| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66917
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/28/17 2:20 pm ::: Artificial Wombs and Abortion Rights |
Reply  |
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.730/epdf
| Quote: |
| In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed viability as the defining line in the state’s power to regulate abortion. Except under special circumstances (such as when abortion is necessary to save the life of the moth-er), the state is free to completely prohibit abortion after the viability point, whereas it faces a more demanding test in imposing pre-viability restrictions. How would an artificial womb inflect the state’s ability to regulate pregnancy under existing law? |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 2:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Artificial wombs would likely not have much of an impact upon anything.
The reason "viability" is so important is that there needed to be a definable point where before such the fetus is still part of the whole of a woman's body. The point they set was when the fetus could survive on its own without major medical intervention. At that point states were allowed to consider the fetus its own entity and thus limit abortion if they wanted. An artifical womb would not effect this as the fetus still requires a "womb" to survive.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66917
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 2:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Viability has always been a troublesome standard. In 1983, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent on Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that it was "on a collision course with itself" because medical technology would keep moving the goalpost. She was correct, of course. Viability is 22 weeks now, it was 24 weeks when Roe v Wade was decided.
The artificial womb also undercuts one of the key arguments in favor of abortion, the right of a woman to control her body. Under that logic, the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb, giving her back control of her own body but still forcing her into parenthood. If the procedure to move the fetus to an artificial womb is no more invasive than the abortion, it would be difficult to oppose such a law on this basis.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 5:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
Viability has always been a troublesome standard. In 1983, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent on Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that it was "on a collision course with itself" because medical technology would keep moving the goalpost. She was correct, of course. Viability is 22 weeks now, it was 24 weeks when Roe v Wade was decided.
The artificial womb also undercuts one of the key arguments in favor of abortion, the right of a woman to control her body. Under that logic, the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb, giving her back control of her own body but still forcing her into parenthood. If the procedure to move the fetus to an artificial womb is no more invasive than the abortion, it would be difficult to oppose such a law on this basis. |
Except in that situation they are chosing for the woman what medical procedure to have. That is the very definition of lack of control. The fact that the procedure they want to force me into is just as invasive as the procedure I want is irrelevant. Note that any time doctors remove something from my body they have to follow my wishes as to what I want done with it. If they remove my appendix and I want it destroyed, they must do that. It is still a piece of my body once it is removed.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 6:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| If they remove my appendix and I want it destroyed, they must do that. It is still a piece of my body once it is removed. |
Are you sure about that? Where does that come from?
I find it extremely unlikely that you have any Constitutional right over the disposition of your appendix or other tissue removed from your body. You have control over the choice to have it removed, but I doubt the Constitution guarantees you control over disposition of the removed tissue.
Are you suggesting, for example, that the state could not require the testing of tissue removed for some public health purpose? That such a requirement would be unconstitutional? You don't have control over your body at death, for example. You or your family can't preclude an autopsy.
Put aside for a moment the "the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb.". I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
But I think a more immediate issue is that the "control of her own body" argument is inextricably linked to viability. That is, the fetus is "part of the woman" until it's viable separate from the woman.
If a woman chooses to move her fetus to an artificial womb, then it becomes sustainable separate from her body and there would seem to be a reasonable argument that it is no longer part of her body. She's no longer controlling her own body, but an organism being biologically sustained by doctors independantly of her body. For example, if she died or decided to leave town the next day, the fetus in the artificial womb could presumably still progress to viability. At that point, the "right to privacy" arguments and "control of her body" arguments are far less compelling, if they survive at all, and I could see it as being determined to be well within the police powers of the state to place limits on the medical treatment of the fetus in the artificial womb and to prevent its termination. At that point it's more of a parental rights argument, than a "it's part of my body" argument, and parental rights give way to governmental interests all the time.
Compelling removal of a fetus to an artificial womb is an entirely different issue which would seem to go right back to the "control her own body" privacy rights issue.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's not a constitutional right. It's a legal right. With some limitations. Tissue samples can be used for research, I believe, but any identifying information has to be removed.
Though it would be an interesting constitutional question if someone tried to change the law. Arguably Roe v. Wade could be used as president, for the same reasoning that privacy equates to control over your own body, and just because that piece of your body is no longer attached doesn't stop it from being yours.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 6:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
It's not a constitutional right. It's a legal right. With some limitations. Tissue samples can be used for research, I believe, but any identifying information has to be removed.
Though it would be an interesting constitutional question if someone tried to change the law. Arguably Roe v. Wade could be used as president, for the same reasoning that privacy equates to control over your own body, and just because that piece of your body is no longer attached doesn't stop it from being yours. |
I think your last extension is dubious. I'd like to see some precedent for the notion that you have the same control under the Constitution over removed tissue as over tissue that is part of you.
A "legal right" can be changed by the the government unless precluded by the Constitution. So unless the Constitution ensures the right you claim, it exists only at the grace of the legislature.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/17 6:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
It's not a constitutional right. It's a legal right. With some limitations. Tissue samples can be used for research, I believe, but any identifying information has to be removed.
Though it would be an interesting constitutional question if someone tried to change the law. Arguably Roe v. Wade could be used as president, for the same reasoning that privacy equates to control over your own body, and just because that piece of your body is no longer attached doesn't stop it from being yours. |
I think your last extension is dubious. I'd like to see some precedent for the notion that you have the same control under the Constitution over removed tissue as over tissue that is part of you.
A "legal right" can be changed by the the government unless precluded by the Constitution. So unless the Constitution ensures the right you claim, it exists only at the grace of the legislature. |
Actually, my understanding of this seems to be completely off base. Based upon some quick research, it seems unlikely that we actually have legal ownership over anything removed from our body.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|
