A tiny premature baby heads home!

[miketheidiot]

good luck to it (was it male or female? i don't know)
I suppose in a decade or so when we can take a fetus to term completely outside the body, then that should mean that abortion should be illegal entirely?

The simple fact is this: the child is not cognizant, not self aware, or for that matter aware period. The only qualification for humanity that it meets is dna.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
This is why abortion is murder.

Save the cells! They are people!

Isn't abortion legal at 22 weeks?

22 weeks = 5 months 2 weeks, barely inside the second trimester.

IMO, this is a legitimate reason behind why Roe v. Wade is no longer valid (at least in its current state). The period within which a woman could get an abortion was determined by when the fetus would be viable. In the past 20 years, that window has extended.

I'm not saying that a woman doesn't have a right to have an abortion, just that the reasons cited by Roe v. Wade are no longer 100% correct.

I doubt anyone really considers Roe to be bound by viability. Further, the larger issue with Roe concerned the government's role in determining the balance of 'advocacy' between that of a woman and that of a child that she chooses to carry. Accordingly, the majority of the court (and the majority of the public) are 'soft' abortion supporters . . . generally disdainful of the procedure but having even more disdain for Rep Joe or Sen John (state or federal) making the womb of woman domain of the government.

IIRC, hundreds of people have been given sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension. Per norm, the evil drug company ran out and got additional patent protection. When used for PH the sildenafil is called Revatio.

The survival of this child is a great personal story. And a prime example of why our healthcare system is going to be on life support in short order.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


The simple fact is this: the child is not cognizant, not self aware, or for that matter aware period. The only qualification for humanity that it meets is dna.

edited for bad taste

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: slash196
Fact: Without "science", that baby would've been a premature birth/miscarriage.

So ironic since they don't believe in science.

and you don't believe in life.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
The simple fact is this: the child is not cognizant, not self aware, or for that matter aware period. The only qualification for humanity that it meets is dna.

I have a memory from way back when, possibly before I was even born. It sounds funny, but all I remember is seeing pink (as you would holding a light up to your hand) and feeling fear and reaching out... That fear was really a panic/terrifying fear. It was my first memory.

Granted, it could have been a memory from after I was born, but its the first memory I have and have no idea where it took place. I feel it as being an "awakening." The first time the brain really turned on, and I personally believe it was from before I was even born.

For all I know it could have been a dream too... Whatever the case is, this is a personal reason on why I'm pro-life. I also have a few other memories from my first year of life (which I have in the last few years told my mother about, but she doesn't remember few situations but have acknowledged others.) Typically scientists say memories from the first few years are never retained, but I have a few... I guess I'm the odd one out of the bunch.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ericlp
HALF the friggen costs go to only 11-12% of the population... That pisses me off.

When will these repub bible thumpers ever F'en learn?????

Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

You?re joking right? Or are we now going to decide who lives and who dies based on cost analysis?

"Sorry Mr. Smith lung transplant just cost too much money, go out and enjoy the few months you have left with your wife."

I can see those hospital meetings now: ?Ok people next week is the end of the fiscal year and we are still trying to meet budget, so if anyone comes in with expensive ailments to treat try and delay treatment as long as possible. We are also limiting blood to two pints per person, we can?t afford to purchase anymore till next week. Alright, let?s go save some lives?.?

The only time you DNR someone is when they are terminal in which case resuscitating them only delays the inevitable. Last time I check though being born was not considered a terminal condition.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

That is a good idea actually... think of all the money we can save from not having to pay their social security. We can eliminate the social security crisis real fast this way, especially when we combine it with the 100% inheritance tax idea.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

What part of that is slander?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

What part of that is slander?

Slander - Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Making that statment about people that want to cut any social program that benefits the elderly is absolutely untrue and ridiculous. Unless the person really does just want old people to die....

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

What part of that is slander?

Slander - Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Making that statment about people that want to cut any social program that benefits the elderly is absolutely untrue and ridiculous. Unless the person really does just want old people to die....

You're thinking of Libel.... and you're not in favor of reducing or cutting Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

What part of that is slander?

Slander - Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Making that statment about people that want to cut any social program that benefits the elderly is absolutely untrue and ridiculous. Unless the person really does just want old people to die....

You're thinking of Libel....

Slander and Libel both fit, the main difference between the two is that one is oral (slander) and one is written (libel). I was speaking in more general terms, not just for this message board. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

I was waiting for someone else to say it. It is a sick and perverse way of thinking isn't it? Like a freaking Nazi! It is scary that there are people this heartless and cold who live in our society.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp


Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Isn't that mind set of those that want to cut social programs that aid the elderly - i.e. Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

If you ask the fearmongerers on the left that don't want to debate the issues and just want to slander the other side, then yes.

What part of that is slander?

Slander - Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Making that statment about people that want to cut any social program that benefits the elderly is absolutely untrue and ridiculous. Unless the person really does just want old people to die....

You're thinking of Libel.... and you're not in favor of reducing or cutting Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare?

Social Security in its current form sucks, I'd much rather have the freedom to take at least some of that money and invest it. Do you think that I want old people to die?

