NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53952

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 3.3 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 17:53:05 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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. Nor is that wha tyou claimed. You made claims of an
"accepted and universal medical definition", with no reference to any
court definition. So it is plain that you were *not* making reference
to a court decision.
Just admit it Kebbie, you were wrong.

>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

[Kevins defense of his "counter productive" spelling flames deleted]

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
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.