I didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious.
But since you've brought it up, I have to point you back to your original statement in post 27:
No, it's because the body that's nourishing this baby is filled is dead. The organs are not functioning correctly and no matter what the doctors do, the baby is being attacked by poisons. In almost all cases, this does not make for a healthy baby. Having a baby puts a major strain on a healthy body, never mind one ravaged by cancer.I truly hope this case is the exception, but even if the child does reach 25 weeks, its life will be an awful uphill battle and most likely will never be close to normal."
By this you imply that because the mother is "dead" --not because she has cancer-- that it is nearly impossible for the baby to have a good outcome.
That's why I gave the example of Barbie Blodgett, who by your terms was also "dead" because she had "suffered head injuries so severe that doctors proclaimed she was in a state of 'cerebral death.'" (source)
And that's the reason I gave the example of Simon Blodgett, also.
Too often I have personally heard doctors say of a baby, "its life will be an awful uphill battle and most likely will never be close to normal --and turn out to be totally, totally wrong.
"By this you imply that because the mother is "dead" --not because she has cancer-- that it is nearly impossible for the baby to have a good outcome."
OK, then I'll point out what else should be obvious -- I meant to emphasize the cancer, and if you look at the end of that paragraph I did indeed mention it. The woman's whole body is being attacked and poisoned by cancer.
As I said in my posts, there is a percentage of these children who grow up to be "normal" with no severe problems, but it's certainly not exaggerating to say almost all -- if not all -- face a terrible uphill struggle. During the first month every single day is touch and go. There are miracles and we should celebrate every one of them, but they are most certainly the exception, not the rule.