Ever find it ironic how they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a little developing baby's life whose mother desperately wants it, while meanwhile, another developing baby who is the exact same age, they will terminate, even though there was absolutely nothing wrong with the fetus and the pregnancy was completely normal?
No, it's not ironic, it's life, reality...try it some sometime...but you finally made a point, inaccurate, but some kind of point... BTW, those preemies were too old to be aborted...they were VIABLE...NOT the exact same age fetuses are aborted as YOU erroneously claim.. Hey, how about some more pictures of HUMMINGBIRD EGGS....gee, that made such a point!!! LOLOLOLOL
Yes it is LIFE, you finally got one thing right. You do realize that the law doesn't classify 23-week olds as "viable"? (That doesn't happen until 24 weeks) In most states it's legal to abort them, even though they sometimes are "viable". I think New York law even allows abortion at 24 weeks, but not after that. (This was before the recent controversial change in New York state law that makes it much easier for women to abort at any stage of the pregnancy, which is another complicated story) You can't actually determine the exact point of viability in individual cases unless the fetus is actually given a fighting chance to survive!
I do not think you know what irony is because there nothing ironic about what you posted. The previous wants to be a mother, the latter does not want to be a mother. Being able to save wanted fetuses "against all odds" is something very, very good that hopefully will become much easier and more common in the future. Being able to safely abort an unwanted fetus is also something very, very good and hopefully this technology will develop and improve even more too.
As someone who was born with an incureble and inheritable (50%) condition that is very unpredictable (it can be very mild or very severe) and sometimes progressive (God is apparently so loving and kind that he would implement this crap together with my soul when I was concieved, lol), I feel it would be absolutely awful to force me to become a father to a child shown to have a more serious case of the condition to the world. A lot of anti-abortionists are probably also against NRT:s and IVF and a ban on them would slow down the development of technologies that could help create technologies that could make it possible for me to have a biological child who 100% would not inherit the gene in the future. Actually, a ban on abortion might even result in news stories like this one never occuring again due to the criminalisation on research and development such ban would result in. Restrict one part of the market, screw up the entire thing. Leaving every pregnancy in "the hands of God" would be disastrous.
Are you saying that saving these babies is mostly about the mother? That the heroic efforts expended to save these premature infants are about giving the woman the outcome she desires?
I don't mean to be mean, but shouldn't you get a vasectomy then? Just a thought. Edit: Oh, wait, I just realized you're talking about selective termination, of the ones that have the undesirable genetics. That is another issue.
Yes. The mother is always the standard of value. If she wants to give birth, it is her right to do so and vice versa. She wanted motherhood, so those heroes helped her attain it even where it seemed highly unlikely. Hopefully, this infant will be able to survive and live a normal life.
Couldn't she have just thrown her hands up, admitted temporary defeat, and tried for another one? Can you really say this is all about her wanting to be a mother? The amount of effort and money they spend on this shows that they really have to care about the life of individual premature babies. Babies are not just a commodity, to be so easily replaced by another that comes down the pipeline.
I am being fully serious. As I have said many times before; no rights until birth. This woman wanted to have child, the birth happened much earlier than expected and doctors were able to save her child.
But, she didn't and that is all that matters. In regards to what section of the forum we are in and how you obviously want to frame this,, yes. No one has said the prematurely born should be killed. I did not say they were. I said no rights until birth.
But if she didn't want to have a child, you would be okay with that woman standing with her legs sprawled directly over a wood chipper?
Another vapid, meaningless, non-response... States vary.../.so what! Most abortions are done between 12 and 18 weeks weeks and most before 12. So WTF does your op have to do with abortion? NOTHING Again, what is your POINT ??? You have no POINT!
...then you should've had a different OP...DUH You really come up with very strange images of women....says more than you know...
I LOVE when someone gets so flustered they contradict themselves Then , further along this poster says : ""Babies are not just a commodity, to be so easily replaced by another that comes down the pipeline"" TOO funny! That sentence shows that you still think what the woman thinks is totally immaterial and people like YOU should determine what women should think and feel. SO WHAT? The now infamous contradictory statement.
This is one of the reasons time-limits are a completely irrelevant aspect of the debate. The abortions done later are most often in cases where even many anti-abortionists think it should be legal (serious threat to the woman's health/life or serious complications with the fetus).
I think part of the reason this is the tiniest baby boy ever, is not just the gestational age, but this is in Japan. Everything in miniaturized in Japan! Japanese tend to have smaller body sizes. (You'll definitely see this if you try to buy a condom in Japan) I'm just saying that premature baby was probably just a tad more mature (developmentally) than its body size would otherwise suggest.