• don@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    Nonviable:

    1. Not capable of living or developing.
      ”a nonviable fetus.”
    2. Not workable or practicable.
      “a nonviable idea.”
    3. Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable.

    Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition

    • root@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Thanks for the definition

      I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother’s bodily resources.

        • NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          This is really the whole thing, regardless of how developed the baby is.

          Imagine a fully formed child or adult with a liver problem. Science comes up with some way that someone of similar genetics can be physically connected to them and filter their blood for them and keep them alive while they wait for a transplant. Should the person who can physically sustain another person’s body be legally required to do so?

          So far, less invasive versions of this say no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

          You can’t even force dead bodies to donate organs.

        • root@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources

          even the ones that are born

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            That’s stupid. We have foster systems, adoption, orphanages, children have even survived living in the wild or with wolves. There are many non parent ways for born children to survive.

            God what a stupid, el obviously false statement. If you spent half the time thinking about it as you did typing it you would have deleted it in shame.

            • root@lemmy.wtf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              even in an orphanage, they have parasitic access to someone ELSE’s resources, right?

              a child cannot possibly live completely alone and independent from birth. You have a duty to care for him/her as you brought them into the world. Does that not also apply to children in the womb?