A tiny premature baby heads home!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: 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

Texas Governor George Bush signed into law during his term that children that could benefit from further care could be cut off from it.....

Sun Hudson.... But I guess, he could be flushed down the toilet...

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: 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

Texas Governor George Bush signed into law during his term that children that could benefit from further care could be cut off from it.....

Sun Hudson.... But I guess, he could be flushed down the toilet...
Yes, but I believe it was only if the case was terminal, which is different from this situation
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: 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.

my mistake...
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: 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?
People who think this is a normal occurrence aren't being intellectually honest with themselves.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
The right also wants to change the laws so that is no longer the case.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
The right also wants to change the laws so that is no longer the case.

So, life is sacred, as long as it's American?....
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
The right also wants to change the laws so that is no longer the case.

So, life is sacred, as long as it's American?....

I think the point is if anchor babies did not get automatic citizenship they would not get delivered as frequently in US hospitals.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
So, life is sacred, as long as it's American?....
No, all life is sacred, even the life of a baby born to illegal parents.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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?
People who think this is a normal occurrence aren't being intellectually honest with themselves.

Whether or not this is normal for the baby to survive is irrelevant. No one is calling it a fetus b/c it is most obviously a baby. Would you feel ok killing this baby?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: charrison
I think the point is if anchor babies did not get automatic citizenship they would not get delivered as frequently in US hospitals.
Not necessarily true. Do hospitals have a litmus test for US citizenship before accepting patients?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: spittledip
Whether or not this is normal for the baby to survive is irrelevant. No one is calling it a fetus b/c it is most obviously a baby. Would you feel ok killing this baby?
Two points:

1. Hindsight is 20/20.

2. I'm not a doctor. And even if I were one, I'm wouldn't try to diagnose a patient based on video (see Bill Frist and Teri Schiavo). But I will say this: cases like these should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Obviously, the doctors saw promising signs that prompted to them undergo the neonatal care for the infant and fortunately it worked out in the end. But don't think that its always going to be the case.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106

" 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? "


One can hope...

As for hate and cold / Natzi / kKK posts...

Etc...etc... Let's face it. Most of us 90% of us were born normal births, wouldn't you want the majority of child birth research and development to go to the majority of the kids growing up today?

I don't see the logic in giving most of it to births that have a very low success rate. I see it as impossible to please everyone. I think the normal births have a hard enough time as it is and more attention is needed to make sure they are secure in getting the best treatment... I don't see that as heartless and cold my view I suppose... I'd rather see the funds going towards the babies that have the highest success rates. I guess I have flawed logic. Go figure. I suppose if you actually worked in a hospital and saw what REALLY goes on... You'd see the light.

There a lot of people on life support right now that have less then 5% chance of making it. Most are taken off life support because most people know it's a waste of time and a lost cause. When you start talking of 1% it's pretty pathetic to even talk about it in my opinion.


 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
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.

wow.. one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read..

I wonder if you are aware that at 30 days post-ovulation, an embryo has more brain cells than your cold, heartless & worthless self possesses right now?

At only 10 weeks, an embryo's brain is fully developed. The only difference is the physical size.


Go smoke on your crack pipe and kill yourself if life is so meaningless
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: ericlp

" 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? "


One can hope...

As for hate and cold / Natzi / kKK posts...

Etc...etc... Let's face it. Most of us 90% of us were born normal births, wouldn't you want the majority of child birth research and development to go to the majority of the kids growing up today?

I don't see the logic in giving most of it to births that have a very low success rate. I see it as impossible to please everyone. I think the normal births have a hard enough time as it is and more attention is needed to make sure they are secure in getting the best treatment... I don't see that as heartless and cold my view I suppose... I'd rather see the funds going towards the babies that have the highest success rates. I guess I have flawed logic. Go figure. I suppose if you actually worked in a hospital and saw what REALLY goes on... You'd see the light.

There a lot of people on life support right now that have less then 5% chance of making it. Most are taken off life support because most people know it's a waste of time and a lost cause. When you start talking of 1% it's pretty pathetic to even talk about it in my opinion.

I don't get your logic. You say "wouldn't you want the majority of child birth research and development to go to the majority of the kids growing up today?" Uh, isn't it more important to devote more resources to those that actually need them to survive? That's like saying cancer patients take up a lot of resources... so shouldn't those resources be directed towards the majority of healthy people who don't have cancer?

Such a heartless, Orwellian Utilitarianism.

