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?
>>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?”
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.