NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/55466

Text File | 1993-01-12 | 3.4 KB | 62 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!kcochran
From: [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:57:04 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>
>>>>"viability" is medically defined (roughly) as the point after which a
>>>>developing fetus could survive outside the womb.  It may also require that
>>>>the fetus could continue to grow "normally" although special care and treatment
>>>>may be needed.  It is generally considered to be sometime around the start of
>>>>the third trimester (I think).  It is not an exact time, it is a general range
>>>>in which it is usually found to occur in those born prematurely.  (They look at
>>>>children born prematurely at various times and compare the development at birth
>>>>to the statistical survival rates to come up with an average figure.)
>>>>
>>>In practice, 26 weeks is considered to be resonably viable.
>>
>>OK, I'll go with that then.
>>
>>Do I hear Galen still whining?
>>
>Not as long as you accept too that 26 is just a quidline, and may well
>be totally off base in many situations. That's the real problem with
>providing a definition of viability Kevin, it's *extremely*
>situational. I *wish* we could say "all 26 week fetuses will survive"
>or even that they have a 50% chance of survival. We can't. All we can
>say is *if* this, and *if* that, *then* the 26 weeker has a pretty
>good chance at survival.
>It's just not an exact science.
>For that matter, determining the gestational age of a fetus isn't
>exact either. It is not at all uncommon to have a neonate assessed by
>2-3 different people, and get gestational age estimates that are 2-3
>weeks different. There's too many variables for it to be exact.
>Consider just one thing that is used to determine gestational age. The
>separation or fusing of the eyelids. If the eyelids are still
>completly fused, we can say it is probably no more then 26 weeks
>gestational, *if* we don't look at any other factors. And what if the
>eyelids are *partly* fused?
>Do you begin to see why it's immosible to have a truely exact
>definition?

As a "voluntarily chaste virgin", Kibbles doesn't have a clue as to why a
woman wouldn't know exactly when she conceived.
--
=[e-mail] | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =