Exactly. That is why "available" medical technology is considered when making a determination of viability. The exact same infant born 100 years ago may not have been considered viable then but due to current medical technology......is considered viable today. That is... considered viable by doctors....not by the court as you so ridiculously said I claim.<quoted text>
Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago.
Wrong. ALS does NOT "bring" it to viability. If a doctor determines it can benefit from ALS then he has ALREADY deemed it viable. The ALS does not "bring" it to viability.Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability.
After all this time you STILL do not get it. Amazing.
And if that's what you've been saying then you've been wrong every fcking time. How does it feel to be consistently stupid for soThat is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time
It would only be erroneously argued if I was wrong. But I'm not.you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.
Something seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You're vile little sewer mouth is working overtime !
Yes as a matter of fact YOU have mentioned it. And I love it every time you do.Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?