NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53415

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.8 KB | 84 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!galen.med.Virginia.EDU!gjh
From: [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:21:37 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Darcy) writes:
that viability is crucial dividing line for Kevin.

I said the stuff that has a }> before it, I done deleted the attribution
line.  No, the better to confuse Dr. Phoney Giggles, Porky Pig said it.

}>Uh, this crucial, important dividing line.  When is it?
}
}It is statistically determined, for the most part.
}
}>How can it
}>be detected?  Can doctors detect it?  Can hospitals?  Can you detect
}>it at home?
}
}I understand that there ARE some tests which can help whether a given fetus
}is viable or not, but I couldn't tell you what they are or what they involve.
}I doubt that they could be performed "at home", though.

Let me see if I have this straight.  This absolutely crucial dividing
line you can't detect and you can't even tell me what tests there are
for this line, you doubt the average person could tell what they
were either, is sufficiently clear to you that you would not oppose
abortion restrictions one one side of the line?  A line that you
cannot recognize (watch out, it may be capable of biting you on
the ankle -- remember, we don't even know how to detect it -- let alone
what it might look like) and you doubt can be checked at home is sufficient
to spark your opposition to abortion?

}You're the one with
}all of the medical contacts, aren't you, Galen? Why don't you ask them
}instead of me? You're more likely to get a definitive answer that way.

I've checked already, Kevin, several times.  You're not likely to
get a definitive answer there, either.  It depends on who you ask,
what the supposed conditions are, how much money and technology is
available -- a host of things.  Viability is not one of those
things you can look up in Black's and get a workable answer.  The
answer varies from birth to some (obvious to a great many people)
to the moment of conception for others.  Viability often depends on
whether a lot of hot water (mostly to keep the husband busy and out
of the way) is available or whether a top of the line turbo enaculator
is present.  There have been a lot of court decisions about this.  Often
they express "viability" in terms of weeks or 'mesters.

}>At whose definition of "viability" would you begin to
}>allow abortion restrictions, not support, just allow?

}What definitions exist? If you'll present me with some definitions of
}"viability", I'll tell you which one(s) I would accept.

OK,I'll play your game.  Options follow.  Please keep in mind that
"viability" needs to be fairly easy to recognize, lest we place
a financial or geographical burden on some.

1.  Conception
2.  1-36 weeks
3.  1-36 weeks from last period
4.  1-36 weeks from last period with a note from her partner(s).
5.  1-36 weeks from last period with a note from her mother.
6.  1-36 weeks from last comma
    (You get to supply the week in the above.  Use the back of this
     page if necessary.)
7.  Birth

Where do you draw this crucial, important line on which you say
you would not oppose abortion restrictions?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: [e-mail]
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...