Why Roe v. Wade may become moot/obsolete...

[Busyman]

:lol: :lol:
Damn j2, where do you get these articles...a fellow conservative emails them too you, reason magazine, or conservativeRepublicanocChristian.com?

The article is flawed. Proving that, with the help of machines, a fetus is viable proves nothing in relation to Roe v Wade.

Ya know...with the help of the womb it's viable too. :dry:

Hmmm not unless the article is saying that anyone that wants an abortion would just have a fetus aborted from the body and grown in da tube. Is that what it's saying? (sorry I skimmed it)

I couldn't miss this one though...

and thus potentially legally safe from the abortionist's medical weapons :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think I saw some of those weapons in the movies Dead Ringers and The House Of Flying Daggers.

[vidcc]

It seems to be a win win situation then.

The pregnant woman can have the "abortion" she wants and then the foetus can be brought to term outside the womb and placed in a conservative home to be raised.

So where does this go with the other end of life. We can artificially keep a body alive So given that the argument allows life to be viable even only with "artificial support" are we to see and end of "pulling the plug".

[vidcc]

Well it is open to interpretation of course which is why I worded my answer as I did.

If the plan is to ban abortion because it is "possible" to use technology to bring the unborn to term then I couldn't accept it unless the technology was actually available. We can't overturn Roe just because something has been achieved in Japan.

[Busyman]

It seems to be a win win situation then.

The pregnant woman can have the "abortion" she wants and then the foetus can be brought to term outside the womb and placed in a conservative home to be raised.

So where does this go with the other end of life. We can artificially keep a body alive So given that the argument allows life to be viable even only with "artificial support" are we to see and end of "pulling the plug".

Thank you for "getting it", or at least more of it than Busyman, vid.

The developments described present an alternative which resolves certain issues while re-ordering/eliminating/ raising others.

It definitely re-contours the landscape.

Hey there I got it


Hmmm not unless the article is saying that anyone that wants an abortion would just have a fetus aborted from the body and grown in da tube. Is that what it's saying? (sorry I skimmed it)

:(

[JPaul]

It seems to be a win win situation then.

The pregnant woman can have the "abortion" she wants and then the foetus can be brought to term outside the womb and placed in a conservative home to be raised.

So where does this go with the other end of life. We can artificially keep a body alive So given that the argument allows life to be viable even only with "artificial support" are we to see and end of "pulling the plug".
Do you really see not killing an unborn person as being analogous with artificially prolonging life.

[ilw]

It will be a happy day when termination isn't the alternative to carrying the baby to full term, though there are still issues with the babies right to know who its parents are. But its still a long way off, babies born very premature are nearly always severely neurologically impaired

[JPaul]

.... babies born very premature are nearly always severely neurologically impaired
No offence, but please provide your reason for saying that. With quantification of "very premature" and "severely neurologically impaired".

Otherwise your contention is at best trite.

[vidcc]

The column doesn't mention banning abortion, vid-it reveals Roe v Wade as (at the very least potentially) moot in light of the technology.

It actually says this:

Once such technologies make it medically possible for a fetus to be "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" the language of Roe v Wade will not have to be overturned. It could stay on the books as legally valid, but factually meaningless.
[sigh]
So you feel that the fact that a woman will be denied an abortion with Roe being meaningless isn't in reality the same thing.

"We are not banning abortion, we are just not allowing it" :unsure:
Sounds like spin to me.

The Roe v Wade ruling is just one part of the struggle.

[JPaul]

Do you remember buggy whips?

When motorized vehicles became the favored method of transportation, all of the statutes on the books having to do with horse-drawn carriages gradually became obsolete.

I'd lay money that they're still on the books, though.

Really, vid; you must stop being obstinate for obstinacy's sake and admit I am at least occasionally right...
and occasionally very right :naughty:

[JPaul]

and occasionally very right :naughty:

Of the two, I thought the latter constantly? :huh:
That would depend on the specific topic.

For either right.

[Rat Faced]

babies born very premature are nearly always severely neurologically impaired

They'll fit right in with those Conservative households that will bring them up then :ph34r:

[vidcc]

Do you remember buggy whips?

When motorized vehicles became the favored method of transportation, all of the statutes on the books having to do with horse-drawn carriages gradually became obsolete.

I'd lay money that they're still on the books, though.

Really, vid; you must stop being obstinate for obstinacy's sake and admit I am at least occasionally right...

I'm not being obstinate, you have apparently missed my reservation.

In my first post I said "win win"...I think it would be wonderful..... the second I said that it would only be applicable if the process were actually available to use and not just something someone did in Japan...Roe v wade would only be meaningless if the process could actually be performed.

[Busyman]

Do you remember buggy whips?

When motorized vehicles became the favored method of transportation, all of the statutes on the books having to do with horse-drawn carriages gradually became obsolete.

I'd lay money that they're still on the books, though.

Really, vid; you must stop being obstinate for obstinacy's sake and admit I am at least occasionally right...

I'm not being obstinate, you have apparently missed my reservation.

In my first post I said "win win"...I think it would be wonderful..... the second I said that it would only be applicable if the process were actually available to use and not just something someone did in Japan...Roe v wade would only be meaningless if the process could actually be performed.
That was my initial thought.....

The article is flawed. Proving that, with the help of machines, a fetus is viable proves nothing in relation to Roe v Wade.

Ya know...with the help of the womb it's viable too.

I was thinking:

abortionDoctor: "Lady you can't have an abortion 'cause it has been proven to the fetus is viable at this stage. The fetus can survive outside the womb."

Lady: "Okayyyyyy then let's do whatever it is you talking about."

thenowantiabortionDoctor: "Uh hold yerself up there missy....but it's not available yet."

Lady: " :blink: Wtf!! :blink: "

thenowantiabortionDoctor: " :snooty: Hmmph :snooty:"