February 21, 2007: Youngest surviving premature baby

Meet Amillia Taylor - or what she looked like in October, when she was born as the world's youngest surviving premature baby. Amillia was born at a Miami hospital after less than 22 weeks of development. Since then she's been incubating and is expected to go home soon.

Is there nothing more amazing than those teeny tiny translucent feet. Hold your own hand out in front of you, and imagine those feet poking through your fingers. She was 10 OUNCES when born (280 grams), and 9.5 inches (24 cm). That's just longer than the length of your hand.

Now she looks like this:

Amazing. I would be most interested in following her development, to see what lingering effects she had from her premature birth.

Doesn't look real. Amazing.

Oh Kit... that image just might earn you a nomination in the funniest Cellar male category

there's been a lot of studies correlating low birth weight babies and criminal behaviour later in life, probably due to the underdeveloped brain causing lack of self restraint, lower intelligence, and other challenges.

best of luck to this tiny one.

Just WOW. I to am an October baby and was very small at birth. But I was full term and aint so small now. Anybody know why she was taken at 22 weeks? I didn't think a baby could survive that early. Will hug my girls extra tonight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune Doesn't look real. Amazing.

I have mixed feelings about this, similar to misgivings about "extraordinary measures" taken at the other end of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble What are you, nuts? Correlation != Causation. Here's another theory: risky behaviors like smoking and drinking during pregnancy lead to low birthweights

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune Doesn't look real. Amazing.

Imagine the poor kid born in a test tube. With so much love for glass as always be in front of mirrors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orca Anybody know why she was taken at 22 weeks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawman there's been a lot of studies correlating low birth weight babies and criminal behaviour later in life, probably due to the underdeveloped brain causing lack of self restraint, lower intelligence, and other challenges. best of luck to this tiny one.

What is the source for these images?

I smoked and drank during pregnancy, and UT was the result. I did both in moderation, however.

These are wire service images widely available on the net; the actual source is from the hospital itself and there was no photo credit. I think this shot may have come from a daily gallery like MSNBC's, but I forget.

Not actually the youngest.

In the 70's I had a 5 year relationship with a boyfriend who'd been born at 20 weeks in 1950. He had a twin that died at birth. His mom told me that he fit in one hand. And she was a small woman with small hands. I don't recall what his birth weight was. The biggest problem he had was due to the fact that they put him in an almost purely oxygen fed incubator. It blinded him in one eye. But the rest of him was very healthy and very normal, once he gained a regular weight. As far as I know he is still alive and approaching 60.

Those feet make me kind of ill.

I had a co-worker that I have since lost touch with, but when his daughter was born, she was something like 18 oz, and something like 24-25 weeks. Last time I ran into him, she was like 12 years old, and doing well...

I remember when they took her home from the hospital, she was still so small, the ONLY clothes they could get small enough was doll clothes

Wonder if ajaccio's ex-boyfriend or CharlieG's cow orker's kid are criminals?

Okay, I'm going to betray some of my political leanings here (and probably bring this forum into a quagmire), but I just have to ask...

After seeing this kind of evidence that people can survive after being in the womb for so short a time (and hearing anecdotal evidence of at least two more stories), how can people ever bring themselves to allow abortions on children in utero at that same (and later) stage of development?

If you wait too long, they are too cumbersome to fit the clay pigeon thrower, liable to choke even a big dog, and awfully stinky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanAhern After seeing this kind of evidence that people can survive after being in the womb for so short a time (and hearing anecdotal evidence of at least two more stories), how can people ever bring themselves to allow abortions on children in utero at that same (and later) stage of development?

Very few abortions take place at this point 5 1/2 months in. The current legal point is close to that.

I would support viability as the point at which an abortion should not take place. But we don't want to get into the business of removing fetuses and trying to incubate each and every one of them.

Giving birth to a baby 240 cm in length would be very painful.

yikes updated

not if it was snake shaped...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw Those most opposed to abortions also support Israeli stealing of Palestinian land and other acts of aggression only because these moral people want Armageddon. Why do these same people who worry about a few dead babies also have no problem advocating a massacre of most Jews in Israel - Armageddon? You opened the can of worms with the predicate of your question. You tell me who more moral - or are they really only lying to themselves to entertain their emotional biases?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce If you wait too long, they are too cumbersome to fit the clay pigeon thrower, liable to choke even a big dog, and awfully stinky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanAhern I also don't want to conflate too many issues. A discussion about abortion can go in many directions, but diving into the politics of war can sometimes muddy the waters. ... But you have to watch out for the "viability" argument. Given the photograph that we're having this discussion under, it's clear that we're getting better and better at being able to care for children at earlier and earlier stages of gestation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanAhern Okay, I'm going to betray some of my political leanings here (and probably bring this forum into a quagmire), but I just have to ask... After seeing this kind of evidence that people can survive after being in the womb for so short a time (and hearing anecdotal evidence of at least two more stories), how can people ever bring themselves to allow abortions on children in utero at that same (and later) stage of development?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad ... ... But we don't want to get into the business of removing fetuses and trying to incubate each and every one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet Not my business, or yours, what a woman chooses to do with her body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce The hell it isn't. As long as it's attached, it's as much a part of her as her head, hand or appendix. A turd is not part of her body, a fetus is. :p

If you cut off her hand and gave it the necessary nutrients, it to would survive.

What if we provided a turd with necessary nutrients?

Nope, the turd's already dead. :p

How unpleasant. How about we talk about the world's oldest surviving premature baby (40 weeks minus 1 second) instead?

Do you mean fetus or baby?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune Doesn't look real. Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanAhern And yet, each can survive when separated from the other. The same can be said for no other thing. Which is why I still stand by my statement that the question of the "personhood of the fetus" is the primary question.

Arguing about whether it's the personhood that's the issue or the woman with the little clump of cells inside her is an argument much akin to the chicken or the egg discussion.

In this case, I vote for first in first served. Therefor, the womans rights come before the clump of cells because if the woman weren't there already, there'd be no clump of cells.

Ha Ha Ha, I read that post then looked down at the cookie at the bottom of the page, which read;

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanAhern The legal line for abortions in the U.S. is "viability." English common law had it at "quickening", which is somewhere around 20-24 weeks. But Roe vs. Wade codified it at about 7 months (28 weeks), or specifically, "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."