For the record, I am firmly of the opinion that men should have an easy, pre-birth legal opt-out of parenting, including child support.
But it’s not true that you have a right not to be a parent. You can agree to put a child up for adoption, but if the other parent doesn’t agree then you’re on the hook for child support for 18 years. Both parents have to agree to adoption. Of course, the state can terminate your parental rights, but that is something the state decides for the best interest of the child, it doesn’t matter what the parent wants.
Of course, if you refuse to take care of your child, and nobody else steps up to take care of the kid, they’ll be put into foster care, and perhaps eventually your parental rights will be terminated.
Anyway, back to uterine replicators. A developing baby in a uterine replicator should have exactly the same legal status as a newborn premature baby. It can be adopted, we can decide to withhold medical care for the baby for the same reasons we might decide to withhold medical care for any other premature baby, and so on.
The right to abortion is predicated solely on the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. And if uterine replicators exist, then it seems perfectly fine to insist that abortions that result in the death of the fetus must not be performed, rather the fetus must be removed alive and placed in a uterine replicator–assuming that the health risks to the mother are pretty much the same.
Most of the SF I’ve read with everyone in an incubator had the incubators owned and run by the government/society/religion/whatever. The young were also reared by the government, so the problem of a parent not wanting to be a parent was moot.
In one short story by Asimov, no one knew who they were related to and wanting to know which child was yours was considered to be depraved. Of course, this was an alien society instead of a human one.
I’m having trouble imagining a society that could successfully require parents to dissociate that starkly from their developing baby. Unless there’s been some horrible disease with plot complications. I’m also having trouble imagining a people who would voluntarily develop the practice. I could see an elite that began to do it in order to keep high-powered females working, but I really can’t see just everyone taking the plunge.
But giving that it’s happening, I’d guess that things would be in the hands of the government or of a medical team. As to what should happen - I’d say that you’d have maybe a two week period in which either parent could change their mind and abort, but that after that it’s you baked it, you bought it. I can picture them being fined for wasting community resources.
If both parents relinquish their rights, the fetus/child is adopted or raised by the government/oven owners/whatever. If one parent doesn’t relinquish, they get the child. I can picture the other parent either being required to pay child support or not, depending on the society. But after the cold feet period is over, only the medical team can petition to abort the development.
Under this scenario, it would make no sense whatsoever for the “cold feet” period to take place after “implantation”. No point wasting the resources if they change their mind, right? So, presuming this, anything that actually got baked would have been bought.
With all your presumptions the rational consideration of rights is absurd. Where did the state get my genetic material? Who decided to combine them with some other person’s genetic material? How much do I have to say about any of this? Why would a government with the draconian control over reproduction even consult the common subject (citizen seem to presume too much) on any matter involving the operation of the baby factory?
This entire post smells like a pro-life, anti-choice straw-man.
Since my position is not pro-life, or pro-choice, but rather Anti-government control, it requires me to abandon my ethics before entering the argument.
I can think of no worse segment of the population to empower with this type of power than bureaucrats, and lawyers. But, enjoy your conservative daydream.
Tris
I thought the OP’s scenario had all babies being grown in ovens (man that term is going to make this thread real dick to search for. 'Hm, let’s see. Oven + baby).
I guess the closest thing I can think of is a couple going through years of IVF and then, after the woman gets pregnant, they realize they don’t want to reproduce after all. In this case they should have the right to ‘abort’ (cook?) the baby, but I suppose they get a 50/50 say with whoever voting not to broil the baby raising it in their space pod or whatever.
Would the oven have a big shiny button with ABORT written on it behind a breakable glass panel (in case of emergency) and when you press the button it would make the submarine diving alarm sound (AOOGAH)? Cause that would be awesome.
I think you’re wrong. I think if people could use Star Trek transporter technology to transport a fetus into your magical oven, they would walk into the clinic and say, please teleport this fetus into the magical oven and then leave.
Yeah people once said the same thing about test tube babies and I know about a dozen children that are the result of in vitro fertilization.
I am pretty sure that this hypothetical is exactly that.
Just make the parents pay up front for the cost of all 9 months.
