▲ 1060 ▼ Brought to you by RFK Jr. (sopuli.xyz) submitted 2 weeks ago by Gork@sopuli.xyz to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) define "non viable" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent
[–] don@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Nonviable: Not capable of living or developing. ”a nonviable fetus.” Not workable or practicable. "a nonviable idea." Not viable: not capable of independent life; not practicable. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child) Thanks for the definition I think abortion is wholly different from getting a nonviable fetus removed as it cannot develop nor live permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) All fetuses are non-viable without being allowed parasitic access to the mother's bodily resources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) all children are non viable without being allowed parasitic access to the parents resources even the ones that are born permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago I wish you had dribbled down your mother's thigh You're so boring permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 weeks 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago Non viable: adjective: permalink fedilink source parent
