< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

FUMARE

Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Blankley: Homosexuals and Feminists En Route to Rendering Roe v. Wade Irrelevant

Check out this interesting column by Tony Blankley, arguing that the definition of 'viability' used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), namely "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," is poised to be undermined by the very same artificial womb technology championed by homosexuals and feminists to avoid natural pregnancy. Id. at 160.

Two separate advances in this technology, on two different projects, are described by Blankley. Either of the two would have the effect of rendering weeks-old, if not younger, human children potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. And as those who have studied Roe are painfully aware, viability is paramount in determining whether a state can limit the "right" of a mother to have her unborn child killed. Already, the point of viability has moved backwards nearly two months from where it was at in 1973, and children only halfway through gestation are now able to be saved. How great would it be, though, to use the same technology that was developed to assist those who would harm the culture of life-- by enabling motherless gestation -- as a tool to bring Roe to its rhetorical knees?

Oh, sure, they would try to parse the wording of Roe, claiming that "live outside the mother's womb" really means "live outside any womb," and so on. Let them try. Though I'm not a big artificial womb fan (okay fine I'm not a bit artifical anything fan), their existence completely deflates the "rape, incest, and life of the mother" objections so often used to chip away at a truly pro-life position. Conceived in rape? Artifical womb! Conceived in incest and/or mother is still a child? Artificial womb! Mom needs emergency cancer treatment/surgery but is pregnant? You got it...artificial womb!

I'm not an ethicist, and I haven't studied these technologies in any great detail, but it really seems like this could put the lie to just about all the abortion excuses out there. The result? Adoption might occur prior to birth if it meant saving a child from abortion, and money will become the sole basis upon which someone will try to justify an abortion. Even then, it will be much easier for good samaritans to step in and "sponsor" the artificial gestation of the child, removing the final excuse for having an abortion. I mean, if a mother plans to have her child removed from her womb dead, what possible excuse could she have for resisting removal of the child alive?


|