Highly illogical

I posted this mini-rant on my Facebook page, but felt that it needed a little more attention than just a scan-through on someone's feed:

There is so much wrong with this article, I'm not sure where to start. This baby was named, loved, and cared for in that 15 minutes before she died in her parents' arms. If this law were not in place, the baby would be nothing but a bag of hazardous waste & a stain on some hospital sheets. She was treated like the human being that she was, instead of an appendix or a tumor.

I really don't see what the problem is. How is an abortion the better choice, here? I think that the parents were more likely trying to save themselves the emotional trauma, not do what was "best" for the baby. Also, the mother's water broke after the 20-week mark and the baby was born 8 days later... meaning the baby was 21 weeks and some days when she was born. Babies have survived from about that age with medical intervention before!

Here's a crazy idea: how about instead of having a cut-off date for medical intervention in the case of extremely premature infants, how about doctors do everything they can to help these babies, no matter what? Instead of taking life, how about we try to save it? More importantly, why do we even have a cut-off date in the first place?!?

These poor parents should be championing things like premature infant treatment research, instead of looking to blame a law that now protects more babies than ever before.