Babies born before 22 weeks

Originally posted by FMF
The FACT is that THE POINT is to live. The other FACT is that 10% means there is still a chance of living. To say "...there is no point..." seems very odd.

Yes, and 90% that there isn't a chance to live.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yes, and 90% that there isn't a chance to live.

This is very strange brand of self-deprecating humour.

Originally posted by FMF
The FACT is that THE POINT is to live. The other FACT is that 10% means there is still a chance of living. To say "...there is no point..." seems very odd.

Could it be that socialized medicine is not that great after all? I wonder if socialized medicine can exist keeping patient and doctor decision making intact. Who is to say 10% chance is not enough? The government can't run a balanced budget, would we trust them to do our medical thinking for us?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Could it be that socialized medicine is not that great after all? I wonder if socialized medicine can exist keeping patient and doctor decision making intact. Who is to say 10% chance is not enough? The government can't run a balanced budget, would we trust them to do our medical thinking for us?

So... it's better to have no credible or affordable health system for tens and tens of millions of hard working poor families? I don't really get your point.

Originally posted by FMF
This is very strange brand of self-deprecating humour.

Its not humor, I wasn't trying to make a joke.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Its not humor, I wasn't trying to make a joke.

It strikes me as wholly incompatible with your anti-abortion stance.

Originally posted by FMF
It strikes me as wholly incompatible with your anti-abortion stance.

If there is a chance the baby will survive you shouldn't abort it, however, that doesn't mean you should ignore the facts (that sometimes its impossible to keep people alive).

Im not saying you shouldn't try, what Im saying is that you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work out in the end.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Im not saying you shouldn't try, what Im saying is that you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work out in the end.

That's not what you said.

It's good that you have backed down because that was arguably one of your most indecent posts here in a long time.

Good for you for back peddling.

Originally posted by FMF
That's not what you said.

It's good that you have backed down because that was arguably one of your most indecent posts here in a long time.

Good for you for back peddling.

Ok, I shouldn't have said what I said, not in that way.

What I meant is that you can't ignore the facts.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Ok, I shouldn't have said what I said, not in that way.

What I meant is that you can't ignore the facts.

But if the fact is 'there is a 10% chance', then you should ignore it, is that what you mean?

Originally posted by FMF
But if the fact is 'there is a 10% chance', then you should ignore it, is that what you mean?

10% is very small.

You shouldn't ignore it, but you shouldn't ignore the other 90% either.

Originally posted by FMF
So... it's better to have no credible or affordable health system for tens and tens of millions of hard working poor families? I don't really get your point.

No point, just spitballing here. It raised questions in my mind about whether or not this is how socialized medicine would look. It seems pretty extreme in this case, but can the idea be improved on in some way. The affordable health system for jillions of poor families would be nice. I like discussions that bring up ideas. No point endlessly debating systems that do not work well. Nothing in this world is perfect, but maybe there are modifications to existing systems that may work better.

Originally posted by generalissimo
10% is very small.

You shouldn't ignore it, but you shouldn't ignore the other 90% either.

"90% - against" means 'there is no point', is that what you mean?

Originally posted by joe beyser
The affordable health system for jillions of poor families would be nice. I like discussions that bring up ideas. No point endlessly debating systems that do not work well.

The systems in all the other industrialized countries work fairly well.

Originally posted by FMF
"90% - against" means 'there is no point', is that what you mean?

No, what I mean is that it is very unlikely to work.