What I'm surprised at is that you would even argue this. It's basic stuff. Is it just because it's me on the other side ? Or that you are trying to come to the aid of one of your woefully miguided PC cronies ?<quoted text>
I dont. I think she's pollyparroting you and that's about it. But hey, that's what useful idiots are good for y'know?
What are you surprised at? Roe ~v~ Wade may be legal precedent, but "viability" IN AND OF ITSELF is not. Viability is a medical issue, that will vary from time to time, circumstance to circumstance, and all RvW does is recognize that, and they used a medical text to made that part of the determination as part of their decision.
Of course viability is a medical issue. And no one is saying that the SC took the determination of viability out of the hands of medical professionals in every individual case. What the SC DOES do however is establish a legal precedent for the DEFINTION of WHAT viability is.....not WHEN viability is. And that definition says that doctors MUST consider available medical technology when making a determination of viability. What the SC also did was establish that viability CAN ( not that it absolutely does in every case )occur as early as 24 weeks and as such States can proscribe abortion after that time if they so choose.
Now tell me where we disagree.
If the limit of viability would change if it were revisited....based on the "medical technology of today"( and you're right it most likely would )....then how can anyone possibly entertain the notion that viability is defined as the ability to survive WITHOUT medical assistance....as clueless katie claims ?And of course it matters where it came from. If one of the Justices back then just pulled a random number from their ass and tried to use it as part of their decision, based on NOTHING, it wouldn't have held up over time and WOULD have been overturned.
To ME, what they based what became their view of viability ON certainly does matter. These are Justices, not doctors, and they had to come to this conclusion based on something, so the source of that IS potentally important for FUTURE discussion and decisions.
Personally, if it was revisited, the number would likely change given the medical technology of today and how the times for viability HAS changed since RvW. In fact, I think that if it were revisited today, issues would come up that weren't possible back then, such as the ability of medicine to keep people alive far beyond what some think they should.
Issues such as the costs - medical, social, economic and more, of keeping a neonate alive well before they could have been back then. I would also hope they would look at the fact that in the decades since the original decision, the BULK of women are NOT trying to abort after viability. 98% of abortions ARE done in the first trimester - something there were no statistics on then, and THAT is not in debate for the USSC, they clearly said its a woman's right PERIOD in that time period.