 

[blackllotus]

It all depends on what you actually value about life. Some people value life itself, others, like me, see nothing valuable about life itself, but rather see value in consciousness. Consciousness is what gives us our thoughts, emotions, and everything else that we generally consider to be meaningful in life. Life without consciousness is meaningless therefore destroying life without a conscious is meaningless as well. I have no more qualms about killing insects then I do about putting paper through a paper shredder. I have no problem with abortions that occur before the fetus has a developed brain.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ericlp
reality check... Most premature babies come from malnutrition... Mothers that are not taking care of them selves. Usually drug addicts and the very poor...

A full-term baby will cost its parents $1,700 for delivery, will be in the hospital for two days and will have routine checkups, about six during its first year, Zunich explained. A premature baby, on the other hand, spends an average of 24 days in the hospital -- much of the time in the neonatal intensive care unit -- and average 25 percent more doctors' visits for any number of problems. Cost for that baby's first months of life average $77,000.

But the costs to businesses are just as steep: Of the $77,000, $35,034 will come out of the business' pocket for the hospital bill; $6,079 for doctors' visits and $497 in drugs for the child.

All told, a premature baby costs 15 times that of a full-term baby.

"Half of all money spent in hospitals neonatal units is spent on premature babies," she said. "It's a significant difference."

In Indiana, one in 10 babies is born prematurely, with Northwest Indiana posting higher numbers than the average. In Lake County, 13.9 percent of all babies were born prematurely, with LaPorte County coming in right behind with 13.8 percent. Porter County fared a little better, with 11.2 percent.

HALF the friggen costs go to only 11-12% of the population... That pisses me off.

When will these repub bible thumpers ever F'en learn?????

Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

I just can't get over how cold and hateful this post is.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Less than 1% of babies that premature make it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Less than 1% of babies that premature make it.

10 years ago 0% made it. Maybe 10 years in the future 50% or more might make it.
But we all know the slogan... it's not a baby, its a choice. or is it the other way around?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Extremely premature babies should not be resuscitated.... The costs are too great and money can be put to better use on the 90% of the healthy babies that are born in this country.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

Hey, lets not resuscitate old people either, they are damn drain on society, look how expensive long term care is for the elderly. I mean, they are gonna die soon anyways right?

Less than 1% of babies that premature make it.

Whats your point?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
It all depends on what you actually value about life. Some people value life itself, others, like me, see nothing valuable about life itself, but rather see value in consciousness. Consciousness is what gives us our thoughts, emotions, and everything else that we generally consider to be meaningful in life. Life without consciousness is meaningless therefore destroying life without a conscious is meaningless as well. I have no more qualms about killing insects then I do about putting paper through a paper shredder. I have no problem with abortions that occur before the fetus has a developed brain.

Babies do not develop object permanence until 7 to 9 months, which includes self-awareness. So, by your reasoning, babies can be gotten rid of until they are 7 months or so.

 

[cwjerome]

Next, people like ericlp will want to shut down websites like this. Preemies should be flushed down the toilet to save costs.

This is what happens when you put heartless bean-counters in charge of health. They will create sick equations to determine if human life is worth the cost. Only the rich who can afford the healthcare should let their preemies live. It wreaks of ghastly, Nazi-like "efficiency."

I nominate ***** **** like ericlp to be the one who tells the poor parents face-to-face that their kid isn't worth the price and needs to die. Then he'd change his mind, because he doesn't have the balls to follow through.

EDIT: naughty words omitted

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: blackllotus
It all depends on what you actually value about life. Some people value life itself, others, like me, see nothing valuable about life itself, but rather see value in consciousness. Consciousness is what gives us our thoughts, emotions, and everything else that we generally consider to be meaningful in life. Life without consciousness is meaningless therefore destroying life without a conscious is meaningless as well. I have no more qualms about killing insects then I do about putting paper through a paper shredder. I have no problem with abortions that occur before the fetus has a developed brain.

Babies do not develop object permanence until 7 to 9 months, which includes self-awareness. So, by your reasoning, babies can be gotten rid of until they are 7 months or so.

So you support retroactive abortions up till that age? After all they are not self aware, right?

But why stop there, it will be a couple of decades before that baby is fully capable of supporting itself.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: blackllotus
It all depends on what you actually value about life. Some people value life itself, others, like me, see nothing valuable about life itself, but rather see value in consciousness. Consciousness is what gives us our thoughts, emotions, and everything else that we generally consider to be meaningful in life. Life without consciousness is meaningless therefore destroying life without a conscious is meaningless as well. I have no more qualms about killing insects then I do about putting paper through a paper shredder. I have no problem with abortions that occur before the fetus has a developed brain.

Babies do not develop object permanence until 7 to 9 months, which includes self-awareness. So, by your reasoning, babies can be gotten rid of until they are 7 months or so.

So you support retroactive abortions up till that age? After all they are not self aware, right?

But why stop there, it will be a couple of decades before that baby is fully capable of supporting itself.

No you goof, I don't support abortion at all :laugh: Do I have to explain my other post? Read it again.