Comments on: Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood Temporarily Shuts Down

By: Amy K.

Amy K. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:19:41 +0000

I find it very funny that none of you have a problem killing bacteria – which is, after all, a single celled organism.

What an odd little argument. I also don’t have a problem killing a cow and eating it either. What does that have to do with killing people?

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:38:47 +0000

AmaniS–
I’m curious about your bible(lack of capitalization yours). I don’t know of any Scripture that says that the death of a fetus is not the same as the death of a child. I suspect I know what you are thinking of, and you are incorrect in the translation. The actual Scripture describes a situation in which a mother is attacked and her child is born alive, versus a situation in which a mother is attacked and her child is harmed. The Hebrew words used are the same as those used to describe a birth, not a miscarriage.
If a woman is not informed enough to know that the embryo and fetus are stages in the life cycle of a human being, she has no business creating one.

DragonLynn-
You are mistaken. The scientific definition of life does not say that a being must be capable of surviving on its own to be alive. Cells are alive, even when they are part of an organism without which they cannot survive. You seem to be saying not merely that a pre-born child is a not a person, but that she isn’t even alive. That goes against every scientific principle extant.

How do you know whether or not any of us have a problem killing bacteria? In any case, we all understand that killing bacteria means killing a being that is alive. Would that you had the same understanding.

By: blanko

blanko — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:57:42 +0000

“You people make me sick. I think it is about time that people learn tolerance and keep their opinions to themselves.”

IMHO, you’re not sounding very tolerant here, but I can appreciate you not keeping your opinions to yourself.

“laws cannot be made based on a religious viewpoint. And, that is all it is.”

Whose viewpoints should we base our laws on? Should they be based exclusively on your viewpoints? You do realize that, thou, shalt not steal and thou, shalt not kill are both religious viewpoints?

By: fungez

fungez — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:42:50 +0000

You honestly believe a pre-viable fetus is not alive? Then how does the heart beat? How does he grow and develop? I’ve seen a sonogram picture of a 19 week old fetus sucking her thumb – how does that happen if she is not alive? Is there some “pre-alive” status that I’ve never heard of?

I am not the slightest bit religious nor do I believe in God (much to my parents’ dismay. It’s not their fault. They tried their best.)

By: Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:06:38 +0000

DragonLynn,

You seem to have missed the fact that us “crazy religious zealots” view this issue as literally life and death. Because we truly believe that life begins at conception, abortion must then be considered the termination of a human being. It is against the nature of any decent human being to sit idly by while innocents are destroyed.

Applying your argument to slavery, for instance, shows its vacuousness. “If you don’t think slavery is right, don’t own one. But don’t push your morality on me. The negro is not human!” I imagine you object to the comparison, but that’s only because you disagree with the premise.

Your “scientific facts” are just as much arbitrary guess work as you believe is being used to underwrite those you disagree with. The “live outside the body” rule invites only more questions. Must this exterior existence be unassisted by medical technology? If not, than the definition of human life becomes completely dependent on the state of medical science. Do you find that interdependence a philosophically sound basis on which to answer the very question of human existence? If a fetus must be judged by their ability to live unassisted, what about full grown humans incapable of living on their own? Are they stripped of their humanity by their dependence? How can the same organic material be a “parasite” on day 153 and fully and completely human on day 154 without any major change to its physical nature but for a bit of natural growth and development?

For all the compassion those on your side of the debate claim to have for women who don’t know what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, I find the lack of self-reflection on the very question of life itself extremely troubling.

As for the “separation of church and state” argument, simply because people are informed on their decisions based on their faith does not constitute the establishment of a state religion, which is what the first amendment actually addresses. The misinterpretation and misapplication of the establishment clause is one of my biggest pet peeves – right up there with the willful destruction of innocent human lives.

By: DragonLynn

DragonLynn — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:08:43 +0000

Oh, and another thing. As for single celled organisms being alive. I find it very funny that none of you have a problem killing bacteria – which is, after all, a single celled organism. When life begins depends on your definintion of life. The SCIENTIFIC definition is that it has to be able to live ON ITS OWN. A fetus cannot – it is dependant on the mother. It is not alive until it can live without the mother providing life for it. That is scientific FACT. This law is based on a religious viewpoint – a fact you are all fine with because you happen to share that religion. NEWS FLASH – some of us don’t. This law is unconstitional because it violates the entire concept of separation of church and state. The founding fathers must be turning cartwheels in their graves because this is exactly what they were trying to prevent.

By: DragonLynn

DragonLynn — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:03:13 +0000

You people make me sick. I think it is about time that people learn tolerance and keep their opinions to themselves. Keep your intolerant religious views away from my body. I do not believe in god, religion, or in trying to force people to follow a misguided idea of morality. Just because christianity and similar religions believe a zygot is a person doesn’t make it a fact. As a FACT, a fetus is a parasite and as such the woman has every right to decide. If you think abortion is wrong – don’t get one…I wouldn’t. But I don’t think it is my right to force others to do things my way. This is where separation of church and state is supposed to function – laws cannot be made based on a religious viewpoint. And, that is all it is.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:36:48 +0000

Just apply the Good Hunter test. If you are out hunting and come across something in the distance that you THINK may be a deer or elk or whatever, but you CANNOT CONFIRM it, you must choose not to take the shot. The idea is simple. If you can’t for sure know whether it’s a human or not, you choose not to take the shot because you value human life (even a POTENTIAL human life) more than your personal desires (in this case, venison sausage).

When in doubt, hold fire.

By: fungez

fungez — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:52:38 +0000

AmaniS – I found your statement above a bit confusing but if I read it correctly, one has to decide for oneself when a human life begins.

I know my life started when sperm met egg. It’s very simple. If a fertilized egg, single-celled and microscopic it may be, is placed in my uterus, barring early death, in nine months a baby comes out. The same cannot be said for either a single sperm or egg. Your own body was at one time one-celled and microscopic.

If you honestly believe that there are any reputable scientific experts who theorize that life starts at any other time than conception, I would like to know who they are.

By: AmaniS

AmaniS — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:00:55 +0000

David, what I am saying is that just because the law says its so does not make it so. My bible does not hold the death of a fetus the same as the death of one who has been born. As a mother of three, I referred to my children before they were born a fetuses. You may not.
But that is the question one must answer, for one self. When it the beginning, egg; when egg and sperm meet; when combined egg and sperm attach; when it looks like a person; when it is born.
Not even the experts(science and theological) come to the same conclusion.

By: David

David — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:43:23 +0000

Amanis: “If a woman is not informed enough to know a fetus or embryo is not a human being”

Says you. When does a human being become a human being? AT THE BEGINNING!!!!

By: AmaniS

AmaniS — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:31:10 +0000

If a woman is not informed enough to know a fetus or embryo is not a human being(or have enough where with all to find the different option), then she doesn’t need a PP. Suicide? Depression, yes. Lots of things cause depression. Maybe we should have parents sign a statement that putting your child in a government school may cause depression and suicide?

By: Meg

Meg — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:20:03 +0000

You are 100% correct. Thanks for staying on this VERY important issue.

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:39:36 +0000

La Shawn–
I hope DFR didn’t mean that, but I’ve heard some people say that, so–!

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:45:20 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, D wright!

Thanks for responding to DFR, Trish. I can’t believe he/she meant to imply a fetus wasn’t human, but you never know!