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
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 11:50am

<>

Fine. Then you'll respect some of our own "perspectives" of PLers who act in order to subrogate a woman's rights and give them a set of rights that are secondary to those of every other adult citizen of this country. We'll go further and assume that the vast majority of PLers do so in an attempt to forcefeed us their brand of religiosity and belief system and would like to see it expressed through the law in this country.

<< I don't believe that if there were an alternative - that would permit the unborn to life while allowing the woman to not gestate the child herself - that it would be acceptable to PC as a whole.>>

It would depend on the risks involved- and each and every woman would STILL have the choice as to which risks she wishes to undergo. If abortion remained the safest of the options, then it remains on the table as a valid choice.

<< I just don't see PC considering the life that is terminated as important or a factor in the least.>>

If it subrogates the awoman's autonomy over her body, heath and life and subrogated her right sto administer her healthcare choices- NO, most emphatically, it will NEVER be equitable. Te potential life will never supersede the woman's right to choose her risks in healthcare.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 11:52am
Ironic, isn't it? But at least now I know I have carte blanche to interpret this posters' words in any way I see fit and argue form that point of view instead of what SHE says she meant.

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:01pm

>>The man has no say, it's not his body <<

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is, what if there were a way for the e/f to complete gestation without the woman's body - whether it be completely artificial or in another woman's body or whatever else technology might come up with? What if the e/f had a means to survive after it was separated from the mother? Would you still exclude the man from having a say about the e/f then? At that hypothetical point, it's not either's body. Do you feel that Roe v. Wade would be inadequate and the "right not to be a parent" should be further expanded?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:08pm

>>It would depend on the risks involved- and each and every woman would STILL have the choice as to which risks she wishes to undergo. If abortion remained the safest of the options, then it remains on the table as a valid choice. <<

But what if abortion only meant aborting the pregnancy but the removed cells/e/f could survive? The risk becomes a moot point, yes? Hypothetically, there would be two decisions: 1) whether to end the pregnancy and 2) whether to terminate the e/f's life. Roe v. Wade supports the woman's right to make the first decision, but not the second. It is only because of our lack of technology that the second decision currently hinges on the first. Do you foresee a time when that might change? Alternatively, do you think the philosophical debate about the separation of the two decisions is a worthy one?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:09pm
Not a potential life - fact - the z/e/f are alive.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:14pm

If a woman consents and wants to give up her rights and the man wants to obtain rights, then who am I to say no?


I'm not really sure I understand what R v. W has to do with any of this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:16pm
Yes, but so are leaves, clams, snakes and brain-dead humans - lives.
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:16pm

Does that apply to cases like Terry Shiavo?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:19pm

<>

If the risks were identical , the state could take possession and extend rights to the removed embryo or fetus, yes. However, there's still another option we haven't explored yet.......

<>'

No. Since medical abortions (MAP) are a viable option, and the woman may choose that instead and it is her right to choose those sets of risks.

<>

Nope. Not as long as medical abortion exists.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:20pm
So is cancer. Until the fetus is viable, it is only potential.

.
.
.