Nihil Obstat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1258659372' post='2005696'] The biggest issue is the development of the lungs. Our lungs are like balloons, in that we breath air into them, but the air stays inside, and keeps the lung semi-inflated. In order to keep air from passing through the lung, there is a membrane on the outside, which seals the lungs. In a premature baby, who is less than 20 weeks. This membrane is not developed. As a result, if you put air into the lung, it goes through and fills the chest cavity. In my sons case, who was 27 weeks. The air passed through his lungs and into his chest cavity. The pressure outside the lung becomes greater than the pressure inside, and the lungs collapsed. This caused hemorrhaging throughout his body. To save him, they put four chest tubes into his chest to smell of elderberries out the air in his chest, while providing oxygen and pressure to the inside of his lungs. This works except that there are complications that I won't bother to get into. The docs said if my son were born a girl, this might not have happened. Jim [/quote] All right, fine. So lungs don't work properly. What exactly makes it entirely impossible for a technology developed in the future to replace certain functions of the mother's womb, and allow a child with undeveloped lungs to survive? For that matter, what makes a completely artificial womb impossible? It's only impossible because of current limits on technology. Currently impossible. That says nothing about future developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1258659535' post='2005698'] Well, you're the one who attacked my opinion; I'm merely providing the information to back my opinion. Jim [/quote] You've either intentionally dancing around my central point, or are really really confused as to what I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1258656233' post='2005647'] Oh, but why take vitals, when there's absolutely nothing you can do to save the life of the fetus at that point? If there was a weak heartbeat detected through the stethoscope, it makes little difference. There is nothing medically that you can do to save the life of an infant delivered before 20 weeks, especially one with deformities, such as, heart and lungs are too small to support life. Jim [/quote] You're speaking in probabilities. You're saying that simply because someone has never been saved that it [i]will not [/i]happen. Taking vitals is done unless death is indisputable--rot, rigor, decapitation--things along that order. If someone is alive, you try to support that life. Does calling the baby a fetus make it easier for you to accept doing nothing? For many terrible situations there are first survivors. Rabies was once 100% fatal, and it is nearly 100% fatal now once symptoms show. Shall we not administer the mostly ineffective aid we have? By working extreme cases, we sometimes find ways of overcoming the issues and eventually someone lives. Your argument is pragmatic, which is not how Catholics determine the morality of an act. Legally, not taking the vital signs of a patient is negligence. I've made the call declaring several people dead in the field, but it was with a surety. When in doubt, even in very poor cases, we work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 M*A*S*H ftw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='19 November 2009 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1258659642' post='2005700'] You've either intentionally dancing around my central point, or are really really confused as to what I'm trying to say. [/quote] I merely responded to you're statement, that because I'm not a OBGYN, that my statement that under 20 weeks, they can not save a fetus. I provide the info, and now you say I'm the one dancing around the point? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/upsidedown.gif[/img] Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1258662294' post='2005728'] I merely responded to you're statement, that because I'm not a OBGYN, that my statement that under 20 weeks, they can not save a fetus. I provide the info, and now you say I'm the one dancing around the point? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/upsidedown.gif[/img] Jim [/quote] My point THIS ENTIRE TIME was that technology develops, and as it does so, previously impossible things are no longer so. It's a really simple, elementary point. I don't see why you continue to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Winchester [quote]You're speaking in probabilities. You're saying that simply because someone has never been saved that it [i]will not [/i]happen. [/quote] I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he. They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks. Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img] Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Remember that time on DS9 when Keiko O'Brien was going to lose her baby so Kira asked Bashir to transplant the baby into her womb? That was weird having Kira carrying O'Brien's baby. lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1258662539' post='2005732'] Winchester I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he. They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks. Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. (edited the smilie, which is what the illiterate use for condescension. At least look up something insulting and steal it.) Jim [/quote]I get that it hasn't happened. I understand. But weird things happen and people survive what they are not supposed to survive. What is considered previable has changed over the years. You are still speaking in probabilities. Edited November 19, 2009 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1258662539' post='2005732'] Winchester I'm taling in actuality. A deformed previable fetus, they will not attempt to save. Oh, the doctor may take a listen for a heartbeat, but even if he found it, he would do nothing, nor could he. They don't bother trying to save normally formed premature babies born under 20 weeks. Just a fact, but I know you'll not accept it, so why bother to go further providing more info? It only upsets Nihil Obstat. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img] Jim [/quote] Classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='19 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1258662362' post='2005731'] My point THIS ENTIRE TIME was that technology develops, and as it does so, previously impossible things are no longer so. It's a really simple, elementary point. I don't see why you continue to ignore it. [/quote] You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality. They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks. Here's a British report; [b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b] [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url] Here in the US, they said the same thing. Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1258662905' post='2005738'] You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality. They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks. Here's a British report; [b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b] [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url] Here in the US, they said the same thing. Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further. Jim [/quote] So you pretty much stop reading at headlines, I take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 1. Google search. 2. Find bold-face type headline that apparently supports your position. 3. Post link. 4. YOU WIN! 5. Smilies optional, but they indicate pwnag3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Vatican Document: [url="http://www.healthpastoral.org/pdffiles/Charter_06_Chapter2.pdf"]The Charter for Health Care Workers[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='19 November 2009 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1258662905' post='2005738'] You're making a hypothesis that is not connected to reality. They're not going to even try to save babies younger than 20 weeks. Here's a British report; [b][size="2"]Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says[/size][/b] [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm[/url] Here in the US, they said the same thing. Without making the attempt, they will not gain the knowledge on how to go further. Jim [/quote] Ooooohhhhhhhh, NOW I GET IT. We can save SO MUCH MONI3Z now that there's no reason to look for the cure for cancer. It's never been done, therefore IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN EVER. We can apply this to pretty much everything! Think of the money that can be saved in those pointless R&D departments. Think of the money that we can redirect towards important things like abortion funding, contraceptive funding, and mandatory sterilizations of undesirables!! I LOVE WHEN I GET TO MAKE UP MY OWN RULES OF LOGIC!!! -edit- I think this is the most maliciously sarcastic post I've ever made. I'm standing by it. Edited November 19, 2009 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now