[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A-men! Damn retards wasting all our money.[/quote]
Did this thread suddenly veer into a discussion of Congress?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.
Really?
Amilia Taylor, the world’s youngest surviving baby, was born at 21 weeks, but that was in 2007, so it couldn’t be her that you’re talking about.
Are you sure it was 21 weeks? Because before Amilia, no baby had ever been born earlier than 23 weeks and survived. Standard medical procedure is to not even attempt to resuscitate babies born earlier than 22 weeks.[/quote]
Unless her mother is lying or mistaken…I have no reason to believe she is lying, but we’ll go with early 20’s just in case.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.
[/quote]
Eventually. How long is that? How long would they need to live for their life to be worth protecting?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.
[/quote]
I think you misread, or misquoted.
“In the 12 years to 2005, all 150 infants born alive at 22 weeks eventually died.”
Then again, all people who are born eventually die, so that’s not such a surprising statement. 
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.
[/quote]
Huh? Your referenced article states “In the 12 years to 2005, all 150 infants born alive at 22 weeks eventually died.”
Isn’t that 150 babies that didn’t survive?
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A-men! Damn retards wasting all our money.
Did this thread suddenly veer into a discussion of Congress?[/quote]
hah.
No, I’m curious as to your distinction between someone of normal intelligence and someone mentally retarded. The only reason I can think for emphasizing that point is that you are devaluing someones life based on mental abilities.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.
If she’s completely normal, then I call bullshit. Whoever thought she was 21 weeks old at birth was off by at least 6 weeks.
If she’s massively retarded and requires constant care throughout the day, then the error might only be by a few weeks.
[/quote]
No she’s not normal, she has mucho problems but retardation is not one of them. Most of her issues are physical, poor lung development, all kinds of digestive disorders, etc. She needs a lot of care but it is not constant.
She’s had 17 surgeries so far and she is not out of the woods. But she is alive, she walks and talks, smiles and plays. Not surprisingly, she is behind developmentally, but shes there…I’ll probably see he today as a matter of fact.
[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.
If she’s completely normal, then I call bullshit. Whoever thought she was 21 weeks old at birth was off by at least 6 weeks.
If she’s massively retarded and requires constant care throughout the day, then the error might only be by a few weeks.
No she’s not normal, she has mucho problems but retardation is not one of them. Most of her issues are physical, poor lung development, all kinds of digestive disorders, etc.
She needs a lot of care but it is not constant. She’s had 17 surgeries so far and she is not out of the woods. But she is alive, she walks and talks, smiles and plays. Not surprisingly, she is behind developmentally, but shes there…I’ll probably see he today as a matter of fact.[/quote]
yeah, but that doesn’t qualify as a life, i guess, by some people’s standards.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Humans die all the time, not just babies.
If it is not an excuse or justification it would have no place in the argument. If you aren’t excusing or justifying with those numbers what was your point in putting them up?
Much like your “it happens everyday” comment. The frequency of an action has no bearing on right/wrong/criminality est.
You sound entirely lukewarm. We are arguing shoulds and shouldn’ts and you are quoting cost statistics rather than your opinion.
If you are going to be devils advocate in this thread at least put some effort into it. You normally do a lot better job.[/quote]
Well, thank you for the backhanded compliment, I guess.
Shoulds and shouldn’ts?
Okay, I think that only competent people with the means to support a child should be allowed to conceive.
I think that this will never actually happen, so abortion will always occur, whether it’s legal or not, and whether we like it or not. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
I think that regardless of advances in medical science, there will always be a point at which a premature baby cannot be saved. I think that the decision not to save a non-viable infant shouldn’t be morally or legally equated with homicide.
I think that when it comes to medical care in this country, you definitely get what you pay for, and you don’t get what you can’t pay for. Whether you think this is how it should be or how it shouldn’t be probably depends on which side of the socialized medicine debate you’re on.
And finally, I think that nothing further is going to be resolved by our continuing to debate this point, which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
The doctor in question has had his license revoked, as he probably should. The mother is suing, I think she shouldn’t get a dime.
As for abortion in general, well, I’m not a fan of it, but neither am I its sworn enemy. If you need to see my position on the subject, you should find it here:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/abortion_1?id=2496308&pageNo=3
[quote]pookie wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.
Huh? Your referenced article states “In the 12 years to 2005, all 150 infants born alive at 22 weeks eventually died.”
Isn’t that 150 babies that didn’t survive?
[/quote]
In England.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A-men! Damn retards wasting all our money.
Did this thread suddenly veer into a discussion of Congress?
hah.
No, I’m curious as to your distinction between someone of normal intelligence and someone mentally retarded. The only reason I can think for emphasizing that point is that you are devaluing someones life based on mental abilities.[/quote]
The was a report last year on a local (french) TV show called “Enjeux” where they examined the ethics of keeping very early premature babies alive artificially.
You really need to see the kind of lives most of these kids have (the ones shown where born at 24 or 25 weeks) before calling for every efforts to be made to save them.
In other words, quality of life should also figure into the equation. Simply because science can “save” ever younger premies doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.
If you want to really save them, then force the mother to carry to term. She’s 2/3 of the way through anyway; I think she lost her right to abort from either stupidity or laziness. At least that way they get their normal life to live.
Edit: I found the “Enjeux” show, but it’s not the one I was thinking about… I’ll update if I can find that show.
[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I know a little girl born at 21 weeks…She is now 7 years old.
If she’s completely normal, then I call bullshit. Whoever thought she was 21 weeks old at birth was off by at least 6 weeks.
If she’s massively retarded and requires constant care throughout the day, then the error might only be by a few weeks.
No she’s not normal, she has mucho problems but retardation is not one of them. Most of her issues are physical, poor lung development, all kinds of digestive disorders, etc. She needs a lot of care but it is not constant.
She’s had 17 surgeries so far and she is not out of the woods. But she is alive, she walks and talks, smiles and plays. Not surprisingly, she is behind developmentally, but shes there…I’ll probably see he today as a matter of fact.[/quote]
Well, her mother was in the right place, then. She’s wanted. I hope she blossomes with age.
[quote]pat wrote:
No she’s not normal, she has mucho problems but retardation is not one of them. Most of her issues are physical, poor lung development, all kinds of digestive disorders, etc. She needs a lot of care but it is not constant.
She’s had 17 surgeries so far and she is not out of the woods. But she is alive, she walks and talks, smiles and plays. Not surprisingly, she is behind developmentally, but shes there…I’ll probably see he today as a matter of fact.[/quote]
Good for her. She wasn’t born at 21 weeks though, no matter what her mother says.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
12 years of reasearch, 150 babies born at 22 weeks or earlier, 22 babies that didn’t survive.
Huh? Your referenced article states “In the 12 years to 2005, all 150 infants born alive at 22 weeks eventually died.”
Isn’t that 150 babies that didn’t survive?
[/quote]
Sorry, multitasking badly of course 150 babies that didn’t survive. I’m not sure but I think those were international stats.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A-men! Damn retards wasting all our money.
Did this thread suddenly veer into a discussion of Congress?
hah.
No, I’m curious as to your distinction between someone of normal intelligence and someone mentally retarded. The only reason I can think for emphasizing that point is that you are devaluing someones life based on mental abilities.
The was a report last year on a local (french) TV show called “Enjeux” where they examined the ethics of keeping very early premature babies alive artificially.
You really need to see the kind of lives most of these kids have (the ones shown where born at 24 or 25 weeks) before calling for every efforts to be made to save them.
In other words, quality of life should also figure into the equation. Simply because science can “save” ever younger premies doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.
If you want to really save them, then force the mother to carry to term. She’s 2/3 of the way through anyway; I think she lost her right to abort from either stupidity or laziness. At least that way they get their normal life to live.
Edit: I found the “Enjeux” show, but it’s not the one I was thinking about… I’ll update if I can find that show.
[/quote]
Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive[/quote]
I like the sentiment (good old Clough), but gosh, if not for officious striving, 90 percent of bureaucrats would have to go find honest work.
And 95 percent of posters on this forum would have to go lift weights or something.
Just a side note; I personally don’t understand how our country can allow the murder of an innocent baby; but if a full grown adult wants to commit suicide we do everything in our power to stop them. Or if a woman was murdered and was even only 7 days pregnant it would a double homicide. Yet we can throw a baby away at 23 weeks and growing???
tpovey. Those are all fair comments and it’s an argument that will run and run.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
They threw a live baby away. This is what is wrong with abortion, these people have no respect for human life, living or dead. I know you will say it wasn’t the doctor. Does it really matter?
I would hope the mother(term used loosely)would receive nothing monetary from this lawsuit. Did the mother name this child? I don’t get how you name something you intended on KILLING. I totally understand naming a baby that dies, but not one that you kill. Thats pretty sick. [/quote]
So you’re taking one incident from one half assed doctor and making that indicative of everyone who receives or performs an abortion?
Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
That’s like the doctor that carved his initials into that broad who had a c-section because he was so proud of his work. We should probably ban those too.
This is weak.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
They threw a live baby away. This is what is wrong with abortion, these people have no respect for human life, living or dead. I know you will say it wasn’t the doctor. Does it really matter?
I would hope the mother(term used loosely)would receive nothing monetary from this lawsuit. Did the mother name this child? I don’t get how you name something you intended on KILLING. I totally understand naming a baby that dies, but not one that you kill. Thats pretty sick.
So you’re taking one incident from one half assed doctor and making that indicative of everyone who receives or performs an abortion?
Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
That’s like the doctor that carved his initials into that broad who had a c-section because he was so proud of his work. We should probably ban those too.
This is weak.[/quote]
No, this is something that happened. One incident of a baby being delivered alive and murdered is weak right? What about one incident of misuse of police force starting near virtual e-riots on this board? I didn’t hear anyone calling the incident in Oakland weak because it was just one incident, everyone was so quick to jump all over EVERY cop and label them all abusive murderers. But hey this was just some premature baby that only had a 30% chance of survival right?