This came up in an email list I belong to. One of the women was very excited that she was going to get the opportunity to have the 4D sonogram done. (4D or 3D?? I'm not sure)
The question was: Would Roe vs. Wade pass today? Now we have so much technology that gives us so much insight into life in the womb, that shows us so many things about a pre-born child - would that have made a difference?
Certainly sonograms were not as routine as they are now at the time. Certainly people did not pay money to have "Baby's First Picture" done by an ultrasound technician and take it home and frame it before Mom even begins to show her pregnancy.
We have learned so much in the years since Roe vs. Wade about what happens to a fetus in the womb - now we are doing surgery on them before they're born even. I just wonder, knowing what we know now - would we pass Roe vs. Wade today?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, yes I know Roe vs. Wade was supreme court decision, not a popular vote. We were discussing the idea that the unborn are not considered human, and that abortion is not considered murder. Would that idea have taken hold, if the same technology had been available?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, they do call them 4-d, I think they use computer modeling or somesuch. It's cool, but it seems an odd use of what is theoretically primarily a medical procedure.
I've had three kids and four pregnancies, and had at least one detailed ultrasound with each. With my first, I had several (I was enrolled in an NIH study).
I still consider the unborn to not have the same status as the already-born. Life, absolutely. Fully human life? Not quite yet.
And I doubt that I am alone on this -- so yes, I think Roe v. Wade would still happen today.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do have to caution that those 4-D ultrasounds aren't causitive. They can show you physically what your baby looks like, but not why. Tests can show that your baby will have a genetic disorder, but not how severely they will be handicapped. There is still a lot of unknown, even in the knowing. Also, sadly, I have known several women to be misled by their doctors and to have delivered healthy babies that in the doctor's opinion should have been aborted. The new knowledge is therefore seen by some as not necessarily a good thing.
Me, I'm all for knowing and for as much information as I can get. However, you also have to know what to do with the information and how you can use it.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
