Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates

[sun rise]

This engenders a different ethical debate. Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies. Personally, once a fetus is viable outside a woman's womb almost at conception, a woman's choice turns into surrender the fetus for eventual adoption or carry the fetus for a natural birth. Terminating a viable fetus to me is unacceptable once that alternative exists. This stance is not from a religious perspective especially not a Christian one.

Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates

What is indisputable is that decades of advances in medical treatment have made Roe’s viability threshold a moving target — compressing the timeline by about one week every 10 years from the original 28. Led by the University of Iowa health system, which has pioneered some of these advances, more hospitals are delivering babies 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy. One survey, which includes most U.S. hospitals with the ability to offer care for very premature babies, found the number offering active treatment for infants born at 22 weeks grew from 26 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2019.

With new scientific advances on the horizon — including artificial wombs, in which fetuses could be grown outside the body — some wonder if we are headed to a point where Roe’s viability framework is on a collision course with modern medicine. At that point, it might no longer be far-fetched to imagine even a very premature fetus surviving.
...
The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate sheep. It consists of a replacement placenta that provides oxygen to the sheep fetus via the umbilical cord and blood that is pumped by the fetus’s heart. Scientists in the Netherlands, funded by an innovation grant from the European Union, are working on a similar technology to create a fluid-based environment and have said their prototype could be ready for use with human fetuses by 2029.

 

[The Hammer]

Now if only there were enough people out there legally, physically, mentally and financially capable of adoption, we'd actually have a solution.

But I don't see these odds increasing anymore then what we already have.

So we end up with an overburdened foster care system, short on adopters and without the ability to care for the kids they already have.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This engenders a different ethical debate. Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies. Personally, once a fetus is viable outside a woman's womb almost at conception, a woman's choice turns into surrender the fetus for eventual adoption or carry the fetus for a natural birth. Terminating a viable fetus to me is unacceptable once that alternative exists. This stance is not from a religious perspective especially not a Christian one.

A side benefit, but not a minor side benefit, is that this could end the pro-life pro-choice war. It could take away that arguing point. I'd like that very much.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This engenders a different ethical debate. Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies. Personally, once a fetus is viable outside a woman's womb almost at conception, a woman's choice turns into surrender the fetus for eventual adoption or carry the fetus for a natural birth. Terminating a viable fetus to me is unacceptable once that alternative exists. This stance is not from a religious perspective especially not a Christian one.

Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates

What is indisputable is that decades of advances in medical treatment have made Roe’s viability threshold a moving target — compressing the timeline by about one week every 10 years from the original 28. Led by the University of Iowa health system, which has pioneered some of these advances, more hospitals are delivering babies 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy. One survey, which includes most U.S. hospitals with the ability to offer care for very premature babies, found the number offering active treatment for infants born at 22 weeks grew from 26 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2019.

With new scientific advances on the horizon — including artificial wombs, in which fetuses could be grown outside the body — some wonder if we are headed to a point where Roe’s viability framework is on a collision course with modern medicine. At that point, it might no longer be far-fetched to imagine even a very premature fetus surviving.
...
The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate sheep. It consists of a replacement placenta that provides oxygen to the sheep fetus via the umbilical cord and blood that is pumped by the fetus’s heart. Scientists in the Netherlands, funded by an innovation grant from the European Union, are working on a similar technology to create a fluid-based environment and have said their prototype could be ready for use with human fetuses by 2029.

One of the good things about technology.

It solves issues.

But wondering about the excess? Test tube soldiers for the future?

 

[Quetzal]

Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies.

Can you please define what is meant by 'viability of the fetus'?

Edit: NVM found it: Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus.

 

[Quetzal]

This engenders a different ethical debate. Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies. Personally, once a fetus is viable outside a woman's womb almost at conception, a woman's choice turns into surrender the fetus for eventual adoption or carry the fetus for a natural birth. Terminating a viable fetus to me is unacceptable once that alternative exists. This stance is not from a religious perspective especially not a Christian one.

Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates

What is indisputable is that decades of advances in medical treatment have made Roe’s viability threshold a moving target — compressing the timeline by about one week every 10 years from the original 28. Led by the University of Iowa health system, which has pioneered some of these advances, more hospitals are delivering babies 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy. One survey, which includes most U.S. hospitals with the ability to offer care for very premature babies, found the number offering active treatment for infants born at 22 weeks grew from 26 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2019.

With new scientific advances on the horizon — including artificial wombs, in which fetuses could be grown outside the body — some wonder if we are headed to a point where Roe’s viability framework is on a collision course with modern medicine. At that point, it might no longer be far-fetched to imagine even a very premature fetus surviving.
...
The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate sheep. It consists of a replacement placenta that provides oxygen to the sheep fetus via the umbilical cord and blood that is pumped by the fetus’s heart. Scientists in the Netherlands, funded by an innovation grant from the European Union, are working on a similar technology to create a fluid-based environment and have said their prototype could be ready for use with human fetuses by 2029.

In my opinion, the options for the woman should stay the same. If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb or without perpetual intervention (the method is not relevant), viability still applies.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But wondering about the excess? Test tube soldiers for the future?

No, because we will send them to Buddhist monasteries. God help them.

 

[crossfire]

It just might accelerate the disintegration of the family.

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O Brave New World,
That has such people in't.

— William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll. 203–206​

 

[Quetzal]

It just might accelerate the disintegration of the family.

One could argue that forcing a woman to have a child she neither wants or is ready for might also disintegrate family.

 

[pearl]

Now if only there were enough people out there legally, physically, mentally and financially capable of adoption, we'd actually have a solution.

I'm sure there are enough, what's missing is the 'willingness' take it on.

 

[crossfire]

One could argue that forcing a woman to have a child she neither wants or is ready for might also disintegrate family.

This will certainly be exploited by human traffickers.

 

[crossfire]

I'm sure there are enough, what's missing is the 'willingness' take it on.

I'm sure human traffickers would be willing.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm sure there are enough, what's missing is the 'willingness' take it on.

Not quite true. My wife worked in the foster system, and was a part of it as a kid.

While there are not always enough willing as you say. The biggest problem is even those that are willing, most don't qualify. You have to be as capable/safe as a nursing home or orphanage yourself. Which takes months of investigations, interviews, background checks, house inspections.

Not to mention the hundreds of rules and regulations that need to be followed if you even make it far enough to adopt.

Edit: not everyone who is cut out for parenting is capable of pursuing adoption.

 

[Quetzal]

This will certainly be exploited by human traffickers.

What do you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

This engenders a different ethical debate. Once there's an artificial womb which could exist at the end of this decade, the standard of viability of the fetus no longer applies. Personally, once a fetus is viable outside a woman's womb almost at conception, a woman's choice turns into surrender the fetus for eventual adoption or carry the fetus for a natural birth. Terminating a viable fetus to me is unacceptable once that alternative exists. This stance is not from a religious perspective especially not a Christian one.

Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates

What is indisputable is that decades of advances in medical treatment have made Roe’s viability threshold a moving target — compressing the timeline by about one week every 10 years from the original 28. Led by the University of Iowa health system, which has pioneered some of these advances, more hospitals are delivering babies 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy. One survey, which includes most U.S. hospitals with the ability to offer care for very premature babies, found the number offering active treatment for infants born at 22 weeks grew from 26 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2019.

With new scientific advances on the horizon — including artificial wombs, in which fetuses could be grown outside the body — some wonder if we are headed to a point where Roe’s viability framework is on a collision course with modern medicine. At that point, it might no longer be far-fetched to imagine even a very premature fetus surviving.
...
The field experienced a major breakthrough in 2017 when Emily Partridge, Marcus Davey and Alan Flake from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced a prototype of a “biobag” that they had used to gestate sheep. It consists of a replacement placenta that provides oxygen to the sheep fetus via the umbilical cord and blood that is pumped by the fetus’s heart. Scientists in the Netherlands, funded by an innovation grant from the European Union, are working on a similar technology to create a fluid-based environment and have said their prototype could be ready for use with human fetuses by 2029.

I see "thorny" issues for all sides of abortion arguments.
Except for me....nothing thorny at all. I favor the right
to abort.
Of course, society will set some time limit, perhaps 6
months after conception. Perhaps 5? Whatever results
from uneasy subjective compromise, eh.

 

[crossfire]

What do you mean?

A source of human beings without family (from the artificial wombs) are bound to be exploited by unscrupulous human traffickers.

 

[pearl]

Which takes months of investigations, interviews, background checks, house inspections.

I had a cousin unable to father a child, married, and he and his wife started adoption proceedings. It was extremely lengthily with no end in sight. After they moved to Hawaii, they adopted two, boy and later a girl, as infants. Much less time involved. The babies were not white, multi cultured background.
And there is always the impact of reaching the age of 18, whether in foster care or the orphanage, you're cut loose with many searching for their biological parents.

 

[Quetzal]

A source of human beings without family (from the artificial wombs) are bound to be exploited by unscrupulous human traffickers.

The fetus of a woman wishing for an abortion should not be primary use case of an artificial womb. What happens to the fetus after the woman has an abortion should be the same as it is now.