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: 04-15-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:52pm
I wasn't even thinking about it that way.
Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 12:59pm

"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?"


I'm sure it will be.

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:00pm

"when it comes to embryos/fetus is money going to become a deciding factor in whether a life is worthy to continue?"

I would say that it certainly will in this case, even if I don't agree with it. We have a privatized health care system, which means that money is often a deciding factor in whether a life is worthy to continue in our present system. How many times have you seen a donation jar at the gas station to help pay for some kid with leukemia's bone-marrow transplant? What happens to the kids who don't raise enough money to get the transplant?

"I missed the expense part of the thread"

I addressed it in my post. But since you only responded to comments made at the end of mine, I'm guessing you didn't read the first part.

We have a medical system that is in the business of making money. A two-week stay in the NICU can cost, at a minimum, tens of thousands of dollars. Escalate that to 7-8 months, adding in the extremely high additional cost this technology will present, as well as the charge for the experts trained to manage it. I doubt that even anti-abortion religious hospitals would be willing to eat the literally tens of millions of dollars it would cost to raise one embryo to full-term. I wouldn't expect the insurance companies to cover this procedure either, since it would be so terribly expensive and would really be considered an elective procedure.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 1:04pm

<>

Nope- with medical abortion currently providing an option that precludes survival of the embryo/fetus, there's no point to it.


.
.
.

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.

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 - 1:37pm

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

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: 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: 03-26-2003
In reply to: nisupulla
Mon, 02-11-2008 - 5:29pm