Hypothetical Abortion question

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If the technology existed to safely extract even the earliest possible stage foetus (even like seconds after conception) from the womb and place it in an artificial growth chamber and grow it to maturity, would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?

I think it would, and here's my reasoning. Currently, the Roe vs Wade ruling is based on viability IE when the foetus can survive by itself without the mother's body supporting it anymore. If technology changed and the foetus was viable earlier (or, as is the case in this scenerio, it is always viable) then abortion becomes an irrelevence, and a crime, as it would be to have an abortion under current US law after it becomes viable.

Now of course, this does not create a compulsion for the mother to care for her biological offspring, it may be adopted etc, but this is I think an intriguing question.

Thoughts?

[Hutch Hogan]

If the technology existed to safely extract even the earliest possible stage foetus (even like seconds after conception) from the womb and place it in an artificial growth chamber and grow it to maturity, would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?

 

It becomes no more apt to do that than to have a funeral for every zygote that fails to implant. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It becomes no more apt to do that than to have a funeral for every zygote that fails to implant.

 

1) That's death by natural causes.

2) Funerals are emotional concerns. This is a legal issue.

3) Nice ignoring of the legal case I made.

[Hutch Hogan]

1) That's death by natural causes.

Do you not go to old people funerals? 

2) Funerals are emotional concerns. This is a legal issue.

 Using the presumption that the fetus is a person that you make, is the death of a person not an emotional concern?

3) Nice ignoring of the legal case I made.

 I'm from Canada.  We don't have Roe v. Wade here. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Do you not go to old people funerals?

No, that's not the issue I was raising. The point I was making was that you were talking about a death from natural causes, and I was talking about a death that is specifically caused by human intervention.

 

Using the presumption that the fetus is a person that you make, is the death of a person not an emotional concern?

Yes, but the government doesn't legislate on emotional concerns, so it's kind of irrelevent to the legal question.

 I'm from Canada.  We don't have Roe v. Wade here.

And? I'm from the UK. We don't have roe vs wade here either. I'm making a hypothetical discussion. I specifically outlined in the OP "would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?"

[Hutch Hogan]

No, that's not the issue I was raising. The point I was making was that you were talking about a death from natural causes, and I was talking about a death that is specifically caused by human intervention. 

This isn't a distinction that is made anywhere else, I see no reason to raise it. 

Yes, but the government doesn't legislate on emotional concerns, so it's kind of irrelevent to the legal question.

 I agree that the government should not legislation over this either. :P
But that said, how we interact with these 'persons' is important for how our society ought to define it. 

 

And? I'm from the UK. We don't have roe vs wade here either. I'm making a hypothetical discussion. I specifically outlined in the OP "would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?"

You asked me to give credence to your legal argument.  I don't owe it any credence as our government ruled that it interfered with the woman's right to security of person.  This would be true in your example as well. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

This isn't a distinction that is made anywhere else, I see no reason to raise it.

 

Erm... what about the law? It's illegal to murder someone. However no one has responsibility for death by natural causes. I'd say that was a pretty big distinction.

 

I agree that the government should not legislation over this either. :P But that said, how we interact with these 'persons' is important for how our society ought to define it.

 

Yes, it is important, but that's not the question I'm raising here.

 

You asked me to give credence to your legal argument.

I asked you to respond to it.

I don't owe it any credence as our government ruled that it interfered with the woman's right to security of person.

 

I'm not talking about your government, I'm talking about the US government. I asked a question. It was "If the technology existed to safely extract even the earliest possible stage foetus (even like seconds after conception) from the womb and place it in an artificial growth chamber and grow it to maturity, would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?"

Why does your government or mine even come into the discussion? I'm asking for an answer. I didn't mention "credence".

[Hutch Hogan]

Erm... what about the law? It's illegal to murder someone. However no one has responsibility for death by natural causes. I'd say that was a pretty big distinction.

Not really.  If it's not going to be afforded the dignity of remembrance of its natural passing, why remember its unnatural passing? 

 

Yes, it is important, but that's not the question I'm raising here.

 This is a piece of the puzzle.  

 

I asked you to respond to it.

 Allow me to respond to the awful wording of Roe v. Wade then. 

"Isn't the state of American education simply appalling?"

 

I'm not talking about your government, I'm talking about the US government. I asked a question. It was "If the technology existed to safely extract even the earliest possible stage foetus (even like seconds after conception) from the womb and place it in an artificial growth chamber and grow it to maturity, would, in that circumstance, it become apt to criminalise abortion in the US?"

 

So what you're saying is that because of the poor wording of a Supreme Court ruling that there is a loophole that should be used to further fine and imprison more people in the United States (a country that has imprisoned a higher number of its people than all other developed nations combined) in the advent of a fictional machine, should said fictional machine come to exist? 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Not really.  If it's not going to be afforded the dignity of remembrance of its natural passing, why remember its unnatural passing?

There isn't as much to remember. And as I said, the issue of funerals is a private matter. It's not an issue of the law.

 

This is a piece of the puzzle.

No, it's not. Funerals have nothing to do with the law in this discussion.

 Allow me to respond to the awful wording of Roe v. Wade then. 

"Isn't the state of American education simply appalling?"

Elaborate as to why.

So what you're saying is that because of the poor wording of a Supreme Court ruling that there is a loophole that should be used to further fine and imprison more people in the United States (a country that has imprisoned a higher number of its people than all other developed nations combined) in the advent of a fictional machine, should said fictional machine come to exist?

The number of people in prison isn't the relevent question here. The question is the morality/legality of the question.

[Hutch Hogan]

There isn't as much to remember.

Bloody hell, you're really going to say that?  

No, it's not. Funerals have nothing to do with the law in this discussion.

 It's not the funeral that I am concerned with.  It is instead the perception of the significance of death. 

 

Elaborate as to why.

Because they have reached the right outcome, but through the wrong justification. 

The number of people in prison isn't the relevent question here. The question is the morality/legality of the question.

Actually it does, as it serves as an excellent litmus to the quality of the nation's legislation. 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Bloody hell, you're really going to say that?

Funerals are services of remembrance. If there isn't very much to remember, it will be a short service.

 

It's not the funeral that I am concerned with.  It is instead the perception of the significance of death.

 

Destruction of life is important, regardless of how old. There may not be much to remember, but there was much to be done.

 

Actually it does, as it serves as an excellent litmus to the quality of the nation's legislation.

 

No, it serves an excellent litnus test of the country's legal system. The legislation itself rarely confers nessecary jail sentences. Sometimes it does, more so in the US than it should, but it is not nessecarily what is criminalised that is at issue.

 

[Hutch Hogan]

Funerals are services of remembrance. If there isn't very much to remember, it will be a short service.

I assume you've never had a 20 year old family member die suddenly.  It was one of the longest funerals I've attended. Wise up. Christ. 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I assume you've never had a 20 year old family member die suddenly.  It was one of the longest funerals I've attended. Wise up. Christ.

In that instance, there is also a memorial of sadness because of the loss of potential. While it's true that there would be a loss of potential, indeed a great loss as a result of a foetus dying, the issue is that its very abstract, so it is more difficult to express.