"Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus" Greetings all I would like to have a discussion about the possible future of women's reproductive rights. The decision of Roe VS Wade protects the right of abortion up to viability of the fetus. Thus once the fetus is able to live outside of its mother it can no longer be aborted. Modern medicine has been doing some astounding things as of late. Cloning, body part replacement, and a myriad other medical marvels. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that science could or will come up with a way to make viability come about much sooner. As this time period decreases when a fetus is not viable will it have an impact on Roe VS Wade? Pro life proponents could on the grounds of viability try and use the supreme court decision to actually limit a woman's right instead of protecting it. So the question is IF science provides a way for the fetus to become viable months earlier then it is now how would the reproductive rights landscape be effected?
Interesting question. So if science is able to take over the babies development, abortions can be avoided altogether. If a woman can walk in at 2 days pregnant, have the cells removed and the new technology can finish the rest, should that put an end to abortion. I think it should, but the remaining question would be where do those babies go? Currently, there are far too many to find loving homes for. Where are we going to put all of those viable babies?
Grow a fetus faster ??? ....and why would a woman consent to be forced to take whatever drug or medical procedure to make her fetus grow faster ? WHY would research even be done to make a fetus grow faster? And if this freak "miracle" ever did occur women would still be able to abort since UNTIL IT IS BORN it is NOT a person with rights. - - - Updated - - - How will women know they're 2 days pregnant?
I dont know it it would be growing a fetus faster it is more that there is a point when the fetus is viable. At that point it is protected from abortion per Roe VS Wade (not birth sorry). As such modern medicine could make that time sooner then it is now. As such if the fetus was viable lets say after a month due to medical science it would be protected FROM abortion per the law. This would have the effect of Pro life advocates promoting Roe Vs Wade instead of fighting it and the opposite also true. - - - Updated - - - Care and custody of the new children. That is a interesting question but one that may be already on the books. For example a father even when he does not want a child is often times still charged financially for that child's care and upkeep. Would the state resort to child support for these children as a response?
It was just a hypothetical example, but I think there is a glow! That just puts us back at square one. The reason for abortion is to avoid paying the physical, emotional, and financial price of caring for a baby. If you keep that on the table, why would anyone ever show up to hand over their developing cells? I can see the benefit to your cause if they were able to walk away from all responsibility, but the problem is who takes over?. You? If they will still be responsible, there is ZERO value to the science behind early viability. It is not possible to know who is pregnant and then to force them to show up and then be responsible when they can just get an easy abortion from someone who learned how to do it watching YouTube. Unless you find a way to make more loving homes for these precious human beings, science cannot be a solution.
Uh, I don't think you know what gestation means. A fetus can't just be declared viable randomly......there is an actual physical point at which the fetus is formed well enough to survive outside the womb. Before that it isn't fully formed yet....why would you want a fetus saved when it isn't fully formed?? Have you any idea of what a month old embryo looks like???????????? Get thee a biology book and at least look at the pictures... - - - Updated - - - Only if she spent too long in the tanning booth.......
I know exactly how these things work. This is a question about the crazy science advances our species has been making and continues to make. Even it this scenerio never comes to pass I think it is an interesting discussion to have. If you dont do not participate.
I dont have an agenda here this is strictly speaking about the ramifications of science and how it could pertain to reproductive rights. Back to the discussion: I am looking at it more from the perspective of the law being turned agianst those that use it or for those that are against it. THough we can speak about the other ramifications like the cost and who provides it, the ethics of bioengineering and other advances, heck I just think this may be interesting without having to add all the emotional mumbo jumbo from both sides.
I allowed for the maximum potential of science and went as early as 2 days into the pregnancy. (Feel free to pick any time frame) The question will be who is going to care for the babies. There is a 27-year obligation that comes with each of those babies and this cannot be left out of the equation. So, assuming that science and technology will have an impact on reproductive rights, and I think it can, the question is: Now what?
Well I would say that you would see the Pro-choice folks clamoring for the repeal of Roe VS Wade. By the wording of the decision if a fetus can be made viable this it is protected. You would also see the pro life folk now switching and defending it. Caring for all those children would be an expensive undertaking. I think the government would pass it on to the man and women who created it. As such I foresee us going backwards to a more barbaric time in history when it comes to fetus termination. The only true way to avoid that would be a stronger community outreach to promote safe sex options and the concept of not aborting but having babies to term as a positive. Basicly you cannot legislate abortions away it has to be a reversal of culture by the people.
