World's youngest surviving baby born in Miami

amillia1.jpgLittle Amillia Taylor was born at the age of 22 weeks and six days, weighing only 10 oz. We know her exact age because she was conceived by in vitro fertilization.

Four months later, weighing four pounds, Amilliia is being released from Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida, today.

How ironic that the world's youngest known baby to survive was born in Florida, the very state so much in the news lately for standing by as babies older than this little girl are aborted alive and either purposefully killed or shelved to die.

In fact, according to, Amillia's mother Sonja, lied to doctors about her baby's age, knowing they would not resuscitate her otherwise....

See another photo and link to video as story continues on page 2.

"Survival of babies that is less than 22 weeks of gestation is close to zero, if not zero," said Dr. Phuket Tantavit, who specializes in neonatology.

The medical standard is not even to resuscitate a 22-week baby, so when Sonja Taylor knew she was going into labor in October after just 19 weeks, she lied about the baby's term.

Doctors worked to delay the birth, but nine days later, they had no choice but to perform an emergency C-section, thinking they were delivering a 23-week baby.

Congratulations to Amillia and her loving, protective parents.


[Photos courtesy of London's Daily Mail, where video footage may also be seen.]


It's hard to fathom that in the midst of this joyful event, there are people out there who are actually seething about its political ramifications.

As science continues to advance, the case for infanticide will be fully revealed as the weak, evil, and illogical position that we've always known it to be.

Posted by: Jeremy at February 20, 2007 6:33 AM

I blogged about all the people who advertise that they'll cheerfully (for a fee, of course) put to death babies older than Amillia.

You have to lie to save your baby, but cash on hand is enough to have her put to death.

Posted by: Christina at February 20, 2007 8:30 AM

Eye-opening blog, Christina! Thanks for passing that along.

Posted by: Jeremy at February 20, 2007 9:37 AM

Someone just sent me an email of a website with Chris Stefanick speaking to High School students live on Chasitity. Has anyone heard the talk? He is awesome! You can listen to it here...


Posted by: Mike at February 20, 2007 3:54 PM

Jill, did you see this on Stop the ACLU? Someone in their comments is actually arguing that Amillia HURTS the pro-life position. To quote Chesterton, "I give it up; I do not know what the words mean."

Posted by: Michelle Potter at February 20, 2007 4:55 PM

Wow, amazing.

BTW Jill, thanks for answering my questions on the post a few days back, as well as making sure I knew the temporary deletion of my comment was accidental. I hadn't even noticed that happened but I appreciate you letting me know it was not on purpose!

Posted by: Ashlee at February 20, 2007 5:30 PM

Michelle, I just looked. Here is the comment the pro-abort made to the story:

Amillia’s survival does more damage to the pro-life argument than it supports it. As this case demonstrates, a fetus cannot survive until at least 21 weeks of gestation. Prior to that point it cannot be described as existing separately from the mother, and therefore the pregnant woman’s interests must be considered alongside the interests of the fetus. This creates the bizarre scenario where a woman’s rights as a person can be revoked in order to award them to a fetus that cannot exist independently of the pregnant woman.

Perhaps we can argue that personhood begins at 21 weeks, the very minimum gestation required. If so, than pro-lifers must accept that abortions performed at 16 weeks are acceptable, and I doubt they would do that.

I expect that Amillia will not become the posterchild of the pro-life movement. This case does not provide their arguments with a great deal of support.

Hm. You're right. He is so scrambled I can't figure out how to start refuting him.

He is saying that somehow this baby's birth sets up a scenario where a mother pregnant with a baby younger than Amillia may have to forfeit her right as a person for her preborn baby's right, which is apparently a bad thing based on the fact her baby can't live independently. I'm trying to rephrase what he said just as he meant it. He then agrees maybe personhood can be established at 21 weeks.