Do you think the experience of pregnancy makes the woman a bit more attached to the kid, warts and all?
I like the OP’s thought experiment. BTW, I’m hugely pro-choice, even pro-abortion. But, yes, I agree that a significant part of what we have to defend as pro-choicers is “I don’t want to be a parent.” Or, “I don’t want to be a parent at this particular point in my life.” Or, “I don’t think I’m in a position to support and rear this child in the manner s/he deserves.” As a practical matter, these are a large part of how abortion decisions are made.
If we could divorce conception and childbirth from these issues, the OP might have a point. But in the real world, we can’t. In the real world, conception and childbirth involve an actual mother. In the real world, if you conceive and bear a child, you become emotionally attached to that child and are financially responsible for him/her. In the real world, giving up a child for adoption is a BIG DEAL, for both the child and the parents. And, then, there’s the little matter that bringing a child to term affects the mother/host. A lot.
My cousin was an Ob/Gyn, specializing in fertility, and that exact thing happened with one of his patients. But no ovens involved, except the proverbial kind,
I can; let’s say that the baby has been conceived with the willing participation of both parents-to-be (otherwise we’re moving way into Brave New World territory). Then they break up and one of the parties decides that, not only does (s)he not want to raise that baby any more, they don’t want it to live, period.
My aunt poured a lot of her hate for her ex-husband on her son, who has the bad luck to look like his father :(; things eventually got better but it doesn’t take a genius to imagine that my cousin would have had a better life if he’d had a better childhood. I can picture someone wanting to kill the fruit of the ex’s loins.
My take is that, given that level of technology, many medical problems which nowadays are likely to lead to an abortion for medical reasons would not even get into the incubator. Sperm, ova and fertilized eggs would be selected before they went to the next step. This brings a question of what to do with fertilized eggs which are viable but “defective”: would they always be terminated, would they be used for medical purposes, would their fate be decided by the parents, would they be put up for adoption (there are already several countries which allow the adoption of test tube embryos) and divested elsewhere once their viability date was over? I put the defective in commas because the same questions come up if you have, for example, a couple who want a specific gender, or one where a parent has a physical feature (s)he hates and wants children without it.
Both for those cases and for the cases where there are economical or sentimental reasons to want out, what I think is that the embryos should be put up for adoption, but that’s what I think, not necessarily what’s most likely to happen.
Of course there’s such a right - at any time, a mother can give her child over to the welfare of the State, AFAIK. It’s different for fathers what with maintenance and all, but a single-parent father can still also turn his kid over to Child Services, no?
If every pregnancy was planned and nobody got pregnant, why would there be a need for abortion?
Take it one step further: The government runs tests on all the genetic material to match the optimum egg and sperm.
I pretty much agree with this.
The oven turns this into a life-support question. Society would need to figure out what it wants and then how to pay for it.
Wow. Thanks for this.
I have always struggled to put myself into one of the official buckets (pro-life or pro-choice). I think abortion is usually wrong but that mothers and doctors are better placed to make the right determination than politicians and lawyers and bureaucrats. Now I have a catchy name for my beliefs.
I am anti-government control. Where can I get my button?
You’re right - if no one ever got pregnant there would be no need for abortion. 
But the best laid plans … circumstances can change between conception and birth.
You know, most of the concern over unwanted pregnancy is that you didn’t want a kid, but it was a result of your having sex. An oopsie.
The other reason for abortions was medical reasons. In fact, a lot of the things hospitals count as abortions are not, for instance, fetal death in 2nd trimester resulting in a procedure. The hospital counts this as abortion. (A friend whose doctor’s connection was a Catholic hospital had to go to another hospital–the Catholic hospital’s policy was, wait till you go into labor, even though the fetus has died.)
Also, women with pre-eclampsia get the choice of: have the baby now, when it might not survive, or try to have the baby later, when she might not survive.
In the scenario proposed by the OP, those reasons for abortion would not exist, so why even have them?
It sounds like having children would be the result of careful planning. No need for abortion. And any unwanted fetuses could probably be adopted, maybe with a discount.
Get yer fetus coupons hyeah!