And where is this 1% statistic coming from? This says "At 24 weeks, the survival rate is approximately 50 percent; at 25 weeks, the rate is approximately 70 percent. Past 26 weeks, the survival rate is often greater than 90 percent."

Here's another one:
"Overall, about 75% of 24 week babies given intensive care here survive. As noted in the last section, there are reasons that an individual baby's chances may differ from the overall figure. Depending on those same factors, we might guess an individual baby's chances for survival to be anywhere from 50% to 90%."

Another site:
"A reasonably easy to remember guide is that the survival rate is about 40% for all babies born at 24 weeks' gestation, 50% for those born at 25 weeks, 60% for those born at 26 weeks, 70% for those born at 27 weeks, and 80% for those born at 28 weeks."

And I encourage anyone to read THIS... to understand the trauma parents often go through.
"There are many reasons that a pregnancy can end with premature delivery: preterm labor, incompetent cervix, premature rupture of membranes, placenta previa, toxemia are among the most common. The greatest majority of preterm births are not related to something the mother did or did not do. It is rarely the mother's fault.

An increasing number of premature babies survive and thrive today. The statistics show that 20% of 24 weekers, 50% of 25 weekers, and between 70-80% of 26 weekers survive their early birth. The rates are much higher for babies born above 30 weeks, hovering around 95%."

We should always strive to save a human life that has a chance, whether it's a baby born at 26 weeks, 12 year-old in a car accident, or a 65 year old with a heart attack. Always. And if it is not considered to have a chance, those parents or spouses need to make that decision, not some faceless bureaucratic prick in some office somewhere.
 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: ericlp

" 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? "


One can hope...

As for hate and cold / Natzi / kKK posts...

Etc...etc... Let's face it. Most of us 90% of us were born normal births, wouldn't you want the majority of child birth research and development to go to the majority of the kids growing up today?

I don't see the logic in giving most of it to births that have a very low success rate. I see it as impossible to please everyone. I think the normal births have a hard enough time as it is and more attention is needed to make sure they are secure in getting the best treatment... I don't see that as heartless and cold my view I suppose... I'd rather see the funds going towards the babies that have the highest success rates. I guess I have flawed logic. Go figure. I suppose if you actually worked in a hospital and saw what REALLY goes on... You'd see the light.

There a lot of people on life support right now that have less then 5% chance of making it. Most are taken off life support because most people know it's a waste of time and a lost cause. When you start talking of 1% it's pretty pathetic to even talk about it in my opinion.

I don't get your logic. You say "wouldn't you want the majority of child birth research and development to go to the majority of the kids growing up today?" Uh, isn't it more important to devote more resources to those that actually need them to survive? That's like saying cancer patients take up a lot of resources... so shouldn't those resources be directed towards the majority of healthy people who don't have cancer?

Such a heartless, Orwellian Utilitarianism.

And where is this 1% statistic coming from? This says "At 24 weeks, the survival rate is approximately 50 percent; at 25 weeks, the rate is approximately 70 percent. Past 26 weeks, the survival rate is often greater than 90 percent."

Here's another one:
"Overall, about 75% of 24 week babies given intensive care here survive. As noted in the last section, there are reasons that an individual baby's chances may differ from the overall figure. Depending on those same factors, we might guess an individual baby's chances for survival to be anywhere from 50% to 90%."

Another site:
"A reasonably easy to remember guide is that the survival rate is about 40% for all babies born at 24 weeks' gestation, 50% for those born at 25 weeks, 60% for those born at 26 weeks, 70% for those born at 27 weeks, and 80% for those born at 28 weeks."

And I encourage anyone to read THIS... to understand the trauma parents often go through.
"There are many reasons that a pregnancy can end with premature delivery: preterm labor, incompetent cervix, premature rupture of membranes, placenta previa, toxemia are among the most common. The greatest majority of preterm births are not related to something the mother did or did not do. It is rarely the mother's fault.

An increasing number of premature babies survive and thrive today. The statistics show that 20% of 24 weekers, 50% of 25 weekers, and between 70-80% of 26 weekers survive their early birth. The rates are much higher for babies born above 30 weeks, hovering around 95%."

We should always strive to save a human life that has a chance, whether it's a baby born at 26 weeks, 12 year-old in a car accident, or a 65 year old with a heart attack. Always. And if it is not considered to have a chance, those parents or spouses need to make that decision, not some faceless bureaucratic prick in some office somewhere.

