrick, the term is Fetus. Actually, the whole purpose of a partial birth abortion is to facilitate delivery while saving the mother's life, therefore, the Fetus is manipulated or incised prior to it's expulsion, there would be no reason to, as you state, cut apart the dead fetus once it was outside of the uterus. The bucket was PROBABLY thrown in? That was obvious. Regarding viewing the complete torso during preparation for and during surgery. Unless the surgery itself is related to certain areas that are usually draped, or unless the torso becomes uncovered during transport from the guerny to the operating table, I doubt the statement that you just made. Even if the surgery is performed on areas normally draped, then the remainder of the torso is draped. Also, you need to check your figures before you make statements as fact regarding doctors being required to take the Hippocratic Oath. This statement is not entirely true, as some medical schools do not require it.

This is the original Hippocratic oath. It was changed though after Roe. v. Wade.

swear by Apollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo) the physician, by Æsculapius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius), Hygeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygeia), and Panacea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panacea), and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary) to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."


Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, you did it again. You made a statement as fact which is not even in the ballpark with the truth. Roe V Wade was argued on two seperate dates, December 13, 1971 and October 11, 1972
and then the opinion was handed down January 22, 1973. The Hippocratic oath was updated nine years prior by Louis Lasagna in 1964.

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, you did it again. You made a statement as fact which is not even in the ballpark with the truth. Roe V Wade was argued on two seperate dates, December 13, 1971 and October 11, 1972
and then the opinion was handed down January 22, 1973. The Hippocratic oath was updated nine years prior by Louis Lasagna in 1964.

Okay, you're right. But, even the new Hippocratic Oath, without mentioning abortion, says we shouldn't play God.

Whom did you shadow Patrick and do you feel that one day as a shadow gave you a realistic picture of what a legal, ethical women's clinic is like?

Larry Burns in Norman. I'd say yes to the latter. 1 hour in that clinic would've given me that experience.


Patrick, the term is Fetus. Actually, the whole purpose of a partial birth abortion is to facilitate delivery while saving the mother's life, therefore, the Fetus is manipulated or incised prior to it's expulsion, there would be no reason to, as you state, cut apart the dead fetus once it was outside of the uterus. The bucket was PROBABLY thrown in? That was obvious.

I'd say the bucket was probably thrown in. I have no problem with abortions when they're done to save a mother's life.


Regarding viewing the complete torso during preparation for and during surgery. Unless the surgery itself is related to certain areas that are usually draped, or unless the torso becomes uncovered during transport from the guerny to the operating table, I doubt the statement that you just made. Even if the surgery is performed on areas normally draped, then the remainder of the torso is draped.

You make surgery look more respectful than what it really is. You'd be surprised to see how many jerks there are in a surgery room. That's just the way general surgeons are. It all depends on the surgeon though. The body is only draped during the surgery itself. Before the surgery, the body is actually exposed.



Also, you need to check your figures before you make statements as fact regarding doctors being required to take the Hippocratic Oath. This statement is not entirely true, as some medical schools do not require it.

I actually didn't realize that.

Okay, you're right. But, even the new Hippocratic Oath, without mentioning abortion, says we shouldn't play God.




Patrick, if you are going to quote something, at least use the whole paragraph. It isn't fair to just pick and choose which part of the paragraph to quote, you can't just use the part that proves your statement. Here is the complete quote and you tell me that abortion cannot be considered as mentioned, as well as one most treat the person, not whatever is making the person ill. Also, one has to also consider other pertinent matters, which you may also find in this ACCURATE quote


I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.


And one more thing, Patrick, I am well aware of the actions of some doctors, but they are the exception. You see, all of them, as well as the nurse's and scrub techs have had a LOT of ethics teaching, and you, on the other hand, obviously have not yet had the pleasure. And no, one hour or one day shadowing anyone, anywhere, not havng to make decisions or not having to participate, cannot possibly provide you with the experience that it takes to afford you the background with which you are making such blatantly false and empty statements. If I appear disrespectful in this post, it's because I am not having much success with subtlety at this point.

This is the original Hippocratic oath. It was changed though after Roe. v. Wade.


Patrick, I just can't believe that you just sort of let this slide by with a mere, "Yeah, you're right". You attempted to illustrte that an opinion handed down would ever have the clout to change the Hippocratic oath, oh yes, in the past, not in the future, as the Hippocratic oath had already been revised several years prior. If you don't know something to be a fact, you might either research it or couch it as your opinion or you think. :fighting2

Patrick, I just can't believe that you just sort of let this slide by with a mere, "Yeah, you're right". You attempted to illustrte that an opinion handed down would ever have the clout to change the Hippocratic oath, oh yes, in the past, not in the future, as the Hippocratic oath had already been revised several years prior. If you don't know something to be a fact, you might either research it or couch it as your opinion or you think. :fighting2

I admitted I was wrong. What else do you want me to do?

And by the way, changing opinions over time is what did change the Hippocratic Oath:

Modern relevance

Several parts of the Oath have been removed or re-worded over the years in various countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation), schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School), and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine) has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism) gods, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia), or abuse of the prescription pad. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues associated with HMOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_maintenance_organization), living wills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_will), and whether morning-after pills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception) are technically closer to prophylactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylactics) or an abortion.
Changed portions of the Oath:

To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.
Not to teach medicine to other people. A physician who has a hand in half-educating quacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery) or other people not enrolled in an approved medical school would likely lose his or her license even today.
To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia).
To never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_execution).
To never attempt to induce an abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion). The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.
To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone) or bladder stones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bladder_stone), removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas.
To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.
To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.
To keep confidential all private patient information. Confidentiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality) between physician and patient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician-patient_privilege) continues to be valued and protected, but governments and third-parties have occasionally encroached upon it.

This is ridiculous. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not take them. Everyone knows that.

This is ridiculous. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not take them. Everyone knows that.

Are you rewriting the Hippocratic oath now, Jack?