Babies survive today what they wouldn't have survived a hundred years ago. Artificial life support (ALS) brings a baby with at least a 50% capability to exchange its own gases to viability. That is all I've said and all I've meant every fcking time you've erroneously argued it like a sh*t flinging blithering fool.<quoted text>
....and it will NOT have ALS applied. Good, you're getting it.
If the physician DOES determine it possesses the basic lung function to survive with ALS then he will deem it viable and ALS will be applied. He will not apply ALS to a non viable fetus so it can REACH viability....as numbskulls like Bitter and Chicky have claimed.
No stupid. The courts will never determine when viability is.
The court merely established a definition of WHAT viability is. Physicians still and always will be the ones to determine WHEN viability is.
I don't know if any of this artificial surfactant talk is true but if it is and the technology was readily available, then a physician would have to consider it in determining viability. Don't like it ? Then petition the court to get the definition changed.
NO ! You STILL don't get it. If artificial surfactant was available and a physician felt it could enable a fetus to survive, then he would deem the fetus viable and he would inject it. It would not be injected to "bring the fetus to viability". It would already BE viable. If it were not viable then it would not survive no matter what medical assistance is provided.....and that includes any hypothetical artificial surfactant.
Great you brought it up before. Want a medal ?
What does it change ?
I saw it... so what ? You still have no idea what you're talking about. Then OR now.
Anyone ever mention what an irritant you are? Do you take pride in it?