<quoted text>OK, so show case precedence where this definition has been accepted over Roe v Wade's definition. Understand that Roe v Wade set the point that a State could proscribe abortion, with extreme exceptions, at viability, it's definition of viability, that is all that is relevant to abortion law. I dont know why you refuse to admit this Katie, R v W made it a point to include what it's definition was and that definition has held, until another definition is accepted then the legal definition of "viable" includes "albeit with artifical aide".
BTW, that means that as advancements in medical technology are made then it would move up the point when a fetus may survive, "albeit with artificial aide", it will also move up the point at which a State can proscribe abortion, this is your real problem with this, isn't it? Well the, rather than deny what is obvious to everyone, including the courts, why not just admit that you do not agree with Roe v Wade?
Hi Kevin, welcome back. Hello, Doc, you seem prickly as ever.<quoted text>
Your own link is swarming with evidence that refutes your definition and backs up mine.
You continually provide links that prove you wrong.
How stupid is that ?
My point all along has been a lot more simple than what it's become with your added demands and false claims above. From the beginning I've said it seems you've placed more emphasis to the phrase, "...albeit with artificial aid" than is actually there. That it seems you want the courts to determine health care rather than physicians. I've said this to others who are of a similar belief as you.
Physicians look to physiological capabilities to determine viability, to determine if the newborn has what it takes to benefit from ALS. That's it, the reason why I've continually said medically, VIABILITY means without medical assistance.
The addition of "...albeit with artificial aid" did not and does not alter the medical definition of viability. It does leave the door open for technological advancements, but it doesn't demand or force the legal gestational age a preemie must be treated because the courts cannot determine that, only physicians can. My concern has been your willingness to want the courts to determine health care rather than leaving it up to the physicians.
However, now add your insistence that "states' compelling interests" must mean some kind of opening for legal protection of the fetus over the woman. It actually means the state has to have a compelling interest -- more intense than a legitimate interest -- because reproductive rights are termed fundamental rights.
Hope this has cleared things up once and for all. This is beyond boring and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you want to insist your perspectives are correct and mine are wrong, have at it. I will agree to disagree and move on.