DDL on 9/6/2009 at 22:33
Actually, the line of viability is far less vague than you'd think. While a lot of reports have been cropping up about how survival rates of premature babies have been improving, it turns out that these are pretty much saying "....apart from the dead ones, which we're not counting."
So yeah: there is a pretty reliable cutoff before which viability is far far from guaranteed.
Plus let's be brutally honest, sentience is a ridiculously vague concept to pin down. Viability isn't. "Is it dead?" "Yes." "Right: non-viable nums +1."
Vivian on 9/6/2009 at 22:33
I'm not a doctor, but I imagine functional lungs, kidneys, heart and gut are a bare minimum. It's not really trolling,anyway. It's more just taking the piss.
SubJeff on 9/6/2009 at 23:30
No, viability is the ability to survive outside the womb and it requires much more than just functional organs - it requires a more comprehensive set of physiological abilities (the most commonly/routinely treated problem in premature birth is lung maturity iirc - they work but they are missing specific chemicals that allow them to work
properly). Its not a set gestational age and will naturally drop as medical technology improves, up to a point of course. Currently, in the UK at least, its set at 24 weeks I think. At least abortion is not legal (special circumstances aside) after that. With current medical technology foetuses delivered at less than 22 weeks gestation are extremely unlikely to survive, no matter what you do. And by extremely I mean that no one is even going to try because it just doesn't happen.
Phatose - you started down this line:
Quote Posted by Phatose
Excluded middle.
Please explain why the prior claimant gets the automatic nod, especially in light of the reality that they've already made the choice to call the second claimant into existence in said womb.
and the explanation has been given.
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 23:52
Quote Posted by DDL
Actually, the line of viability is far less vague than you'd think. While a lot of reports have been cropping up about how survival rates of premature babies have been improving, it turns out that these are pretty much saying "....apart from the dead ones, which we're not counting."
So yeah: there is a pretty reliable cutoff before which viability is far far from guaranteed.
Plus let's be brutally honest, sentience is a ridiculously vague concept to pin down. Viability isn't. "Is it dead?" "Yes." "Right: non-viable nums +1."
OK, if viability isn't vague, let's clearly define it then. "Is it dead" gives us a pretty clear no, but really, if it's already dead, whether or not abortion should be permitted is kind of a moot point. What's the clear yes?
Quote Posted by 'Subjective Effect'
No, viability is the ability to survive outside the womb and it requires much more than just functional organs - it requires a more comprehensive set of physiological abilities (the most commonly/routinely treated problem in premature birth is lung maturity iirc - they work but they are missing specific chemicals that allow them to work properly). Its not a set gestational age and will naturally drop as medical technology improves, up to a point of course. Currently, in the UK at least, its set at 24 weeks I think. At least abortion is not legal (special circumstances aside) after that. With current medical technology foetuses delivered at less than 22 weeks gestation are extremely unlikely to survive, no matter what you do. And by extremely I mean that no one is even going to try because it just doesn't happen.
Aren't foetuses delivered at 24 weeks pretty unlikely to survive as well?
This seems like a very arbritrary line.
Queue on 10/6/2009 at 00:05
UGH! At this point just kill it! Turn the lil' fucker into salad topping. ANYTHING! Just end this discussion...oh PLEASE GOD...end it!
Speaking of salad topping, I don't understand how these pro-life-because-we-are-so-fucking-righteous nuts think it a wonderful idea to plaster pictures of mutilation and horror on placards (or their shitty rapist vans) for the whole world to see in order to further their smug cause. You try explaining those pictures to a six-year old without further fucking him up (not that he's had a rough enough life in the first place). But, no, go right ahead and keep "peacefully" spreading your message of "love", ass-licks. God knows, those who parade these images around for all the innocents to see truly do have a special place in heaven for spreading the word.
SubJeff on 10/6/2009 at 00:08
Quote Posted by Phatose
This seems like a very arbritrary line.
Its not arbitrary, its based on the balance of risks, just like every other medical decision.
Quote:
ANYTHING! Just end this discussion...oh PLEASE GOD...end it!
How about we end you posting since your recent forays have been rubbish to say the least.
Queue on 10/6/2009 at 00:09
Recent? Where've you been?
Phatose on 10/6/2009 at 00:17
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Its not arbitrary, its based on the balance of risks, just like every other medical decision.
Risks to who though?
The thing is, I'm looking at this and seeing that you're probably dead at 24 weeks, but maybe a doctor will try, so you're viable. You're even more probably dead at 22 weeks, but nobody will try, so you're not?
Morte on 10/6/2009 at 07:18
Quote Posted by Queue
Speaking of salad topping, I don't understand how these pro-life-because-we-are-so-fucking-righteous nuts think it a wonderful idea to plaster pictures of mutilation and horror on placards (or their shitty rapist vans) for the whole world to see in order to further their smug cause. You try explaining those pictures to a six-year old without further fucking him up (not that he's had a rough enough life in the first place). But, no, go right ahead and keep "peacefully" spreading your message of "love", ass-licks. God knows, those who parade these images around for all the innocents to see truly do have a special place in heaven for spreading the word.
It's a wonderful idea because it lets them feel better about themselves. If they're out there taking a stand against BABY MURDERERS, if they're fighting against BABY MURDERERS then they're making a difference and
better than other people and totally not sad sacks of shit leading out mediocre lives filled with quiet desperation.
Queue on 10/6/2009 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Morte
It's a wonderful idea because it lets them feel better about themselves. If they're out there taking a stand against BABY MURDERERS, if they're fighting against BABY MURDERERS then they're making a difference and
better than other people and totally not sad sacks of shit leading out mediocre lives filled with quiet desperation.
Yes, I can see your point. So the utterly vulgar pictures of offensiveness for all the precious children to see (even though they can't see fake violence or anything sexual on television, and even people kissing too deeply may cause permanent harm) are justified because, well, the end justifies the means. By letting the children see innocence-stealing grotesque images, they
are doing what's best for the children. I never thought of it that way. I'm converted. Hallelujah!
