Cocoa Lounge
[Login ]
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this page
Go To Bottom
Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favorites  
Author: Subject: If this ONE-year-old, 9 mos pregnant girl gets an abortion, is it murder?
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 1.15.2012 at 01:38 PM
If this ONE-year-old, 9 mos pregnant girl gets an abortion, is it murder?


A one-year-old child has been found pregnant in Saudi Arabia. But she's no Juno. Check out the shocking X-ray photos.

A team of doctors traced the biological processes to find out how a baby girl could be pregnant. It turns out that the mother of the pregnant baby originally had two embryos, but one began to develop in the uterus of the other fetus. In other words, the baby girl is carrying her unborn twin.

Doctors are in consultations about the abortion to save the one-year-old.

About 51 similar incidents have been recorded in medical history, although the incidence rate is not high. The abnormality occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births.

In June, 1999, the case of Sanju Bhagat from India attracted attention. He had unknowingly carried his parasitic "twin" inside his body for 36 years. Doctors were certain that the man had a gigantic tumor in his belly. However, they found fragments of human genitalia, hairs, limbs and jaws in the patient and finally removed a underdeveloped fetus that had legs and arms with long fingernails.

In 2002, Indian doctors found a six-month-old boy to have a fetus inside. The dead fetus, which surgeons removed from the boy, weighed one kilo, whereas the boy himself weighed 6.5 kilos.

One of the world's most bizarre medical conditions is known as fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene.

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor.



Read more: http://www.momlogic.com/2008/12/one-year-old_girl_is_pregnant.php#ixzz1jYMmWT49




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Diamond
Super Moderator
*******


Avatar


Posts: 8269

Registered: 3.18.2004

Location: Dirty Souf

Member Is Offline


Mood: Flawless Black Beauty

[*] posted on 1.26.2012 at 08:00 PM


If the fetal material inside that poor baby is not Viable..or sustainable for life...and is pretty much deformed pieces of fragmented body parts inside..esp if no heartbeat, head, etc....basicaly no chance to live.....then I can't call this abortion....

They can call it a D & C and call it a day...practically the same type procedure anyway, technically....they don't have to stigmatize this baby with the controversial term of "abortion"

I wouldn't consider this anomaly an abortion...




Winners Never Quit...Quitters Never Win...
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 1.27.2012 at 10:17 PM


A D & C? Isn't that one of the procedures used on women to abort fetuses?



View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
babybear
Platinum Member
*****




Posts: 2653

Registered: 11.20.2005

Member Is Offline


Mood: Beautiful

[*] posted on 1.29.2012 at 12:32 PM


This isn't that bizzare. There was a case about a seven-year-old boy carrying his unborn twin also a while back.

Now Is it murder to abort this twin? No because this is not the case of a fully-developed female wanting to get rid of a baby as a quick-fix for dealing wih an unwanted pregnancy. This medicale anomaly involves litterally a BABY carrying an embryo. There is no way that this embryo will develope all the physical attributes of a fully-functioning baby so in my opinion it doesn't constitute abortion. The doctors aren't helping to destroy a life, they will be performing surgery on this one year old to eliminate embyonic tissue that could cause medical trauma to the patient in question. It's not abortion... it's a medical proceedure that is necessary for this one-year-old to grow up happy and healthy.




I'm Just Me :coffee:
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 2.7.2012 at 07:43 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by babybear
This isn't that bizzare. There was a case about a seven-year-old boy carrying his unborn twin also a while back.

Now Is it murder to abort this twin? No because this is not the case of a fully-developed female wanting to get rid of a baby as a quick-fix for dealing wih an unwanted pregnancy.



Sorry, but abortion is abortion. A women who wants to be rid of an unwanted fetus will get a D & C. This child will get a D & C. Same procedure. Same result.




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
deep_thinker
Lifetime Member
*******




Posts: 8817

Registered: 3.29.2005

Member Is Offline


Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 2.8.2012 at 02:58 PM


It may be the same procedure scientifically, but the questions of ethics and morality are not the same.
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 2.8.2012 at 03:05 PM


There was no question of ethics OR morality mentioned in the post. Just.... is it an abortion? And yes, the infant's twin, an unwanted fetus growing inside it, will be aborted.... using the traditional abortion procedure of D & C.


