You need to re-read the R v W decision and Casey. The point on which abortion rests is the *State's interest,* not the necessarily the age of the unborn child. R v W is poorly presented and poor logic and law, but the later arguments support what later SC's believed were the defendable elements, particularly the conundrum/penundrum of privacy of a woman in contrast to the State's interest in the unborn.
If/when a lab were stupid enough to allow the embryo's to grow to be viable human beings/persons, they would then have rights, -- and, -- the lab would have parental responsibilities.
[Not to mention ~enormous~ civil liabilities to the owners of the embryos]
An insistence that the state outlaw/prohibit lab work on embryos is an unconstitutional restriction on medical research, imo.
You need to re-read the R v W decision and Casey. The point on which abortion rests is the *State's interest,* not the necessarily the age of the unborn child. R v W is poorly presented and poor logic and law, but the later arguments support what later SC's believed were the defendable elements, particularly the conundrum/penundrum of privacy of a woman in contrast to the State's interest in the unborn.
No, I don't 'need' to read all that, because my point is made without all the mumbo jumbo.