Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Didn't you once tell me that viability should be the big red abortion line?
I don't believe I have ever said anything of the sort.
But since you brought up viability again, I will tell you that I've followed your take on viability while discussing with other posters, and it's a very nebulous definition.
You talk about having the technology to keep a baby alive, but to me, that's not "viability". Viability would be for the baby to be able to survive with standard medical attention for a healthy baby...
Technology is great, but if the family cannot afford to pay for the technology to keep its child alive, then is the answer really "welp, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place"? Are people really suggesting that you should not have children (and thus not have sex) until you are financially prepared to pay for all contingencies for your child's birth? Watch the birth rate go down to zero.
And all of this is over and above what I said before, which is that we hear over and over from conservatives just like you "don't worry, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere", and then the minute we point out that members of your party are still trying to work around the law after 40some years, you start playing the "redefining viability" game.