Parts 8-10 this is a small excerpt "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
there is one very large elephant in the room that you seem to have over looked, regardless of scientific advances that may or may not happen, unless women have the right to consent removed from them then it would still be up to them whether they allow the removal of the embryo, fetus etc. If they have no desire to allow it to be "grown" artificially then there is no legal recourse that allows the state to force her to do so, she would still have every right to opt for an abortion if she so wished. The state CAN NOT force her to undergo ANY medical procedure UNLESS they can prove she is of unsound mind.
I agree in part, the state cannot force a woman to have the procedure. But if viability is guaranteed then the abortion would also be denied as the fetus at that moment would have protections. So she would not necessarily have the right of an abortion. That is the whole crux of the advancement of reproductive science. At that point you would see lawyers for the prolife groups trying to use RvsW to prohibit abortions while I think you would have prochoice groups fighting to have it struck down and replaced with something else.
Why couldn't the state force women to have the procedure? If they can force women to stay pregnant and give birth that means they've already removed women from the "human beings/person" category and made them nothing but broodstock.... But your little dream is too far fetched to worry about....
The premise of the OP is that medical science would have made it possible for the procedure to occur prior to current viability. The OP is arguing that this eliminates her reproductive rights because she is forced to either risk the pregnancy or undergo the procedure. In essence a woman is being forced to raise an unwanted child even if she doesn't have the means to raise it. At this point individual rights have been wiped out by a theocratic state.
If the state did force women to have a procedure it would be a massive attack on personal liberties. Now that I have thought about it that is a worrying proposition. The state sees a positive in having a procedure done. They have a moral/economic/health argument to use as a lever for legislation. Then abuse the language of past precedent to allow an outcome never foreseen by the original authors. Its not my dream it is the exact opposite actually. The rampant acceleration of scientific advancement without the ethical consideration of "should we." Also you say farfetched but what has medical science done in the last 30 years, cloned mammals, mapped the human Gnome, perfected the attaching of limbs from one person to another. These things were science fiction in the 80's but now are fact. What will the medical world achieve by 2040?
If women lose the right to determine their own destiny it is a loss.....not a "Great Achievement", it's barbarism...but human gestation is still 9 months and has been since forever.... IF science could speed it up WHY would women lose their rights? Women would only lose their rights if psychopaths took them away...
The fetus would only have the same protections as any other person, those protections do not include the right to use another persons body without consent .. therefore if the female refuses consent for the fetus to use her body then legally the fetus is causing her serious injury and as such she would have the right to use what ever means to stop those injuries occurring, furthermore the state would have a duty to aid her in doing so. If the state refuses to aid her or forces her to continue with the pregnancy then the state would be in violation of the equal protection clause. As it stands the fetus is not considered a person under Roe and as such does not have any legal protections, Roe does not enforce the viability threshold, nor does it make any abortion lillegal regardless of the reason or time scale, it merely allows states to impose restrictions if they wish to, any state could remove any and all restrictions on abortion if they so wished and they would not be breaking any Federal laws. If the states decided to deem the unborn as persons then they MUST abide by the restrictions of that status, Roe would become obsolete but not in the way that pro-lifers would want it to, it would in reality mean abortion being legal at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it.
