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

Your premise is beyond laughable, bordering on worrisome.

My mother made a CHOICE. That is all I want each mother to have the ability to make. It has nothing to do with wanting abortions to happen. This is an attack used constantly by pro-lifers, and it's just plain stupid. Since I know the huge spectrum of human personality that exists, I have no doubt there are a handful of individuals who DO want more abortions, but in my experience, and on this particular forum(perhaps barring the racist scum that inhabit some of the sub-forums) I don't really see people arguing for more abortions. I see people arguing for CHOICE. CHOICE.

CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE.

This is a word that you're going to have to understand if you want to tread any water in this debate because the constant misrepresentation of the pro-choice position, the fabrication of "motives and desires" for pro-choicers, and the sensationalist over-the-top way in which you argue with those two things gets you nowhere. Churchmouse may click the "Like" button on your post, but that's about it.

Is the only way to argue against abortion to use faulty premises, fabrications, and sensationalism? To me, it sounds like you're standing on pretty shaky ground if it is.

 

If you were pro-choice as you claim then you would offer a choice to the baby whether he/she wishes to be killed

 

IF I had said that to a pregnant woman, I would have been no more incorrect than you if you had said baby. The words that people use to describe something are not in any way required to be tied to what that thing actually is. That's the way language works. I call my wife honey...but she's not really a golden sticky sweet substance. I call her baby....but she's 30. I call my daughter "chicken" but I assure you, she is not poultry. We refer to ships and cars as "her" even though an inanimate object has no gender. Iceland is green and Greenland is icy.

You're getting hung up on a word and you seem to be hinging your case on it.

Bad idea my friend, bad idea.

 

Who's to say I haven't tried and then given up for lack of a response....

In all seriousness though, how do you give a choice to something that is fundamentally unable to make one? Are we supposed to let the baby be born, grow up to be a teenager(an arbitrary age I have chosen because I'm assuming a teenager would be able to comprehend what an abortion is), and THEN ask them if they want to be aborted?

That sounds pretty dumb.

A fetus does not get a choice because a fetus does not even have the brain function to be self-aware let alone make a choice. Do we give trees choices? Yes, I am comparing a baby to a tree, because when it comes to conscious decision making ability, they are equal.

We give the choice to the mother because for all intents and purposes, the fetus is a part of it's mother, not an independent entity hitching a ride in her womb. It's her body, and her future that are going to be affected by that pregnancy, and it's asinine to think she shouldn't have a say in it. It's insulting and pathetic.

 

then wait until the child fully understands the choice you are offering. If the child agrees, then abort right then and there

 

Whatchu smokin bro?

 

I would not care if I was aborted in the same way that I would not care if I was "contracepted". In fact, there was no "I" until at least third trimester. So whats the big deal? Even according to golden rule, abortion is OK in my opinion.

 

So let me get this straight. No "I" until the third trimester. Wow. Ok.

So do you give the unborn personhood in the third trimester? And when in the third trimester….1/4 of the way through….1/2 the way. What is the criteria? I would also like to ask that what happens to the rights of the woman? How can you tell her what to do with her body? You are enslaving her. How can you do this based on your own morality?

 

the newborn can't supports its own head…can't feed itself…changed its diapers…..can't make decisions. Should a mother be able to kill her newborn child? The fetus is using her body as a place to grow. The fetus is a different person…it has its own organs, circulatory system etc. Did the fetus ask to be there? What was the cause of pregnancy? Who took the risk? Who knew they might become pregnant and had sex anyway?

 

Bottom line. You are pro-abortion and that means you oppose protection for unborn children. Whether or not you personally would get one…does not matter. You believe people should be able to kill their children if they wish. That is the truth right? DO YOU OPPOSE PROTECTION FOR THE UNBORN. Put the truth in writing here. yes or no. If you say yes….then that means you want abortion to be legal. That is not being sensational….We are not saying anything about you that is not fact. YOU WANT ABORTION LEGAL SO THAT MOTHERS CAN KILL. Do you want abortion legal?

What am I saying that is not the truth? SEt the record straight honey….go for it.

 

What is ironic about your view here,…is that you said at this gestational age it isn't a person. So if its not a person……why make extra measures to protect or fix it? I mean the parents were nuts to try to do this right? Wouldn't this child have been better off dead by your twisted standards? Why operate on a clump of cells? Why not abort….and try to conceive a perfect looking child….cause its all about being perfect to you on the LEFT.

 

Even newborns have a thought process and self-awareness, even if we don't understand exactly what a newborn may be "thinking". Physical mobility is not important, it is entirely the mental state that makes a person a person. If you somehow managed to dissect a person's head from it's body and keep it alive, that head would be a person. However, if you cut off the head, and kept the body alive, that body would not be. The ONLY thing that separates a human from a lesser creature is our brain and all that it empowers us with. It is the source of everything that makes a person a person including the intellect, personality, memory, senses, and the ability to be self-aware. Without those things, you are not a person. Since a fetus lacks those things, it is not a person.

And no, a mother should not be allowed to kill her newborn child. We're talking about abortion, which can only occur with a pregnancy. Once the child is born, the entire game has changed. That question has been posed by you countless times, and answered by us countless times. Why on Earth do you keep asking it? Might I suggest some vitamins to help with memory retention?

To answer the rest of your question, though I'm not exactly sure why you've posed them:

No, the fetus did not ask to be there and that's because a fetus cannot ask.

A sperm combining with an egg is what caused the pregnancy.

The mother and the father.

The mother and the father(though in this case, the use of contraception can provide a sense of confidence and belief that a pregnancy will not occur).

 

I support a mother's ability to choose what is happening to her body at all times. In some cases, that mother will choose abortion and I fully support her right to do so. Of course I want abortion to be legal. I've only said as much hundreds of times in the four months I've been on this forum.

What you're very likely going to extrapolate from that is that I want mother's to have abortions. I don't. I would love if no mother ever chose abortion, largely because it would shut the mouths of obnoxious pro-lifers and my blood pressure might improve. However, I would never ever support that choice being made for them by you or anyone.

And I have to nip this little sensationalist drivel in the butt. I don't support a woman's ability to murder her children, I support abortion rights.

 

Does it have to be a person in order to have surgery performed on it? I wasn't aware of that requirement for surgery....I guess I better knock off the occasional Taco Bell I eat since they won't be able to operate on my cardiovascular system since my cardiovascular system is not a person.

Since I'm not really sure on what impact that tumor would have had specifically, I can't really say whether I believe she would have been better off having an abortion, in my opinion. It's a moot issue now anyway, since they were able to remove it and this woman will get to give birth to a healthy baby.

If she had wanted to abort, I would have supported her ability to choose to do so. It's not my place to offer anything other than my own subjective opinion on whether or not a person should have an abortion or not. It's not yours either.

 

What is the point of spending probably a million dollars on experimental surgery on something that is not yet viable. Its all about viability, and personhood to you guys…and the fact that the unborn at this gestational age….IS NOT VIABLE.

 

Because the mother wanted it done, and someone else was willing to do it, and had the means of doing it. You'd have to ask those people why they did it if you're looking for a reason.

Her pregnancy would have very likely ended with a person being born. Since she decided not to have an abortion, and instead wanted to save her fetus, why WOULDN'T someone do it since the means obviously existed, even if experimental, to accomplish it?

It's not all about personhood and viability, it's about choice. This mother chose to have doctors operate on her. That's fine with me, I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be. If she had chose to have an abortion instead, I would have been fine with that as well. If she had chosen to have the baby without the surgery(assuming it would even live), I would have thought that to be mighty cruel, but it still would have been fine with me because it was HER choice! The mother got to choose here.

Am I supposed to be upset she didn't choose abortion? That's flat out ridiculous if that's what you're getting at.

 

That doesn't change the fact that both mother and unborn child are living human beings, neither is disposable and each has an equal right to life.

 

That isn't a fact, it's your opinion.

 

My opinion is also factually correct.

 

By what authority?

 

Nearly 30 years in medicine as a physician assistant certified in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine.

 

Wow….Stick around Jason

 

Carl Sagan and world renowned embryologist Lewis Wolpert have stated a different opinion. It has never been established when, or at what point, one becomes a human being. There is no consensus on the subject, and your statement was purely your opinion, not fact.

 

Well I guess that makes you pro-life then, huh?

 

So that qualifies you to decide that a fetus has a right to life? I'm simply not seeing how your profession correlates with your claim that your specific views on this are factually correct, as you put it to Cady. I think all they are, factually, are your own subjective views on this issue.