P.S.
And just as MY sense of ethics and morality are irrlevant to ANY woman's decision to abort - it is between her, her doctor and her God - neither does it have anything to do with the infant's parents' decision to abort..... or, as some would put it, murder the unborn twin.




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Salehdin
Supreme Member
******


Avatar


Posts: 3759

Registered: 8.5.2005

Location: Right Here

Member Is Offline


Mood: Compassionate

[*] posted on 2.8.2012 at 04:08 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by deep_thinker
It may be the same procedure scientifically, but the questions of ethics and morality are not the same.


I agree, good point.

According to the notion being propagated in the thread, removing a still born fetus is also abortion.. The child carrying the fetus in the OP was born meaning the gestation had run its course. If the fetus inside of the child was still a fetus from the original pregnancy after a full term gestation, then it was not a live fetus and was at best stillborn and more likely had never developed.

Aborting a potential life is not the same as removing a stillborn or dead fetus.




Truth, Compassion, Forbearance
http://www.falundafa.org

“...if every one of us examines his own character for causes, if when we don’t do well we look inside ourselves for the cause, and we try to do better next time, and if we think about other people first any time we do something, then the world will change for the better, morals will go back up, people’s civility will improve, and crime will go down. Maybe we won’t even need policemen. There will be no need for things like neighborhood watch, and everyone will watch over himself, and they’ll look inside their own minds to fix things. Wouldn’t you say that’d be great?”
- Mr. Li Hongzhi (in Zhuan Falun)
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 2.9.2012 at 01:07 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Salehdin
Quote:
Originally posted by deep_thinker
It may be the same procedure scientifically, but the questions of ethics and morality are not the same.


I agree, good point.

According to the notion being propagated in the thread, removing a still born fetus is also abortion.. The child carrying the fetus in the OP was born meaning the gestation had run its course. If the fetus inside of the child was still a fetus from the original pregnancy after a full term gestation, then it was not a live fetus and was at best stillborn and more likely had never developed.

Aborting a potential life is not the same as removing a stillborn or dead fetus.


Where in the article does it say the fetus was dead, or would be stillborn? The article clearly states:

Quote:


A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor.



While I understand the "desire" to talk about ethics and morality, it is not applicable here. But, going along with that thought.....

Some CLers consider ALL abortions to be murder. If a woman who aborts an unwanted fetus is a murderer, then the parents of this child who is carrying her twin, an unwanted fetus, are murderers (the infant can't "consent"). Abortion is abortion. Be the female 1 year or 41 years, be the fetus a product of RAPE, consent OR a fetus in fetu is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they all are receiving the SAME procedure (D & C) for the SAME reason - to rid their bodies of an unwanted fetus. Thus, if you are one of those who equate abortion with murder, YOUR "ethics and morality" damn a 1 year old and the parents who would save her life. JMO




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Salehdin
Supreme Member
******


Avatar


Posts: 3759

Registered: 8.5.2005

Location: Right Here

Member Is Offline


Mood: Compassionate

[*] posted on 2.9.2012 at 06:04 PM


I tend to view things in a broad sense, meaning I certainly see abortion as a moral issue and the means by which abortions are done as an ethical issue for those medical professionals who perform them. The thread as I see it takes the very rare incidence (51 incidents in recorded history) of a fetus splitting into the body of another fetus and uses this as a case study to justify some abortions. If we can call "component tissues have not yet died" alive although in the same sentence the OP does not refer to this as a human life but "the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor" then we are discussing the definition of what life is. This is the crux of the debate of whether a fetus is a life or not. I say a fetus that can develop and be born into a human life is a life at the earliest stage. Just like if a child that has already been born is killed and never became an adult we cannot turn around and say he was never a person, the only reason he never became an adult is because he was killed, same thing with a fetus. Viewing things from a broad perspective I can see how abortions resulting from incest and rape can be justified by people I can also see that abortions resulting from reckless behavior in a effort to escape responsibility for ones actions would be considered immoral. The majority of rapes result from the second category, therefore the morality and ethics of the matter will be shaped by the most common incidence. Specific cases like the OP should rightfully be judged accordingly, if we are to say that the described fetus is a life then in this instance one can see how the abortion would be justified. Having consensual sex and then aborting the resulting fetus is different and we should not compare the two and mislead the young.



