An argument I’ve heard often about abortion is that the fetus is in many ways (if not literally) a part of a woman’s body and is completely dependent upon the pregnant woman for life.
So… I wonder: if a fetus could be removed from a woman in an operation no more intrusive or dangerous than an abortion and then kept alive and through some sort of artificial womb, would that change anyone’s mind on the legality of abortion? Why or why not?
If you feel that this would make a good case for the illegality of abortions, who would pay for the fetus? Would the genetic parents still be accountable for the child?
I was going to post this very question myself perspective.
All I will say on the subject, I think, is that definitions of legal rights and the legal point of becoming a living being (and ceasing to be one) would be subject to review in the light of whatever technology manages to offer us; this certainly has been the case with premature births and brain-stem death.
(slightly off topic)
What then would happen to the fetus if it was later to grow to be a fully formed child? Become the property of the state? Is not the point of abortion, right or wrong, to ‘remove’ an unwanted child? Could the child later sue the mother for abandonment or attempted manslaughter, or even just for child support? Who would possibly sign up to this treatment/operation even if it was available?
Can open…worms everywhere, I think.
"So… I wonder: if a fetus could be removed from a woman in an operation no more intrusive or dangerous than an abortion and then kept alive and through some sort of artificial womb, would that change anyone’s mind on the legality of abortion? Why or why not? "
The statement’s base assumption is a nice mischaracterization of why people believe in a right to choose.
The legal framework (which nicely sums up most people’s opinions who belive in abortion) is that the state should not force a woman to carry a baby for 9 months. In fact, 6 months is too much. Forcing a woman to carry a baby from 6 months to 3 months is, well, maybe a bit more reasonable under some circumstances. If there is only 3 months left, then the state interest can outweigh the woman’s. (See Roe v. Wade for precise rational).
Therefore, if the state decided that it wanted to spend tax dollars on “removing” a fetus as soon as the woman decided that she no longer wanted it, then the legal (and philosophical) framework would most likely say that the aspect of the debate that centers around forcing a woman to be an incubator for the state is no longer applicable.
Then, of course, it becomes an issue of whether the cost of such a procedure, along with the associated care of the child to adulthood, should be paid for by taxpayers.
I don’t think that’s quite the angle Pencil Pusher; I think it’s more to do with (hypothetically)removing the “foetus as a non-independent part of the woman’s body” aspect.
Yes a very important sticking point. Perhaps some adoptive parents could be talked into it if the cost could be lowered to the under a 100k range.
Would the state try to force the biological parents to pay? Should they?
Does the state have the right to do what it wants with someone’s genetic material? A fetus is more than that, but certainly it isn’t less.
Could a father force a mother to give up the fetus to an artificial womb if she was unwilling to care for it?
I’m generally imagining this as something happening in the first trimester since a larger fetus would require a much more damaging surgery to remove it and I believe that’s when most abortions happen anyway.
Still, I’m not sure that such an advance in technology (if possible) would actually cause us to reconsider the (legal definition of the) point at which a human life begins; if it did cause us to consider the foetus as an individual with rights (in some way), then there would almost certainly be pressure to uphold them.
This idea was discussed at some length last year in this thread.
In the above referenced thread I had a fascinating and disturbing exchange with another poster over what the legal status of babies accidently born alive from botched late term abortions ought to be.This thread was a spinoff of that one, in which I attempted to more directly address this “can of worms”. I got the last word in both threads, so I guess I “won” them, insofar as a thread can be won.
I guess I’m not so sure what the current definition is other than one that can survive without the womb. Premature babies live in an artificial environment, and I’m sure if some nurse purposely disabled that environment they would be charged with murder.
Artificial wombs are being developed to meet the needs of mothers who have problems during pregnancy. So let’s say a woman has the fetus taken out for medical reasons, it’s living there in an artificial womb, but then she changes her mind and decides not to have it. Is she still the only one able to make this decision even though her body is no longer involved? Would the potential father have a right? What if someone else was willing to pay for the womb(for example, the state)?
So bereft of the woman’s body as a definition, what would it be legally? Having a fully functional nervous system? I think it’s the woman’s body argument that’s saved us from having to define human life precisely up to this point.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen more pro-lifers pounce on this. It seems like for once science and technology would be on their side. Maybe they are actually only interested in controlling behavior instead of saving the fetus.