Viability?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Viability?
44
Sun, 02-10-2008 - 7:41pm

I guess I had always thought that viability was the point at which an infant could life without a womb and therefore quite late in the pregnancy. But now I realize that artificial means are completely legit, so viability is becoming earlier and earlier.

Technology is advancing at a rate faster than most people imagine. Given the rate at which technology is advancing, isn’t the issue of viability more and more an issue in the abortion debate?

From Wikipedia:

>>The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." <<

More from Wikipedia:

ectogenesis, an artificial uterus

>>Although the technology does not currently exist to raise an embryo from conception to full development outside of a human body, the possibility of such technology raises questions with respect to cloning and abortion. The elimination of the need for a living uterus would make cloning easier to carry out and yet harder for legal authorities to track. At the same time, the capacity to raise an unwanted fetus apart from the mother would allow the option of fetus adoption, but might raise concerns with respect to children born with no connection to a parent. Some pro-life groups argue that this would allow a father to have a choice in whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Many would be less opposed to banning abortion if the fetus could simply be transferred to an artificial womb instead, since it would be able to survive outside of the uterus from the first day, thereby avoiding any possible undue burden. Even many currently pro-choice people would find it acceptable to ban abortion if artificial uteri become available, since the woman would still be allowed to have the fetus removed from her body. Another controversy also exists in regards to same-sex reproduction. The existence of an artificial uterus would allow gay couples to bare their own biological children through male egg and other modern cloning technology. <<

Lastly, a link to a long, decidedly Pro-life article, “Is Roe v. Wade Obsolete?”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_199807/ai_n8794488/pg_14

The funny thing is, without the "integrity of the body" thing, I find myself jumping ships , from pro-choice to pro-life, but it seems to me that most people still value the "right not to be a parent" even if the other parent wants to.

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Tue, 02-12-2008 - 7:52am
Thanks Colleen!
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Tue, 02-12-2008 - 3:15am

~In the end, it has nothing to do about viability or life - only the percieved right over that life matters from what I gather.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2005
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 7:59pm
It's okay, Nisu... You're still a Younger American... And, I'm still that same "mid-20's whipper snapper". But, I love you anyhow! Just wait... Next month, you and the rest of the girls from the other board will be able to razz me to death about turning 26!


Powered by Lorf Almighty!


Powered by Lorf!

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 5:55pm


>>every single one of us has to start out as a first trimester fetus. That is just a fact of life...we can't skip it and expect to get to where we are today...every stage in our life is important and necessary....<<

I can agree with that.

>>how can one say that a first trimester fetus is less alive than anyone else?<<

I did the best I could to explain what I meant by "more alive".

>>...or less important when you look at the process required for any one of us to even have a life?<<

Now, more important gets a little more murky, and to the point. I guess I believe that the fetus isn't more important than the mother, and therefore the mother can't be "forced" to gestate the fetus.

But that isn't to say they aren't equally important. That's why I seem to find myself jumping ship from PC to PL, if the e/f were viable w/o the mother's body.

>>Obviously you and I are older and have more life experience...<< than a first trimester fetus. <<

I was going to take issue with the "older" thing and give you my new spiel about how Homeland Security has designated me officially a "younger American", but then I finished reading. >>than a first trimester fetus. << LOL.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 5:29pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 2:00pm

"I am not trying to lump all PC into that group. However, most of what I have heard, read and been told by PC themselves speaks volumes of the movement itself."

That's funny. I didn't see any reference to "many" or "most" in your earlier posts in this thread.

"It is about the RIGHT - neglecting and ignoring the facts about the human life that is in question of termination."

The two are not mutually exclusive, as you claim. Yes, I feel bad when women have abortions for what I perceive are frivolous reasons. I also feel bad when people vote Republican for what I perceive are frivolous reasons- especially to continue a war that benefits no one and costs hundreds of thousands of human lives. But at no point would I try to deny these people the right to vote the way they choose, even if I believe it leaves blood on their hands.

As an aside, I don't believe that the PC group has cornered the market on misinformation. I once watched an anti-abortion rally at a college I attended. They were quite open about presenting a full-term baby who had died as a first-trimester aborted fetus. Sometimes the information coming from the PL side appears to have come straight from Thomas Aquinas, who believed that men implanted a fully-formed but extremely tiny baby into a woman's womb.

"There is more to life than percieved rights over the lives of others."

Of course there is, but since this is an abortion debate board, the other discussions seem somewhat extra-topical. Besides, you know (or should, if you're actually reading any of my posts) that I already know this, so you're preaching to the choir.

"And always, the dominate group does all that they can to dehumanize, belittle value of and obstruct rights to the subbordinate group. Abortion is no different."

Except for one obvious distinction: to give rights to one separate group of people does not deny the rights of the "dominant" group. To give intrinsic rights to a fetus does, indeed, deny the rights of the mother. You should understand this to be quite clear, as you are quite firmly in favor of denying a mother the rights to terminate her pregnancy.

"The tone of many PC posts (many - not all) is very militant about 'right' and imply the power of that right - not nessicarily the execution of that right."

The definition of "militant"

–adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

Shall we ask for examples now? I know, I know, I'm wasting my time because you have *never* given me examples when I ask for them. You just change your argument to "many" or "most" when I call you on it, which neither supports your position nor proves your argument. I wonder why you try sometimes if you're not willing to back up what you say.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:45pm

"Many don't but most e/f have the potential to be what I am. But it's quite a stretch to say that already are."


Yes, exactly!

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:37pm

At one day old you only had the potential to be who/what you are today.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:28pm

>>They are as human and alive as you and I are today. <<

Perhaps I am delusional, but I think of myself as being more alive and more human than a first trimester fetus. Obviously, I am not necessarily genetically more human nor am I more alive in some sense of word (fish are alive). But I am a person, periodically I am "fully alive", I am no doubt "fully human", I am sentient, I have a full range of emotions and experiences, I have a working frontal lobe - sometimes anyway. Many don't but most e/f have the potential to be what I am. But it's quite a stretch to say that already are.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:11pm

I am not trying to lump all PC into that group.

Pages