Science will make it tougher and tougher to kill the babies!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Study: Premature babies can survive at 22 weeks

By Peter Sullivan - 05/07/15

A new study finds that babies are sometimes able to survive when born at just 22 weeks, raising questions for the abortion debate.

The study released Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that 5.1 percent of babies born at 22 weeks were able to survive, and 3.4 percent were able to survive without severe impairments.

Most of the variation between hospitals in survival rates is due to how heavily they decide to treat these premature babies.

The finding is significant for the abortion debate, where the point of viability for a baby outside the womb is considered to be 24 weeks.

This study could be a step in that point moving up to 22 weeks.

Dr. Edward Bell, a University of Iowa professor who led the study, told The New York Times that he thinks 22 weeks is the new point of viability.

"That's what we think, but this is a pretty controversial area," he said. ?I guess we would say that these babies deserve a chance."

The point of viability is used by the Supreme Court in protecting the right to an abortion. The majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, upholding much of Roe v. Wade, recognized "the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State."

And according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, 20 states ban abortions after viability, except in cases involving the life or health of the mother.

Ten states put the ban even earlier, at 20 weeks. However, those bans could be open to legal challenge.

A 20-week abortion ban in Arizona was struck down by a federal court in 2013 for unconstitutionally violating the Supreme Court ruling protecting abortions up to the point of viability.

Republicans in Congress also tried to pass a 20-week abortion ban but had to drop the effort in January after a revolt from female members and centrists.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/241313-premature-babies-can-survive-at-22-weeks-study-finds

[Plane]

            When science understands the process well enough to make viable  separation co-incident with conception, why should anyone bear a pregnancy?

 http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/04/artificial-wombs-the-coming-era-of-motherless-births/

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because they trust their bodies more than some exceedingly expensive lab.

[Plane]

  So the poor will keep the old fashioned means?

    And the Amish of course.

    When infant formula became widely available, it almost took over .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Infant formula was peddled very effectively with the collaboration of the hospitals. Women who had given birth were given an ample supply for them to use until their milk had dried up.  Industry perceived women taking their babies to the office and factory and providing nursing breaks as a deterrence to their business plan.

This was never a problem for the Amish.

In vitro pregnancy is much more expensive and far harder to market than infant formula. So I do not see that this will ever take hold for a majority of women.

[Plane]

  There was a time when having a car was a symbol of opulence , after cars became common Televisions became what one must buy to keep up with the Joneses .

     Then Computers etc. etc... My Great grandfather would not recognize the life I lead at all. What do you suppose it would cost to convert from his unmechanized horse drawn life to my electronic and gas driven life if it had to be done suddenly?

    How does one count the cost of a normal pregnancy?
     Early adopters of anesthesia during childbirth included an English Queen, and the technology and cost proceeded to trickle down to those less wealthy and highfalutin.

       The Amish might remain human longer than the rest of us, when my grandchildren hatch out of plastic eggs and have electronic enhancements installed immediately, they will probably think it quite normal.
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is a huge gap between anesthesia and actual in vitro pregnancy, and even a bigger gap between genetic engineered children.

I do not see this as becoming common in under 50 years.

[Plane]

  The gap isn't as grand as you may suppose.

    The Russians already have a reservation fenced off for mastodons.

     Livestock embryos are shipped internationally as easily as car parts.

        Researchers add human dna to mice to have chimera that are easier to study than a human being.

       Artificial wombs don't really seem far fetched.

       I suppose that McDuff being of no woman born will not seem all that remarkable to a generation that might include a lot of hatchlings.

      The definition of human being might need some refinement.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The scientific gap is not a distant barrier. The barrier is to the COST of this technology, which is unaffordable to 99% of the human race.

We can put a man on the Moon, but we are nowhere near capable of making the Moon a tourist destination. This is a similar case.

As for CU4's sill comment, people do not want to "kill babies".

[Plane]

The scientific gap is not a distant barrier. The barrier is to the COST of this technology, which is unaffordable to 99% of the human race.

This amounts to the same thing.
When I was a child one would have to be a large government agency or huge corporation to have a computer not half so capable as the one that is in my lap here.
  The artificial womb will probably be reusable, and no harder to construct than a dialysis machine, the demand from people unable to bear children will be strong right off the bat , then for people charmed by the sheer convenience will grow. 

     Then, of course, this world will produce a megalomaniac who might want the perfect sports team or military squad and think that a baby factory would be a good way to get it .

      The cost is prone to fall with mass production.
      We might not be talking about the distant future , we could be talking about current events.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Computers have become much cheaper, but silicon chips are one thing, and  genetics are something very different.
The cost of medical procedures does not come down in the same way that the cost of computers does.
The cost of simple operations like hernias and appendix removal have gone UP, not down, despite new methods.

[Plane]

Computers have become much cheaper, but silicon chips are one thing, and  genetics are something very different.
The cost of medical procedures does not come down in the same way that the cost of computers does.
The cost of simple operations like hernias and appendix removal have gone UP, not down, despite new methods.

Not really.
The cost of appendix removal is down, because there is a new method.
The cost of a doctor and medical staff is up on all fronts.

Silicon chips are an example of mass production.
So is gene typing and dna study, It took ten years and a lot of money to map the human genome the first time , the time and expense of this is heading down like a rocket.

Everything that can become more mass produced follows the same rules there is a similarity between genes and dna that sometimes allows cost to be driven down alike.

But labor intensive processes that require expert labor do tend to remain expensive , we can't mass produce Doctors.

   But an artificial womb is just a device, the expertice required to run a set of them might turn out to be pretty reasonable, thus the rules of mass production would take effect if there were plenty of customers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It costs more now to deal with medical procedures than in the past. Medical costs have grown faster than the rate of inflation, because competition does not really exist in the field. That is why socialized medicine is the only way that any country can provide adequate medical care for everyone, by limiting by law the profit margins on the industry.