NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53663

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 5.0 KB | 97 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu!parker
From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:13:59 GMT
Lines: 85

[e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>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.

"viability" is medically defined (roughly) as the point after which a
developing fetus could survive outside the womb.  It may also require that
the fetus could continue to grow "normally" although special care and treatment
may be needed.  It is generally considered to be sometime around the start of
the third trimester (I think).  It is not an exact time, it is a general range
in which it is usually found to occur in those born prematurely.  (They look at
children born prematurely at various times and compare the development at birth
to the statistical survival rates to come up with an average figure.)

Although different studies may find slightly varying results, and medical
technology may affect it as well, there is no way that an embryo could be
considered "viable".  I belive it is generally impossible before 24 weeks or
so (possibly later), but it is certainly "viable" at 8 months and maybe even
7 months.  For a more precise, "official" figure you would have to ask someone
more qualified.

However, "viability" does not vary with the situation.  It is the *earliest*
time that a prematurely-born child could be "saved" if the best medical care
is available.  Just because it would probably die if born "at home" but might
live and grow if born at a hospital does not mean that it would be viable in
one case and not in the other.  (I suppose you could define "viability" to
exclude unusual medical care, so that survivability "at home" would be
important, in which case it would not have been "viable" at the hospital either
under that definition.)

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

When Kevin says he would oppose any restrictions prior to viablitiy but would
allow restrictions (by majority rule) after that point, he means that he has
a particular general point in mind that he believes to be the medically
accepted point of viability.  If you want to push for restrictions prior to
the point he believes you would first have to convince him that viability is
actually earlier, or he would oppose you.

>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]

-Rob