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: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:22pm

>>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. <<

Roe says that you wouldn't have the right to say no. I didn't realize that until quite recently. So I'm just trying to sort out what I think of that.

>>If this hypothetical comes to fruition it would then be offered as another choice with regards to how a woman chooses to deal with a pregnancy. <<

Would it? Should it? Those are the questions I'm asking (both myself and anyone else who might be interested).

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:30pm

You bring up an interesting point.

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:31pm

>>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. <<

Are you saying that "medical abortions" by definition means both processes (ending the pregnancy and ending the life) as two separate actions, and a woman already has the right to choose both?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:36pm

<>

Medical abortion accomplishes both actions in the same process, and yes- a woman most definitely has the right to choose that set of risks over those of a surgical abortion, or an embryo/fetus removal and rescue operation, or continued gestation and delivery. Different sets of risks to her body- STILL her choice.
If the medical abortion could be constructed to expell the embryo or fetus alive and in a condition that does not preclude its continued gestation in an artificial "womb" environment, while posing NO additional risks to the woman, then we can revisit the possibilities.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:37pm
Oh and one more thing.
Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:41pm

"However, if you are going to give little credit to a source, in this case Wikipedia, I think it would be helpful to cite a more reliable source."

I actually looked, but didn't find anything much more conclusive. A Google search naturally brought up a bunch of sites of questionable credibility, so I went to PubMed. All I got from that was a whole bunch of articles addressing the ethical considerations or making guesses, but not a lot of technical information on the subject.

In the absence of more credible sources, I still don't accept Wikipedia as a credible source. "The only source we can find" is not usually good enough for me by itself. To me, it's like saying, "I can't find any information about the presidential candidates this year, so I'll just follow what my local grocery-store cashier tells me." Because when we look at something posted on Wikipedia, it could very well be my local grocery-store cashier who wrote it.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:41pm

>>If she wanted to have the baby "removed" and placed in a artificial uterus, would there be safety measures in place to protect her and her fetus (assuming she would give up her parental rights upon removal) from involvement by the abuser? <<

Yes. This is exactly the kind of complications that I'm talking about. What if the woman had the fetus removed but kept alive via artificial means in an attempt to save the fetus's life in the event that the abuser killed/harmed her. But then the abuser could call on his "right not to be a father" to pull the plug anyway.

But then, if the pendulum swings the other way, if the woman wanted to terminate both the pregnancy and the life of the fetus, to completely sever the connection to the abuser and to make the world a better place, but the abuser opted to continue the life via artificial means because he has the same decision making ability as she does. Is that any better?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:43pm

>>If the medical abortion could be constructed to expel the embryo or fetus alive and in a condition that does not preclude its continued gestation in an artificial "womb" environment, while posing NO additional risks to the woman, then we can revisit the possibilities. <<

But is it a worthy philosophical debate, now?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:45pm

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

Considering that you know most of our opinions on this issue, I find this assertion to be ridiculous.

You rail on and on about people spreading lies about the things you believe. Well, now anything you say to that effect is absolutely hypocritical, because here is a big lie about Pro Choice people. You know for a fact that I don't feel that way, so when you lump me into that group, you are lying.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:48pm

>>I'm guessing this would be incredible expensive technology so would this be something that the government would pay for...<<

I missed the expense part of the thread, but you raise another relevant point, when it comes to embryos/fetus is money going to become a deciding factor in whether a life is worthy to continue?

Photobucket