South Dakota Showdown

posted by Peter Rothberg on 07/21/2008 @ 1:09pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (51)

Subscribe Now

I've blogged in the past about efforts in South Dakota to impose draconian restrictions on women's reproductive rights. Falling short of their ultimate goal of overriding Roe v. Wade, the state's anti-abortionists gained a major victory last Friday when the state attorney general told doctors in South Dakota that they are now legally required to tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause them psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide. "So basically," as Jessica Valenti blogged at Feministing, "they have to provide patients with false information."

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is fighting back against this law, the only one of its kind in the US, which forces doctors to give ideologically charged, nonscientific and inaccurate messages to their patients. "We remain optimistic that, in time, the court will find that the law is unconstitutional," says PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz.

To find out how to get involved and counter the anti-choice agenda in South Dakota, check out PPMNS's action page.

Comments (51)

Read the thread a couple of times...still don't see what all the hubbub is about...sounds like the pro-abortion crowd doesn't want the potential "mother" to be fully informed...that's the real story.

Posted by usc1 at 07/21/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by usc1 at 07/21/2008 @ 1:46pm

Would you please explain at what point PRECISELY the contact between a sperm and a ova produces a "whole, separate, unique, living human being."

And if you can...then we'll talk about being "fully informed" and a "real story".

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 2:02pm
usc1, the women will be told that they will have "thoughts of suicide" if they have an abortion.

that's not science, dude. that's called a threat.

Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:23pm
usc1, have you ever had a period? been pregnant? used birth control? had a papsmere?

just curious....

if you have ever done any of these things, please let me know.....

Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:25pm
USC1 got it right. The left does not want women to be told the truth.

Tell me Mask, if it's not a human being, what is it? A turtle?

You are certainly entitled to take whatever positions you like, however you still cannot change biological truth.

That child in the womb will only develop to become a member of human race. Not an invasive tissue, not a slug, a human being.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 2:26pm
The S.D. rule obviously violates 1st Amendment church/state separation clause, and will have to be declared unconstitutional.

It's really weird, the way that certain regional governments choose to place religion and ideology at a higher level of importance than the quality of the lives of innocent people. I admit I don't find S.D.'s action accessible or understandable in the moral universe I live in, nor do I comprehend the moral universe the people behind this decision live in.

I can certainly understand imparting to people in general a view that unintended pregnancies (which frequently lead to abortions) should be discouraged. I also personally believe that nobody in particular no women is deeply thrilled about needing an abortion. Why, I personally suspect that women really don't want to find themselves in that position and one could only imagine that if one a) opposes abortion and b) one values the lives and well-being of these women more than one values one's own religious framework and abstract notions of spirituality then one would probably emphasize reducing abortions following the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" approach.

S.D. does not sound much like a state where most people would choose to live, given a choice, outside of those who hold the state government's religious views.

Posted by Zero at 07/21/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 2:26pm

Larry, care to once again take a stab at the question?

"Please explain at what point PRECISELY the contact between a sperm and a ova produces a "whole, separate, unique, living human being."?

And if you can't answer that PRECISELY....then there is no "biological truth" to be told to women, is there?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

By that same notion couples who submit to IVF treatments should be told the same thing. Since the procedure requires fertilizing multiple eggs creating multiple embryos able to be inserted into the womb, any that are not inserted are thrown away (but, certainly should never be used for stem cell research according to religious right).

Posted by BizarroRio at 07/21/2008 @ 3:35pm
Larry, care to once again take a stab at the question?

"Please explain at what point PRECISELY the contact between a sperm and a ova produces a "whole, separate, unique, living human being."?

And if you can't answer that PRECISELY....then there is no "biological truth" to be told to women, is there?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 3:17pm

within approx 24-48 hours after conception.

And I'm not aware of a single abortion being provided at that time in the process, since you cannot even be aware of it yet.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 3:45pm
"usc1, the women will be told that they will have "thoughts of suicide" if they have an abortion."

No they won't. They will be told they MAY (empahsis on MAY) have psychological harm including suicide...that's not a threat, that's full disclosure.

"usc1, have you ever had a period? been pregnant? used birth control? had a papsmere? "

No, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night...

Posted by usc1 at 07/21/2008 @ 4:05pm
Never pick a fight with a painted man named "Crazy Horse". Custer was out of his mind.

