NationStates Jolt Archive

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070220/D8ND49N01.html

Kid was born at 22 weeks and has survived with no long-term health problems projected. Apart from being a testament to how far medical science is leaping, it also raises the question of the British abortion laws which state that 24 weeks is the chop off point.

So, all you pro-lifers, all you need to do is become medical scientists and build an artificial conception-to-birth womb and then the laws will become moot. ;)

Or fetus transplants. Then pro-life women can do the christian thing and have the fetuses themselves. ;)

That has the potential for some horribly practical jokes.

Like, woman gives birth to different coloured baby… "Honey! What have you been doing!"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070220/D8ND49N01.html

Kid was born at 22 weeks and has survived with no long-term health problems projected. Apart from being a testament to how far medical science is leaping, it also raises the question of the British abortion laws which state that 24 weeks is the chop off point.

So, all you pro-lifers, all you need to do is become medical scientists and build an artificial conception-to-birth womb and then the laws will become moot. ;)

The baby already has had serious problems, including respiratory problems, brain hemorrhage and digestive problems. Since at least two of those conditions could lead to brain damage - which wouldn't necessarily be visible for quite some time, there is no realistic way to 'project' what health problems might be down the road.

The article also says that this baby is going to be administered oxygen - which hardly sounds like the perfect picture of health.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the real meaning of this story - partly because of the apparent contradictions, and partly because there seems to be an underlying agenda that isn't being discussed.

Contradictions:

No problem projected versus needing oxygen supply.

The article says the baby HAS had digestive problems, but say there will be no health problems... and yet, the baby is being bottle fed, so we can't know if it could breastfeed.

No health problems are projected, and yet, the baby has already had three health problems that could yet prove fatal or damaging.

Underlying agenda:

It looks like this pregnancy was deliberately intended to be stopped at 22 weeks, to prove a point - evidence to support this includes the precise timing, the in-vitro fertilisation (for which there is no reason given), and the early caesarian (for which there is no reason given).

Add to this, the apparent religious bias of the hospital.


I would have to say that this looks like an attempt by the religious right to try to force abortion law changes. And a particularly cynical ploy, at that - since they gambled 'a life' to prove a point.

I did check some other sources, to see if this was reported elsewhere - and there is more information to be found. Yahoo! news suggests that the caesarian was instituted because delivery started prematurely, and couldn't be arrested.

This also means, of course - that there is no way to be sure that this baby could have survived 'normal' birth.

The first thing I thought when seeing this on CNN this morning is "that kid is going to have some fucked up health problems". Then they said the prognosis was good. What does that mean? Good like it's probably not going to die for a couple of decades or more or good like it's going to be a normal, healthy kid? Considering the problems associated with premature birth I'd be very surpirsed if the kid ends up healthy and normal.

No, but it is a pretty amazing sign of medical technology.

As far as I know respiratory problems are the biggest hurdle to any further-back living births (and that leads to haemorrhages). But nanotechnology will solve everything. EVERYTHING.

Considering the problems associated with premature birth I'd be very surpirsed if the kid ends up healthy and normal. I think part of the newsworthiness was that the kid probably will be fairly normal.

1% can come into play sometimes.

Kid was born at 22 weeks and has survived with no long-term health problems projected. Apart from being a testament to how far medical science is leaping, it also raises the question of the British abortion laws which state that 24 weeks is the chop off point.

no it doesn't

Or fetus transplants. Then pro-life women can do the christian thing and have the fetuses themselves. ;)

Best idea ever and you didn't proven your lack of sanity when you propose it!

no it doesn't Yes it does actually.

You don't have to agree with the premise of a question to assent to debating that question.

In fact if more questions like that and fewer "Does the Prime Minister agree he's done such a fantathtick job" questions were raised, useful things might be done, or not done.

Rights are old hat. David Cameron has proposed abolishing our Human Rights Bill.That would be the European one…

no it doesn't
Sure it does, if you're one of the folks who choose to ignore the presence of human women in pregnancy, and if you choose to believe it is possible for a fetus to have some right that over-rides a woman's right to choose what happens inside her body.

