Abortion Ban in SD

[GrandMaMa]

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

[Patrick]

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.

[Jack]

Here are some pictures you need to see:

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

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

[Jack]

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

[GrandMaMa]

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.

[GrandMaMa]

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?

[Jack]

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

[GrandMaMa]

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

[Patrick]

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?

[GrandMaMa]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[MadMonk]

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?

[OkieBear]

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.

[GrandMaMa]

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

[Todd]

Pics will be removed shortly.

[Karried]

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.

[Luke]

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).

[Luke]

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).

[GrandMaMa]

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.

[Keith]

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.

[GrandMaMa]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[Luke]

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]

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.

[Jack]

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.