Good post..

I knew that "1%" post was FUD anyway..

Our high risk ob/gyn mentioned to us that 28 weeks is what they try to push for, if there becomes symptoms of a preterm delivery.. 85% success is what the rate is at GBMC (Baltimore) for the high risk ob/gyn we go to..

My wife and I had twins at 23 weeks.. unfortunately they didn't make it..

Before the dr's went into the OR, they had asked me what measures did I want them to take.. I pretty much said.. everything and the kitchen sink.. $2,000 a day.. $5,000 a day.. I didn't give a fvck.. You are going to do whatever is medically possible to give my son & daughter a chance.. even if its only 25%

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,918
2,883
136
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
The right also wants to change the laws so that is no longer the case.

So, life is sacred, as long as it's American?....


Where do you people get this crap? Once again, you are trying to demonize the right because you don't want to actually look at the issue, or you just don't understand it.

Just because someone does not like the idea of anchor babies does not mean that they don't care about non-American human life. Stop making yourself look like an a$$ with these ridiculous arguments.


 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome

We should always strive to save a human life that has a chance, whether it's a baby born at 26 weeks, 12 year-old in a car accident, or a 65 year old with a heart attack. Always. And if it is not considered to have a chance, those parents or spouses need to make that decision, not some faceless bureaucratic prick in some office somewhere.

What if that life is Saddam Hussien?
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
What if the baby's mother was an illegal immigrant? Is it not okay then since they are "leeching" off the system?
It wouldn't make a difference.
The right is against Social Welfare for illegals, not medical care.

BTW One of the reasons our healthcare costs are so high is because of the 20 million illegals who don't have any form of health insurance and therefore must use the ER (the most expensive of all places to get treatment) for any type of medical needs.
But the baby is a US citizen.
The right also wants to change the laws so that is no longer the case.

So, life is sacred, as long as it's American?....


Where do you people get this crap? Once again, you are trying to demonize the right because you don't want to actually look at the issue, or you just don't understand it.

Just because someone does not like the idea of anchor babies does not mean that they don't care about non-American human life. Stop making yourself look like an a$$ with these ridiculous arguments.
No, I think everyone on both sides understands the issue. what it comes down to is if one values the right more than the life, or vice versa. It is just more difficult and awkward to attempt to justify the taking of a life, so it is rationalized. A baby is a baby. It looks like a baby, acts like a baby, comes from a woman. Somehow, if it was still in the womb, it would not have been a baby? Why?

 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: spittledip
Whether or not this is normal for the baby to survive is irrelevant. No one is calling it a fetus b/c it is most obviously a baby. Would you feel ok killing this baby?
Two points:

1. Hindsight is 20/20.

2. I'm not a doctor. And even if I were one, I'm wouldn't try to diagnose a patient based on video (see Bill Frist and Teri Schiavo). But I will say this: cases like these should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Obviously, the doctors saw promising signs that prompted to them undergo the neonatal care for the infant and fortunately it worked out in the end. But don't think that its always going to be the case.

If hindsight is 20/20, wouldn't this serve to show that the thing in the uterus is actually a baby?

What is there to diagnose? See, you are approaching this backwards. You are stating that if there are "signs of life" outside the womb, that makes that individual case a baby. Rather than stating, a baby is showing signs of life. You are determining that it is a baby b/c of its ability to survive outside the womb. The functioning of a thing does not make it not the thing it is supposed to be. Either it is a non-functioning thing or it is a functioning thing. A computer is still a computer when it is broken- it is just a non-working computer. Same thing goes for a car, or a dead person or a dead cat. You still identify it by what it is, not by it's present condition. Adjectives are used to describe the noun, not to determine if the noun is actually the noun.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I just knew I'd peek in here and find some idiotic abortion debate going on. I was not disappointed.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: cwjerome

We should always strive to save a human life that has a chance, whether it's a baby born at 26 weeks, 12 year-old in a car accident, or a 65 year old with a heart attack. Always. And if it is not considered to have a chance, those parents or spouses need to make that decision, not some faceless bureaucratic prick in some office somewhere.

What if that life is Saddam Hussien?

Well, for those that lack any common sense whatsoever: innocent human life.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just knew I'd peek in here and find some idiotic abortion debate going on. I was not disappointed.

Post of the year :roll: Why say anything at all?

BTW, I'm not arguing about abortion at all. I'm just disgusted by the calculating cold hearts who don't even want to give premature babies a chance.