Personally, I think anti-choice folks will try to use this poor kid for their purposes, but that's par for the course. Meh.

Nah, not really.

Incidentally, what precisely do they mean by 'good' prognosis? I think they mean he won't need a wheelchair and he won't go crazy.

Yes it does actually.

Nah, not really.

Incidentally, what precisely do they mean by 'good' prognosis?

Yes it does actually.

You don't have to agree with the premise of a question to assent to debating that question.

maybe not, but in this case the premise is irrelevant

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070220/D8ND49N01.html

Kid was born at 22 weeks and has survived with no long-term health problems projected. Apart from being a testament to how far medical science is leaping, it also raises the question of the British abortion laws which state that 24 weeks is the chop off point.

So, all you pro-lifers, all you need to do is become medical scientists and build an artificial conception-to-birth womb and then the laws will become moot. ;)
One child survived 22 weeks premature. out of how many that were 22 weeks premature?

Amillia is the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead. She was conceived by in vitro fertilization, which made it possible to pinpoint her exact time in the womb, and was delivered by Caesarean section.
why was the child pulled out 22 wks early? I doubt it was due to Graves "Add to this, the apparent religious bias of the hospital."
but something else.

one can assume that the parents couldn't have children normally, thus the in-vitro fertilisation and something must've complicated things to force a 22wk early birth.

One child survived 22 weeks premature. out of how many that were 22 weeks premature? Really couldn't say. I'd say it's an infinitely bigger statistic than you'd have got 50 years ago, though.

Whoops, I just realised I referred to it as a kid when it's under 24 weeks. I meant to say "22 week premature uterine ex-content to leave hospital". How do I correct thread titles?

-SNIP-
Now this person has made an incredible point. There are numerous contradictions and this has been shown with just the article and no third party sources.

Sure, medical science is allowing people to defy odds now, but at what cost?

Sure, we can say that we've allowed for a foetus born at 22 weeks has beaten all odds, but what about the health costs? Medical science can improve current conditions, but because the infant is so premature, how can they even begin to foresee any problems?

Pro-life (or as Bottle says, anti-choice) advocates like to think this is proof that we can't have abortions. But, in reality, we can make a person survive beyond their natural life using machines, but if they didn't have those machines, as the foetus has the body, they would die. The female's body is one of nature's most complex machines.

Until medical science can duplicate it and make it possible for a foetus to survive contraception to birth, surviving odds at 22 weeks means nothing if there is a significant health cost and unforeseeable issues in the future despite a good prognosis.

Why does the survival of a very premature infant have anything to do with abortion? When the preemie was extracted it was like 9 inches long. How much functioning brain is there in a creature 9 inches long and still developing? Why does that thing's rights outweigh the fully developed woman's rights?

Why does the survival of a very premature infant have anything to do with abortion? When the preemie was extracted it was like 9 inches long. How much functioning brain is there in a creature 9 inches long and still developing? Why does that thing's rights outweigh the fully developed woman's rights?

Because it's a matter of the right to life. THis child was conceived and thus has the right to live. Duh! :rolleyes:

Because it's a matter of the right to life. THis child was conceived and thus has the right to live. Duh! :rolleyes:

Right to life? I thought that only applied to humans.

One child survived 22 weeks premature. out of how many that were 22 weeks premature?


why was the child pulled out 22 wks early? I doubt it was due to Graves "Add to this, the apparent religious bias of the hospital."
but something else.

one can assume that the parents couldn't have children normally, thus the in-vitro fertilisation and something must've complicated things to force a 22wk early birth.

In all fairness - I did also trawl other sources, and I showed that (at least one claimed) the idea was the caesarian was carried out to avoid what would basically have equated to a miscarriage.

However, since there is no reason given (anywhere I can find) for why this couple had an IVF baby, or why there was this constant monitoring... or even why they chose caesarian rather than attempting a 'conventional' birth - I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect there is more going on than we are privy to.

Why would the couple have an IVF baby when the father is shown as leaving everything in God's hands... in the Yahoo! article? Isn't that a contradiction?

