I disagree with your conclusions. You are confusing medical and legal, claiming legal overrides medical when it does not. The medical definition of viability means physiologically capable of surviving outside the womb. That's to be determined first and foremost before anything else. Then determining if any ALS is appropriate or beneficial.<quoted text>
No one's added or subtracted from anything you've said.
You said 24 weeks was the point at which an ifant has a "chance of reaching viability". ABSURD.
You said the medical definition of viability is the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance. ABSURD.
And you have yet to provide a link to a medical definition that defines it EXCLUSIVELY without medical assistance. And every time you've tried you end up providing a link that makes countless references to the consideration of medical assistance.
You aren't very bright.
You claimed the legal definition demands including ALS in determining if fetus or newborn is viable and that is simply untrue. Wishful thinking on your part. It's not my problem if you cannot ascertain the distinction. And I don't give a flying fk anymore.
Only thing I asked of you was your admittance you are willing to override or "set aside" women's civil rights and give same to the insentient fetus by using RvW as your excuse or reasoning with your insane claim that legal viability demands it.
The next question, which has taken this long to get to due to your inability to move forward, is if you intend to use RvW in this manner, why work at overturning it to begin with?