From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:08:55 GMT

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_.

>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.

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.

>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.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc