What make believe world the one that we live in, ya know the real world? That's been going on for over 30 years. SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 6— In a pioneering operation, a team of California surgeons has removed a 23-week-old fetus from his mother's womb, successfully operated to correct a blocked urinary tract and then returned the unborn baby to the uterus and sewed the womb backup.Oct 7, 1986 FETUS RETURNED TO WOMB FOLLOWING SURGERY ... The New York Times › science › fetus-re... Baby Partially Removed From Womb For Surgery, Then Put Back Author: Jack Fink October 21, 2016 7:49 PM LEWISVILLE (CBSDFW.COM) – A North Texas baby girl was born in June… for the second time.
It is outside of the woman's body and is not a part of the woman's body (the umbilical cord is irrelevant as it can be severed without harm to either). Now inside of the woman's body creates a Catch 22 situation. If the fetus is a part of the woman's body then she can do whatever she chooses with it including having it removed. If it's not a part of the woman's body then it has no right to be inside of the woman's body and she has the right to remove it from her body.
Not necessarily, the fetus might not be ready to breathe on its own yet. Or there could be some medical issue that prevents it from being able to breathe on its own.
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, there are no corners in your make believe world where doctors flip babies in and out of women for no reason.... When the fetus "comes out" , is born, it is a person....the pregnancy is over. .......what would your point be? You correctly quoted me saying ""there are no corners in your make believe world where doctors flip babies in and out of women for no reason...."" Your story says, ""Baby Partially Removed.....""" The baby wasn't born and there was a reason to PARTIALLY remove it
FoxHastings said: ↑ You are quite correct, Repubs have been conning Anti's into voting for them for over 45 years based on the "promise' that they'll do something about abortion....Anti-Choicers don't seem to realize they've been duped.""" And then you respond very oddly with: WTF has that got to do with "Repubs have been conning Anti's into voting for them for over 45 years based on the "promise' that they'll do something about abortion....Anti-Choicers don't seem to realize they've been duped.""" ????
It has everything to do with it, the right gave women the right to an abortion., How could anyone be duped into thinking Congress would over turn the Supreme Court?
Uh, you'd have to ask those who voted Republican because they thought Republican politicians could stop abortions...and RvW could be overturned... BTW, women ALWAYS had the right to abortion, RvW protects that right.
It has been common knowledge for over 30 years that baby's have been removed from the womb operated on and put back in, this upsets you for one you or the OP didn't know about it and two it shoots your argument down in this thread...I gave you two story's yet lke a typical lefty you want to spin it.
Lying again ? They didn't have that right prior 1973 untill the right gave them that right. So remind us again why don't you thank a republican? .
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, there are no corners in your make believe world where doctors flip babies in and out of women for no reason.... When the fetus "comes out" , is born, it is a person....the pregnancy is over. .......what would your point be? You correctly quoted me saying ""there are no corners in your make believe world where doctors flip babies in and out of women for no reason...."" Your story says, ""Baby Partially Removed.....""" The baby wasn't born and there was a reason to PARTIALLY remove it The second you pretend to know I'm "upset" I know you have no argument....shooting off into other's imagined emotions is a dead giveaway. No, the fetus was only PARTIALLY removed, the umbilical cord was intact.. What IS your point since you couldn't comprehend what I posted maybe you could restate A POINT.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Uh, you'd have to ask those who voted Republican because they thought Republican politicians could stop abortions...and RvW could be overturned... BTW, women ALWAYS had the right to abortion, RvW protects that right. Have you asked a Repub who voted Republican because they thought Republican politicians could stop abortions...and RvW could be overturned...???? WHY NOT? Are you AVOIDING that question? YES, since the beginning of time women have had as much right to their own bodies (abortion) as men.....and RvW agreed and protects that right. It's not some "blessing" that repubs bestowed on women....and it has been legal for most of the history of the world. YES, the court that ruled on RvW was conservative, a fact I point out to Repubs when they think conservatives will overturn RvW.... I don't "thank" Republicans because ever since RvW they've been trying to destroy women's right to an abortion.
Does it have to be inside and connected to a woman's body to be considered "part of the woman's body", or does just being connected suffice? If the fetus is reliant on her body but is not inside her body, does that constitute personhood? A question pro-choicers may not want to think about, because then it means being connected doesn't necessarily make the fetus part of the woman's body, and then basically the only argument that's left is that the fetus happens to be inside her body.
