Mainstream Media: Pre-term Baby’s Survival Will Have Big Impact on Abortion Debate

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/22/07 | Gudrun Schultz

[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

[Jorge]

I did respond to you - how's the reading comprehension on your end? I said you were twisting words. You didn't ask any real questions, nor did you make any real points - so there was nothing of substance to reply to directly.

Either you can't read or you're a liar.

I presented a case directly from the Bible where God allowed something He didn't agree with as right or good..and I illustrated how this can parallel the abortion debate.

You have yet to show where my argument was wrong. Or even attempt to.

[MHGinTN]

Uh, kill or not is not 'varying interpretation'. All that's needed is to state that the alive unborn has a right to live. The current laws would activate and the only new laws would address penalties for killing an alive unborn child. What is clear is that the current defenders of the abortion laws use them as a means to insure a dead baby as the ultimate goal.

Think about what you posted: "For example, I don't think it's plausible to force a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term simply because her life is not a risk." Actually, pregnancy increases a woman's risk of death above non-pregnancy. What needs to be entered into the equation is the aliveness of the unborn child. Are you willing to allow that reality to be important in the writing of law?

What defenders of abortion on demand fail to understand or choose to discard is that there is a precedent of historic nature to America which can be used to direct laws governing pregnancy temrinations. Self-defense is a classic historic notion, but to invoke it the life of the innocent unborn must be addressed as well.

[justche]

I read just fine thanks - and perhaps you'd like to rephrase your rant, I'm honest in thought, speech and deed - so if you want to give a specific verse or passage that you're referring to other than some vague reference that the Bible supposedly says- maybe I can address what you're trying to say.


Your arguments are a bit like "Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?" smoke and mirrors --

You obviously think there are reasons that make abortions ok . That makes you pro-abortion.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum, and don't think abortions are ok even in the extreme "what if" cases that are seldom the basis for any thing. At the end of the day- consequences of those abortions are the same as any abortion.

[Jorge]

Uh, kill or not is not 'varying interpretation'.

Uh, read my post again. I didn't say it was.

I was addressing the life of the mother vs the life of the child stipulation.

[MHGinTN]

So you acknowledge that a living child is killed in abortion?

[Jorge]

I read just fine thanks - and perhaps you'd like to rephrase your rant, I'm honest in thought, speech and deed - so if you want to give a specific verse or passage that you're referring to other than some vague reference that the Bible supposedly says- maybe I can address what you're trying to say.

Matthew 19:8 Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan.

[Jorge]

So you acknowledge that a living child is killed in abortion?

I acknowledge that there are differing opinions on when exactly the life of the child begins, and the real impact this has on the abortion debate.

Not to mention the conflict you brought up concerning the life of the mother vs the life of child.

Nice try.

[Kickass Conservative]

Or in the case of Barrack Hussein Obama, it may be better to just let the baby die on the table when the birth was successful but the abortion was unsuccessful. Think anyone will ask his opinion of this event?

[justche]

ok - so where is the verse that says
But Jesus [or Moses] provided a way out when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable to carry a baby to term? I mean, if we're comparing apples to apples - there should be one that clear right?

I mean if there's an exception to Jesus loving children it should be just as clear that in the case of rape or incest it's ok to terminate the pregnancy as it is clear that if there's adultery it's ok to dissolve the marriage.


Oh that's right - the closest thing is that people preventing children to know about Jesus should be cast into the sea. What greater way to prevent that then a generation of them being wiped out.

There are always heartbreaking stories of rape, or incest or medical reasons for abortion. The fact is that with medical technology, there are very few (if any) reasons that a mother's life can't be saved.

As for the other reasons, God is merciful and full of Grace - but I couldn't recommend it to a friend or family member that was in that position. As I said earlier, the consequences of abortion are there regardless of the reason.

[Jorge]

Your arguments are a bit like "Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?" smoke and mirrors --

Huh? What are you talking about?

I presented the passage about Mose allowing divorce NOT because God approved of it, but rather because of the hardeness of man's heart.

What does that have to do with God lifting rock?

[MHGinTN]

That's two questions you've evaded. Nice try yourself.

[Jorge]

That's two questions you've evaded. Nice try yourself.

What two questions? Or are you afraid to post them?

[Jorge]

ok - so where is the verse that says But Jesus [or Moses] provided a way out when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable to carry a baby to term? I mean, if we're comparing apples to apples - there should be one that clear right?

You sound like the pro-gay "christians" asking where Jesus specifically condemned homosexuality.

He didn't.

The fact remains if you are capable of normal interpretation of scripture, you could easily address the point I made about Moses allowing divorce. EVEN though God did NOT approve of divorce.

I'm beginning to think you are incapable of grasping the fundamentals of my challenge to your post.

[MHGinTN]

The day a pro-abortion poster like you frightens me will never come. Dishonesty and dissembling are your stock and trade because you support the specious right of a dead baby if a woman wants it so. That prevents your ilk from acknowledging the life of the alive unborn child ... and you will go to any lengths to avoid addressing the life of those children being slaughter in your special rites.

1. Are you willing to allow that reality to be important in the writing of law?

2. So you acknowledge that a living child is killed in abortion?

I offered to you a reasoned debate but you see the implications of addressing self defense as the rationale for pregnancy termination so you avoid the truth at every turn. Nice try, again. Your ilk are always transparent defenders of the rites of killing alive unborn children when addressed directly.

[starbase]

You got that right. This "viable outside the womb" is an utterly, utterly arbitrary standard. If I, an about 200 lb. man, but my hands over a small adult's mouth and nose, I could easily suffocate them to death. Are they then no longer "viable outside the womb"?

A baby needs some one to feed it. But a not yet fully formed human may need a respirator or incubation chamber. Compare those forms of assistance with my failure to close off someone's breath.

These forms of life are all human because they have human DNA and are growing. It is a dirty lie to establish some form of arbitrary "viability" as a standard for what's alive, when any one of our's viability could be withdrawn at any time in our adult life.

[justche]

See there again, you're pulling something else out that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Finally, we agree on something, you're right, there is no verse that justifies or gives an out for abortion. The fact is the Bible is clearly pro-life for innocents.

So rave on to someone else, I'm not going to continue with someone that is being dishonest.

[proudCArepublican]

God Bless that little baby.

[Jorge]

The day a pro-abortion poster like you frightens me will never come.

Obviously you are frightened, because not only can't you address my challenges but you can't even accept the fact that I am pro-life...just not a member of your nut case club.

You represent a VERY small minority of Americans on this issue.

[Jorge]

See there again, you're pulling something else out that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Finally, we agree on something, you're right, there is no verse that justifies or gives an out for abortion.

Again. You sound like the "gay Christians" who challenge us to find a quote from Jesus condeming homosexuality.

[MHGinTN]

Bwahaha, you're a liar, that's all. Just like most of the pro-abortion people I've talked to, twisting, dissembling, lying, and mischaracterizing when cornered. Someone else has already told you that you are not honest enough to discuss with. I think she's wiser than me, so I'll bid you adieu also.