Given the claimed religious bias of the father, and the bizarre circumstances under which the incident occured - it is really too far to stretch, to suspect that it might not be entirely coincidental that this all takes place in a 'baptist' hospital?

(Yahoo source: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070219/20070219005481.html?.v=1)

Right to life? I thought that only applied to humans. Indeed it does. Lucky for some of us that the original definition of Homo Sapiens was revised to include all humans, eh?

One doesn't mean that 22 wks is now the new safe zone. Under the irrational UK law it should, though. It was originally 28 weeks, and then when some kid was born at 24 weeks it became 24 weeks.

As I said, it's irrational. Like most English things, it's a fudge.

Really couldn't say. I'd say it's an infinitely bigger statistic than you'd have got 50 years ago, though.well, one is bigger than none, but then, One doesn't mean that 22 wks is now the new safe zone.

after all, 7 are recorded living after being 23 wks premature between 1994 and 2003. but they don't say out of how many premature babies.

Whoops, I just realised I referred to it as a kid when it's under 24 weeks. I meant to say "22 week premature uterine ex-content to leave hospital". How do I correct thread titles?
you can ask the mods. but don't change it on my account, after all, I'm neutral when it comes to abortion.

In all fairness - I did also trawl other sources, and I showed that (at least one claimed) the idea was the caesarian was carried out to avoid what would basically have equated to a miscarriage.

However, since there is no reason given (anywhere I can find) for why this couple had an IVF baby, or why there was this constant monitoring... or even why they chose caesarian rather than attempting a 'conventional' birth - I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect there is more going on than we are privy to.

Why would the couple have an IVF baby when the father is shown as leaving everything in God's hands... in the Yahoo! article? Isn't that a contradiction?

Given the claimed religious bias of the father, and the bizarre circumstances under which the incident occured - it is really too far to stretch, to suspect that it might not be entirely coincidental that this all takes place in a 'baptist' hospital?

(Yahoo source: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070219/20070219005481.html?.v=1)
And I am agreeing with you on this one Graves. the idea behind IVF is probably because of infertility or inability in some area. and I only gave a possible reason, but also said that none was given.

I just said I was doubtful about the hidden agenda theory. ;)

That has the potential for some horribly practical jokes.

Like, woman gives birth to different coloured baby… "Honey! What have you been doing!"

If you had not discussed something like that before hand your relationship is pretty fucked to start with

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070220/D8ND49N01.html

Kid was born at 22 weeks and has survived with no long-term health problems projected. Apart from being a testament to how far medical science is leaping, it also raises the question of the British abortion laws which state that 24 weeks is the chop off point.

So, all you pro-lifers, all you need to do is become medical scientists and build an artificial conception-to-birth womb and then the laws will become moot. ;)

i made a UN resolution about this a long, long time ago, before I got out of the game portion.

Right to life? I thought that only applied to humans.

That's what I thought too, but a 2 minute discussion with most Christians proves otherwise. Somehow 'human' means that it is a clump of unassigned cells. :p

I love raining on people's parades.

It seems that this 'miracle' baby isn't going home after all. She's being kept for another few days by doctors, as a precaution.

Tiny miracle baby to stay in hospital (http://www.thestar.com/article/183696)

Personally, I think it will be a wonderful story if this child does survive with no major long-term health problems. It's a shame that she'll probably be turned into a political icon one way or another.

what are current british abortion laws like?

do you allow abortion on demand? at what point does the law require a medical reason?

are there many british women who decide to abort a healthy fetus at 23 weeks?

Personally, I think it will be a wonderful story if this child does survive with no major long-term health problems. It's a shame that she'll probably be turned into a political icon one way or another.

The Pro-lifers need a new poster child. They've got to update to the 21st century; that picture of a big family doesn't work any more. The 'miracle' child does...

Why does the survival of a very premature infant have anything to do with abortion? When the preemie was extracted it was like 9 inches long. How much functioning brain is there in a creature 9 inches long and still developing? Why does that thing's rights outweigh the fully developed woman's rights?

Well, brainwaves appear at 22 weeks, so really not much in the way of a functioning brain.