Potentially yes, but other science will advance too. Could a fetus be transplanted into a woman who wants to carry the baby but can't conceive? Could we come up with artificial uterus environments to "grow" babies? Possibly. The ethical implications for advancement must always be talked out and considered. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Viability will never be much earlier than it is now. The lungs are just not developed enough prior to 22 or so weeks. In my country, abortion is legal at any stage. I support that staying as it is.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931125&slug=1733755 I chose this report at random, but there's plenty of information online, all saying the same thing. A ceiling has been reached.
Then maybe you should explain yourself better. You say you don't believe they can speed up gestation yet you think a month old fetus could be viable? Do you know what one looks like?
In which case I recommend that you take the time to educate yourself as to what the RvW decision actually says. Viability does NOT automatically eliminate all abortion rights. If there is a threat to the life and/or health of the woman an abortion is still allowed. Even if she is healthy the fetus might not might not be developing normally in the 3rd trimester and would either die shortly after birth or be seriously handicapped for life. The risk to the woman of undergoing the birth for a "viable fetus" that won't become a healthy baby is a legitimate reason for a 3rd trimester abortion. So no amount of medical science is ever going to eliminate the need for abortions. Once again ignorance of the RvW ruling is apparent. Had you actually read the decision you would have learned that viability does not grant the fetus any rights at all. Instead viability only gives the states the right to REGULATE abortions post viability and even then the states do not have the right to ban abortions entirely for the reasons stated above. Given that RvW has set the precedent that a viable fetus is now a "ward of the state" that would put the onus on the state to accept responsibility for the unwanted baby should the state choose to deny the woman her right to an abortion. Raising a child to age 18 costs $300,000 each and that is without the cost of college. Given that you now have an additional 1 million unwanted babies all becoming wards of the state each and every year. Taxes would have to increase dramatically to cover the burden of raising all of these millions of unwanted children by the state. Medical science would not have an answer to reduce the cost of raising a child. Have you actually bothered to think this through properly?
Well science has a funny way of surpassing what is believed to be the limit. They are doing things now that would be considered magic just a 150 years ago. Of course we may very well have reached the limit but I have stopped doubting the power and lack of sense from the scientific community.
As of right now a month old fetus could not be viable. Of course this is all hypothetical and is more a science ethics and the ramifications of mans attempts to control and change his biology discussion. I would imagine the science would go hand in hand with cloning and the ability to grow body parts or whole animals. Is it unthinkable that if a scientist could grow a hand that he could apply such techniques to growing human cells in a body?
Only because you don't like what scientists say. That's not a good enough reason to doubt them. Another link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7390522.stm That article is from 2008 - and nothing has changed since then.
I do know what it says and how it is interpreted as of now. But as we all know lawyers have a funny way of trying to change those interpretations to fit their own agendas. Also science has a way of changing how we perceive laws and often requires us to adapt them or replace them. Now back to the topic. Cost I think would be a huge issue so would the responsibility of the children. For instance let's say the government can take these fetuses and raise them up into children and then adults. Would they be seen as individuals or as resources? For instance they could use these children for experimentation for military use or social engineering purposes. Or they could use the same thought processes that leads the government to force child support on parents who do not care for their children. Another thing to consider is how would this impact the overall population of the country.
Does it really matter "how" they do this in a hypothetical scenario? Or is the how actually an important part? Such as speeding up gestation, transplanting into other people, or transplanting into holding containers to grow? Or even splicing foreign cells into the existing to create something unique from the original host.
It's a question both pro-choice folks and the "pro-life" folks should consider... Imagine it's 2025 and a technique has been developed to remove a fetus from a uterus...without damaging it...so that it can be frozen and later re-implanted in either the same uterus or an "adoptive" uterus and fully gestate normally. Now.....do "pro-lifers" object to that procedure? On what grounds? The fetus isn't "murdered"...it's simply frozen...and can even later be re-implanted and grown to full development. Pro-choicers shouldn't object. The pregnancy is terminated and all the woman has to do is sign off on either maintaining the fetus for her own personal later re-implantation....or "giving it up for adoption" to another woman who wants it implanted in her. In the case of rape or incest, the donation of the fetus can be kept strictly anonymous. However, due to genetic anomalies, the "adoptive uterus" woman should be informed of cases of incest. Seems to me it would mitigate 70-80% of the abortion debate......except where certain "pro-lifers" (mostly men) don't really care about the fetus or its status.....they want to control women.
There is also another forum for Science Fiction........I think , since this has nothing to do with abortion , maybe you should post it there...or under Entertainment .
Since we are coming with imaginary scenarios for both sides to consider how about we mandate that 100% of all abortion tissue and 100% of all babies born be automatically DNA tested for parentage? That would identify all instances of incest automatically and those responsible can be charged and tried accordingly.
