The New York Post reports that a baby boy was born in Chile had a fetus growing in his stomach.
According to the article:
It had limbs and a partially developed spinal cord but no head and stood no chance of survival, doctors said.
After the birth, doctors operated and removed the fetus from the boy's stomach.
A while back, I'd been having a discussion with Ian (from Ianism) regarding the assertion that no abortions are ever medically necessary.
This second fetus had to be removed from the boy's stomach. Note that there was no abortion, per se. Abortion is illegal in Chile.
Why isn't the removal of a fetus an abortion? Because there is no direct attack on the baby. We don't know all the details of the operation. Suffice it to say, that it wasn't an attempt to kill the second baby. The difference between an abortion and other operations where a fetus may die is that the goal of an abortion is a dead fetus.
