Amazing! A baby survives being born at 22 weeks.

[Justin24]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/20/D8NDJ0O00.html

MIAMI (AP) -- A premature baby who doctors said spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant will remain in a hospital a few extra days as a precaution, officials said Tuesday.
Amillia Sonja Taylor, born Oct. 24 after just under 22 weeks in the womb, had been expected to be sent home Tuesday.



Barbara Moore, spokeswoman for Baptist Children's Hospital, said she did not have details on why doctors changed their minds about releasing the infant.

Doctors say Amillia is the first baby known to have survived after a gestation of fewer than 23 weeks. She was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was delivered by Caesarean section. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

Amillia, the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead, now weighs 4 1/2 pounds.

She has suffered respiratory and digestive problems, as well as a mild brain hemorrhage, but doctors believe the health concerns will not have major long-term effects.

"Her prognosis is excellent," said Dr. Paul Fassbach, who has cared for Amillia since her second day.

Amillia was conceived in vitro and has been in an incubator since birth. She will continue to receive a small amount of supplemental oxygen even after she goes home.

 

[Liesje]

Wow! My mom's friend had twins smaller than this, but they did not survive Best of luck to her.

 

[AEON]

Well, I'm guessing the baby deserves "human" status now that it was born. Weird, a few minutes before someone could have have sucked it right out the womb limb for limb and it would've been perfectly fine according to many people here.

...Unless of course, the mother can still walk over and smother the baby with her pillow because the baby still can't survive alone.

What strange times we live in.

 

[Irvine511]

^ i saw this coming and that's why i'm glad you're posting again, AEON. the threads are going to be more fun.

 

[AEON]

^ i saw this coming and that's why i'm glad you're posting again, AEON. the threads are going to be more fun.

Thanks. I did notice it was a bit quiet.

I didn't want you crazy liberals running around claiming victory

 

[pgv]

Well, I'm guessing the baby deserves "human" status now that it was born. Weird, a few minutes before someone could have have sucked it right out the womb limb for limb and it would've been perfectly fine according to many people here.

Was that really neccessary?

I think this is an amazing story, and must be brilliant for the parents who must have thought when the baby was born so young that it didn't have a change of survival.

 

[Justin24]

Was that really neccessary?

I think this is an amazing story, and must be brilliant for the parents who must have thought when the baby was born so young that it didn't have a change of survival.

God works in Mysterious Ways.

 

[coemgen]

AEON's on to something though, whether he phrased it correctly or not. This certainly raises questions.

I'm happy for the parents.

 

[AEON]

Was that really neccessary?

I think this is an amazing story, and must be brilliant for the parents who must have thought when the baby was born so young that it didn't have a change of survival.

I agree, it is an amazing, beautiful story. I wish there were more of them.

 

[pgv]

AEON's on to something though, whether he phrased it correctly or not. This certainly raises questions.

I'm happy for the parents.

But could that baby have survived at 22 weeks without being heavily aided by doctors and living off machines for months?
The answer is no, and it's lucky that is has survived at all, so I don't think it puts whether abortion is right or not into question at all.

 

[coemgen]

But could that baby have survived at 21 weeks without being heavily aided by doctors and living off machines for months?
The answer is no, and it's lucky that is has survived at all, so I don't think it puts whether abortion is right or not into question at all.

It's not the fact that it's "lucky" that determines whether abortion is right or wrong, it's the fact that a baby can survive at 22 weeks. It's something worth considering in the debate, don't you think?

 

[pgv]

It's not the fact that it's "lucky" that determines whether abortion is right or wrong, it's the fact that a baby can survive at 22 weeks. It's something worth considering in the debate, don't you think?

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.

 

[coemgen]

I see what you're saying, but because it's the first time does that mean it should be treated as a rare event? Or should it now be seen as a real possibility that is only going to have greater odds as medicine advances? Certainly that's how this was able to happen in the first place.

Also, if the doctors did all they could to save it, then there must've been something worth saving. It sounds harsh maybe, but I guess I don't see the equality in this baby being saved at 22 weeks and another being aborted at 22 weeks just because it wasn't the right time for it or it caused stress in someone's life. That doesn't seem fair or just to me. There's a real poverty there. It saddens me.
That's just me though.

 

[AEON]

I see what you're saying, but because it's the first time does that mean it should be treated as a rare event? Or should it now be seen as a real possibility that is only going to have greater odds as medicine advances? Certainly that's how this was able to happen in the first place.

Also, if the doctors did all they could to save it, then there must've been something worth saving. It sounds harsh maybe, but I guess I don't see the equality in this baby being saved at 22 weeks and another being aborted at 22 weeks just because it wasn't the right time for it or it caused stress in someone's life. That doesn't seem fair or just to me. There's a real poverty there. It saddens me.
That's just me though.

No, it's not just you.

 

[Liesje]

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.

There are other cases, but often times the babies do die eventually. But it doesn't mean the only worthwhile cases are the ones that survive. Take for example my mom's friend. As I said earlier, her twins never developed and were born severely premature, earlier and smaller than this baby. They lived a few days. Then, she got pregnant again and found out again that this baby had defects. Her doctors insisted she abort but she refused. The baby was born anacephalic, meaning it did not have a brain. Again the doctors recommended she not see it and insisted it would die immediately. Again she said no and took her baby. Amazingly, she took her home and the baby lived for over a month without a developed brain. Yes, she died in the end, but she was still their child for that short time and they would not have had it any other way. They do not regret not aborting the baby.

They don't have to survive to adulthood to be loved and adored.

And I'm not using this to make a case one way or the other for abortion, I'm just saying there are plenty of "lucky" babies out there and families who feel lucky to have had them, even for a short while.

 

[coemgen]

That's a great post, Liesje. Great point. Thanks for sharing.

 

[anitram]

I wasn't aware of the fact that women were routinely aborting at 22 weeks. I believe you'll find most people in the pro-choice crowd are not in favour of abortion past the first trimester save for medical situations, so a lot of AEON's rhetoric is just that - rhetoric using an extreme example.

 

[coemgen]

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?

 

[anitram]

I am loathe to quote Fox News, but the first thing that popped up was:

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

So we're talking about 9% of all abortions between 12-24 weeks. Given that only 0.1% occur over 24 weeks, the logical conclusion is that the # between 22-24 is similarly low. And of that very low number, what proportion is performed for purely medical reasons (whether health of the mother or things like anencephaly of the fetus)?

 

[coemgen]

I see that your making a point that there are fewer abortions taking place later in the pregnancy, but I guess I don't understand why you're making this point. There are still abortions taking place at 22 weeks and even later, and to me, that's sad. I'm glad the number is lower later in pregnancies, but there's still a number. I guess that's what I'm saying. The number can go lower.

The number of abortions during the first trimester is just as sad to me, too.

 

[Liesje]

I think she's also making the point that many of the later abortions are for medical reasons, not birth control. You can't test or see certain defects early on. For example, the person I was talking about earlier was told to have an abortion b/c her baby was not growing a brain. She said no, but others say yes.

I don't like abortion either, but I think there are differences between birth control/not wanting a baby for whatever reason and intentionally getting pregnant but being told the baby cannot survive and going full term only puts the mother at risk.

 

[Justin24]

But let me ask this. If there is complications for the baby, but no risk to the mother. Are we now chosing the perfect baby?

 

[AEON]

I am loathe to quote Fox News, but the first thing that popped up was:



So we're talking about 9% of all abortions between 12-24 weeks. Given that only 0.1% occur over 24 weeks, the logical conclusion is that the # between 22-24 is similarly low. And of that very low number, what proportion is performed for purely medical reasons (whether health of the mother or things like anencephaly of the fetus)?

According to these numbers, the baby that was born 22 weeks old would fit into the 9% range. So we are talking about 100,000 babies of similar age being sucked piece by piece out of the wombs every year in America alone.

Even if the number were only a thousand, or a hundred, is this still a matter of a right to privacy?

And if medicine advances to the point where they can save an 8 week old baby, should it not have the right to live?

 

[Liesje]

But let me ask this. If there is complications for the baby, but no risk to the mother. Are we now chosing the perfect baby?

Justin, childbirth is very invasive and is *always* risky for the mother. If you are told that your baby will not survive (pending technology for a total brain transplant), continuing on with the pregnancy IS an unnecessary risk for the mother.

I'm not saying I would chose to abort, even given the risk, but many do because the risk is always there.

 

[Justin24]

I know there are risks but I am saying if there was no risk but the child was born with defects but it is found early, Do we now get to chose, kind of like playing god?

 

[Liesje]

There is never no risk, and it's not playing God because the child is already brain dead and will die within days. God has already made his choice. Playing God would be aborting a child with Downs Syndrome - something that many people can have and still get an education, live apart from parents, and hold jobs.

 

[cell]

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.

 

[pgv]

But let me ask this. If there is complications for the baby, but no risk to the mother. Are we now chosing the perfect baby?

If there are complications for the baby, then aren't we deciding whether it is humane or not whether to give life to a human being which will only suffer for the possibly short time it exists?

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.

 

[pgv]

edit: double post

 

[INDY500]

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