Truth, Compassion, Forbearance
http://www.falundafa.org

“...if every one of us examines his own character for causes, if when we don’t do well we look inside ourselves for the cause, and we try to do better next time, and if we think about other people first any time we do something, then the world will change for the better, morals will go back up, people’s civility will improve, and crime will go down. Maybe we won’t even need policemen. There will be no need for things like neighborhood watch, and everyone will watch over himself, and they’ll look inside their own minds to fix things. Wouldn’t you say that’d be great?”
- Mr. Li Hongzhi (in Zhuan Falun)
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 2.9.2012 at 07:44 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Salehdin
I tend to view things in a broad sense, meaning I certainly see abortion as a moral issue and the means by which abortions are done as an ethical issue for those medical professionals who perform them.




Then you DON'T "view things in a broad sense" if you make judgements on the ethics and morality of OTHER people. Not that I'm faulting you as yours is my position, as well. Our position is not, however, the position of 1/4th of the world's population. For the Chinese, it is neither a moral nor ethical issue on the personal level. It is state policy.

Quote:

The thread as I see it takes the very rare incidence (51 incidents in recorded history) of a fetus splitting into the body of another fetus and uses this as a case study to justify some abortions.



Where in this thread is that done? I know I only said that abortion is abortion. There is no qualifying, via morality, that the same procedure done on an infant as is done on a woman is NOT "technically" but in actuality, called the exact same thing. Others stuck the 'morality' label on the act, not I.

Oh, and to be clear - neither I nor anyone else "justified" ANY form of abortion. Me? I just called a spade a spade.

Quote:


If we can call "component tissues have not yet died" alive although in the same sentence the OP does not refer to this as a human life but "the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor" then we are discussing the definition of what life is.



I disagree. It says to me what should be obvious to anyone - anything that grows, i.e, fetuses OR tumors, is alive. I defy you or anyone else to point out something that actually "grows"..... and is dead.

Quote:


This is the crux of the debate of whether a fetus is a life or not.




But it is irrelevant to the Op and to ANY post in this thread. You are just now bringing this particular "debate" up.

Quote:


I say a fetus that can develop and be born into a human life is a life at the earliest stage.



Exactly. Or as the OP puts is: "component tissues." In other words, a blastoma of cells (not even 'tissue', cells!) is life at the earliest stages. What I disagree with is your saying "can" instead of "having the potential" to be born.

Quote:


Just like if a child that has already been born is killed and never became an adult we cannot turn around and say he was never a person, the only reason he never became an adult is because he was killed, same thing with a fetus.



I have never heard ANYONE say a child who dies was never a person, so I think your analogy is flawed.

Quote:


Viewing things from a broad perspective I can see how abortions resulting from incest and rape can be justified by people I can also see that abortions resulting from reckless behavior in a effort to escape responsibility for ones actions would be considered immoral.



Again, there is NOTHING "broad" about your outlook. It is very narrow. It is the almost the exact same position right-wingers use to justify taking control of a woman's body and pronouncing "rape" an acceptable abortion and "reckless behavior" is not.


Quote:


The majority of rapes result from the second category,



What "second" category? What are the 'categories'? Again, you are interjecting something into the discussion that was never there.


Quote:


therefore the morality and ethics of the matter will be shaped by the most common incidence. Specific cases like the OP should rightfully be judged accordingly, if we are to say that the described fetus is a life then in this instance one can see how the abortion would be justified. Having consensual sex and then aborting the resulting fetus is different and we should not compare the two and mislead the young.


The CL is a site for adults. There are only adults with differing POVs here, no young to mislead.

But I will say this - again! Abortion is abortion. Murder is murder. Age at either occurrence is irrelevant. It is the ACT, not the age, that is relevant. People need to stop interjecting their own morality on other people's situations and BODIES, and try "reality" by calling a spade a spade.

As for this fetus in fetu case? In the legal profession, it is said that bad cases make for good law (something like that!). Same thing with the infant. Just as Larry Flynt's Hustler was deemed protected as Free Speech by the First Amendment by the Supreme Court no matter how disgusting, the infant makes the same case for abortion for both rape and so-called reckless behaving females. If one can "justify" giving the infant a D & C and it not be 'murder', then all cases of D & C are justifiable and cannot be considered 'murder'.


P.S.
And no, I have never had an abortion. I had 2 pregnancies; both are now walking this earth on 2 feet and popping out babies of their own.




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Salehdin
Supreme Member
******


Avatar


Posts: 3759

Registered: 8.5.2005

Location: Right Here

Member Is Offline


Mood: Compassionate

[*] posted on 2.10.2012 at 10:19 AM


Ok, murder is murder. A person murders someone to defend themselves. This is murder but all rational people know that this is not the same as murdering someone just because you dont want that person around. Aborting to save the mothers life or for other such reasons is not the same as aborting to dodge responsibility for ones actions. With rights come responsibility. The mother has a right to do what she wants with her body but has a responsibility to protect her child. So seeing things broadly as I understand things is not justifying immoral acts because some other acts may be necessary for survival, it means being able to judge on a case by case basis but keeping morality as the basis for all decisions that concern human life.



Truth, Compassion, Forbearance
http://www.falundafa.org

“...if every one of us examines his own character for causes, if when we don’t do well we look inside ourselves for the cause, and we try to do better next time, and if we think about other people first any time we do something, then the world will change for the better, morals will go back up, people’s civility will improve, and crime will go down. Maybe we won’t even need policemen. There will be no need for things like neighborhood watch, and everyone will watch over himself, and they’ll look inside their own minds to fix things. Wouldn’t you say that’d be great?”
- Mr. Li Hongzhi (in Zhuan Falun)
View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Tea_Honey
Cocoa Lounge Royalty
********


Avatar


Posts: 25125

Registered: 8.18.2006

Member Is Offline


Mood: One Happy Camper

[*] posted on 2.10.2012 at 10:19 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Salehdin
Ok, murder is murder. A person murders someone to defend themselves. This is murder but all rational people know that this is not the same as murdering someone just because you dont want that person around. Aborting to save the mothers life or for other such reasons is not the same as aborting to dodge responsibility for ones actions. With rights come responsibility. The mother has a right to do what she wants with her body but has a responsibility to protect her child. So seeing things broadly as I understand things is not justifying immoral acts because some other acts may be necessary for survival, it means being able to judge on a case by case basis but keeping morality as the basis for all decisions that concern human life.


I understand that you think you "see things broadly." I, however, disagree. From your words, you appear to see things very narrowly. For instance, you evidently consider abortion to be murder. That is is not a "broad" POV. That is a very narrow, specific point of view, a fundamentally judgemental POV.

I do not consider abortion to be murder. I hesitate to give the POV of a professor I once knew (which everyone who hears it goes :wtf: at its extremeness), but in the interest of exploring all POVs (well, just 3 once I give his), this is it: The article likens the fetus in feti to a tumor. The professor likened a fetus to a parasite, arguing that a fetus fits the fundamental definition of parasite, i.e., it feeds off the host body, that without the host body to which it contributes nothing, it dies. So, see what I mean by your "abortion is murder" is a most narrow POV?

As for that "responsibility" argument, well, it has no place here. Or, rather, only in your "narrow" POV does it have a place. I, for one, am of the opinion that neither you, I, nor the professor are God, that no one appointed any ONE man or woman judge of what is right, wrong, or even responsible for every pregnant woman on the face of this earth. Nor for what is "moral" for pregnant women that we do not know, and have no intention of taking financial responsibiliity for her health or the child's needs once it is born, as well.




View user's profile View All Posts By User U2U Member


  Go To Top


Powered by XMB 1.9.8 Engage Final SP2
Developed By The XMB Group © 2001-2008
Black Female Celebrities
Modifications installed by XMB Garage © 2004-2008
[Queries: 19] [PHP: 97.8% - SQL: 2.2%]