Ignotus - fighting the hypothetical to the very end!
Davis v. Davis answers some of these questions.
I voted “Other.” Each case decided on an individual basis.
Is he even fighting the hypothetical, so much as completely no-selling it?
I’m not going to dive into the sewers for a measly 10k if that’s what you’re asking. If my life, or the life of someone close to me were at stake, maybe I would consider it.
I feel we have digressed a bit…
But this thread - as I understand it - involves the baby being in the incubator, outside the mother, already.
I don’t think that’s right. I saw it as being at the moment of choice between two procedures. Both practically identical in what the mother must physically undergo, but one where the fetus is placed in an external incubator and one where the fetus is aborted.
That is, indeed, how I understand it.
I voted “other” because I’m kind of torn. I’d always rather see a baby born than not * if someone wants / can support it*. In the same way that I don’t think men should have to support babies they never consented to be responsible for, I feel there would need to be a legal way for the woman to be absolved of all financial responsibility if the baby is to be born by artificial means. Also, the father should have to pay for the procedure to move the baby to the incubator, just as the mother should bear the cost of the abortion if she’s the only one that wants that outcome.
Gender aside, if one half of the embryo creating couple does not wish to carry out the gestation to term, then that person gets to sign a waiver of liability and rights. So, no parental rights whatsoever, but no liability or obligation to support said child either. Legally, I’d sort of look at this as an adoption: whichever person agrees to and wants to accept the responsibility and liability for raising a child, then they get to do that by basically adopting the test tube baby. The other source of DNA for that particular child is free and clear, having relinquished all responsibility and liability for said offspring.
For a cleaner hypothetical, we could assume that the fertilization and the entire incubation take place in vitro, and the mother’s body is not longer required at all. Both parents become simply gamete donors. (This would also remove the possibility that pregnancy was an accident, I don’t know how important that is.)
Either way, it seems to me that the bigger question in this hypothetical is not the rights of the mother vs that of the father, it is the rights of the developing embryo/fetus vs the rights of the parents. In this hypothetical, there is no longer any conflict between the right of an embryo/fetus to live and right of a woman to bodily autonomy. That being so, how long should parents retain the right to destroy their embryo/fetus?
I’m guessing that (when the woman’s body is not involved) nobody would support the right of parents to terminate a viable 8-month-old fetus sitting in an incubator just because they changed their mind about keeping it; whereas only religious motivations might assign independent rights to a single cell, a fertilized egg.
Somewhere between, presumably a developing embryo/fetus should acquire rights that override those of the parents.
Another take: Suppose I have my gall bladder removed. Now that it is outside my body, do I get a say in what happens to it? I can have it destroyed or donate it to science. But suppose the doctors decide to give it to some whack-job who wants to cook and eat it. Do I get to oppose that?
Now you’re entering Brave New World territory, and all decisions lie in the hands of lab technicians (and their supervisors).
Would you opposed it? Why?
The law tries to do what’s most fair or just. If they can’t figure it out, random chance seems to be a decent fallback
Well, it’s my freakin’ gall bladder. And I don’t want to be cannibalized upon!
The one who wants to keep and raise the kid. I’m totally cool with “pro-life” so long as it doesn’t violate “pro-choice.”
If an order of nuns wants to donate their bodies as surrogate mothers, and the technology comes along (non-intrusive – the procedure has to be pretty damn minor) to transplant them, then, sure: you can have the darn thing.
(I’m gonna complain a little about being made to pay child-support money for a kid I don’t want, but that’s already settled law, so, phooey. I have to pay the money.)
Alas, there are already laws regarding the disposal of surgical tissue. I know a bloke who lost a leg in an accident. He really wanted to take it home with him. Nope: against the law.
(FWIW, the guy who wants to eat it is also out of luck. That, too, is against the law.)
I’m uneasy with forcing anyone to become a parent, but I guess that as long as the woman isn’t being forced to use her body to keep a fetus alive, the dad can have it.
What we need is better birth control and sex education so no one ever has a pregnancy that both parents didn’t agree to and plan ahead of time.
A woman has the right to end her pregnancy. She does not have the right to terminate an embryo or fetus within her. However, given current technology, ending a pregnancy necessarily causes the termination of the fetus, so it is ethical.
Once technology can reasonably prevent the termination of a fetus during the course of ending a pregnancy, it will no longer be ethical to terminate the fetus. Neither parent will have a say in whether or not the fetus is brought to term.
Please explain how you reconcile those diverse statements into a coherent conclusion!