Should it be illegal to unnecessarily deliver preterm babies?

**Athena** · May 15th, 2008, 11:48 AM

According to this article, , the U.S. has one of the highest rates of infant death in the developed world. In fact, despite all our medicine and technology, we're only 29th in the world for infant mortality. In other words, 28 countries have infant death rates less than ours. Some countries, like Japan, cut the rate in half.

Now, I'm not telling the mothers here to clutch their spawn in fear. This rate equates to only about 7 out of every 1000 babies. But, still, a number we'd like to se decrease, right?

Well, one cause for this increased death rate is the high rate of preterm delivery. In a nutshell, the sooner your baby comes out, the more at risk it is. But we're not just talking stereotypical premees, ladies. C-sections or induces labor for the sake of convience puts the new little one at risk as well.

It happens all the time! Hell, my mother's OBGYN gave her a C-section to birth my sister about a week early because he had vacation scheduled. Other women plan to induce on a specific day, for some weird reason. I mean, if you want your baby born on a Thursday that bad, who am I to judge?

It does put the child at an increased risk, though. My question - should we restrict these procedures to necessity in an effort to lower the mortality rate?

**Ruby** · May 15th, 2008, 11:53 AM

Yes.

**Nell** · May 15th, 2008, 11:59 AM

Ooh me, me! I totally agree with Athena right here and I will tell you why! I know you are dying to know. ;)

I had a c-section with my last child at 36 weeks because of some problems but mainly because I had gestational diabetes, and since the baby wasn't moving as much and they guessed he weighed about 8 pounds already lets pop him on out, right? Everybody knows that at 36 weeks you are only a month early and it will be all good. He could have easilly stayed in, but I trusted them.

Guess what? He weighed 5 lbs 5oz and was in the NICU for 2 weeks! He was on a respirator for 5 days because his lungs collapsed. He wa sensitive to touch and developed a hole in his heart that thankfully closed with meds. He was slow to learn how to eat and had to have a nasal feeding tube for almost the entire 2 weeks. I was blown away and very confused.

I trusted these people! They told me at 36 weeks almost all babies are fine, and it would be okay to take him early. I couldn't even hold him for 6 days after he was born. I could not breastfeed and I thought he would die. I remember sitting there balling on the nurse telling her it wasn't fair that they mislead me about the 36 week thing. I was most upset not that he had problems, but that I was mislead so badly. I was 27 and he was my 4th so I knew more than some and could handle a sick baby better, but why did it happen at all?

I now tell everyone 36 weeks is NOT a magic milestone where everything will be roses afterwords, and even though I have to have a c-section sceduled for this baby it is only 6 days before my due date. That is as far away as I will allow it.

**~Absynthe~** · May 15th, 2008, 12:01 PM

Yes!

I was always told that the apple would fall from the tree when it was ready..

**celtic friend** · May 15th, 2008, 12:25 PM

First off, let me say that unless there is a real reason than No the Doctors should not be allowed to deliver early. Most will only schedule within the weekly timeframe before the due date for a planned C-section. They were advocating for VBAC until they realized that women's uteruses were really tearing and it was a big liablity for the hospitals and doctors.

Now Nell, in all fairness to the Doctors if your child was not moving and you had GD, and they did nothing, you would most likely be sueing them for failing to act properly. With Docs it really in some cases is a catch 22. As for the hole in the heart, if meds could close it, it most likely was a PDA, all babies have PDA's at birth, roughly 2 weeks after birth they close. Some babies, it doesn't and requires a shot to close. Some do need surgical closure.
Rarely, medicine will be given to keep the PDA open past the 2 weeks, when an underlying cyanotic heart defect is present and the PDA helps with the flow. Also just an FYI, about 20 percent of all babies born with heart defects are born to mothers with diabetes. He didn't obviously have a heart defect just saying. I also did NOT have GD or any type of diabetes, but had a baby with a CHD.

So point in all of my reply, most obs around here are fleeing due to malpractice laws here. They probably think they are protecting the baby, the mother and their practice when they deliver early and in what would seem like safe times. Alot that I have seen are in no rush, unless they need to protect their ass from one of your underlying conditions causing an issue with the delivering/baby.
I know that our mortality rate has been at like a flat line for a long time, I am not sure if doctors are going to risk their ass and your life to change that.

**Nell** · May 15th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Okay I was starting to write a book so I stopped, but I was already in the hospital for the week prior to him being born. I had probably the tinest case of GD you have ever seen. My blood sugar never got higher than like 160 before I went on the diet and it never, ever got above it after that. It was the very first time I had it and I haven not had it in this pregnancy when I was assured I would. I weighed all of 130 lbs the day he was born. He was moving quite a bit, they just said it was "concernning" that he seemed to be sleeping for long periods. But they attributed that to his supposed large size. It was done more for convenience and the fact that I had reached the magical 36 weeks.

I was there every single day and I know what his heart problems were and yes, I am glad he didn't have surgery, but it was unnessesary to deliver him that early, and they later addmitted it! I would never sue anyone for something that was resolved ultimately, but what I was pointing out is that MY personal c-section was unnecessary. I wasn't trying to debate all that other stuff.

I never said I know all about heart defects or what have you. I do know I am fairly educated and what they did was wrong! I trusted people that said they knew better, and then when it was obvious they didn't they said, oops, my bad!

**ImmortalOne** · May 15th, 2008, 09:04 PM

Yes I have to agree it should be restricted.

I had so many complications with Nadezdha, and even with high-risk doctors, they took all precautions to make sure she was healthy. They did Amnio tests to check for lung maturity before they did anything. When it wasn't in the correct ranges we waited it out, no matter how hard it was. While VBAC's are still possible, I know my next baby -has- to be my c-section, there is no option for me.

**Athena** · May 15th, 2008, 09:08 PM

I'd ask if "Nadezdha" is pronounced phonetically, but I'm not even sure what the phonetics would be. :p

It looks beautiful. How do you pronounce it and what does it mean?

**ImmortalOne** · May 15th, 2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Athena

I'd ask if "Nadezdha" is pronounced phonetically, but I'm not even sure what the phonetics would be. :p

It looks beautiful. How do you pronounce it and what does it mean?

Nah-Dez-Dah (I guess is how you would phonetically type it)

It means "Hope" actually. Something we had to have a whole lot of during my pregnancy.

**Countess Olenska** · May 15th, 2008, 09:34 PM

I've had 4 kids. All pre term except the oldest. My babies were 4,5 and 6 weeks early they were all born with apgars of 9/9 and were 6 to 7lbs. They were not scheduled early, I did have GD and I went into labor early. They were done cooking and failed to stay in the oven past that point even with medical intervention and bed rest. My OB office considers term 38 weeks and under no circumstances would they schedule before that unless there was a risk to the mother or baby. I would not doubt if a large chunk of pre term babies in those statistics are due to multiples, hormones leached from plastics or other environmental factors such as poor diet or lack of proper prenatal care. There is after all a serious problem with obtaining affordable insurance and most people are too stupid to realize that the state will give you FREE prenatal care if you can't afford it. There are Dr's who do schedule babies deliveries as a convenience but that would also mean there are mothers who are doing it for the same or as just going along with whatever her doctor says.

I'm high so if that was garbled I apologize.. I blame the pain pills. My point is I think the statistics you stated are generalized and don't give a clear representation. Can you get me a color wheel please? I like visuals. :D

**SoUncool** · May 15th, 2008, 09:44 PM

I agree that they should wait unless there is serious impending danger/doom for mom or baby. My daughter was supposed to be born on Earth Day but decided she wasn't quite ready. She was 4 days late and weighed 8 lbs 9 oz....ha ha ha...and they thought she'd be "underweight" cuz I smoked. My doc did want to induce the following week if she didn't pop out by then...

Our bodies know best, me thinks anyways.

**SoUncool** · May 15th, 2008, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by mammasweets

I've had 4 kids. All pre term except the oldest. My babies were 4,5 and 6 weeks early they were all born with apgars of 9/9 and were 6 to 7lbs. They were not scheduled early, I did have GD and I went into labor early. They were done cooking and failed to stay in the oven past that point even with medical intervention and bed rest. My OB office considers term 38 weeks and under no circumstances would they schedule before that unless there was a risk to the mother or baby. I would not doubt if a large chunk of pre term babies in those statistics are due to multiples, hormones leached from plastics or other environmental factors such as poor diet or lack of proper prenatal care. There is after all a serious problem with obtaining affordable insurance and most people are too stupid to realize that the state will give you FREE prenatal care if you can't afford it. There are Dr's who do schedule babies deliveries as a convenience but that would also mean there are mothers who are doing it for the same or as just going along with whatever her doctor says.

I'm high so if that was garbled I apologize.. I blame the pain pills. My point is I think the statistics you stated are generalized and don't give a clear representation. Can you get me a color wheel please? I like visuals. :D

Mamma...I think you should be the one providing us with the color wheels... Aren't you seeing them in your head from the meds? <snick>

**Countess Olenska** · May 15th, 2008, 09:48 PM

What? Rainbow patty cakes...snarfle blubber butt.

Hassnefeffer!

**w8ng4msrgt** · May 15th, 2008, 10:25 PM

One of my sisters scheduled a c-section on leap day so her son would be different. She is just a bitch like that though. I love her and all but wonder about some of her decisions.

**CPL CHUD** · May 15th, 2008, 11:00 PM

I definitely think this should be illegal if third semester abortions are illegal. It follows kind of, sort of, the same precedent, even considering the vast ocean of difference in survival rate. It's semantics, but causing undo risk to an human life over vanity is not something that should become a trend, especially when the life involved is incapable of making the choice on its own.

I never knew this was such a popular occurance.

**gprime** · May 15th, 2008, 11:02 PM

To answer this question requires defining the point at which life begins. Those suggesting that pre-mature birth proceedures (when not needed) should be banned, thus suggesting they would consider the 7.5 or 8 month baby to be life. Frankly, until natural labor has been induced, I don't buy the claim that it is life. Instead, I consider it a well developed parasite, that might become an independent life form if left in tact. So, since I would support abortion up until a woman was going into labor, I cannot find reason to suggest regulating delivery like this.

**CPL CHUD** · May 15th, 2008, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by gprime

Frankly, until natural labor has been induced, I don't buy the claim that it is life. Instead, I consider it a well developed parasite, that might become an independent life form if left in tact.

I don't agree with that. There are cases, albeit rare and extreme, of coffin births, where the baby is expelled after the mother dies and the buildup of natural gases from decompostion expels a living child. I define independent life as a point where the baby can survive without the mother, which of course is approximated while still inside the womb. In a matter of fact all human beings are born prematurely due to cranial size. We are still "parasitic", if you choose to use that term, after we are born.

Even defining a life as a parasite doesn't substantiate that it is not life. In fact it does the opposite. And if we are going to define what kind of parasite this being is we'd say human, so we'd still attach a moral quality of being human to it. So if we are to call babies in the womb parasites we are still morally obligated to attach the rights of a human being to it, at least in the sense of what kind of respect and care a baby deserves.

**Athena** · May 16th, 2008, 01:11 AM

I don't agree with either of you. :)

We can legally restrict procedures without infringing on a person's right to abortion. This isn't a claim in favor of a fetus' life, either. It's the same logic behind third-trimester abortions being illegal. We're not regulating privacy or life, we're regulating industry. I don't see how it conflicts with current law, or even sets precedence, since late-term abortions are already illegal.

**celtic friend** · May 16th, 2008, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by gprime

To answer this question requires defining the point at which life begins. Those suggesting that pre-mature birth proceedures (when not needed) should be banned, thus suggesting they would consider the 7.5 or 8 month baby to be life. Frankly, until natural labor has been induced, I don't buy the claim that it is life. Instead, I consider it a well developed parasite, that might become an independent life form if left in tact. So, since I would support abortion up until a woman was going into labor, I cannot find reason to suggest regulating delivery like this.

Good thing not many people think like you.
You do realize there is a point where the fetus is considered viable, meaning it could live on it's own? Did you ever see what a 8 month old "fetus" it looks the same as a 9 month old one.
Viablity is becoming earlier and earlier with medical advances, up to 22 weeks a fetus can survive, by 30 they can breathe on their own.
Do you think we should have NICU's then? C-sections for babies that can not be born via vaginally? I am trying to understand your logic but I really can't. If you line of reasoning is correct than we would not save any babies at all, they would be considered parasites since they can not go through labor. Do we keep up with medical advances and save these fetus or do we let them die? Do we intervene when a mother has complications?
I hope by the time you have kids, your opinion changes, for their sake and for their mother's. If you go through the whole pregnancy thinking it is a parasite or heaven forbid a situation arises, where the Mom can not go into labor, I would hate to think you would want to discard the parasite.
Lastly, just because people want to make this fetus less of a human than it is to suit their agenda does not make it so. It has a heart, brain, fingers, toes, and hair and at 30 weeks it can breathe on its own. At that point it is not longer a choice, it is a baby.

I wanted to add this, I spent alot of time in a NICU and saw babies so small, one was born at 24 weeks I believe. They came a long way with medical intervention and they were not PARASITES. Gprime perhaps you need to really see these things to make sure you want to go there with your assertion.

**Athena** · May 16th, 2008, 10:38 AM

I kinda jumped the gun last night. I mostly agree with this:

Originally Posted by CPL CHUD

I definitely think this should be illegal if third semester abortions are illegal. It follows kind of, sort of, the same precedent, even considering the vast ocean of difference in survival rate. It's semantics, but causing undo risk to an human life over vanity is not something that should become a trend, especially when the life involved is incapable of making the choice on its own.

I never knew this was such a popular occurance.

Although, I also wholeheartedly agree with gprimes assertion that a fetus at any state does not deserve legal right. But, that's just the thing - from my perspective, this isn't about the legal right of a fetus. Like I said previously, it's about regulating industry.

It's surprising what a common occurance this is, actually, and it's becoming more common.

**CPL CHUD** · May 16th, 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Athena

Although, I also wholeheartedly agree with gprimes assertion that a fetus at any state does not deserve legal right. But, that's just the thing - from my perspective, this isn't about the legal right of a fetus. Like I said previously, it's about regulating industry.

I'm not concerned with legal right. Babies don't deserve the full legal representation of an adult. I'm more concerned with moralistic imperative. In this way we agree.

Don't jump the gun on me, punk.

**celtic friend** · May 16th, 2008, 11:51 AM

CPL, babies that are born or not yet do not deserve full legal representation? So age defines whether or not you have rights?

**Athena** · May 16th, 2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by CPL CHUD

Don't jump the gun on me, punk.

I was drinking. I'm sorry. :p

**Athena** · May 16th, 2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by celtic friend

CPL, babies that are born or not yet do not deserve full legal representation? So age defines whether or not you have rights?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm jumping in, anyway. :)

1.) Children (minors) do not enjoy a full set of rights. It's why you can spank a kid and it is not considered assault. It's also why a minor cannot legally consent. Just a thought to consider. Full legal right is closely tied to age in many ways.

2.) The lack of right of a fetus does not really correspond with it's age as it does its status as a creature. At the fetus stage, it is part of the mother, even if it's viable. The mother has existing rights that are not trumped by a developing fetus. Legally, in this country, rights are not extended to a life until it is born and is its own, individual entity.

**CPL CHUD** · May 16th, 2008, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by celtic friend

CPL, babies that are born or not yet do not deserve full legal representation? So age defines whether or not you have rights?

Actually, age does matter when questioning the type of legal rights an individual is bestowed. And when speaking of babies that are not born we have to be careful what context we are using. Are we speaking about babies that can exist, and live, outside of the womb? That is the only time I see fit to begin questioning the rights of the baby. I don't think that when discussing the moral implications of c-sectioning early for reasons of vanity we can seperate the rights of the child from the issue at hand. If there are no rights given, morally or legally, the discourse is useless, which of course is not the case.

**celtic friend** · May 16th, 2008, 12:21 PM

Sorry, I wasn't thinking in those terms, not sure if I was even thinking.;)

I was thinking about the right to exist after you are born, ok so that was just about the dumbest post I have ever made.
Legal rights like voting, drinking, gambling, smoking, they never came to mind.
I just really do not feel a child is property, I think the cases we read about on here, a lot of them have parents who view their children as property and a thing.
Sometimes, even reading some of these posts and the way people talk about fetuses I think no wonder people treat their babies like shit. It's almost like having a baby (fetus) is a negative thing.
I also believe that just because someone is not 18 yet I do not have the right to spank them. I think spanking is for parents who lack self control and other options. That being said, I have a kid with ODD so what do I know??

**Athena** · May 16th, 2008, 12:27 PM

:p You're silly, CF.

I speak in a clinical manner only because there are legal differences between a baby (a born child) and a fetus (an unborn child), and I need to be clear about which I'm referencing.

Morally and personally, I'm all for the unborn. Legally, however, there's a case to be made for the rights of the unborn to trump the rights of the already established.

**The Diabolical Mr. Lieman** · May 16th, 2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Athena

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm jumping in, anyway. :)

1.) Children (minors) do not enjoy a full set of rights. It's why you can spank a kid and it is not considered assault. It's also why a minor cannot legally consent. Just a thought to consider. Full legal right is closely tied to age in many ways.

2.) The lack of right of a fetus does not really correspond with it's age as it does its status as a creature. At the fetus stage, it is part of the mother, even if it's viable. The mother has existing rights that are not trumped by a developing fetus. Legally, in this country, rights are not extended to a life until it is born and is its own, individual entity.

Legally, yes, and that's bullshit.

When Abigail was born, she was TWO MONTHS early. I understand late term abortions are illegal, but there are many who would like THAT changed, like Obama for one....

Still....the child is still alive in the womb, and we should revisit these "rights" that mothers have to kill what's inside because they don't like the consequences of their irresponsible actions.

**Ruby** · May 16th, 2008, 02:03 PM

Barack Obama, like President Clinton before him, does not "favor" late term abortions. He objected to the wording of the particular ban that was passed because it makes NO ALLOWANCE AT ALL for the mother's health. So if the mother is certain to DIE by delivering that child, the ban does not allow for the abortion. THAT is the objection: valuing the fetus OVER the mother.

Late term abortion is not about "rights that mothers have to kill what's inside because they don't like the consequences of their irresponsible actions" at all. Ppfffftt. This is about who lives and who dies. Even when they were allowed, they required the authorization of a physician, who had to document the medical necessity.

**The Diabolical Mr. Lieman** · May 16th, 2008, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ruby

Barack Obama, like President Clinton before him, does not "favor" late term abortions. He objected to the wording of the particular ban that was passed because it makes NO ALLOWANCE AT ALL for the mother's health. So if the mother is certain to DIE by delivering that child, the ban does not allow for the abortion. THAT is the objection: valuing the fetus OVER the mother.

Late term abortion is not about "rights that mothers have to kill what's inside because they don't like the consequences of their irresponsible actions" at all. Ppfffftt. This is about who lives and who dies. Even when they were allowed, they required the authorization of a physician, who had to document the medical necessity.

I should've been clear the Obama thing was a silly jab. At this point, with the choices in front of me, I'm leaning Hillary Clinton over Obama, so I deserved that from you. It was a silly stab I took the opportunity to take, and should've used a smiley or something...but anyway, enough of that-

But ppfffft all you want, abortion period is the death of the fetus, and often times, the death of a baby that could live outside the womb. ANd you can use an extreme case to make, about the mother dying, but if that's the case, then sure, that's different. Your example of "its about who lives and dies" is absurd, being that most abortions arent a product of a mother about to die, for God's sake. They're about young women who irresponsibly have sex with young men, and then they decide they're not ready for them.