3 ms·
I think most people would say that "viable only with massive medical intervention" is not what they mean by "viable" in this context.
by amake 11y ago
I think most people would say that "viable only with massive medical intervention" is not what they mean by "viable" in this context.
- refurb 11y agoThere are plenty of full term babies that need "massive medical intervention". Are they viable?
- mistermann 11y agoThey are not, and using the exact same logic advocated by the the pro-choice camp, there should be no moral issues with not providing the necessary medical support for the baby to survive. Taken at their word, if it is not self-sufficient, it is not a life.
- mistermann 11y agoI'm more than willing to admit that if the baby is removed from the womb too early, it will not survive, so in that sense it is "not viable". What bothers me is most (if not all, in my experience) pro-choice advocates refuse to even acknowledge the fact that non-intervention will result in a human being successfully born in the vast majority of scenarios. To me it is intellectually dishonest.