home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
- From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
- Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
- Message-ID: <1993Jan3.061908.21508@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- 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.
- Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
- Organization: None worth mentioning.
- References: <1993Jan2.091616.7653@rotag.mi.org> <1993Jan2.215728.28943@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1993Jan3.033806.10827@rotag.mi.org>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 06:19:08 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- 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.
-
- >That's "two", not "too", I assume, and you're wrong -- I've accidentally
- Tsk Tsk Kevin, don't spelling flames come under what you describe as
- "pointless ad hominen attacks"
-
- [Rest of article deleted for brevity]
-
- --
- 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.
-