sources mekorot - Premature birth contradicting science

I am a teacher at a private all-girls Jewish high school. There are two science teachers in the school, and both of us are Christian. I was talking with my fellow science teacher recently, and she mentioned that during a discussion in her human anatomy and physiology class her students brought up that they had learned in one of their religious classes that, if a baby was to be born prematurely, it is better for a baby to be born eight weeks early, for example, rather than six weeks early because the lungs are stronger at 32 weeks gestation than they are at 34 weeks gestation . Obviously, this is contrary to scientific knowledge, but we don't want to trample all over our student's religious beliefs and teachings. Thus, we are unsure of how to respond to the girls in this instance. There are only a couple of things I can think of for this type of discrepancy:

1. The particular text they were studying might have been written at a time when very little was understood about human anatomy and reproductive health in general. I can't recall exactly which class this was discussed in (bekius maybe?). I am under the impression that it was a rather old text, though not a Biblical text.


2. The girls perhaps misinterpreted the text. I believe they understood the words they were reading, but I wonder if they perhaps missed the point of the text--sort of like reading Shakespeare and getting hung up in the language.


3. This is exactly what the author meant and the girls interpreted it correctly.

So... A) Is anyone familiar with the text this comes from? B) If so, could you please clarify the interpretation with supportive context such that I can sort of understand it?

Thank you so much for your help!