He's just goofy. That's my professional opinion... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 20, 2007 5:31 PM

Ashlee, you're welcome. The questions were good. I appreciated them.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 20, 2007 6:00 PM

Not as goofy as you might think Jill,

pro-lifers have consistently held that our inalienable rights are deposited in us at our creation = formation of our unique DNA. [Not mentioned {but highly relevant) is that the fetus' own immune system is not activated purposely so it will not reject its own womb as 'foreign'.]

If (as in this case) this natural sequence of dependence ... ie. God >>> human rights at birth, then what is left is independent-adults >>> confer rights to fetuses at anytime they will (only IF the period-of-maturity is that of physical independence first). We should get into the whole illusion of 'independence' but few people wish to go there! ... I've had philosophy profs not wanting to go there!

I claimed that a human cannot be equal and unique at the same time. And I prefer being unique to being 'equal'. Do you?

Posted by: John McDonell at February 21, 2007 7:05 AM

John, one of our four foundational arguments is that on independence. Pro-aborts like to say that because preborn babies cannot live independently, they have no rights. But a newborn can't live independently either, or a one-year-old, or two-year-old, or even a three-year-old. There are many older children and adults who cannot live independently either. The question of independence has no bearing on our unalienable right to life.

As for your last question, as usual, you've gone over my head... :) I think I agree with you, but I'm not positive... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 7:21 AM

Hi Jill,

just got this in via e-mail. I think it does show the 'problem' very well ... hilarious!

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, never the less?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing Law somewhere."

what happens to many discussions with pro-aborts is that they see being alive is of little value in itself ... that living is merely an illusion (a-head-trip). So in a sense because life is of questionable value, death can be of greater value ... by killing fetus before birth, they are actually doing the baby a favour. [Does this sound very similar to the Nazis at extermination camps? ... some guards actually believed that extermination of Jewish-ness was a burden to be lifted by death.

I won't get into the philosophical stuff: except maybe to mull about a few things:
a) " ... all are created equal" ... all are created - true .... equal - false .... all are created unique .... everything (alive or not) is unique

b) the word 'independent' connotes isolationist concepts. So, a much truer word is 'inter-dependence'. A baby is dependant on its Mother + the whole human community; in her turn the mother is dependant on her baby for the identification of motherhood (also for life itself because babies give their Mom's stem cells, while in utero. These cells repair disordered metabolic faults.) + the mother receives the support of the human community at large ... the phrase is: 'all life is very good (especially your baby!)'

.... 'sharing' is altuistic behaviour for 'independence' but natural behavior for 'ínter-dependence'

Posted by: John McDonell at February 21, 2007 8:36 AM

John, you said, "by killing fetus before birth, they are actually doing the baby a favour."

That's absolutely true. How many times have you heard, "every child a wanted child" as an excuse to abort. How many times have you heard a mother say she would rather abort than "risk" an adoption to a bad home (which is extremely rare, particularly in this day and age of open adoptions).

Funny joke, btw!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 9:11 AM

Wow, I had not heard this story, and I am absolutely amazed.

I think the saddest part of the story is that the mother actually had to lie about her baby's age in order for the child to live. It really makes me very sad that even doctors place so little value on a human life. What a tragedy.

This really is an awesome story! It is a fantastic argument against abortion. I can't wait to share it!

Posted by: Nicole at February 21, 2007 11:16 AM

I am looking for stories of babies who survived being born of only 21 weeks gestation period.

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor at March 9, 2007 8:13 PM

My only wish to this little girl is that she has a quality of life. God has given natural ways for babies who are not ready for this world to self abort. Forcing a life that God may have intended to be terminated may be a painful reality for the child.

Posted by: ana at June 8, 2007 12:59 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! wqofqnhxdx

Posted by: blfhepucpv at June 18, 2007 6:16 PM

I'm not seeing how being independant outside the womb has anything to do with a right to live. And the longer the message takes to explain it to me, the less likely I am to read it. Truth is supposed to be easy to understand no?

Posted by: Lindsay at June 29, 2007 10:01 PM

Life may be wanted and it may not be wanted. The valuation is made by the observer, and not all observers will necessarily agree.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 5:02 PM