From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:55:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.161419.18861@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) 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:
>
>}>>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. 
>
>}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.
>
>Kevin, in one breath you say there is an accepted and universal medical
>definition of "viability," 

Actually, Galen, that's not what I said. I said "definitions". Plural.
You said "definition". Singular.

>...then you say that you will choose the Supreme Court's definition.  

Actually, I'm not quite sure whether the SC has upheld more than one
definition, so perhaps it would be better to say "I'll pick mine from 
those that the SC has upheld".

Here's one that they HAVE upheld as Constitutional (and therefore, not
impermissably vague):

	That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child
	may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or
	artificial life-supportive systems. 

	(V.A.M.S. (Mo.), $ 188.015, upheld in _Planned Parenthood of Central 
	Mo. v. Danforth_, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.o

Works for me. Do you see anything wrong with it?

>Wouldn't you expect medical types to have a better handle on viability
>than jurists?

I would expect jurists to be able to pick the most practical definition,
in terms of legality, from among the many offered by "medical types".

>}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.
>
>Perhaps you consider whether you can detect a line you call "crucial" 
>a diversionary tactic, but others might think it rather natural to
>ask whether you can define or recognize it.

Only about as "natural" as asking a cab driver whether he can design and
build the vehicle he drives...

>}>>That's "two", not "too", I assume, and you're wrong...
>
>I admit I spelled it wrong, and I admit other errors too.  Kevin protests
>that he didn't screw up the way I said and patiently explains that he
>screwed up in a different way.  The point remains that Kevin gets
>confused about whom he is talking to, that much is undisputed.  Kevin
>wanted to point out I was in error about how many people Kevin was 
>confused about.  I'll go along with Kevin.  It only takes two people
>to get him confused.  I thought it was three.  I apologize.

I repeat the question, Galen: as long as I'm addressing content, instead of
personality, why does it matter if I occasionally type the wrong name?
Is this crapola about my "name-o"s just a feeble attempt to cover up your
own gaffes of logic, or gaping holes in your knowledge about law or medicine?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion