'Tiniest baby boy' ever sent home leaves Tokyo hospital

A baby boy who weighed just 268g (9.45oz) at birth has been released from hospital in Japan, and is believed to be the smallest boy in the world to have been successfully treated.

Born at 24 weeks, the tiny boy spent five months in hospital.

"I can only say I'm happy that he has grown this big because honestly, I wasn't sure he could survive," the boy's mother said.

Doctor Takeshi Arimitsu, who treated the baby, told the BBC he was the smallest infant born (on record) to be discharged from a hospital.

Keio University Hospital said the survival rate of babies born weighing less than a kilogram is about 90% in Japan. But for those born under 300g, that falls to around 50%.

Among the very smallest babies, the survival rate is much lower for boys than girls. Medical experts are unsure why, though some believe it could be linked to the slower development of male babies' lungs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47382058


So small, but... it's still a baby.

They say these babies aren't "viable"... but ... sometimes a miracle happens.

And improving neonatal medical technology will likely bring that age down even further in the future.
Will that not be a considered a "late term abortion" when some of these fetuses survive?

 

Here's another picture



Look how small those hands are!


He almost looks more like a newly hatched baby bird (who hatch out of the egg before they are all the way developed, by the way).

 

NO, pregnancy will ALWAYS take 9 months, that hasn't changed, fetuses do not grow at a faster rate.


But they are not all the same size....and the smaller the riskier if born early..


Your post says it was born at 24 weeks, viability.


If born earlier it would not have been fully formed.

 

I doubt the baby would look that different at 23 weeks, or 22.

Maybe except for being a little bit smaller.

This baby may not have been the youngest baby boy, but it was the smallest.

Life can be pretty small. You have only to look at a baby hummingbird to see this.




I would hope we would not ascribing value to human beings based on their size...

Otherwise, a 400-pound woman would be worth three of me!

Let's not forget the actor Verne Troyer.

 

NO one has ascribed value to human beings based on their size.

But science rules an 24 weeks is the rule of viability which the baby was in your OP.

Yes, they can vary slightly but 9 months has been the rule for thousands of years....fetuses are not growing faster.







Here's my uncherry picked post on your off topic post:

NO, pregnancy will ALWAYS take 9 months, that hasn't changed, fetuses do not grow at a faster rate.


But they are not all the same size....and the smaller the riskier if born early..


Your post says it was born at 24 weeks, viability.


If born earlier it would not have been fully formed.



Now somehow you must think this has something to do with abortion but there is no connection....premature babies are born all the time....once born there is no connection to abortion.


And if you think a hummingbird is the smallest form of life may I suggest you get a book on science.

 

Oh, I love hummingbirds ! Have several feeders and can spend hours watching them.....

Any tips on specific feed ??

Do you provide water for them ??

Got any other birds ???

 

Basic research

that is all it takes to stop covering yourself with embarrassment

24 weeks is commonly accepted limit for viability

https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/142259/g-viability.pdf

late term abortions are RARE and usually performed for malformation incompatible with life

 

Usually.

Or if something's wrong with it. like Down syndrome, Autism, or maybe soon to be ADHD... (they will soon be able to do that via genetic testing, you know)

I'm sure some women have aborted due to a break up.
That could apply to late-term abortions, but the fact is we don't really know.
Not like anyone's keeping statistics.

I do predict medical science will gradually push back the age of viability a little bit.

Especially for families who have money, all sorts of things could be possible.

For women who don't have money, however, they'll be aborting when the fetus is perfectly fine and nothing is wrong with the pregnancy.

So interesting that one person's trash is another person's precious treasure they would pay $100,000 to save.

Not that I believe inherent value is dependent upon what other people choose to ascribe to it...

 

How? Do you HONESTLY think that after ten thousand years human gestation will somehow speed up?

Why would it?

Give a scientific explanation ......not just an opinion based on nothing.

 

Seems like NO one at all can give an reason premature babies are in the Abortion Forum....how odd ….

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Have you read the story of Patrick Burleigh?
He had a rare medical condition that caused accelerated growth, and puberty for him began at the age of only 2.

Here is a picture of him next to his school friend. They are the same age. This is a real picture.




Robin Williams also starred in a 1996 movie about a similar type of story.

This picture from the film Jack

slightly overdramatized and exaggerated of course

 

What TF does a rare medical condition and one of your movies that you think is real life have to do with :
FoxHastings said: ↑
Do you HONESTLY think that after ten thousand years human gestation will somehow speed up?


Absolutely nothing...

Neither example is anyone still gestating...goodGAWD!

 

My point was, I just gave you an example where developmental growth stages of a child can unusually speed up, in rare cases. It is possible.

And certainly not inconceivable that in the future some way of substantially speeding up fetal growth might be discovered.
For example, for medical treatment in the week or two before a pre-term is to be delivered.
They already use a hormone that helps speed up development of the lungs, to help the premature baby be able to breathe.

 

A BORN CHILD is NOT a FETUS....I've asked you so many times to look up the difference between born and unborn....if you did it would help you quite a bit...

It hasn't yet...what don't you understand about that?? It HASN'T YET.

Now maybe you could solve the mystery of what any of this has to do with abortion.....


I realize we obviously can talk about anything in the ABORTION Forum, like hummingbirds and premature babies ….but can YOU make any connection???



NO one can make a connection between a premature baby and abortion....so why is this in the abortion forum??

 

Baby Saybie, born as a "micro-premie" at 23 weeks, weighed only 8.6 ounces. Doctors doubted Saybie would live and told her parents they'd likely only have an hour with their daughter. However, Saybie kept fighting. A pink card near her crib declared "Tiny but Mighty." After five months in the hospital, Saybie miraculously went home as a healthy five-pound baby. And she took the world record with her: the world's tiniest surviving baby.

 

Is there a reason you had to dig up an 8 month old failed thread on a topic unrelated to abortion???


Not doing too well in other threads ????

 

It's amazing how people have the capability of not being able to see things when they don't WANT to see those things.

You, FoxHastings, keep claiming you are not able to see the point to things, when the point, and associated implications, is clear and obvious to most other persons reading this.

Are you really going to force us to state the obvious and practically spoon feed you to see the obvious connection? Really?
Tell you what, why don't you give this a little more thought, and if you still genuinely can't see a connection of this subject to the issue of abortion, I will take the trouble of explaining it to you.

(I suspect the REAL issue is you don't want to think about it, because you have a good idea the direction in which those thoughts and end conclusions are likely going to lead)

 

There ya go again, claiming you can read minds...that's not much of an argument, in fact, it's nothing.

LOL, obviously YOU canNOT explain the connection....you never have....

you "ignored" or couldn't address Post # 15...


Why don't you give it some thought and maybe you could come up with a connection …


Maybe you could "take the trouble" of explaining your posts for a change...

 

some day many babies will be grown outside the womb, the technology will increase and most babies will be planned

at that time, I am sure some will be whining about a woman choosing to do this, saying it's not natural, attacking them for making this choice

I will again be... pro-choice... it's always the women's choice

 

lucky she was not poor and lived in Texas, they may have decided for mom

"Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws"

https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

"But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."

 

Medical advancements are truly wonderful. However, it is sad you chose to take advantage of this news article to spread anti-abortionist propaganda instead of posting it in the Science-sub.

 

Only if the woman wants her little bundle of joy, right?

 

No. Abortion is another wonderful medical technology.

 

Why did you leave out the rest of his post ? :

""" However, it is sad you chose to take advantage of this news article to spread anti-abortionist propaganda instead of posting it in the Science-sub."""

Why didn't you address my post ? You know, make a POINT....instead of carefully avoiding it