Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks. - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2007, 09:26 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Precisely what I was about to suggest.

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

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 09:38 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 09:55 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 11:04 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:12 PM   #50
The Fly
 
Greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from a cup of coffee
Posts: 282
Local Time: 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
Greenlight is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:21 PM   #51
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 08:44 PM
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.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:51 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy


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?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 12:59 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 01:12 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 01:22 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[B]

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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 04:12 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 04:19 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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
__________________
cell is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 04:36 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 04:49 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 06:05 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.




Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com