It is possible, but that doesn’t mean they all can. Which was my point that a fetus’ ability to survive varies on a case by case basis.
And the law does not use the term "generally" in this case. But I know your point is medical viability which I agree within a range varies from child to child
Does a comatose human lose its rights? Does a human with brain waves have any rights? Most people would say yes. A living thing has inherent value or we would not be compelled to treat it in an ethical manner. What would be the point? A fetus is a "living thing".
We do not treat living things in an ethical manner because they have inherent value, but because we have a rational understanding of how our actions affect others. Where does this inherent value come from? As for the comatose human; they do not lose they’re rights because there already is an establishment of personhood and the capacity for consciousness is there. We know that people in that state have the ability to come back. The pain and suffering of the family also should be considered.
That same type of logic can apply to the mother as well, or more particularly her rights. Who gives value to the mother? Where do her rights come from?
BIOLOGICAL viability does. Scientific , biological viability has nothing to do with laws...laws do NOT determine biological viability.
NO, a 10 week fetus is NOT viable. A 15 week fetus is not viable. A two week fetus isn't viable. BIOLOGICALLY a fetus is generally viable at 23-24 weeks.....some may vary size but not much in formation.. (unless there is a huge problem) Yes. fetuses as young as 20-21 weeks have lived , with extraordinary measures. Anti-Choicers, in their march against the rights of women, want to limit abortions to before 12 and 15 weeks when 23-24 weeks has been the accepted compromise. NOW, you can argue all that BUT what do you want? Every woman who wants an abortion has to have her fetus measured? For what? Length? Weight? Shoe size? Did you know most abortions are done BEFORE 18 weeks? Did you know that only idiots like Trump insist women are having 9 month fetuses cut into pieces ? Do you believe that?
But not by much. That's why gestation is still 9 months...not 10, not 8 , not 7....it's been 9 months for thousands of years and hasn't changed.
The "law" can only state what IT thinks or wants viability to mean....it cannot alter true biological viability. So you think if states say viability is 1 week then they have the right to pass a law saying no abortions after their "viability" ? ...and this crap is getting boring...turning to the topic, NO, fetuses have no rights nor should they.
Viability in the law under roe means a fetus would survive 50 percent of the time even with lots of artificial aids. A viable fetus has a right to life barring some exceptions
I am unaware of that part of the RvW decision....perhaps you could provide a link? It sounds like you are using WIKI: " Viability, as the word has been used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions.[2] Another definition for viability, as used in the medical phrase limit of viability, is the expectation that a fetus has an equal chance of surviving and not surviving outside his or her mother's womb. According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viability of a fetus means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability.[3] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Yes according to the medical advice give to the court at the time fetal viability would be determined to be at least 50% survivability for an extended time which is why 24 weeks was considered the standard. If they wanted a higher survivability factor they would have set the limit to no less than 30 weeks.
Actually a state might regulate abortion based on reasons other than the concern for prenatal life. The Supreme Court said the state could justify abortion regulation based on the concern for a woman's health, just not before the end of the first trimester.
All living things have an inherent or better, intrinsic value to which we can render moral judgment. You are saying living things have extrinsic value and we render judgments on them because from our moral perspective it is the right thing to do and not because they have any value. I think that, speaking for the rest of humanity, that is little incentive to treat other “living things” in an ethical way and it does not bear out reality. Being ethical for ethic’s sake is beyond the general public’s capacity and fanciful. A fetus has potential value that increases until birth as such it’s intrinsic value or “rights” are protected after viability as decided by our society.
What "rights" does a fetus have according to you ? ...and BTW , you do not speak for "the rest of humanity"", just yourself.
Nope, NO rights, just protections. Why would a fetus be given just ONE right? Especially when it infringes on another's rights?
You have never been able to explain the difference between a right and a protection in this case. They are the same here. It is the only right it requires....freedom of speech would be rather pointless. Lol. Children have the right to be clothed, sheltered and fed from their legal guardian.....even though that costs the guardian money
Definition of protection: protection noun pro·tec·tion | \prə-ˈtek-shən \ Definition of protection 1 : the act of protecting : the state of being protected 2a : one that protects b : supervision or support of one that is smaller and weaker c : a contraceptive device (such as a condom) 3 : the freeing of the producers of a country from foreign competition in their home market by restrictions (such as high duties) on foreign competitive goods 4a : immunity from prosecution purchased by criminals through bribery b : money extorted by racketeers posing as a protective association 5 : coverage sense 1a 6 : anchoring equipment placed in cracks for safety while rock climbing """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" NOT ONE WORD ABOUT RIGHTS. I have no idea what that has to do with the fact fetuses have no rights... Nope, NO rights, just protections. Why would a fetus be given just ONE right? Especially when it infringes on another's rights?
