Posted on 02/22/2007 4:27:05 PM PST by wagglebee
FLORIDA, United States, February 22, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The survival of pre-term baby Amillia Taylor, at 21 weeks gestation the youngest know child to survive premature birth, has produced an increase in media debate on the abortion issue.
Mainstream media outlets in the United States have acknowledged that the baby’s life raises “big questions” about legal abortion, . Weighing less than 10oz and just nine ½ inches long, Amillia was born one month earlier than the date considered viable for most babies, 25 weeks. About half of the babies born at 25 weeks will survive. Abortion laws are often based on an assumption of viability, with the cut-off being set at the point where babies would be likely to survive outside the womb.
ABC anchor Charles Gibson made the account of Amillia’s survival the top story on World News Tuesday night, calling the baby, “A tiny miracle that raises big questions in the debate over abortion, ” according to a blog report by Brent Baker posted on NewsBusters.com Feb.20.
“The fact that she has survived and grown to more than four pounds, and is about to go home, is a miracle, yes, but a miracle that may have an effect on the debate over abortion. And it may change what people think about life.”
Dan Harris, pro-abortion reporter for ABC, pointed out that in most of the country, Amillia could have been legally aborted well past the point of her birth.
“Only one state, North Carolina, explicitly prohibits aborting a fetus at the point at which Amillia was born; 12 states permit abortion at that point; 23 states leave it to a doctor to decide whether the fetus is viable; and in 14 states, there are no laws on the books that would prevent such an abortion.”
Tony Perkins, with the Family Research Council, was interviewed by ABC for the story. “As we see, with the advancement of medical technology, we have children surviving outside the womb younger and younger,” Perkins said. “It really brings into focus how valuable and how precious this human life really is.”
Now weighing a healthy four lbs, Amillia is due to be released from hospital within the next few days. Apart from some respiratory and digestive difficulties, her doctors said she has done remarkably well.
“She told us early on from the start that she was a fighter and she wanted to be here,” said Dr. William Smalling from the Baptist Children’s Hospital in Kendall, Florida.
Comments posted on Newsbusters pointed out that at 35 weeks from conception, Amillia is still three weeks from her natural birth date and could legally be aborted in many states if she had remained in her mother‘s womb.
See full coverage posted on NewsBusters.com:
http://newsbusters.org/node/10954
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
“Non-viable” Baby Girl Survives Birth at 21 Weeks, Weighing Under 10oz
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07022003.html
-----"You are so desperate to refute the facts I posted all you can do is call people names. "-----
WHAT FACTS!?!
It is amazing to read your posts Jorge! What exactly are you trying to say anyway?
I think I've just had a novel peek into the darkness of your mind, and it is rather frightening.
-----"To be pro-choice is to have a callous regard for the life of a tiny baby. One is either for protecting an innocent life or for destroying an innocent life. Pro-choicers are not about protecting life, therefore they are pro-abortion."------
THANK YOU
-------"Of course they are a person at conception. What else could they be? I agree, no matter when the pregnancy is terminated, the result is one dead baby. I think most people who try to nuance the abortion issue have never really sat down and thought it totally through. They are in a kind of denial that won't allow themselves to see the horror that is the act of abortion."------
EXACTLY...... the really scary part is the pervasive nature of this blindness worldwide. It is indeed a spiritual blindness..... even though it is scientifically OBVIOUS as to when life begins.... people are given over....... toast in the making.
The key to the reasoning is to start with ORGANISM. When one starts correctly -with organism- then debates over things like embryonic stem cells and cloning become clear debates over the value of individual life rather than episodes of beard plucking (not a human being until heartbeat, or brain waves), or half-distance moves toward beginning, or magic thinking (not a human being at conception but at some point a poof happens and there is an alive unborn human being, or as with the SCOTUS, a false trimester definition vaguely hinting growth toward personhood).
The goal of the researchers and abortionists exposes the reality toward the ORGANISM they target. EX: with human 'therapeutic' cloning, a human ovum is denucleated, then the nucleus of a human cell (acting as the sperm and DNA of ovum) is injected into the denucleated ovum and a stimulus starts the ORGANISMAL growth evidenced by cell division; the goal is another HUMAN BEING, a definite ORGANISM at embryo age for exploitation and perhaps removal of that being's body parts, their stem cells, or later in the age of the ORGANISM, organ buds, etc. None of the process would be successful if the target were not a new and distinct ORGANSIM from whom parts may be 'harvested'.
Transfer this truth regarding ORGANISM to the abortion contoversy and it is amazing how it clears up the debate ... abortion is all about and nothing else about a dead other HUMAN ORGANISM at whatever age the serial killer can get to the other being to terminate him or her. That is why I have chosen to approach this issue of LIFE now from the perspective of self defense, the right of a female to self defend. But that ought also carry with it the inherent acknowledgement that the other receiving life support from the female is also a HUMAN BEING with the right to live if it is at all possible. Technology is close to solving even the most difficult life support issues for the innocent other in the womb.
As O'Reilly would ask, 'What say you?'
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
How many women per year actually become pregnant as a consequence of rape? I'm sure it's happened in the past, and will happen in the future, but does it happen 1x/year, 10x/year, 100x/year, or what?
One difficulty I've not seen addressed by those who would seek a "rape" exception to anti-abortion laws is the possibility that such rules might provide women who want to abort their babies an incentive to retroactively decide that consensual sex was really "rape". Although some people would claim women never cry "rape" so they can get out of trouble, events in Durham pretty well prove otherwise.
Biblically, I see nothing to suggest that the life of an adulteress' unborn child was considered worth anything. Putting an adulteress to death would certainly kill her unborn child as well, but I see nothing to suggest that the adulteress was supposed to be kept alive until she gave birth. Although the Bible does not talk about children conceived in rape, I would not see any reason to give them higher stature than those conceived in adultery. Tough issue. I can see no particular basis for denying a rape victim the right to kill the product of such rape, but at the same time I can see no practical way to legislate a rape exception in such a way as to prevent abuse.
Moses was God's chosen leader and spokesman.
Nowhere does Jesus condemn Moses for this judgement.
Perhaps so, but I would suggest that the pro-life crowd would do well to support it.
First of all, it would be an immense improvement over the status quo, protecting many children who at the moment have no protection even after they're born (if a child is born during an attempted abortion, doctors will often kill it even though it's completely out of the mother's body).
Secondly, it would split the pro-choice people into those who believe that it's okay to kill a blob of flesh but not a baby, versus those who think even fully formed and delivered babies are disposable. The latter group try to conceal their true agenda, but splitting off the former group would expose them.
Thirdly, it would establish a pretty strong "ratchet" that can only move in one direction. A pro-choice person may be able to argue, for awhile, that an eigteen-week fetus is just a blob of cells even though a 21-week fetus is a baby, but as techniques for rescuing premature infants improve, the line will get pushed earlier and earlier. Until doctors can rescue 18-week fetuses, the "blob of cells" argument might hold some water, but once they can manage such rescues, that argument will be destroyed forever.
Finally, it would help reveal the true nature of public opinion. While it is true that the vast majority of people favor allowing abortion in at least some circumstances, very few think it should be allowed as broadly as it is today. If someone feels that most abortions should be restricted, but feels more strongly about protecting those few that he feels shouldn't be, such a person would be in the "pro-choice" camp in today's climate, but would be in the "pro-life" camp if said camp focused on restricting those abortions that most people feel should be restricted.
Interesting point. I never thought about this.
By your description, "πορνειαι" would seem to include acts which were discouraged in the Old Testament (e.g. in Proverbs) but not forbidden by the Law of Moses. This wouldn't necessarily imply an inconsistency (as noted elsewhere, the Law of Moses provides for divorce even though God doesn't like it; that something is not forbidden doesn't mean it's good) but I still think it interesting.
Those beautiful,tiny little feet won't influence Hillary and her cohorts, the NARAL and Emily's List donors who kick in millions to her campaign.
Hillary voted against banning partial birth abortion and late term abortion. These people want abortion at any time.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
First you make accusations of "lying" that you can't or are unwilling to back up.
Then you resort to describing the the "frightening" "darkness" of my mind.
Perhaps you can actually try to address something I've actually posted sometime?
First you make accusations of "lying" that you can't or are unwilling to back up.
Then you resort to describing the the "frightening" "darkness" of my mind.
Perhaps you can actually try to address something I've actually posted sometime?
It does raise some tricky issues. There are some practical and moral reasons for wanting the unborn child destroyed:
Your really think that abortion and divorce are morally equivalent?
No. But it wasn't a question of moral equivalence.
I was applying the same moral principle Jesus expressed regarding divorce to this debate.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.