Posted by Zero at 07/21/2008 @ 4:32pm
Two points, briefly:

1) The "identify PRECISELY where the fetus becomes a human being" point is pretty silly. The mere inability to pinpoint the precise moment in time, down to the second, when this happens doesn't mean we can draw absolutely no conclusions, any more than our ability to draw perfectly precise brightlines in EVERY DISCPLINE (science, philosophy, etc.) precludes our ability to draw rational conclusions in those disciplines.

2) The law isn't unconstitutional (at least the part claiming the loss of a human life; the dubious scientific claim might be more problematic). First, it doesn't violate the First Amendment by any stretch of the imagination, unless you actually want to argue that ONLY a religious framework can derive the conclusion in question (some philosophers have also taken a pro-life position, even if many others have not). Second, it doesn't contradict Roe v. Wade because the government isn't coercing people against having abortions. It's possible that the implementation of this could become unconstitutional, but it seems difficult to argue that this is unconstitutional on its face.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/21/2008 @ 4:43pm
within approx 24-48 hours after conception.

And I'm not aware of a single abortion being provided at that time in the process, since you cannot even be aware of it yet.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 3:45pm

But if you buy the argument that Plan B is an abortofacient, then you are in fact saying that abortions do occur at that stage of "the process."

I don't know if you in fact hold that position, but was in residency with a guy who did. He refused to prescribe Plan B for that reason and further refused to refer patients on to someone who would prescribe Plan B.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/21/2008 @ 5:39pm
Here are a few studies from refereed journals:

1. American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989.

2. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.

3. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological factors in abortion: a review." American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.

4. Russo NF, Zierk KL. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.

5. Russo NF. "Psychologicalaspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.

6. Stotland N. "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.

7. David HP. "Comment:post-abortion trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.

8. Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.

Do some women suffer psychological trauma from terminating a pregnancy?

As a physician, my sense (anecdotally) is yes.

Do some women suffer psychological trauma from continuing an unwanted pregnancy?

As a physician, my sense (anecdotally) is yes.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/21/2008 @ 5:43pm
Eh let the state for them to say whatever they want. It won't matter. The woman knows before hand what she is doing. The whole "you are taking a human life thing" won't work if they don't consider it a separate life anyway.

"that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Let's look at this phrase for a second. Is an embryo whole? No. At the stage that abortion is carried out an embryo is not whole. Why not? It can not survive on it's own. A WHOLE human being would be able to survive outside of the womb. Since it is not able to survive it is not whole. It is also not separate because of the same reason. It can't be separated from the mother without dying therefore it is not separate. In order to be separate from something you must be able to separate from it. Unique? Yes you can call an embryo unique. It's gene coding is different from other embryos. However. If I show you multiple embryos on a screen I beg of you to tell me the difference because they sure won't look unique. Even boys and girls will be the same.

"Living human being."

This is the kicker. This is a question of philosophy. Unique, separate, whole, the use of these words displays nothing but a fundamental lack of knowledge in the human language. They don't truly understand what those words mean therefore they use them in an inappropriate fashion to show examples of something that is the complete opposite of the words meaning. However "living human being" is a tricky one. More specifically lets look at human being. What makes a human being a human being? We know what makes it separate and whole. But what makes it a human being? Is it thought? Well a fetus is not developed enough to have thoughts. Language? A fetus has no vocal chords. A conscience? A fetus can't think therefore it can not have a conscience.

It was believed in olden days that life began for a fetus when the mother could feel it inside her. Which leaves a large leeway. The question of what make a human being human. Is what needs to answered before can tell me whether a fetus is a human or not.

LVL. USC. I ask you. What makes a person human? What makes me a human and not an animal?

LVL. USC. This is not the truth. It is the truth according to your interpretation. There is nothing in the Bible that addresses abortion so you are not even basing it on scripture. You are basing it on accepted belief, not on anything concrete. Show me in the Bible where it directly addresses the abortion of a fetus. Show me in the Bible where it says that life begins?

Then answer for me what makes a human being.

You need to learn the difference between TRUTH and morals. Morals are up to interpretation. Morals are relative. What is right to you is not right to someone else. What is wrong to you, is not wrong to someone else.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:36pm
1) The "identify PRECISELY where the fetus becomes a human being" point is pretty silly. The mere inability to pinpoint the precise moment in time, down to the second, when this happens doesn't mean we can draw absolutely no conclusions, any more than our ability to draw perfectly precise brightlines in EVERY DISCPLINE (science, philosophy, etc.) precludes our ability to draw rational conclusions in those disciplines.

Ahh but Thrawn. It does. The Pro-lifers argue that abortion is murder. Murder is commited from one human-being to another. You can't commit murder on something that is not human therefore if you can't say WHEN human life begins then you can't argue that the fetus is human therefore you can't argue that it is murder.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:44pm
Right to life death penalty lovers agree on killing abortion doctors, Kevorkian and Islamobeheader types. Sounds good. Can Murdoch catch a ride as well on your lil' Auschwitz train ride? Same neocon attitude was behind lots and lots of black lynchings and further back in time, the 'witch' holocaust.

Posted by winyahn at 07/21/2008 @ 9:32pm
Thanks for the update, Peter. The PPMNS website has links to the ruling.

I can never agree with those people who say that the right wing doesn't really want to get rid of abortion and prefers to keep it going as an issue so they can raise money from the the Christian right. Fact is, between this South Dakota-type activity and the new Alito-Roberts court (which I will keep calling it until Kennedy wakes up), the gains of the 60s and 70s are slowly disappearing. (And the 50s -- they did a number on Brown v. Board, too.) They do want to turn the clock back, and they're succeeding.

Posted by RLawrence at 07/21/2008 @ 11:15pm
Abortion is the reasonable outcome of the type of social eugenics favored by Stalin, Sanger, and Adolf. No wonder the leftwing extremist are so supportive and adament about protecting it.

Killing babies has always been a favorite past time of the elitism mentality of this present evil world for those who consider themselves just as omnipotent as God himself or don't believe in him at all. I'm sure their FINAL reward for it in the next life will be not only just but swifter than they can comprehend! To bad!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/21/2008 @ 11:38pm
By the way, still looking, but the "false information" S.D. doctors are forced to provide can't seem to be found? This must be one of the convenient LIES that the Pro-Abortion advocates feels is necessary to continue providing the deceptive practice in the illinformed!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/22/2008 @ 12:07am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/21/2008 @ 11:10pm

what you posted is rather strange.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 01:09am
"Thats OK...the state also hands out nonscientific and inaccurate information to all of us regarding the climate, oil productions and govt spending"

spoken like a true Patriarch!

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 01:39am
"Once couples are able to find out that their child will be gay or straight......"

hilarious......ahhhh, the shallow depths of the mind.

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 02:16am
How many children from SD do USC1, Jomamma and the others wish to care for till the age of 18?

Wasn't it Jomamma that said last week that he does not want gubment interfering with his life? But he is willing to have them interfere in the lives of people he knows nothing about?

The neo-cons do not want insurance companies to pay for contraception, do not want to have the S-CHIP program fully funded, do not want contraception taught in school, do not want to pay for Head Start type programs AND they support China and their "one-child" policy. But, they want teenagers, unwed mothers and women that don't want to have a kid to be forced to have children?

ooohhh, the neo-conundrums they create.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/22/2008 @ 06:48am
Never pick a fight with a painted man named "Crazy Horse". Custer was out of his mind. Posted by Zero at 07/21/2008 @ 4:32pm

I bet Chimpy McFlightsuit was Custer in his previous life. What he learned was to send others into the battle while he hides behind the Indian women and children.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/22/2008 @ 06:51am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/22/2008 @ 01:43am

what if YOU learned that Your daughter of 17 was going to give birth to a gay muslim via an unemployed "parasite"?

BOO!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/22/2008 @ 06:55am
"The neo-cons do not want insurance companies to pay for contraception,"

True. It's your responsibility...but this has been discussed on katha's thread.

"do not want to have the S-CHIP program fully funded,"

False. We don't think we should have to fund it for families earning $75,000/yr. or more...along with other problems with the bill.

"do not want contraception taught in school,"

True. That's a parent's responsibility. If the parent doesn't not want to accept that responsibility, I have no problem with them signing their child up for sex education at their own expense.

"do not want to pay for Head Start type programs"

False...don't know where you got that. We actually want to see better results for our investment...where you just want to throw more money at the problem...in typically lib fashion.

"AND they support China and their "one-child" policy."

False...Actually, with your staunch support for abortion, this more appropriately describes you.

"But, they want teenagers, unwed mothers and women that don't want to have a kid to be forced to have children?"

False...We want that poor, innocent, defenseless little baby to have a chance at life, no matter how worthless you think he or she is. Why do you hate children so much?

Posted by usc1 at 07/22/2008 @ 08:42am
Look, once again, the "pro-lifers" are trying to win the battle...

of a war they've already lost.

Last year's South Dakota attempt at a full ban on abortion blew up in their faces. It proved both un-popular AND un-workable (as Indian reservation clinics, outside the state law, were able to offer abortion services legally...meaning it'd be a meaningless gesture, as it would be nation-wide).

Now, they're trying to "go back" to the old "Let's force doctors to tell women they're killing a 'separate HUMAN BEING', if they have any kind of abortion of a (as LVLIB siad) 24-48 hour conceived FERTILIZED EGG" and try that.

It'll fail. Poll after poll shwos that Americans favor SOME basic abortion right....and this is after THIRTY-FIVE YEARS of "pro-lifers" telling them it's "baby-killing".

So....how's their track record?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 09:28am
Teenage pregnancy (per capita) (most recent) by country

#1 United States: 1,671.63 births per 1 million people

#2 Slovakia: 1,112.87 births per 1 million people

#3 New Zealand: 972.491 births per 1 million people

#4 Hungary: 916.858 births per 1 million people

#5 Iceland: 889.677 births per 1 million people

#6 Poland: 788.76 births per 1 million people

#7 Ireland: 781.375 births per 1 million people

#8 Portugal: 700.644 births per 1 million people

#9 Canada: 607.224 births per 1 million people

#10 Australia: 589.796 births per 1 million people

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#20 Luxembourg: 236.89 births per 1 million peo

#21 Denmark: 213.733 births per 1 million peo

#22 Italy: 191.952 births per 1 million peo

#23 Sweden: 178.294 births per 1 million peo

#24 Netherlands: 172.061 births per 1 million peo

#25 Switzerland: 145.814 births per 1 million peo

#26 Japan: 137.352 births per 1 million peo

```````````````````´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´

knowledge is power.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:05am
False...We want that poor, innocent, defenseless little baby to have a chance at life, no matter how worthless you think he or she is. Why do you hate children so much? Posted by usc1 at 07/22/2008 @ 08:42am |

Probably one of the dumbest things I have heard in the last week. Not so much the first part more the Why do you....?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:50pm

Let them rant, CCC. Again, they may win some battles, but they've lost the war.

Even the Religious Right (the younger evangelcials) are giving up on abortion and gay rights as "vital concerns"...and going for things like global warming.

The LVLVIB/USC crowd is dying out...Hell, look at McCain. Sure he's "rock solid" on "pro-life"...but on stem-cells, McCain supports Federal funding. So they've lost that one, regardless of who wins in November.

And the original South Dakota ban...blew up in their faces politically.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 1:39pm
Show me in the Bible where it says that life begins?

Then answer for me what makes a human being.

You need to learn the difference between TRUTH and morals. Morals are up to interpretation. Morals are relative. What is right to you is not right to someone else. What is wrong to you, is not wrong to someone else.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:36pm

Where does life begin according to scripture, in the womb!

"Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her: "Two nations [are] in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; [One] people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

Jdg 13:7 And He said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or [similar] drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.' "

Rth 1:11 But Naomi said, "Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? [Are] there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother's womb You [have been] My God.

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I [am] the LORD, who makes all [things], Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Isa 49:1 "Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The LORD has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.

Luk 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Luk 1:41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:41pm
More on the life in the womb of a woman -with thanks to CARM

"Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.

Even one-celled creatures are alive.

What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.

The nature of the life in the woman is human.

It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.

Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.

Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.

A person born without arms and legs is still human.

A person who cannot speak is still human.

A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.

What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.

If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?

If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and and human sperm?

Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.

Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.

A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.

To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.

Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.

Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?

A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?

If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?

If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.

If you say it is alright, why is it okay?"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:44pm

well, that's great. abortion is icky.

so why do you want to kill people once they've left the womb?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:40pm
If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right? If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it. If you say it is alright, why is it okay?" Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:44pm

I don't mind if they take a fertilized egg and put it into a dog. It won't survive but go for it. Haven't you heard of the chimera experiments? A fertilized egg is nothing but a bunch of cells with a coding of activity.

Want to know why I believe this? If you take the cells of the egg. Remove the coding and put in a new coding. You can make a combined chicken/human DNA. It has been done. So if you combine the cells of a human with a chicken what does that make it? Is it human? Or chicken? According to your argument it has the essence of both correct? Essence is by your definition what makes it human. So does that mean the thing is human because it has the essence of a human but clucks and has a beak? But since it shares and essence with the chicken does that mean it is ok to eat it? Modern science and the leaps in ability it has made is changing the landscape of what a human being is. Until a human being has developed into a human being and is past the point of ability to change it it is not human. Now a day's geneticists can go in and change the developmental gene structure during development and make it something other than human. Essence is not a strong enough definition with the abilities we have today. In the womb is not strong enough either because I can put a pig in a woman's womb does that make it human?

The definitions you uphold are being blurred quickly by scientific discoveries. Is a creature that is half sheep/ half goat a goat or a sheep by essence? Essence is no longer enough. Essence is equivalent to the soul which doesn't play. Because if you make a human/sheep does it have a soul? Does a clone have a soul? A set of cells that has the potential to become human yes. But I gurantee you that soon enough those will be able to be re-encoded to be anything else also. The lines are being blurred due to knowledge in gnetic research. After all Chimp DNA is extremely close to human DNA. If we blended enough of the Chimp DNA with a human to make something that was as intelligent as a human would you call it a human?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:55pm
If you say it is alright, why is it okay?" Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:44pm

As an aside and entirely off topic. If you want to argue that it is wrong to kill anything with a human essence then why is it so many religious support the death penalty. Murder does not make you less than human because you still have a human essence and according to your anything with a human essence should be preserved.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:41pm

LVLIB...NOTHING in those Bible verses substantiate your SPECIFIC claim that it is a "separate, unique HUMAN BEING"...

"24-48 hours after conception"...not one.

All it discusses is "wombs" and "knitting together"...not ONE specific time-line for what is...or is not a "baby".

Yet YOU have claimed the "24-48+ Conception" as standard? Why?

BTW, does that mean that if an ovum reachs the womb in LESS than 24 hours, you'd have no problem aborting it?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:32pm
the real story is millions of iraqis maimed and killed by the US in the name of oil, sudanese in darfur getting raped by thousands and we really don't care....I guess then it is okay to get abortion??? maybe then they will have suicidal thoughts???

I mean, really, what else do you expect with this joke of a govt lying to us daily about everything??? MSM telling fluff stories as news??? forcing young girls to get drugs against the parents' views....even though by preventing cervical cancer, they may grow a penis or have an extra eyeball???? etc.....

but if you don't do it, you can join the growing ranks of americans incarcerated...10% at last count....but since prisons are all privatized, that only helps shareholders, as well....

just like al qaeda already won by having us fight each other.....and iran already won by having us do the dirty work and break up their only competitor in the region...

congrats american patriots.....git r dun

