C'mon. I explained what her position was and you said "there is nothing wrong with that".<quoted text>
And just how do you support my validation her position, when I've expressly stated I disagree with her opinion?
It was not inadvertent genius. I purposely validated your contention to illustrate my point, although I don't necesarily agree with your percentages. There is no way to quantify what is 50% or what is 48%....or what is 52%. One physicians 50% may be another's 45% or another's 55%. What I do agree with is the basic premise that a physician must first conclude that an infant possesses the minimal basic lung function to survive before he applies medical assistance.Prove it's wrong. In your reply post to Lynne you, albeit inadvertently, validated my contention with regard to the 50% gas exchange ratio. Or did you think I missed reading that post?
There you go again. I NEVER claimed that medical assistance was a requirement for rendering an assessment of viability. Stop it !"she would have to acknowledge that a fetus that can only handle 50% of the gas exchange on its own, would still require some artificial support to handle the remaining 50%"
Which has been my contention since the viability argument began; that once the 50% gas exchange ratio is reached, the fetus is viable. Any medical assistance applied to reach the 100% gas exchange ratio is merely "support" and not a requirement for rendering the fetus as "viable."
I am saying that the requirement for medical assistance does not PRECLUDE a determination of viability.
I never said it was a NECESSARY element. You are exasperatingly dense.Hence the reason why "with medical assistance" is not a necessary element of viability, but a necessary element to ensure survival by means of achieving 100% O2/CO2 exchange.
Flat out lie. It is with OR without medical assistance.You got your wires crossed Doc. It's always been you who's argued that the definition of viability is WITH medical assistance,