AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The point here is that saying that a very early premie has survived after the very helping hand of science is not a good standard for viability.

Cancer patients have after the very helping hand of science.
Burn victims have after the very helping hand of science.
Wounded soldiers have after the very helping hand of science.

The list goes on.
Should we not help other because it took science to save them?

Yes some survive, and we try to help them all the time. The point here is again (and again) that many don't survive, and that in determining the point of viability of the unborn the dynamic is far different than a cancer patient, a burn victim, or a wounded soldier.

It sounds quite ridiculous to claim that the unborn should be considered viable at a point when most premies don't survive outside the womb/ Not viable even with the great assistance of science at that.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
The point here is that saying that a very early premie has survived after the very helping hand of science is not a good standard for viability.

Why not? That seems to be the very definition of "viability".

Because extreme cases are poor standards to expect results from.

The earliest premature baby to survive was only in the womb for 21 weeks. Is it good science to say that babies are viable at 21 weeks? No, because most 21 week premies die. Using this point as a definition of viability is irresponsible.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

It sounds quite ridiculous to claim that the unborn should be considered viable at a point when most premies don't survive outside the womb/ Not viable even with the great assistance of science at that.

And yet, that seems to be how "viability" was defined in Roe v. Wade:

Quote:

the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Using this point as a definition of viability is irresponsible.

Why?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
It sounds quite ridiculous to claim that the unborn should be considered viable at a point when most premies don't survive outside the womb/ Not viable even with the great assistance of science at that.

And yet, that seems to be how "viability" was defined in Roe v. Wade:

Quote:
the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

Diest is correct; 6 months (24 weeks) versus 7 months isn't what is being discussed here. Okie, MM and others would deny any abortion past, say, the third month, because 1/10000 babies born during that time lives. However, that's not a good way to formulate policy...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
It sounds quite ridiculous to claim that the unborn should be considered viable at a point when most premies don't survive outside the womb/ Not viable even with the great assistance of science at that.

And yet, that seems to be how "viability" was defined in Roe v. Wade:

Quote:
the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

In your quote it shows that the possibility (24 weeks) and the legal viability (~28 weeks) are not one and the same.

I'm not saying that it's not possible for premie-A to be viable at some early point, I just think it's poor thinking to say that All premies B through Z then must also be viable.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Using this point as a definition of viability is irresponsible.

Why?

Put simply: The data. We sadly have lots of premies born far too early in development, and most don't live. That one that makes it is great, but it does not define that time period's qualification as viable.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Diest is correct; 6 months (24 weeks) versus 7 months isn't what is being discussed here. Okie, MM and others would deny any abortion past, say, the third month, because 1/10000 babies born during that time lives. However, that's not a good way to formulate policy...

As far as I know, the earliest point of viability is currently 20 weeks. That's four weeks earlier than what the standard was in 1973, when Row v. Wade was decided. So what I'm saying is that if you find the decision in Roe v. Wade to be the correct decision, then you would still have to accept that the standards has changed.

I'm not sure what mysterman or okie are really arguing, since the term "viability" seems to get thrown around a lot with everybody apparently using some different definition (or no definition at all).

1 Reply

@old europe,

When I served on the Grand Jury in Santa Clara County some years ago, we went to Valley Med, the county hospital, to do our "inspection." They showed us the preemie nursery where they told us they save over 97% of the babies born there. Some of the babies we saw were no bigger then our hand. Amazing!

0 Replies

@old europe,

I think that if the standard changes, it must be done with a certain degree of certainty. The old standard of 28 weeks acknowledges that some premies survive (at that time's technology) at 24 weeks. If the technology has changed/improved, then I'm not opposed to looking at the standard. I am opposed to using some statistical anomaly as the standard when the purpose of acknowledging viability is that we can say the unborn will survive.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

In your quote it shows that the possibility (24 weeks) and the legal viability (~28 weeks) are not one and the same.

I don't see where you get this from. All that is being discussed is "viability", defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid". It then goes on to point out where in a pregnancy the earliest point of viability would be, and presumably does so based on the standards of medicine in 1973.

Where do you get the term "legal viability" from?

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm not saying that it's not possible for premie-A to be viable at some early point, I just think it's poor thinking to say that All premies B through Z then must also be viable.

Nobody's arguing that. However, I don't see it as faulty reasoning to define "viability" as the earliest possible point where an infant can survive in an extrauterine environment, albeit with "great assistance of science", as you put it. If you follow the court's reasoning that the state has an interest in protecting an infant from the point of viability onwards until birth, then it seems to be logical to err on the side of caution.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Nobody's arguing that. However, I don't see it as faulty reasoning to define "viability" as the earliest possible point where an infant can survive in an extrauterine environment, albeit with "great assistance of science", as you put it. If you follow the court's reasoning that the state has an interest in protecting an infant from the point of viability onwards until birth, then it seems to be logical to err on the side of caution.

The earliest average point would be better. Surely you wouldn't advocate that we set limits based upon the most extreme example?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

Don't get hung up on the word "legal," I was only pointing out that what medical authorities establish as viable is not aligned as you claimed with the earliest point of known viability in a single extreme case.

As for the idea to err on the safe side, even if we factor that in, it is still only one factor in many that a pregnant woman will have to consider. In terms of policy, I see the establishment of legal precedence to pick a point in time where we can safely assume viability not gamble on extreme cases.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The earliest average point would be better. Surely you wouldn't advocate that we set limits based upon the most extreme example?

Given that we're not just arguing about certain rights, but rather about human life, I would indeed advocate setting the limits based upon the most extreme example. The same is true at the end of life. The medical definition of the point of death has been changing (from the point where a person stopped breathing to where a person's heart stopped beating to where no measurable brain activity was detectable) and might keep on changing in the future. I'm not comfortable with defining the point of death based on some kind of statistical average, and likewise I'm not comfortable defining the point of viability based on an average.

I would agree that the situation is slightly different as the point of death only concerns one person, whereas the definition of the point of viability concerns both the mother and the child, but I don't think that that alone should somehow influence how we define the point of viability.

2 Replies

@old europe,

My bottom line as a scientist is that I want some intelligent point selected. I have no qualms with the method used to determine viability in Roe v Wade. It errs on the side of certainty, not on the gamble of extremes. If our technology improves to where we can be more certain, then that number can be rolled back, sure. I just want to see that it is done so intelligently. I do not see the use of extreme values to be intelligent nor do I see it being smart to have statistically rare circumstances override a woman's right to choose.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Don't get hung up on the word "legal," I was only pointing out that what medical authorities establish as viable is not aligned as you claimed with the earliest point of known viability in a single extreme case.

Not sure what you're saying here, Diest.

I would say that what medical authorities describe as viability is the earliest point of known viability. By definition, it will always be a single extreme case.

Diest TKO wrote:

As for the idea to err on the safe side, even if we factor that in, it is still only one factor in many that a pregnant woman will have to consider.

I don't disagree with that, but that would be a different discussion from the one centered on viability and the point where the state starts having an "interest in the potentiality of human life".

Diest TKO wrote:

In terms of policy, I see the establishment of legal precedence to pick a point in time where we can safely assume viability not gamble on extreme cases.

The problem here seems to be that progress in medicine could potentially make any such decision obsolete, at least over the course of a couple of decades. I think the desire to have the current status of medicine reflected in legislation is a legitimate one.

1 Reply

I think the Chinese model is best. No one can have more than one child. Perhaps Obama can press that issue soon on the basis that more people equal more pollution.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman wrote:

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 3662448)
Quote:
Your whole post was basically nothing but one big Appeal to Extremes. That is a Logical Fallacy and you should recognize that.

No, I dont believe it was.
You said that you dont believe in the "sanctity of life" so why do you care if anyone gets killed or how they get killed?
And if life isnt sacred to you, then you should have no objection to any type of death, under any circumstances.

Since you do have objections to unneeded deaths, or since you do oppose the death penalty, for whatever reason you want to believe, it shows that you do believe in the "sanctity of life".
You can try and convince yourself that you dont, but your own statements show that to not be true.

************************************************************

I could have sworn that Cyclops hysterically objected to American deaths in Iraq and the deaths of innocent civilian bystanders.

But now that we know that Cyclops does not believe in the sanctity of life, we can skip right by those protestations>

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Don't get hung up on the word "legal," I was only pointing out that what medical authorities establish as viable is not aligned as you claimed with the earliest point of known viability in a single extreme case.

Not sure what you're saying here, Diest.

I would say that what medical authorities describe as viability is the earliest point of known viability. By definition, it will always be a single extreme case.

Not according to your link, unless you think I misunderstood something. You said the medical community used the extreme values, I've not seen anything to support that claim.

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
As for the idea to err on the safe side, even if we factor that in, it is still only one factor in many that a pregnant woman will have to consider.

I don't disagree with that, but that would be a different discussion from the one centered on viability and the point where the state starts having an "interest in the potentiality of human life".

The discussion on when the state starts having an interest is a separate discussion too. We can talk about viability and the related polices too can we not?

old europe wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
In terms of policy, I see the establishment of legal precedence to pick a point in time where we can safely assume viability not gamble on extreme cases.

The problem here seems to be that progress in medicine could potentially make any such decision obsolete, at least over the course of a couple of decades. I think the desire to have the current status of medicine reflected in legislation is a legitimate one.

You're right. I posted a theoretical situation about three years ago on the forums here. Basically, what if not only does science make viability at conception, but what if science completely makes abortion irrelevant?

There are two scenarios in my mind:

1: The Synthetic Womb
The embryo/zygote is surgically transfered to the synthetic womb. It develops there as is in the woman. Giving up a baby for adoption could be done days after conception.

2: Embryo Removal and Reinsertion.
The embryo is surgically removed from the woman and either cryogenically frozen so reinsertion at some later time or inserted into another recipient. adoptions could literally be done en utero.

In both of the case above abortion is irrelevant because if a woman chooses to not keep a child she can simply have it removed alive and either born or stored. Viability becomes a matter of high certainty. The woman's choice remains intact and those people who cry "baby murder!" don't have any dead babies to cry murder for.

All is well right? Wrong. What I found was that people still have a problem with the woman choosing.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Perhaps most important OE: We aren't even close to this level of tech. We're left with our current science, current abilities, current society, and its challenges.

T
K
O

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know