That was very interesting, Bear513. I had no idea babies can be taken out of the womb and put back in, and that this has already been done several times. Does beg the question whether such a developing baby inside the womb could be considered a person if it's already been born. Pro-choicers might have to modify their rhetoric and stop claiming a fetus gains irrevocable rights after it's been born.
...and that's enough.....But the fetus that is removed for surgery is still connected to the woman by the umbilical cord....that is why is CAN be put back. IF it's taken out of the woman and totally disconnected from the woman it cannot be put back ...unless she agrees to it and why would she? IF the fetus is removed from the woman and completely disconnected then it is BORN. ..and a PERSON who has the SAME RESTRICTIONS every person has, it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life.
And you think a mother is going to go through the agony and trauma of having the fetus partially removed, then reinserted and THEN decide to have an abortion? The only question that is begging for an answer here is WTF are you thinking?
I'm sure there's some hypothetical out there where it could be plausible. I'm assuming the woman's situation would have to drastically change for this to take place though. Maybe in-laws were offering to pay for the surgery, and then after that she found out her boyfriend had been cheating on her, with a younger woman who had AIDS, and then doctors informed her there was something medically wrong with her fetus, which wasn't really that bad but for her constituted the final straw in deciding she didn't want to continue with the pregnancy. Or maybe after she woke up from the surgery, doctors informed her that the baby was African American, and prior to that she'd been hoping beyond hope that the pregnancy wasn't from that one-night fling she had 6 months ago right after she and her husband had gotten into a big fight.
The issue isn't what if a woman did, it's that a woman could. And pro-choice logic would defend her choice. If there's something wrong with that, well, maybe that logic isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm just trying to demonstrate how absurd the "it's not a person" argument is, because we all know it's a person when it's outside the womb. The very idea that you could potentially put that person back in shows how silly this concept is. It doesn't actually have to happen for you to see that.
Welp, Ima play devils advocate here (emphasis on DEVIL)... The baby is akin to a viral tumor. Viruses alter human cells with their own DNA (iirc...) much like the sperm does to the egg. Tumors are part of a persons body... but they are not a beneficial part and most often must be removed. Im no fan of abortion. But OPs argument does not present any valuable precedent either way. The most important consideration is still individual choice and body autonomy. Saying a woman cant get an abortion sets the precedent that the baby is not hers, and could be used to reverse the dynamic, ie- forcing women to GET abortions or forcing women to give birth and relinquish the child to The State (both things that already happen in more authoritarian parts of the world). Abortion needs to be fought against on the voluntary (social and economic) end, not the legal one. Banning or restricting it is, imo, a trap.
Real life (law) says it's not a person with rights until it's born. Your asinine scenarios derived from some foggy nightmare have no relevance. If it is deemed a person from conception then the woman still has the right to kill it. Persons do not have the right to use another person's body to sustain their life. That has been explained to you several times and even if the foggy nightmare prevents YOU from understanding it, it STILL IS true.
What if the woman had gone to a fertility clinic and had the embryo implanted? Then would she have the right to claim she doesn't have to sustain that life? (They often plant two or three embryos in a woman just for good measure and then sometimes the woman will have one of them aborted if more of them took than she wanted, since oftentimes the embryos don't all take) Again, if the woman had the fetus put back in (after it had been temporarily taken out) do you think she should still have the right to abort it?
And what about when it was born, but now it is back inside the mother? Your assertion sounds reasonable, but when pulled apart and dissected it really isn't. You say it doesn't have rights until it's born. Clarify exactly what that means, being born. Does that mean the fetus has been born, or that it is now outside the woman? What properties exactly does it have to have exactly? (i.e. being connected, located inside the woman, etc.) You're actually being intentionally vague and ambiguous and there's no arguing with that. You need to state what it is exactly about being born that gives the woman these rights over it. Does connection alone give the woman rights? Or does the fetus also have to be physically inside her? This isn't about some asinine scenario. I'm asking what particular aspect of a pregnancy is the critical component in your argument. I'm trying to press you for details about the reasoning behind your position.
