From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:35:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.060855.15946@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.175305.2559@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan3.141748.11987@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan3.061908.21508@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan3.033806.10827@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>[Deletions, merciful deletions]
>>>>
>>>>>Galen, I can easily pay a medical drone to tell me whether a given fetus
>>>>>is "viable" or not, according to the accepted and universal medical 
>>>>>definitions.
>>>>
>>>>I know I've said this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again.
>>>>Kevin, there is no "accepted and universal medical definition[s]" of
>>>>viability. We have guidlines. We can say, with a resonable amount of
>>>>surety, that some fetuses are viable, and some are not. In between
>>>>these two points is a rather large grey area in which the fetus
>>>>*might* be viable, if it gets lucky, and if it happens to be delivered
>>>>in a major metropolitan hospital with ready access to the latest
>>>>technology. We can say that the lower limit on viability is about 20
>>>>weeks, *if* you're willing to settle for an infant that may survive,
>>>>but is permanently and severely handicapped, and may well require
>>>>permanent intitutionalization. We can say that after about 26 weeks,
>>>>there is a resonable chance of a relatively normal child being
>>>>discharged, with 6-8 months of hospitalization first. And a few
>>>>relatively minor lifelong handicaps, quite likely.
>>>>Please don't try to rationalize this Kevin, just admit that you are
>>>>mistaken.
>>>
>>>I'll go along with whatever the Supreme Court's definition of "viability" 
>>>is, Mark. This is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" or "correct" or 
>>>"mistaken"; it's only a matter of what definition one chooses. I choose
>>>that one.
>>>
>>The Supreme Court has made no decision on what the definition of
>>viability is Kevin. 
>
>It is not really their place to PROPOSE a definition, true, but they have
>upheld at least one state legislature's definition (see _Planned Parenthood 
>of Central Mo. v. Danforth_). So, in the same sense that you keep alleging
>that I "support" abortion restrictions, because I wouldn't necessarily 
>oppose them, the Supreme Court "supports" the definition of "viability"
>created by the Missouri legislature, and upheld in _Danforth_.
>
And so you admit to supporting restrictions, since you obviously *do*
think the SC supports this definition of viability.
However, that is tangental. You said MEDICAL definition[s] Kebbie, not
lgeal. You *do* understand the difference? Show me an 'accepted and
universal MEDICAL definition" or admit you're just blowing smoke.

>>Nor is that wha tyou claimed. You made claims of an
>>"accepted and universal medical definition", 
>
>Ha, you fell into the same trap that Galen did. Learn the difference between
>"definitions" (plural), which is what I said, and "definition" (singular),
>which is what you and Galen have now _claimed_ I said.
>
Uh huh. Now you're going to claim it was some sort of trap. Get real.
Kevin, the [s] on definition is irrelevant. You were declaring the
existance of an "accepted and universal MEDICAL definition[s]" of
viability, when no such MEDICAL definition exists.

>I don't doubt that the medical establishment has more than one definition of
>"viability". Different definitions for different circumstances. That's not
>unusual. But if I have to make a choice, I'd want a definition that was not
>only accepted and universal in the medical establishment, but was ALSO
>workable in legal terms. Hence, I select from only those which have been 
>upheld by the Supreme Court. At this juncture, I only know of the definition 
>at issue in _Danforth_ (which I reproduced verbatim in my article to Galen). 
>If there have been others, then I'll have to decide between them.
>
I frankly don't care whether you choose to throw your support behind
this legal definition. I can live with it as a LEGAL definition of
viability, despite it's vagueness. But it has absolutely nothing to do
with a MEDICAL definition of viability.
Assuming we accept this definition, we're faced with a problem Kevin.
It doesn't have any real meaning. Whether life can be sustained by
"artificial" measures depends on many factors, none of which are
addressed by your "non-vague" definition. A 26 week preemie born in a
major hospital, with access to the latest technology and highly
trained NICU specialists has a resonable chance of survival. That same
child born 100 miles away in a small town has only a slim chance of
surviving long enough for a transport team to arrive.
Just decide what you're gonig to support Kevin. Either the mythical
"accepted and universal MEDICAL definition[s]" or a LEGAL definition
(which has nothing to do with medical defintions) that is neither
universal, accepted, or even specific enough to provide a date for the
viability you think is such a crucial issue.
Despite your refusal to admit it, you're obviously wrong about the
existance of the medical definition[s] you claimed to support.

>>Just admit it Kebbie, you were wrong.
>
>There is no "wrong", Mark. There is only a choice of what definition to use.
>
>>>The other so-called "issue", i.e. whether Kevin Darcy can detect the
>>>viability of a given fetus, is a diversion tactic, which has already 
>>>exploited more of my time that it deserves.
>>>
>>I don't give a damn if *you* can detect it Kebbin. It would be nice if
>>*we* could detect it as reliably as is necessary for your "accepted
>
>The Supreme Court seems to think that the _Danforth_ definition was "reliable"
>enough to be legally workable. Do you have some knowledge that, if it had
>been presented to the Court in 1976, may have affected the outcome of their 
>decision, Mark? If so, let's hear it.
>
You seem to have a really difficult time admiting you were wrong
Kevin. _Danforth_ is a legal definition, not a medical one. Your
comments were about a medical definition, with or without an 's'.
Just type "I, Kevin Darcy, was wrong about the existance of an
'accepted and universal medical defintion[s] of viability" and I will
no longer bother you. I don't care if you want to support this as a
legal definition, it's as close to reality as any I've seen. But it
is not a medical definition by any means.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion