What is she then?

A miserable little pile of secrets.

nobodys trying to fool anybody, clearly thats a human being. the question is should she be kept alive? im guessing the sole reason shes not dead already is because of todays ridiculous health advancements. in the past they would have called that a miscarriage and moved on. why is death so feared? let the poor thing go back to where it came from and hopefully get a better shot next time. trust me, it will never be the wiser. proof is in the fact that you cant tell me you have any significant memory of being conscious inside the womb. but who knows, maybe she will grow up and live a life of some sort. knowing what i do about the world i probably wouldnt want to come here in that body.

Surely is remarkable of what health advancements can do today!!

My nephew is a neo-natal nurse that takes care of ones that size all the time.

He says that, while miracles do happen, they are the exception, not the rule.

Babies born that premature will probably suffer lifelong disabilities, if they survive. Brain damage, blindness, MD, and numerous other problems.

Sometimes it's just best to let them go.

The truth is, the "survival probability" for premature infants is much more closely related to gestational age of the infant than birth weight of the infant.

And this makes sense, in my opinion, since time plays the primary role in the development of complexity within the infant's organs...such lungs, brain, etc.

Read on:

“The original scientific basis for Roe v. Wade depended very little on fetal development per se. Instead, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the ability of physicians to keep a premature infant alive outside the uterus. The distinction between the first two trimesters, when a woman was held to have a fundamental right of choice, and the final trimester, when the state was held to have an interest in the outcome of the pregnancy, was based on the finding that the beginning of the third trimester marked the point at which there was a reasonable chance that a fetus could survive (with medical care) and grow to a normal birth weight.

Our experience has been that there is a general feeling that advances in medical technology in the treatment of premature infants-a field now called neonatology-has progressed to the point at which this old distinction is no longer valid, and that physicians are now able to intervene successfully at earlier and earlier stages in the pregnancy. When we look at the state of neonatology, however, we find a very different situation. It is true that there have been enormous advances in the field in the last twenty years. These advances, however, have been primarily in the ability to improve the chances of survival in good health of a third-trimester infant. There has not been a corresponding lowering of the age at which medical intervention can produce survival. In other words, the chances of an infant born at twenty-three weeks are not significantly better now than they were when the Roe v. Wade decision was first made.

…

This result was certainly not anticipated by physicians. One prominent neonatologist we talked to, for example, spoke of his field as “hitting the wall.” As we shall see in a moment, the existence of the “wall” is related to fundamental developmental processes in the fetus, and scientists are not likely to breach it in the foreseeable future.”


"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil

Some people are so concerned with whether or not we should have the 'right to abort', I don't think they ever stop to consider that in some cases the question should be, "do we have the right not to abort".

I don't mean legal rights. But if, as the anti choicers insist, 'morals are absolute regardless of the feelings of those involved'; then by what 'moral right' do parents have to create an individual who is doomed to a life of misery and suffering?

That's the thing.

I think people are getting to be so selfish about their own feelings they are willing to keep someone alive, regardless of the quality of that life, for their own emotional crutch.

We see it with people who won't let family die (ie. Terri Schiavo) and we see it in premature babies.

That's a very tough and torturous question. And the same applies to adults with illnesses that condemn them to a life of misery or just a vegetative state, like Terry Schiavo.

In a way are we trying to cheat God by keeping someone alive beyond their natural life span?