Posted by jrs112 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:32pm
My previous answer and question were slightly rambling so let me reword it. By definition you say what makes a human a human is it's essence. Because the cells have the potential to be a human it has a human essence. What happens when, and mark my words this will happen, they are able to manufacture another animal from human cells. Or they have the ability to manufacture a human from animal cells by changing the DNA makeup. Or they are able to make something that is half human and half something else. What does that mean for the question of human essence. If you can create a human from animal cells then that means any DNA code has the potential to be human. Does that then therefore mean that all things have a human essence? Essence is too broad. It is slowly becoming the case that cells can be molded into anything. So the cell collection no longer becomes something that has the essence of a human because it has the potential to be anything and anything has the potential to be human.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:34pm
BTW, does that mean that if an ovum reachs the womb in LESS than 24 hours, you'd have no problem aborting it? Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:32pm

This is the fundamental problem with religion that he is displaying Mask. This is where religion encounters its greatest peril. LVL came up with his number purely out of his own decision. This is when religion becomes nothing more than the human whim. When humans decide for religion what its laws are things like the Salem Witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition happen. The human whim is the central downfall to religion because if a mother doesn't know that she is pregnant 2 months after she has already gotten pregnant so she keeps drinking does that make her a murderer? The human whim creates to many blurred lines in religion. Rule that are made up by man constantly create the need for new rules to be made up in order to police the other rules that were made up.

That is my central problem with religion. It is made up, policed, added to and controlled by man. If religion is controlled to that degree by man and its whims and understandings then how is it holy? The point of religion is to be above man which means man can not create meaning within it. If man can create meaning within religion then religion is nothing more than politics.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:55pm

So by having no problem with mixing people and animals you display your true feelings. You do not have any true regard for human life.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 4:03pm
To me this is a much simpler question: The last I checked, the conversation between a patient and a doctor is entirely confidential. A doctor can't be forced to disclose the content of the conversation, under the rules of evidence in every state I know. So how in the world can anyone be criminally liable for what they do or don't say in that room behind that closed door?

That's aside from the First Amendment issue (government forcing people to say words they don't believe, just like the old license plate slogan as enforced speech case) and medical ethics and all that.

In Griswold v CT, the 1960s Supreme Court case saying the government couldn't ban contraceptive use by married couples, the main reasoning was that enforcing the law would allow (require) the government to post a cop under the bed, which was so abhorrent that the law itself had to go.

Posted by bcazden at 07/22/2008 @ 4:36pm
"LVLIB...NOTHING in those Bible verses substantiate your SPECIFIC claim that it is a "separate, unique HUMAN BEING"...

"24-48 hours after conception"...not one.

All it discusses is "wombs" and "knitting together"...not ONE specific time-line for what is...or is not a "baby".

Yet YOU have claimed the "24-48+ Conception" as standard? Why?

BTW, does that mean that if an ovum reachs the womb in LESS than 24 hours, you'd have no problem aborting it?

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 3:32pm

You are attempting again to join seperate questions into one. CCC asked me:

"Show me in the Bible where it says that life begins?

Then answer for me what makes a human being.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:36pm"

My two posts answered those questions, not your question about when I think life begins. When John the Baptist lept for joy in Elizabeth's womb, that was a human being experiencing emotions, not some tissue inside of her.

My response to you was based upon previous medical research info and links I provided when we had this discussion before. It is seperate from a biblical response.

You, CCC and the rest of the pro abortion baby killers just keep searching for justifications to kill what is purely human, and purely a child. The difference is that you believe it is acceptable to murder the child while it is still in the womb. I will never accept that premise.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:13pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 2:55pm So by having no problem with mixing people and animals you display your true feelings. You do not have any true regard for human life. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 4:03pm

Haha it figures. Typical of the Religious right to make huge leaps like this based on emotion(Eh eh? I can play just like LVL).

Either way I believe in science. This isn't a matter of a disregard for human life. I am against taking the life of a human being. To me a baby is not human until it can survive outside the body. This is not a disregard and this does not make me a baby killer. A fetus is not a baby.

baby |ˈbābē| noun ( pl. -bies) 1 a very young child, esp. one newly or recently born : his wife's just had a baby | [as adj. ] a baby girl. • a young or newly born animal.

That is the definition of baby. It has to be born to be a baby. It makes me a fetus killer. Or cluster of cells killer. I prefer science to religion. Which means I am for experimenting to a degree.

Also you should be careful where your lack of logic takes you. No where in my post where I made reference to the Chimera Experiments did ever say i supported what they were doing. You based this on nothing more than your emotional response. You tried to discredit ME by saying I have no respect for human life instead of actually arguing with what I was saying. It's typical of you to do that when you can't actually answer the argument.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:02pm
So by having no problem with mixing people and animals you display your true feelings. You do not have any true regard for human life.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 4:03pm

if you eat chicken, you are made of chicken.

if you eat pork, you are made of pigs.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 8:48pm
The difference is that you believe it is acceptable to murder the child while it is still in the womb. I will never accept that premise.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:13pm

great.

so why do you want to kill them once they've left?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 8:49pm
so why do you want to kill them once they've left?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 8:49pm

I don't want to kill anyone. But I do believe in self defense and justice.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:57pm
so,

cluster bombs are for self-defence?

or justice?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:02pm
so,

cluster bombs are for self-defence?

or justice?

<i>We should identify insurgent areas, drop leaflets to announce a bombing campaign and then blow the subject area to dust. Overwhelming force is always required and especially with Arabs, it is the language they best understand.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2006 @ 12:06am </i>

leaflets?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:10pm
so,

cluster bombs are for self-defence?

or justice?

<i>We should identify insurgent areas, drop leaflets to announce a bombing campaign and then blow the subject area to dust. Overwhelming force is always required and especially with Arabs, it is the language they best understand.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2006 @ 12:06am </i>

leaflets?

"3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have."---

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:16pm
egad!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:16pm