Tuesday, February 20, 2007

21 Week Old Baby Survives

Babies that are less than 23 weeks old are not considered viable. This one really beat the odds. Does this mean anything on the abortion debate? To me, it adds volumes.

5 Comments:

  1. John Wesley said...
    Dear and Gentle Reader,

    There are stories as these that will tug at the heart and actually will become the voice of God.

    Since I last had the pleasure of visiting ye, I have had many thoughts upon ye and your work in this, our online community. Keep hold the faith and continue to run the race! We will praise God for what he has done through your ministry and I cherish your willing spirit and compassion.

    Who knows but it may please God to make ye an instrument in His glorious work? In effecting an union among the labourers in His vineyard? That He may direct and bless you in all your steps is the prayer of my heart.

    Your affectionate and obedient servant,
    JW
    Anonymous said...
    You anti choice people make me sick. You think that this one example in the history of the world means that the science that determined that 23 weeks is not viable is wrong? You really think that 23 weeks should be lowered because of this one exception in the history of the world?
    Brett said...
    I hope you use the term science loosely. The 23 week viability rule is based more on politics than science. And speaking of science, as our advances improve, is it possible that this could happen more frequently?
    On another note, names such as "anti choice" and "pro death" on both sides of the debate do nothing but strenghten the resolve of those that don't agree with those on the other side.
    heather.ariyeh said...
    I agree. While I believe the pro-choice side is misguided, I do not believe they are "anti-life" anymore than I am "anti-choice". I am a female, and a feminist. As such I cherish my ability to give birth, and don't see it as lesser simply because it doesn't fit a hyper-masculine stereotype of power or because our market based economy finds it inconvenient for our GDP. I also cherish my right to choose - which is why I choose not to have sex unless I am in a committed, married, healthy relationship so that if a child did result, I would be prepared. By this I don't mean that we should place judgment on unwed or single mothers. Far from it. (My mom was a single mother.) We should help them and encourage them, and recognize that none of us are perfect or live in an ideal world. I also understand some people's exception for rape. Until recently I worked with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. I don't judge people that would have an abortion under such circumstances. The trauma is unimaginable. I do, however, think that makes a third victim - the child, and further victimizes the mother who has now undergone a traumatic and dangerous procedure like abortion. We on the pro-choice side do not want to limit freedom, but we do not think we have the freedom to take the life of another. To us it is ridiculous to speak of choice when it comes to this situation, just as it would be ridiculous for us to talk about choice when it comes to the life of any human being.
    heather.ariyeh said...
    I just want to clarify, that while I do not judge people who have an abortion after being raped, that I do think the action is wrong, and not in anyone's best interest.

Post a Comment



 

blogger templates | Make Money Online