World’s First Of It’s Kind Surgery Saves Miami Girl’s(*)Life

By their logic, someone couldn't have heart surgery because the heart isn't a person. Its just a bunch of cells. Same with your lungs and liver, etc. Not people, so no surgery.

Its obvious where they are going with this, and its not working.

 

The pro-abortion argument continues to crumble.

 

No it doesn't. You lifers have said that the operation shouldn't have been performed because it was a non person. So I assume you have your pets put to sleep rather than operate on them, given they are non people and all. You must also be opposed to any kind of surgery on a person, because the organ being operated on is not a person. Who is pro death now?

Your logic fails dismally.

 

"Doctors had told Tammy to consider abortion because there was a very slim chance that her daughter would survive birth, and if she did she would need an immediate tracheotomy to breathe and to endure many more future surgeries." http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_m25_2/tumor-gonzalez-baby.html

No one "told her to abort," the choice was hers.

Isn't choice wonderful?

 

Come on Joe….This is all about abortion, and all about the science of the unborn in the womb. This story screams….protecting the unborn. And this story bucks all the stupid comments made by pro-choicers…one being its just a clump of cells.

 

And you don't and are not here to make jabs against pro-lifers? Come on Makedde.

This story flies in your face….personhood and viability. Your back is clearly against the wall on this one.

You started a thread titled….They Hypocrisy of the Pro-life Movement………which was clearly a way to jab at pro-lifers.

End of Story.

 

No, it's all about people. It only "screams" anything else if the petty politics of the pro-choice/pro-life "debate" is more important to you than people. The story can certainly be twisted to fit all sorts of predetermied political positions but that isn't what it is actually about.

 

Good lord. No lifer has said near this, so quit twisting words "moderator". We are not talking about pets here, you and another pro-choice person brought that shtick up, which we have already shut down.

You guys keep talking about pets in a thread that isn't even about pets...lol! Who is using logical fallacy again?

 

Wow Joe…not pro-life? Does not really sound like it quite honestly. This is a story that is about a lot of things….one being the personhood of the unborn child and that it is not just a clump of cells. Why is it so hard that you at least if your pro-life acknowledge this? People are important to me…especially the life in the womb. This is Joe and abortion thread….this is in the ABORTION CATEGORY. Now if this is just an ordinary story then it should be somewhere else. God forbid Joe that it would be for the pro-life side…that just for some reason upsets you terribly.

 

What pro-lifer said this child should not have been operated on? If someone did it probably was a jab at your position which would say the child should not have been operated on since it isn't really a person. This story must really upset you.

 

This thread is a story about a fetus who was operated on in the womb, and whom the OP believes choicers don't care about, which is complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The claim that the mother was told to abort is also a lie - it was suggested, that is all.

Pro choicers are for CHOICE, meaning the CHOICE to have the fetus operated on. It is not our fault lifers choose to ignore this.

 

Which pro choicer has said the fetus shouldn't have been operated on?

 

No, we understand that personhood is not a requirement for surgery.

 

actually, the story is about a BABY which was operated on within the womb. You cannot bring yourself to say the word BABY because it then conveys that you do support murder, which we already know

 

right, Drs who operate on humans require they are "persons"

they tend not to operate on bags of goo, a bunch of cells, a parasite, a foetus, a zygote, an inconvenience

 

I will admit that it is a baby once you admit that an apple seed is an apple tree.

Like it or not, there are differences between the born and unborn.

 

This story and this thread are about a surgery performed on a fetus.

 

No, it's still only a story about people. You can use it as a tool to make petty political arguments if you're that way inclined but that doesn't change what it is actually about.

I've told you elsewhere I don't accept any of those labels. Their use is counter-productive and I don't want anything to do with them. Personally, I never suggested a foetus is "just a clump of cells" (any more than you and I are just a clump of cells too) so have no need to acknowledge anything. I'm not debating abortion here though, I've challenging the purpose of the thread.

Yes, I think it should. The tenuous link made to abortion in relation to it is doing absolutely nothing to advance the rational debate on the real issues surrounding abortion.

 

then who signed the consent form? I've never heard of PARENTS of a FETUS, or bag of goo,or bunch o cells,or foetus or zygote or inconvenience or parasite. I've only heard of parents of CHILDREN and BABIES

 

Pro-choicers love this story because the woman in question here got to do something that every pro-choicer prefers would happen.

She got to choose. She had her options, and she chose one. It doesn't matter which one she chose to me, what matters is that she wasn't pigeonholed into one choice or the other by those who would seek to LIMIT her choices and make her decisions for her.

As a pro-choicer, I have absolutely no problem with this outcome, and I'm glad this woman gets to have a healthy child(because she CHOSE to keep it) whereas a few years ago that may not have been possible.

 

OR!

We simply recognize that calling something a "baby" does not mean anything since it's an indeterminate classification.

I call my wife baby...and she's 30.

 

I applaud your efforts, I really do. I am at least warmed in the heart to know that you like that the parasite was operated on

 

You're attaching your own meaning to the word parasite. If you consider what the term actually means, without attaching your own subjective feelings to it, you wouldn't be using it as an indirect put-down of me.

If I call a donkey an arse(you know the word that should be here instead), am I insulting the donkey or just using the term that refers to that donkey? Same with calling a female dog a beech(again, you know the real term). Am I insulting that dog by using that word, since that word can have negative connotations to it when used in a different context, or am I simply using the term that describes that dog?

 

You do the exact same thing when you try to label a fetus. You use the term out of context. The term fetus, simply defines a time frame, no different then "newborn", "toddler", "adolescent", or "adult". If you take the logic you use when usin the term "fetus" and apply it to any other stage in the life cycle, it makes no sense. So why do it at all? Why not jus be honest about it?

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

"The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week."

For the bulk of abortion discussions, the term fetus is correct, since a woman likely won't know she's pregnant before at least 1 month has passed, possibly more depending on the woman, so discussions of the fetus prior to that usually aren't happening. In any case, using the proper non-emotional terminology for something is hardly incorrect, especially in a debate that largely gets reduced down to emotional issues to begin with.