Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks.

[Angela Harlem]

I personally don't know the stats, but I'm sure there are still many who do at that point in the pregnancy and even later. Don't you?

 

[Angela Harlem]

i was born at 24 weeks gestation. i spent one month in an incubator after my mom gave birth. she fought like hell to keep me alive. im grateful to her for that. i believe all babies should have a right to live.

That's truly amazing, Icelle. Your mum and yourself must have beaten some odds back then!

 

[AEON]

I also don't refer to it as a baby under about 22 weeks, as it isn't at an age where it can survive outside its mothers womb and therefore not a human being yet in my opinion.

So, at 21 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds - the baby is not yet a human being?

Would you consider that an abortion after 22 weeks is murder? It seems like you should if you consider a baby that is 22 weeks old a human being.

And like INDY said, if technology allows the baby to live outside the womb at 20 weeks, or 19...then would you consider that baby a human being?

It seems there is only one way to be certain the abortion is the murder of a child - don't have one.

 

[anitram]

...and in the not too distant future it will be 21 weeks, and then 20, and then...

Then we won't have pregnant women anymore because if you think it will go down to the first trimester, our technology will essentially mean we can grow babies entirely in vitro.

So this discussion will no longer be relevant.

 

[pgv]

So, at 21 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds - the baby is not yet a human being?

Would you consider that an abortion after 22 weeks is murder? It seems like you should if you consider a baby that is 22 weeks old a human being.

And like INDY said, if technology allows the baby to live outside the womb at 20 weeks, or 19...then would you consider that baby a human being?

It seems there is only one way to be certain the abortion is the murder of a child - don't have one.

No I don't consider it murder at all - I didn't say that. I just think that calling a half formed foetus 'a baby' enables people to talk of abortion as if it is murder.

And I also said 'about 22 weeks' - not having enough knowledge on the growth of a foetus I personally cannot make a judgement as to when the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb without the aid of machines and doctors. But it is then, when it can survive, that I consider it a baby.


Icelle, thats an amazing story.

 

[Angela Harlem]

To everyone who is so focused on the murderous pregnant women, may I remind you all of the erect and ready male who was complicit in the act of making this baby? He is a murderer, too. Not an acccessory.

 

[pgv]

Then we won't have pregnant women anymore because if you think it will go down to the first trimester, our technology will essentially mean we can grow babies entirely in vitro.

I wish I had read that post before I replied to Aeon.

 

[AEON]

No I don't consider it murder at all - I didn't say that. I just think that calling a half formed foetus 'a baby' enables people to talk of abortion as if it is murder.

And I also said 'about 22 weeks' - not having enough knowledge on the growth of a foetus I personally cannot make a judgement as to when the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb without the aid of machines and doctors. But it is then, when it can survive, that I consider it a baby.


Icelle, thats an amazing story.

Just so I'm clear, you are stating that a "foetus" becomes a baby, a human being, about 22 weeks - but you don't consider this murder. Why not? Can the mother of the baby in the article still smother her with a pillow and claim "right to privacy"?

 

[U2Girl1978]

I believe abortion is only necessary if the baby cannot be saved or if the mom was raped(that's for another discussion altogether). Why put yourself through the whole nine months of pregnancy when you know that your baby has no chance of survival after birth? That's completely devastating to the parents. If I knew my baby could not be saved after birth, I would terminate it.

You know, I work in a wonderful clinic at a hospital where the pregnant moms come in because their baby has a life threatening illness and the doctors see if the baby can be saved after birth. Have any of you heard of trisomy 18 or congenital diaphramatic hernia? Please look it up. Think of how the parents feel when they hear that their baby has this.

I feel like I went off on a tangent. Sorry.

 

[Liesje]

Why put yourself through the whole nine months of pregnancy when you know that your baby has no chance of survival after birth? That's completely devastating to the parents. If I knew my baby could not be saved after birth, I would terminate it.

I agree, but I also think it depends on the mother. My mom's friend w/ the anacephalic baby carried full term and felt more closure being able to take the baby home, name her, hold her, and have their own baby to themselves for that short time. For some it's more difficult this way, but for others they can't ever find closure without being able to think of the baby as a baby (as opposed to a defective fetus).

Whatever the parents decide, I think it's totally up to them. They should not be judged or labeled murderers because someone else has a different opinion about something so private and personal.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Whatever the parents decide, I think it's totally up to them. They should not be judged or labeled murderers because someone else has a different opinion about something so private and personal.

I totally agree.
They are already going through hell, and this decision to make isn't easy. They don't need some moralists that think only their opinion is the only right one to judge them.

And one should think about it if it is really a life for a human being to be lived.
People say they don't want their worst enemy going through this or being like that, so why do they want some children has this fate?

 

[STING2]

The point I'm trying to make is it is mainly down to luck that this baby survived at 22 weeks, and there haven't been any other cases of such a thing happening.
Yes I think its open to debate.. I just think alot of people are going to take this story as an example why abortion should not be allowed, when really its such a rare event.

Its a rare event now, I suspect it will become less so, especially with increases in medical technology.

 

[STING2]

No I don't consider it murder at all - I didn't say that. I just think that calling a half formed foetus 'a baby' enables people to talk of abortion as if it is murder.

And I also said 'about 22 weeks' - not having enough knowledge on the growth of a foetus I personally cannot make a judgement as to when the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb without the aid of machines and doctors. But it is then, when it can survive, that I consider it a baby.


Icelle, thats an amazing story.

Well, do you consider it murder when a man stabs a pregnant women and kills the unborn baby/fetus?

What about people who need the aid of machines and doctors in order to survive, are they not human?

 

[maycocksean]

Has anyone here not yet read the now-closed thread on abortion from last week?

Because if not, I suggest you carve out an hour or so of your schedule, sit back with a cuppa joe and a notebook handy and read through that thread.

Then if you have anything new to add to the discussion, do so.

I for one don't have the energy to unpack all over again the points about the complicated nature of the abortion issue, complications that are routinely ignored by both sides of the issue and in this thread seem to be particularly being ignored by our "right-to-life" folks.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I'm waiting for the next medical miracle when men can have babies. Then won't the abortion debate be really interesting?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Has anyone here not yet read the now-closed thread on abortion from last week?

Because if not, I suggest you carve out an hour or so of your schedule, sit back with a cuppa joe and a notebook handy and read through that thread.

Then if you have anything new to add to the discussion, do so.

I for one don't have the energy to unpack all over again the points about the complicated nature of the abortion issue, complications that are routinely ignored by both sides of the issue and in this thread seem to be particularly being ignored by our "right-to-life" folks.

Precisely what I was about to suggest.

http://forum.interference.com/t172884.html

 

[AEON]

Has anyone here not yet read the now-closed thread on abortion from last week?

Because if not, I suggest you carve out an hour or so of your schedule, sit back with a cuppa joe and a notebook handy and read through that thread.

Then if you have anything new to add to the discussion, do so.

I for one don't have the energy to unpack all over again the points about the complicated nature of the abortion issue, complications that are routinely ignored by both sides of the issue and in this thread seem to be particularly being ignored by our "right-to-life" folks.

The difference between this thread and the other is that this thread is based on the actual birth of a 22 week old baby. What rights did she have a few minutes before birth? Does she have rights now even though she requires an icubator to survive? Does she have rights from now until she is 9 months old?

 

[Liesje]

The difference between this thread and the other is that this thread is based on the actual birth of a 22 week old baby. What rights did she have a few minutes before birth? Does she have rights now even though she requires an icubator to survive? Does she have rights from now until she is 9 months old?

I think these are good questions. I'm pretty much over the whole "moral"/religious aspect of abortion, but I don't think this aspect of the issue was really addresses in the other thread.

 

[AEON]

I think these are good questions. I'm pretty much over the whole "moral"/religious aspect of abortion, but I don't think this aspect of the issue was really addresses in the other thread.

Will someone from the Pro-Choice POV please answer these questions:

Does this particular baby girl have any rights now that she is born, even though she needs an incubator?

Did this particular child have rights a few minutes before she was born?

 

[Greenlight]

Will someone from the Pro-Choice POV please answer these questions:

Does this particular baby girl have any rights now that she is born, even though she needs an incubator?

Did this particular child have rights a few minutes before she was born?

Well that line is very blurred. Many doctors believe that very premature babies should not have the automatic right to live.
There was a recommendation made here last year that babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, hence death would almost certainly be inevitable. Those born from 23 weeks should have their situation reviewed on an individual basis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6149464.stm
I'm not sure if this has been introduced as standard pratice yet. Obviously it is a very emotive subject and any parent with a premature baby would want doctors to make every effort to save their child but it doesn't always seem viable.

 

[dazzlingamy]

i think we can't have a "blanket" statment for every child born at an exact date. Its a wonderful thing this baby survived, but it doesn't open up the whole 'you're killing babies that could LIVE' can of worms, considering most pro choicers (including myself) don't agree with second or third trimester abotions - only in the case of whre the mothers or babies health is suffering and i REALLY don't think people carry a baby for 8 months and then go - you know what im tired or this lets suck it out!

Of course if a baby can survive out of a womb its a human being and has rights, but there are babies that miscarriage further on then that, or die before birth - so should we charge the mother for "murder" of her baby for it dying?

I just think its soooooo pathetic for pro lifers to be jumping on a story like this - a wonderful wonderful story of medical technology (cause you can bet if there was nothing like that around that baby woulod have died) and nothing about the smug 'see see they ARE real!' type of proclamation. We're not ignorant - we know the details we just don't believe the lies and hype.

 

[AEON]

I just think its soooooo pathetic for pro lifers to be jumping on a story like this - a wonderful wonderful story of medical technology (cause you can bet if there was nothing like that around that baby woulod have died) and nothing about the smug 'see see they ARE real!' type of proclamation. We're not ignorant - we know the details we just don't believe the lies and hype.

What in the world is pathetic about wanting to preserve the life of 22 week old baby girl?

 

[Irvine511]

What in the world is pathetic about wanting to preserve the life of 22 week old baby girl?

but this mother wanted her baby girl. she retained control over her body to the extent that her body would allow.

why, again, are we ignoring the mother and the mother's body when it comes to the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?

or do we just view women as husks?

 

[AEON]

why, again, are we ignoring the mother and the mother's body when it comes to the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?

The same argument is made by some Muslim men that slice the throats of their daughter for dishonoring the family.

Besides, why is the mother's life worth more than the child? And I know for a fact, my wife would exchange her life for the life of any of the two kids in a second - without even thinking about it.

The problem is, the left as convinced people that these 22 week old babies are nothing more than a mass of cells attached to a woman. She can do as she pleases with these cells. It is her right to have privacy.

This story further PROVES the fallacy of this position. The 22 week old baby is more than a glob of cells and she has rights. And if you claim otherwise, then you are advocating the mother can still walk over to that premature baby today and rip off her arms and legs one by one and squeeze her little head until her brains ooze onto the floor.

Good luck standing by that position.

 

[Irvine511]

The same argument is made by some Muslim men that slice the throats of their daughter for dishonoring the family.

i don't see this at all.

[q]Besides, why is the mother's life worth more than the child? And I know for a fact, my wife would exchange her life for the life of any of the two kids in a second - without even thinking about it.[/q]

most parents would exchange their lives for their living, breathing, crying, thinking, feeling, eating, pooping, want-to-stay-up-late children.

would your wife give up her life for a 3-week old embryo?


[q]The problem is, the left as convinced people that these 22 week old babies are nothing more than a mass of cells attached to a woman. She can do as she pleases with these cells. It is her right to have privacy.[/q]

as people have pointed out before, the vast, vast majority of abortions happen well before 22 weeks, nearly all within the first trimester. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are nearly all due to medical reasons. simply because something remains legal doesn't mean that women pull up to a clinic at 5 or 6 months pregnant and decide that, gosh, guess it's time to get cleaned out again.


[q]This story further PROVES the fallacy of this position. The 22 week old baby is more than a glob of cells and she has rights. And if you claim otherwise, then you are advocating the mother can still walk over to that premature baby today and rip off her arms and legs one by one and squeeze her little head until her brains ooze onto the floor.[/q]

i think this is answered with my above response.

most abortions happen early in the first trimester. those that happen at 22 weeks, or 21 weeks, or 20 weeks, or whenever, are usually done so for medical reasons, either birth will kill the mother and/or the baby is born with such horrendous birth defects that there is little chance for any sort of quality of life whatsoever.

 

[AEON]

but this mother wanted her baby girl.

So, if this mother decided that she didn't want this 22 month old baby girl - she should have the right to go over and rip her limbs off and squish her head until the brains ooze onto the floor?

Or, because the baby girl was moved a few inches she suddenly has some rights.

It seems that pro-choice folks are simply making up rules as they go along. At 23 weeks, they won't make abortion illegal but they consider it murder. At 22 weeks, if the mother wants the kid she can try and save the baby, but if not - rip it up and throw it away. At 21 weeks, anyone has the right to rip up the child.

It is weird people fight so hard for the right to murder a 22 week old baby girl - its like a death cult. It's brutal, it's heartless, and it's the opposite of everything Liberalism claims to be about.

 

[cell]

The same argument is made by some Muslim men that slice the throats of their daughter for dishonoring the family.

Besides, why is the mother's life worth more than the child? And I know for a fact, my wife would exchange her life for the life of any of the two kids in a second - without even thinking about it.

The problem is, the left as convinced people that these 22 week old babies are nothing more than a mass of cells attached to a woman. She can do as she pleases with these cells. It is her right to have privacy.

This story further PROVES the fallacy of this position. The 22 week old baby is more than a glob of cells and she has rights. And if you claim otherwise, then you are advocating the mother can still walk over to that premature baby today and rip off her arms and legs one by one and squeeze her little head until her brains ooze onto the floor.

Good luck standing by that position.

brilliant post...thanks

 

[Irvine511]

So, if this mother decided that she didn't want this 22 month old baby girl - she should have the right to go over and rip her limbs off and squish her head until the brains ooze onto the floor?

Or, because the baby girl was moved a few inches she suddenly has some rights.

It seems that pro-choice folks are simply making up rules as they go along. At 23 weeks, they won't make abortion illegal but they consider it murder. At 22 weeks, if the mother wants the kid she can try and save the baby, but if not - rip it up and throw it away. At 21 weeks, anyone has the right to rip up the child.

It is weird people fight so hard for the right to murder a 22 week old baby girl - its like a death cult. It's brutal, it's heartless, and it's the opposite of everything Liberalism claims to be about.

if the mother didn't want the baby girl, there would never have been a week 22.

if the baby girl were born without a brain, say, then, yes, the mother would have the right to end the life of the baby. just like we pull the plug. just like we allow some cancer patients to refuse treatment. just like we don't always cure pneumonia in the elderly. just like there are DNR tags.

 

[AEON]

if the mother didn't want the baby girl, there would never have been a week 22.

Yet, according to you, it is still the mother's choice at week 22. As it is at week 23 - week 24,25...all the way until birth.

A post earlier in this thread claimed a 22 week old abortion falls into the "9% of the all abortions" category. That's maybe 100,000 babies such as this girl being ripped apart every year in America. To say, there is "never" a week 22 is false.

if the baby girl were born without a brain, say, then, yes, the mother would have the right to end the life of the baby. just like we pull the plug. just like we allow some cancer patients to refuse treatment. just like we don't always cure pneumonia in the elderly. just like there are DNR tags.

According to your logic, the 22 week old baby could be born perfectly healthy, but if the mother decided she didn't want the child, even after birth, she can go over and kill her. And not just kill the baby with a bottle filled with hemlock, but walk over and pop a hole in the soft skull and vacuum out the brains.

 

[Irvine511]

Yet, according to you, it is still the mother's choice at week 22. As it is at week 23 - week 24,25...all the way until birth.

A post earlier in this thread claimed a 22 week old abortion falls into the "9% of the all abortions" category. That's maybe 100,000 babies such as this girl being ripped apart every year in America. To say, there is "never" a week 22 is false.

but i would imagine that the great, great majority of the 9% were due to precisely the tragic birth defects of risk of the life of the mother i mentioned earlier.

again, NO WOMAN simply gets to 5 months pregnant and decides, "shucks, you know what? i'd rather buy a new car."

it's vastly more complicated than that.

and simply retaining options and legality does not mean that i endorse the above, ironically presented behavior. i don't. but that doesn't mean it should be made illegal precisely because there are very legitimate medical reasons for abortion to be legal for the duration of the pregnancy.

how many times is someone going to have to state the obvious: the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, and nearly all of the rest that happen in the 2nd or 3rd are due to medical reasons.

According to your logic, the 22 week old baby could be born perfectly healthy, but if the mother decided she didn't want the child, even after birth, she can go over and kill her. And not just kill the baby with a bottle filled with hemlock, but walk over and pop a hole in the soft skull and vacuum out the brains.

no, the logic does not follow.

what do you know about pallative care, i.e., care for the terminally ill? that's a much better analogy here than comparing a 22 week old baby to a 3 year old.