Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee

By setting an arbitrary limit, that 11% could have been zero percent instead of the 20% it is today. Only by pushing the limits do we push the survivability back week after week after week.

Ten years ago survivability may have been 28 weeks (just a guestimate). Today it's 23 to 24. Setting a limit will insure only one thing. That 23 to 24 weeks will be the limit from here on out. Frankly I'd like to see it become 15 weeks sometime down the road and even less years after that.

Limits? No.


7 posted on 06/05/2005 2:40:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne
My youngest brother was 28 weeks when he was born in 1970 (my mother got food poisoning and it induced labor). He was in an incubator for over a month and the doctors predicted he would have health problems throughout his life.

From the second grade on, my brother was on the all star little league baseball team every year. In high school he ran track and his times were in the top ten in the nation for medium distances. After college he went into the Army and was a Ranger, a compound fracture to his shoulder following a parachute jump and his disgust with having Klintoon as Commander in Chief made him decide to leave the service. He went to law school and is now a successful corporate attorney.

And that's my experience with premature babies.

11 posted on 06/05/2005 2:48:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
My son was born at just under 26 weeks. My wife's father, a physician, advised us not to name him because we might get attached.

That was nearly 21 years ago, and that unnamed kid is a junior at Texas A&M making outstanding grades. He was also a varsity wrestler for four years in high school.

Just because he was born at an age where it was quite legal to abort him instead doesn't mean much to me. Being severely premature does not mean that the baby is permanently damaged. It means he/she gets to fight for life.

27 posted on 06/05/2005 3:20:10 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

I cannot fathom putting an arbitrary number of months on which baby can survive.

My oldest daughter was born at 28 weeks and fortunately she was born in a research hospital for neonatal care. At that time, there was very much of chance she would not have survived in a regular hospital; not only did she survive because of the care she received in the hospital, she came home on her due date. She never had any problems from being born premature, not one. She was just smaller and thankfully because of the shots I received the 24 hours before she was born by C-Section, her lungs were strengthened. If 28 years ago, my daughter survived and thrived at 28 weeks, I wouldn't say 24 weeks was out of the question with the new technology.


60 posted on 06/05/2005 5:15:39 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor; Allen in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
Ten years ago survivability may have been 28 weeks (just a guestimate). Today it's 23 to 24. Setting a limit will insure only one thing. That 23 to 24 weeks will be the limit from here on out. Frankly I'd like to see it become 15 weeks sometime down the road and even less years after that.

At 15 weeks, babies don't even have lungs. Even at 24 weeks, the lungs barely function. From what I've read, the survival rate at 24w is around 50% and of the survivors, the significant morbidity rate is about the same.

There's a HUGE difference between 24w and 28w. Survival at 28w is around 90%.

69 posted on 06/05/2005 6:00:23 PM PDT by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
You dont thik its mere chance that they are settnig the limit at the end of the second trimester do you? There are two factors I am wondering about...

1) With survivability going lower and lower many people who are on the fence when it comes to abortion will start to see limits as morally required. Libs must be thinking why not just set it so those limits cant go below the second trimester through a law that has 'nothing to do with abortion'

2) Abortions where the baby survives may be happening more often than we hear about! this law would protect abortion doctors from ever having to even think about recitation no matter what abortion law becomes...

90 posted on 06/06/2005 5:52:44 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

Good example of how the government limits progress. Then the socialist societies wonder why they have trouble keeping pace with free market nations technologically.


108 posted on 06/06/2005 11:37:58 PM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson