http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21255581-1702,00.html
World's most premature baby
February 20, 2007 08:23am
THE world's most premature living baby, born at 21 weeks and six days, is headed home after spending four months in a neonatal intensive care unit.
"It was hard to imagine she would get this far. But now she is beginning to look like a real baby, " the baby's mother, Sonja Taylor said.
No baby born at less than 23 weeks was previously known to have survived, according to the University of Iowa, which keeps a record of the world's tiniest babies.
"Even though she's only four pounds (1.8 kilograms) now, she's plump to me," Ms Taylor said.
When she was born on October 24, Amillia Taylor weighed just 280 grams and measured 240cm, slightly longer than a ballpoint pen, the Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami said.
Doctors said the baby girl was now thriving and well enough to be cared for by her parents at home.
She did suffer a laceration on her head at birth, but healed quickly from the wound.
"She's truly a miracle baby," said William Smalling, a neonatologist at the hospital.
He said caring for Amillia in the past month was like navigating uncharted waters.
"We didn't even know what a normal blood pressure is for a baby this small," Dr Smalling said.
The baby was delivered via Caesarian-section after attempts to delay a premature delivery failed. She was breathing without assistance at birth and even made several attempts to cry.
The American Association of Paediatrics indicates that babies born at less than 23 weeks of age and 400 grams in weight are not considered viable.
"It may be that we need to reconsider our standard for viability in light of Amillia's case," said Dr Smalling.
"Over the years, the technology that we have available to save these premature babies has improved dramatically. Today, we can save babies that would have never survived 10 years ago," he said.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor once I agree with you.
It seems that the criterium of viability in determining the moral permissibility of performimg abortion is an arbitrary one, depending on the progress of science rather than on thorough well founded moral reasoning.
I, however, believe there is a right of women to have an abortion and that it is not murder before a certian point (what point I'll explain later).
But I agree that it is silly to determine the morality of abortion based on when modern medicine can keep the baby alive from. Eventually we may even be able to grow a baby from sperm and egg to "birth" without a mother involved at all.
Originally posted by ivanhoeObviously you missed the whole point...again.
It seems that the criterium of viability in determining the moral permissibility of performimg abortion is an arbitrary one, depending on the progress of science rather than on thorough well founded moral reasoning.
See, let me explain: Viability is what medical science can do to keep someone alive. So, as science progresses, so does the options and so does the chances of saving someone from death.
This has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is what a woman does to herself. Her body; her choice.
Now, even though it's viable to keep a baby alive at 8 months, if a woman decides to not open her parachute during a jump...she and her foetus are gonna die. So, what she does to herself, she automatically does to everything inside her.
And since it's her body, if she wants that little baby thing scraped out at 8 months, 3 weeks and 6 days...that's up to her.
Now...it may be your choice not to abort something. Hell, that's what freedom is all about. Heck, it may even be my choice, a remnent of my Roman Catholic upbringin', I dunno...
But...it's a woman's body. End 'a' story.
A lot of things are viable. That just doesn't mean we oughtta bother doin' them.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou're making WAY too much sense for the anti-choice crowd Shav.
Obviously you missed the whole point...again.
See, let me explain: Viability is what medical science can do to keep someone alive. So, as science progresses, so does the options and so does the chances of saving someone from death.
This has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is what a woman does to herself. Her body; her choice.
Now, even thoug ...[text shortened]...
A lot of things are viable. That just doesn't mean we oughtta bother doin' them.
Originally posted by shavixmirdo you really think that an eight month old 'foetus' (as you call it) should be dragged out of a woman depending on her whim?
Obviously you missed the whole point...again.
See, let me explain: Viability is what medical science can do to keep someone alive. So, as science progresses, so does the options and so does the chances of saving someone from death.
This has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is what a woman does to herself. Her body; her choice.
Now, even thoug
A lot of things are viable. That just doesn't mean we oughtta bother doin' them.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by ivanhoePerhaps, would you settle on a limit at 20 weeks?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21255581-1702,00.html
World's most premature baby
February 20, 2007 08:23am
THE world's most premature living baby, [b]born at 21 weeks and six days, is headed home after spending four months in a neonatal intensive care unit.
"It was hard to imagine she would get this far. But now she is beginning to loo ...[text shortened]... we can save babies that would have never survived 10 years ago," he said.[/b]
Originally posted by Bad wolfNo. One cannot negotiate on a limit if one thinks, as I do, that a human being has the Right to Life from the moment of conception.
Perhaps, would you settle on a limit at 20 weeks?
My thread is about the criterium of viability in determining the moral permissibility of performimg abortion. We can conclude that this criterium, advocated by no1marauder on this site, is an arbitrary one, depending on the progress of science rather than on thorough and well founded moral reasoning.
Originally posted by shavixmirShavix: "Abortion is what a woman does to herself. Her body; her choice."
Obviously you missed the whole point...again.
See, let me explain: Viability is what medical science can do to keep someone alive. So, as science progresses, so does the options and so does the chances of saving someone from death.
This has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is what a woman does to herself. Her body; her choice.
Now, even thoug
A lot of things are viable. That just doesn't mean we oughtta bother doin' them.
As I have explained to you before the zygote or fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It is a different and separate human being, simply because it has a different DNA and usually a different blood type.
Your whole reasoning regarding this point discards the scientific facts and is therefore irrational and invalid.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut according to your definition, mitochondria are not part of our bodies. they are present within us but do not share our DNA, they are a simple organism that lives within our cells, without which we would find life somewhat tricky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria)
As I have explained to you before the zygote or fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It is a different and seperate human being, simply because it has a different DNA and usually a different blood type.
Your whole reasoning regarding this point discards the scientific facts and is therefore irrational and invalid.[/b]
I don't want to get drawn into a debate about when life begins, I think that is probably a personal choice, there are good reasons for defining it at several points, but I certainly think a just fertilised egg is as much a part of a woman's body as any other cell.
Originally posted by corp1131You're wasting your time corp. Ivan believes life begins at conception. The very instant one sperm meets an egg. He can't shake that Catholic dogma.
But according to your definition, mitochondria are not part of our bodies. they are present within us but do not share our DNA, they are a simple organism that lives within our cells, without which we would find life somewhat tricky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria)
I don't want to get drawn into a debate about when life begins, I think that ...[text shortened]... I certainly think a just fertilised egg is as much a part of a woman's body as any other cell.
You may not want to be drawn into a debate about when life begins, but that is exactly what every abortion argument comes down to.