Babies born alive at 22 weeks should be treated as if they never existed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Island_Oak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason seems to be able to make late-term abortions more socially, medically & emotionally acceptable.
The RCOG is expected to say that acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion. It will say that babies born below 22 weeks are “pre-viable” and not capable of life.
Click to expand...
Dr Vincent Argent, medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, is the latest abortion expert to add his support to lowering the upper limit. “It may be reasonable to drop the limit for social abortions from 24 to 22 weeks in view of the expected RCOG guideline on the pre-viable foetus,” said Argent.
Click to expand...
Britain is further behind the U.S. on the road to restoring more restrictive abortion laws. I agree, really odious.
 
Island_Oak said:
"BABIES born alive at less than 22 weeks gestation should be treated as if they had never existed, even if they breathe, move or their heart beats, a report by a royal college is expected to say…

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-2415979,00.html

Can anyone say slippery slope?!?!
Click to expand...
But babies in the womb are expected to have prenatal care and there are restrictions on what a mother can do to her body, like refrain from smoking, drinking, drugs when the baby in in the womb at 22 months??? :confused:
Bizarre crazy world we live in - everything is justifiable as long as science deems it so.
 
Jennifer123 said:
But babies in the womb are expected to have prenatal care and there are restrictions on what a mother can do to her body, like refrain from smoking, drinking, drugs when the baby in in the womb at 22 months??? :confused:
Bizarre crazy world we live in - everything is justifiable as long as science deems it so.
Click to expand...
22 months?:confused:

I feel for that mother.
 
I have a cousin who was born at about 22 weeks or so. She’s a healthy 15 year old now. Her birth and survival absolutely sealed my opposition to abortion. It’s terrifying to me that there are those out there who would prefer to have treated her as though she didn’t exist, as though she wasn’t a person.
 
aurora77 said:
I have a cousin who was born at about 22 weeks or so. She’s a healthy 15 year old now. Her birth and survival absolutely sealed my opposition to abortion. It’s terrifying to me that there are those out there who would prefer to have treated her as though she didn’t exist, as though she wasn’t a person.
Click to expand...
For the time being, many of us are aware that 22 weeks is a commonly-recognized “dividing line,” in that few babies born at or before that time survive, or survive without suffering terrible complications. However, I have every confidence that the talents employed in medical science and research may someday change this, and that doctors may well be able to sustain these fragile lives…assuming of course we promote the recognition that they are, in fact, human lives.
 
Island_Oak said:
For the time being, many of us are aware that 22 weeks is a commonly-recognized “dividing line,” in that few babies born at or before that time survive, or survive without suffering terrible complications.
Click to expand...
This is true. There is a clear delineation point.

My baby boy was born at 20.5 weeks - alive and kicking in a normal labor and delivery on Good Friday. Tiniest little tyke one could set eye on.

The hospital told me there was nothing medically they would do for him and he stayed with us for the 20 mins before he died.

He was treated as if he never existed with no record of birth and no record of death - just a sort of medical “out patient visit”.

This was a Catholic hospital and they did have compassion for me as they took his tiny foot prints and placed them on a beautiful card for me, along with a baby blanket and beanie cap. Presented to me in a satin covered box. Still brings tears to my eyes
 
Island_Oak said:
For the time being, many of us are aware that 22 weeks is a commonly-recognized “dividing line,” in that few babies born at or before that time survive, or survive without suffering terrible complications. However, I have every confidence that the talents employed in medical science and research may someday change this, and that doctors may well be able to sustain these fragile lives…assuming of course we promote the recognition that they are, in fact, human lives.
Click to expand...
Just a few years ago 28 weeks was the dividing line. Slippery slope, indeed. Except England seems to have made it’s way to the bottom of the slope…disgusting.
 
I believe that any child born alive (heart beat and moving) deserves a birth certificate, and at the end of life a death certificate.

Way tooo many people just don’t want to acknowledge the pain the families go through when they experience the birth and death of an much wanted child.
 
I was taught in my Maternity class in nursing school that the fetus is already viable at 20 weeks gestation. That means the baby has a chance for survival.

Babies born at this time should receive the best medical care there is to help them survive. Even at this stage they are already **breathing **and **feeling **human beings, even though they are physically weak.

Ignoring them until they die just because they were born premature is outright murder!
The article says :
"The RCOG is expected to say that acknowledging that these babies have been born alive, and having to register the births, causes unnecessary suffering to mothers who wanted an abortion. It will say that babies born below 22 weeks are “pre-viable” and not capable of life. "
Excuse me? They want to do this because they are concerned for the feelings of the mother who wanted abortion in the first place?!

How can these people be so blind?!:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top