shrmn8rpoptart said:
so, the issues are less black and white, and instead many shades of grey it appears.
Such issues are rarely black and white.
1. when does the fetus reach the age of viability medically speaking?
I'm hoping anitram or someone better biologically informed than myself chimes in on this one, because I'm honestly not certain. Viability means that the fetus can survive outside the womb. Advanced medical intervention has kept preemies alive at ever-younger ages, five months being the youngest, I believe (like, born after five months in the womb).
2. is the mother still responsible for welfare of the fetus before that point?
That's a tricky question. Even today, couples often choose to wait until a pregnancy is a few months along to announce it to the world, because spontaneous idiopathic miscarriages are more likely in the first and early second trimesters. I would say that if she has chosen to carry on with the pregnancy, she should act as responsibly as possible, but a lot can go wrong in the early months of pregnancy, even with very conscientious mothers.
3. should the fetus who has not yet reached the age of viability have implicit rights due to the fact that if left to develop naturally and normally (though as you stated, the fetus can also cease to exist through natural causes) it will reach the age of viability?
Excellent question. It seems, on one hand, hard to say no. On the other, how can you confer rights to someone/something that has no nervous system, no ability to feel pain, etc.? At a very early point, your cat or dog has more of a nervous system than a developing fetus.
I suspect, then, that a developing fetus would, theoretically, have the right to be treated humanely and allowed to develop as normally as possible once it reaches a point at which it has substantial nervous development and ability to feel pain. Even then, though, there are no guarantees. As I mentioned, even pregnancies conscientiously cared for can go radically wrong for almost no reason.
4. would this woman have been at fault if she had consumed alcolhol and harmed the infant before it had reached the age of viability (but had not consumed any after the infant had reached that point)?
I think the woman would be at fault if she consumed substantial amounts of alcohol while knowing she was pregnant and knowing she would not have an abortion. There is some evidence that small amounts of alcohol early in a pregnancy are harmless (for example, if a woman who likes a glass of wine with dinner continues to drink before she discovers that she's pregnant). It's heavy drinking, perpetuated throughout all stages of fetal development, that will substantially damage the fetus.
I should add here, hoping that I've answered your questions, that with the guaranteed legal right to abortion does, to me, also carry some responsibilities. Meaning if you skip even one period and you're sexually active, take a pregnancy test--they're ten bucks at the drugstore. If you can't afford one, many, many agencies will perform pregnancy tests for free or on a sliding scale. Talk with your partner about what you would do if you faced an unplanned pregnancy BEFORE you become sexually active. Practice consistent and reliable birth control with a backup method each and every time you have sex. These steps, taken consistently by all women and their partners, would drastically reduce the number of abortions. As would comprehensive, honest, neutral sex education in public schools.