Replies

RobbyS wrote: IAC, I doubt that the child could have thrived in such a toxic environment. As for viability, that is a pernicious concept.

Your doubts are not medically founded. There was no toxic environment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002294/

Please clarify what you mean by “pernicious concept”.

I merely stated accepted medical fact, which is that an unborn child is not viable until at least the 24th week of gestation, and that is the limit of our technology.

This concept of viability is used as an excuse by pro-aborts to declare them somehow less than human and thus OK to kill.

The hospital was technically correct that the unborn baby was not viable; that’s why the brain-dead mother was on life support - to allow the child to gestate to the point of viability.

Nobody else except the lawyers and father (and to some extent the family, though they were under the influence of the father or lawyers) stated that the child was unable to live outside the womb once she had grown sufficiently, which she was on her way to doing.

When a child is born without complications it is assumed that child has had 40 weeks of gestation. When an as yet unborn alive child is said to be 23 weeks there are two weeks either way, plus or minus, so that little one in Texas might have been 21 to 25 weeks of age, building the spacesuit he or she would use in the air world.

I am very suspicious when I read phrasing like 'toxic environment or rotting corpse. Such terminology shouts agenda, and an agenda which would have been squelched at FR not too long ago.