• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I would think that’s a world record! Mind blown. 1lb, 1oz is hard to imagine. My ex and I are small and our 2 babies were 6-7x that size.

    And this is why America shows abysmal rates of “babies not surviving”. We try to save every one, even if hopeless, and those numbers count against us. (I’m so dumb, what’s the word I’m looking for here?)

    • Drusas@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is not why we have such bad statistics when it comes to infant mortality.

        • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m wondering if they meant instead of aborting them sooner they are birthed and helped to survive where some wouldn’t. I can’t imagine any other way they could being thinking. In simple abortion = no increase to infant death rate vs no abortion = infant death rate

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The idea is that if you attempt the riskier patients, you’re more likely to fail. That’s not the reason for our infant mortality rates being what they are, though. I remember seeing stories about the hospital in Gaza City shutting down, and there were similarly-sized babies in the NICU there too. I believe they were thankfully able to be evacuated into Egypt, but the point is we are not the only country birthing and subsequently caring for babies this size.

    • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Are you asking if instead of an abortion we are still bringing them to birth and try to save those that we can? The wording is very confusing.