Who would be held liable for supporting the fetus, at that point?
If it’s as invasive as an abortion then yes, still the woman’s choice. She has to have the procedure after all. It’s still her body, her choice in which procedure she chooses for her own body. Even if they are equally invasive, it must still always be her choice. Just my opinion. When the time comes that fathers start showing they are more willing to stick around (and considering the statistics it’s not looking hopeful) choices in regards to bringing babies in to the world should be the potential mother’s. We earned that right I think.
Why not the government?
It occurs to me that the government and judges in custody battles often use the excuse “its best for the child” even if its patently unfair, like for example why should a man have to raise a child he just found out wasn’t his? So let’s extend that logic. So what if the government doesn’t want to raise the kid and doesn’t want to put it on the taxpayer’s dime? Its best for the kid! The government should allow all non-biological parents, and any parents willing to fully give up parental rights, the option to cede control of the kid to the government. The government should raise these kids. I think that’s the most fair. Government has more resources than a parent, after all
Some religions require burial of removed body parts, but the part has to be removed by a funeral home and transferred to the cemetery that accepts burial of single parts (in this case the Jewish cemetery). My aunt has a leg already buried there. When I had my c-section, I had to sign a piece of paper that one possible complication was hysterectomy. I told them I needed my uterus back for burial. While I was being prepped for the surgery, my husband filled out the necessary paperwork to notify the rabbi and the funeral home.
Eating your own species is a damn good way to get diseases. Aside from that, you are eating something that was removed for being diseased. You really don’t want to get sued because someone got sick eating your diseased whatever. It’s against the law for really good reasons.
The most fair, relative to what?
Not in all cases… My friend lost his leg to severe electrical burns. Not only was the tissue perfectly healthy, but it was also already cooked!
This doesn’t seem so very different from Sofia Vergara’s situation.
She and her then-partner Nick Loeb had embryos frozen, but then they broke up. Vergara found fame and fortune on Modern Family, and Loeb filed for custody of the embryos, stating he wished to implant them in a surrogate. Vergara opposes it, saying he’s trying to capitalise on her fame. She wants the embryos destroyed. The case is ongoing in civil court.
In that case, I’m with Sofia
Vergara. I don’t think the embryos have any rights, regardless of whether life begins at conception. Loeb is capable of fathering a child with someone else. If he has the resources to pay for a surrogate, then it should be possible to find a donor egg too. This is not his only path to fatherhood.
On the other hand, if he had become infertile since the embryos were created and had no other chance of having a biological child, I would be very sympathetic to his situation. It would be similar to the case of Natallie Evans, who froze embryos before having cancer treatments that left her infertile, but then her relationship broke up and her ex boyfriend withdrew his consent for her to proceed with implantation. Ultimately the courts sided with the ex boyfriend and the embryos were destroyed.
The mother’s decision holds sway, unless there is a dated notarized affidavit prior to conception that she intended to conceive, signing over such rights to a named father, who also certifies that he assume full lifetime care, custody and control of the child, even if later events prove that it is not biologically his. If people cannot work these things out for themselves, there are plenty of lawyers highly skilled in the art of settling such disputes, and deliriously happy to do so…
In this case, since the embryos are already out of her body, I say no, she has no standing to insist they be destroyed.
(So, me and my sweetie have a poisonous divorce, and she insists the cat be killed, just because she doesn’t want me to have it? We don’t agree on who gets the Grandfather Clock, so I can insist it be smashed to flinders? Poo on that!)
That’s a really good point, especially considering how non-invasive abortion is. Many women just take a pill, and even the so-called “surgical” ones aren’t surgery and only take about five minutes. I can’t imagine any procedure to remove an intact fetus and placenta could be less invasive than that-it would probably require actual surgery, with an incision-basically, a C-section, and removing the implanted placenta intact would probably cause damage to the woman’s uterus. Totally unethical to force a woman to do that. Some women might agree to it, but that would be a choice they get to make.
They are her genetic material and tissue. People do have rights about what happens to genetic material and tissues removed from their bodies-scientists can’t do research on them without getting permission. The general procedure is to destroy tissue the donor doesn’t want used.
Government protects its people. It assumes responsibilities individuals can’t, due to its role as protector and vast resources. If a child does not biologically belong to someone, it is unfair to make that person pay for it. If parents do not want the child, it would be unfair to force them to do it. Government care is more fair for society, due to the child being raised by people, found by the government, who want to raise it, instead of people who don’t or do not have the resources to do so. Without a biological connection, the child is a stranger, it would be about as fair to force a man to pay for a child that’s not his as forcing a person to pay for a random stranger’s life for 18 years. It is fairer to everyone that way, including the child, who will be placed with people who want him
This is just fighting the hypothetical. I think the key element of the hypothetical was to remove this aspect, and to ask about rights under circumstances where there is no incremental harm, risk or even inconvenience for the woman.
- A pregnant woman has a right to continue or not her pregnancy.
- Embryos and fetuses have rights to exist and become people.
- But, because embryos and fetuses are not yet people, their rights are second-class compared to the rights of the DNA donors and a woman they may be implanted within.
- There is no method of discontinuing a pregnancy without destroying the embryo or fetus.
- Because there is no way for a pregnant woman to exercise her right to discontinue her pregnancy without violating the embryo’s or fetus’ rights and because those rights are not as important as her rights, it is ethical for embryo/fetus to be destroyed in the course of ending the pregnancy.
- If there exists a method to end a pregnancy (equally or less invasive than other methods of ending a pregnancy) that preserves the viability of the embryo/fetus, then it is no longer ethical to destroy it.
I voted the mother should have the ultimate say, because the procedure to remove the fetus from her body happens to her body, so she gets to choose which procedure removes it from her body.
What argument would the mother have of choosing abortion over the other procedure?
If it’s all in a machine, then what does the OP mean by, “… The process for removing said zygote/fetus is no more invasive than getting an abortion. …”?
It appears to me that, in order to use this machine, the woman must undergo a form of abortion, which preserves rather than destroys the embryo, and transfers it to the machine.
Therefor, there is absolutely no moral distinction to be made between the present circumstances and the hypothetical one,
I think in the original hypothetical, the technology is this:
Conception occurs as it usually does; at some point during pregnancy, the technological possibility exists to either abort, or to transfer the embryo/fetus to an artificial incubator with no greater distress, risk or physical implications whatsover for the mother. I think the principal idea is to remove the ethical question of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, in order to examine the other underlying ethical issues independently.
I proposed a “cleaner” hypothetical technology where the entire fertilization and incubation process take place in vitro, and the parents are both just gamete donors, but this has the disadvantage of removing the accidental pregnancy scenario.
Maybe she was raped, maybe she was the victim of incest maybe the fetus has an incurable disease or deformed. Maybe she wants no further connection with the male.
Maybe she doesn’t trust the sperm donor to be responsible for the fetus in further years.
Her body, her choice what to do with it especially what medical procedure to go through.
You’re right for the most part. But the problem with your hypothetical is that it takes away from the discussion of responsibility due to accidental or unintended pregnancies.
We’re not talking about rape or incest. We’re talking about two willing partners.
And I don’t the mother should get to decide by fiat whether or not the sperm donor would make a good father.
You describe some situations where the mother might reasonably have the primary say.
But your last sentence suggests that you think the mother should have the absolute right to terminate an embryo/fetus under all circumstances under this hypothetical where there is no incremental physical risk or inconvenience for her to allow the embryo/fetus to live. That’s a much more complex question in my view.