Remote Cooperation and Voting

[Aquinas11]

not actually supporting legislation.

not actually writing legislation

 

[TheLittleLady]

Presidents can and do support, push for or work against specific pieces of legislation.

 

[Aquinas11]

Presidents can and do support, push for or work against specific pieces of legislation.

They can’t support pieces of legislation that don’t exist, which was your contention.

They can’ express goals for legislation which is the point.

 

[dvdjs]

Not sure what that means. Late term is by definition viable.

This is incorrect. anon-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb.
That applies to all at sufficiently early stage of gestation. But it also applies at later stages who are found to have certain development defects that - for example, the absence of developed lungs - that make it impossible for them to live once separated removed from the womb.

 

[Aquinas11]

anon-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb.

well according to that definition, all babies are non-viable since all babies are unable to sustain life outside the womb. so that’s obviously wrong.

 

[dvdjs]

well according to that definition, all babies are non-viable since all babies are unable to sustain life outside the womb. so that’s obviously wrong.

Please.

1. Babies do sustain life outside the womb. Perhaps you mean sustain it independently from the outset. But that qualifier was not part of what said.
2. The point was clear from the example I gave. Non-viable have grave medical associated with developmental prematurity or failure that are terminal medical conditions.

This concept is clear and is not wrong.

 

[Aquinas11]

Babies do sustain life outside the womb

Again, patently false.

Perhaps you mean sustain it independently from the outset. But that qualifier was not part of what said.

Indeed, it was not part of what was said, hence the definition that was said, i.e. “sustain life outside the womb” is false.

anon-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, patently false.

I think that you must be employing some peculiar of “sustain” or “life” to arrive at this in correct conclusion, which is incompatible with medical and legal definitions.

I have no interest in semantic arguments on this matter. If you are willing to learn, you can find out more about the meaning of viable non-viable as it it applies to fetuses and correct your erroneous notion that later-term fetuses are by definition viable. Search the legal and medical literature. There are many case studies that will also help you understanding the concept better.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The point of viability becomes earlier and earlier as science advances.

 

[Aquinas11]

I think that you must be employing some peculiar of “sustain” or “life” to arrive at this in correct conclusion, which is incompatible with medical and legal definitions.

I have no interest in semantic arguments on this matter

Even self-contradicting within the same post.

If you are willing to learn, you can find out more about the meaning of viable

I’m discussing the meaning of viable you asserted, which is false.

anon-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb

The bottom line is that the above definition of “viable” is false

Babies can’t sustain life outside of the womb. If they could, the mother could just leave the baby alone to “sustain life outside of the womb” So that particular definition is false.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m discussing the meaning of viable

You were way off base with your original assertion about the meaning of viability. That error has been corrected. The language of the correction was sufficient for reasonable people to understand. That is the significant issue at hand.

 

[Aquinas11]

your original assertion about the meaning of viability

No, your definition (see below for clarification) is what I am discussing and why its false

anon-viable fetus is one that cannot sustain life outside of the womb.

 

[dvdjs]

No, your definition

No your wrong assertion.
Non-viable fetus has a meaning in medicine and law, Your assertion about its meaning is wrong.
All the pedantic word play in the world does not change that.

 

[Aquinas11]

Your assertion about its meaning is wrong

Conclusions aren’t arguments

I explained why your definition is wrong. You haven’t even addressed , let alone refuted my explanation

 

[dvdjs]

Conclusions aren’t arguments

There is nothing to argue.
Your explanation is tendentious, immaterial, and irrelevant.

 

[Aquinas11]

There is nothing to argue

Right , because the definition is false

 

[dvdjs]

Right , because the definition is false

Rather than deflection on a dubious semantic point of no significance and dubious, you might consider correcting the substantive error that you made.

Late term is by definition viable.

This statement is not true.