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. :haha:

How can people so opposed to abortions also intentionally lie so as to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis only for their own self serving political agenda.

The minute you entertain your emotions, then all this is relevant. 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?

Meanwhile, how can thousands of human life be murdered in fertility clinics? Another perfect example of reasoning based only in emotional bias.

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...

I understand your point -- that being "pro life" means that you should be opposed to the intentional taking of life in all of its forms, be it abortion, fertility, war, "military actions", etc. All I can say is that most of the people in the pro life circles I frequent DO oppose those things. Not all, of course, but most. This mindset requires consistency, and you're right to point out hypocricy when you see it. Forget what you hear from congresscritters and other political pundits. I'm talking about the people on the ground, the counselors at crisis pregnancy centers, the girls who decide to put their children up for adoption, the ones holding vigils for prisoners on death row.

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.

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."

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. There are even people working (in Japan) on artificial wombs. Some time in the future, we're likely to have the ability to have a fetus be viable outside the womb mere days after conception. I wouldn't want our definition of who is worthy to live be based upon what current technology we have around.

Anyway, sorry to mire the conversation down. I just wanted to get people thinking.

Bwaha! :lol: