The West has developed a sophisticated capacity to destroy but, unlike any culture I can think of, it’s also developed a staggering ability to create, save and nurture:

A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is to be released from a Florida hospital Tuesday.

Amillia Sonja Taylor was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born Oct. 24. She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

“We weren’t too optimistic,” Dr. William Smalling said Monday. “But she proved us all wrong.”

Neonatologists who cared for Amillia say she is the first baby known to survive after a gestation period of fewer than 23 weeks. A database run by the University of Iowa’s Department of Pediatrics lists seven babies born at 23 weeks between 1994 and 2003.

Amillia has experienced respiratory problems, a very mild brain hemorrhage and some digestive problems, but none of the health concerns are expected to pose long-term problems, her doctors said.

“We can deal with lungs and things like that but, of course, the brain is the most important,” Dr. Paul Fassbach said Monday. “But her prognosis is excellent.”

Read the rest here (with pictures!).

Hat tip:  Drudge

Be Sociable, Share!
  • helenl

    And hope reigns eternal.

  • Larry

    When again does life begin?

  • bald britney

    “When again does life begin?”


  • ymarsakar

    He who cannot destroy, also cannot truely create (Europe no defense funding, low birth rates). He who does not use the powers of creation (Islamic Jihad), also cannot harness the full powers of destruction (making nukes hard for them, their army sucks, their training sucks, their equipment sucks)

    I have always believed that creation and destruction feeds upon each other, a synergy. Death and life, good and evil. Absolute concepts is one way to view them, but you can also view them in the Eastern way of ying and yang, light and darkness, creation and destruction. Hot and Cold. Dualities.

  • helenl

    And I suppose you think hate is the opposte of love, too.

  • ymarsakar

    There’s no need to suppose.

    In the sense that hate is the desire to destroy that which is hated and love is the desire to protect and preserve that which is loved, they do have a certain duality of sorts.

  • helenl

    Hate and love are both on the emotional continuum. The opposite of love is indifference. Caring (in love or hate) vs. not caring (in indifference) make them true opposites.

  • Deana

    Ymarsakar –

    That’s an interesting concept. I hadn’t really thought of that before. Certainly the Bible has elements that are consistent with that idea – God is both the Creator and Destroyer. And what about the Hindu god, Kali?

    It just makes me wonder why those two concepts go together so frequently.

    As an aside, I completely agree with Helen – the opposite of love is indifference. When I was younger, I would not have said that but I realized after a couple of normal life experiences that the indifference I felt torward a person was much scarier than the thought that I might actually “just” hate them.

    And isn’t that terrible? Both are sins. Horrid sins. But the feeling of indifference rattled me.


  • ymarsakar

    Scarier to whom, Deana. It(indifference/apathy) is simply a lack of desire. Everyone desires something, whether it be on this mortal plane or elsewhere. To desire or not to desire.

    The opposite of love is indifference. Caring (in love or hate) vs. not caring (in indifference) make them true opposites.

    Visualizing a circle, any one point around that circle has an equal opposite point. But it only has one equal opposite point, if you change the origin point on the circle, say 45 degrees instead of 0 degrees using polar form… then the opposite of 45 degrees cannot be the same as the opposite of 0 degrees just because of the geometry. You call it continuum which seems to me to be the same thing.

    They can’t be true opposites, because they aren’t exactly opposite of each other. They don’t pass the horizontal line test so to speak. Meaning it doesn’t fit exactly into the slot point for point.

    There is also the question of the nature of love and hate. If it is just caring, then how will a person tell the difference if it is simply caring about different things. What would be the moral difference, or what would even be the metaphysical difference between love and hate.

    The whole point of having a point to point duality is like North and South. A guide. How will I know if I am coming close to indifference/apathy? Is it like the Sith Code, anger will lead to power and power will lead to victory, victory which will break your chains? Will I get there by hating too much? Loving too many? Or is it there when I’m not doing anything.

    It doesn’t seem to be of much use at all. It is like binary. Either I feel or I do not feel. This does not help in describing that which I feel, or that which I do not feel.

    Instead of relating it to light and the absence of light (darkness), love and hate becomes specifics of light. Meaning there’s the infrared band part of the spectrum, with its own peculiarities, and then there is the ultra-violent, with different wavelengths.

    There are systems of three. Red, green, blue light. But they aren’t much use metaphysically

  • ymarsakar

    I would only agree that the opposite of apathy is to feel or to desire. But I would not agree with the proposal that the opposite of one specific emotion is simply the absence of every emotion. That doesn’t seem workable.

  • helenl

    Ymarsakar, You have to apply this to real life situations; that’s how to determime whether or not a theory is workable. Red, blue and green are quite useless when we consider the lives of people.

    Take, for example, the illegal immigrant situation. If you take away the illegal part and look at the lives of the people, what you see are those with desperate lives or ones who want the chance for improvement. Now, aside from the illegal part, do we care? Do we want them to have what’s best (which is what love truly is), do we hate them (and think they are getting what they deserve by being born elsewhere), or do we just not care?

    Apart form their illegal actions, do we have any reason to hate them? Are they making our lives misearble? Are they just plain bad (apart from illegal actions)? Now if we don’t have to provide the means whereby they are happy, do we wish them well (do we hope they are happy), or do we just not care?

    You see those of with consciences, such as Deana, think there is sin in not caring. I include myself in that group. I will not decide for you either way. But I do not think all happiness is up to me. So you see (or don’t) that loving someone (that is, wishing him/her well) is the opposite of failing to care.

    There is no light, nothing metaphysical, no codes (Sith or otherwise to break the chains), just a world full of people we either love, hate, or ignore.


  • ymarsakar

    If we are talking about immigrants, then we are into the realm of the ethical. Not just of the metaphysical. Meaning there is epistemology and metaphysics. Both combine gets ethics.

    If you mean it is on an opposite ethical scale, then sure, I get what you are saying. One is good, the other is not.

    But when I say duality, except for the good vs evil part, I do not assign them any moral or ethical assignation. Meaning Creation and Destruction are ethically neutral to me, the same as love and hate. Hate is not always bad and love is not always good. I get the sense that Western philosophies have focused on the absolute scales, meaning good and evil, with religious connotations. The Eastern ways I have mentioned, like India or japan, doesn’t do that so much. The Church might say that holy magic is a miracle but witchcraft is evil, but to me all power is just that, power. Something to be used as a tool, and not something that uses you. Or if it does start to corrupt you, then you are bound by duty to use anything at your disposal to achieve the goal of protection or destruction.

    I have framed my definitions as hate is the desire to destroy that which is hated and love is the desire to protect that which is loved. It is only a desire, it does not set down what means will accomplish those goals as a clarification.

    If you use the term hate or love and caring as an ethical standard, then we are not talking about the same things all in all.

    In that sense, I don’t think it matters whether people care about illegal or legal immigrants. The only thing that matters, as viewed by me, is what people love and what people hate. Do people hate injustice, if so they will protect the immigrants by destroying those that exploit the immigrants. If people love crime and power, then presumably they will use that love to destroy the liberty and dignity of immigrants, legal or illegal.

  • ymarsakar

    In that sense as you used it, Helen. A person doesn’t need to care about immigrants, illegal or legal. All that person has to do is to love the right things, the things that ought to be loved, and hate the things that ought to be hated. If a person does that… then his actions will be benefit the immigrants, regardless of his feelings towards immigrants. It is not so much feelings that matter, as actions.

  • helenl

    “It is not so much feelings that matter, as actions.” This is true, if we are logical. But some of the time, most of us are not logical. Feelings matter, because we live there more often than like to admit.

  • Don Quixote

    Hi Helen,

    I do think love and hate are opposites, with indifference in the intermediate position:


    How would you draw them?

  • Zhombre

    Ezxcuse me for barging in but on that subject I have never forgotten something Elie Wiesel once said. I paraphrase: Love and indifference are opposites. Love and hate have the same roots, only in the latter case, these are poisoned. That’s similar to something I once read, that blasphemy is prayer in reverse, because both posit a deity.

  • helenl



  • helenl

    Only WordPress thinks it knows what I meant and changed the drawing for me. :-)

  • helenl

    Don’t see that as very useful, DQ.

  • Deana

    I think what Zhombre said is closer to what I suspect to be true.

    I really don’t think I have every truly hated someone but there have been those who have made me very angry and frustrated. But somehow, the anger was a symbol that I still cared.

    But then I had an experience in which there was this other person who I wound up not caring about. I found that I didn’t care a whole lot whether she was happy or sad or whether she was even doing ok. What scared me so much was that I realized I had crossed a chasm – she was getting dangerously close to meaning nothing to me, like an inanimate object of no value. I realized that if someone or others are thought of in that manner, there is no telling what the person who thinks that way is capable of doing.

    What is the likelihood of showing compassion to someone if they mean nothing to you?

    I just didn’t like that feeling.

  • helenl

    Yes Deana, I agree. And with Zhombre.

    I really don’t think it’s so much a question of it’s always love v. hate or it’s always love/hate v. indifference, as an a realization that there are alternate ways to look at the world.

    Western thought often favors duality above seeking other means whereby ideas are related. There is not an opposite for everyhting, just because there are opposite forces in physics. And it’s more than just right brain v. left brain thinking. The facts are very important, and so is their interpretation, but there are other ways of knowing.

  • ymarsakar

    Love and hate have the same roots, only in the latter case, these are poisoned.

    That was the only ref I could find.

    In the sense that I got based upon the materials, E seemed to be saying that if love is good then the bad would be indifference as exampled by the holocaust results, the evil there. This might or might not then declare hate to be good nor bad.

  • ymarsakar

    I still contend that there are two different perspectives from which these subjects may be viewed. One from a pure metaphysical sense of what the true nature of things are, and two the ethical outlook of love, hate, and what not. The path that is taken from the two, then dictates what it means to say the term “opposite of another”.