24 weeks is the point at which a foetus becomes "viable" as I said. Being more likely to survive than not is saying that a baby has a better than 50:50 chance of survival, that's not a "good" chance in my books. My son was born at 36 weeks and 5 days, that's 3 months after the above "viable" stage, and was classed as "premature", had a collapsed lung, hole in the heart (very common in prems) and RDS and was in special care for some time. He also had to have light therapy for jaundice, and another 2 weeks in hospital for premature related illness soon after he came home when he nearly died. He couldn't even suck and had to be tubefed. He has had long term blood sugar disorder that has nearly killed him on numerous occasions. He is dyslexic and under observation/assessment for ADSs, most likely the professionals believe because of oxygen starvation at birth.
I don't think anyone can say that just because a baby is possibly able to survive at 24 weeks means that it has a good chance. It has a good chance of brain trauma from lack of oxygen, liver failure, stroke and just about every other ailment linked to being premature, and then as an older child, a high chance of autistic spectrum disorders, ADHD, dyslexia, etc etc etc.
Yes a baby born at 24 weeks are likely to survive physically. And then they're likely to go on to suffer long term physical and educational problems.
I know that noone's saying these baies would be born at 24 weeks - they'd most likely and certainly nearly all go on to full term and be born "normally" with few complications.
But if the guidelines are going to go on how young a foetus can survive, then surely all this plays a part in that decision? It's certainly not natural for babies to survive that are born at that "cut off" point.
God I've waffled! sorry