From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who be Conservative on this.....
Organization: Who, me???
Lines: 31

In article <1993Apr5.005204.29158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr2.155820.16998@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>The SC allows restrictions after 'viability' (a term never medically defined) 
>>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Any physician who can't make a reasonable stab at determining whether a given
>>fetus is viable or not is not qualified to perform an abortion. 
>
>Kebbin shows that he does not know the difference between determining
>the viability of an *individual* fetus, and providing the "universally
>accepted medical definition[s] of viability" 

I was not discussing "universal" definitions in this post, Mark. Please
refrain from dragging in irrelevancies.

Do you agree with my statement above about physicians being unqualified if
they can't determine viability?

>>Since we know
>>that there are SOME physicians out there who are qualified to perform 
>>abortions, then obviously SOME medical definition of "viability" is being 
>>employed. 
>
>On an case by case basis, viability is relatively easy to determine.

And that's good enough for the law, Mark. So why do you keep whining that
viability "isn't defined"? What purpose does your whining serve?

								- Kevin
