# If a fetal incubator were invented... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526 "2006-02-28T21:50:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/21 "2006-03-01T03:30:01Z")
Bearing in mind that women have reasons other than the ones I’ve pointed out for aborting a child, the primary reason that comes to mind is: What if she simply does not want to bring another child into the world? There are plenty of pro choice women that hold that position. If becoming pregnant was a mistake, and she cannot justify bringing a baby to term, why would she agree to having that child come to term outside her body? For the same reason that it is a requirement (in the state of California) to obtain a woman’s consent to use an aborted fetus for DNA testing, that consent should be required to “decant” a baby. If consent is not given, then abortion should still be an option. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/22 "2006-03-01T03:34:12Z")
But look at the specific question she was responding to, which asked if the fetus could be made a ward of the state. I think her analogy to how adoption works now is a valid one. You don’t have to surrender your child to the state now, so why should you have to surrender your fetus to the state? Currently, if you choose adoption over abortion (ie, you would abort if you couldn’t put the child up for adoption) you still have input into who the parents are. You don’t just go into some random, state-run adoption lottery. Now, the whole supply/demand equation for adoption might be turned upside down by this technology, but maybe not. Even still, I think there is a recognition of woman’s interest (I hesitate to say “right”) in making sure her child ends up in a home that she approves of. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/23 "2006-03-01T03:37:24Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > _An infant is not a fetus_. A fetus is not a person; it’s not even an animal. It has no rights, morally at least. Not true. A 2 month old fetus currently has no rights, but an 8 month old fetus does. You can abort the former “on demand”, but not the latter. How is that not a right? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/24 "2006-03-01T03:40:07Z")
While we’re on the subject; what’s to prevent this “decanting” procedure from becoming the norm? Would a woman’s right to bear a child if she decides to do so be upheld when it’s proven that the machine is safer? Although most people don’t see this side of the “pro choice” argument very often, I don’t believe it’s fair to force a woman to give up her child if she wants the experience of giving birth. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/25 "2006-03-01T03:42:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not true. A 2 month old fetus currently has no rights, but an 8 month old fetus does. You can abort the former “on demand”, but not the latter. How is that not a right? I was speaking ethically, not legally. I’ll backstep a little and say that there’s at least some uncertainty about the last few months, however. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/26 "2006-03-01T04:03:01Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > A fetus is not a person; it’s not even an animal. It has no rights, morally at least. Well, that’s the question we would have to settle if we had this “fetal incubator” thingy: What are fetal rights? **John Mace** has made some good arguments, and you’ve made some categorical assertions, in favor of the position that an early-term fetus isn’t meaningfully human and therefore has no rights. However, that doesn’t mean that the question is conclusively settled. > [@John Mace](#): > > I think her analogy to how adoption works now is a valid one. You don’t have to surrender your child to the state now, so why should you have to surrender your fetus to the state? You don’t have to if you’d rather keep it and bear it yourself. However, if the choice is between surrendering your fetus to the state and killing it, then depending on how fetal rights are defined, you might not be allowed to kill it. > [@Maureen](#): > > Bearing in mind that women have reasons other than the ones I’ve pointed out for aborting a child, the primary reason that comes to mind is: What if she simply does not want to bring another child into the world? Depending on how fetal rights are defined, that might not be an admissible reason for allowing abortion. If a fetus has some kind of right to life, and if its life need not interfere with a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, then I can’t see how she has the right to choose to kill the fetus, if it can be kept alive independently of her. Similarly, there are men who don’t want to add to the number of children in the world. But that doesn’t give them any say in deciding whether or not an ovum that they’ve fertilized will be carried to term and born, because that ovum/embryo/fetus isn’t living in their bodies. > [@Maureen](#): > > Would a woman’s right to bear a child if she decides to do so be upheld when it’s proven that the machine is safer? I already came down on the “no” side of that question, even for pregnant women who are substance abusers. The right to control her own body is still important. ---
**Author:** ![zoogirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b9bd4f/32.png) [@zoogirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoogirl)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/27 "2006-03-01T04:07:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Say that\*\* having this procedure is legally equivalent to putting the child up for adoption,\*\* therefore the state has is the new guardian and must put up the cost for the incubation. Would you support that? Bolding mine. This is the point that caught my eye. You see, I’ve had three miscarriages, all wanted babies. If I could have had them removed and carried to term in an incubater, of course I would have. There are a lot of women who, because of various health issues, can get pregnant but not carry to term. You’d have to scrap the “Automatic Adoption” clause and allow the ability to retain custody in cases when the fetus is removed for serious maternal health reasons. (Removal to prevent stretch marks wouldn’t qualify.) Oh, and about the “Morning After Pill”, it’s my understanding that it doesn’t work once the embryo implants. Prior to that it’s just a floating bunch of cells and is often lost before a woman even considers being pregnant. So, I’d consider implantation to be the beginning of human status. How human, of course, is still open to arguement. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/28 "2006-03-01T04:34:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **John Mace** has made some good arguments, and you’ve made some categorical assertions, in favor of the position that an early-term fetus isn’t meaningfully human and therefore has no rights. However, that doesn’t mean that the question is conclusively settled. The logical burden is on his side, since he’s claiming that something exists; namely the rights and/or personhood of the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/29 "2006-03-01T05:16:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Specifically, say the state required a woman who was going to have an abortion to have this procedure instead. Would you support that? Yes. > [@](#): > > Say that having this procedure is legally equivalent to putting the child up for adoption, therefore the state has is the new guardian and must put up the cost for the incubation. Would you support that? Yes. > [@](#): > > Say that the procedure can be done on any willing woman, but the incubation is only available for an embryo or fetus if it has a sponsor who will pay the costs of the incubation and who will adopt the baby once it is… er… decanted. Would you support that? Yes. > [@](#): > > Say that removing the embryo or fetus as early as possible reduces risk of complications from alcohol or drug abuse by the woman. Lawmakers suggest that alcoholic women be subject to the procedure for the sake of the embryo fetus even if the woman is not willing. Would you support that? Tempting, but I’m going to say no to the state forcing surgery on anyone, whether they’re alcoholics or not. > [@](#): > > Say incubated fetuses become wards of the state and are therefore no longer the responsibility of the “parent” in any way. This procedure is just as safe, if not safer, than a surgical abortion. Abortions are then outlawed. Would you support that? Yes. From the pregnant woman’s point of view, this is essentially no different from abortion: she’s not pregnant anymore, and she isn’t going to have a child. Whether the fetus remains alive or not is irrelevant, IMO, because she didn’t want it anyway. > [@](#): > > What if the “parent” is still financial responsible? Would you support that? Hell no. This would no longer be a replacement for abortion; it’d be parenthood without the physical act of childbirth. No one should be forced into raising or supporting a child against their will. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/30 "2006-03-01T06:23:31Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The logical burden is on his side, since he’s claiming that something exists; namely the rights and/or personhood of the fetus. I really only made 2 statements: 1. A neart-term fetus should not be aborted 2. A fertilized egg cannot be said to be human, except in a religious sense As to where you draw the line between the two, which is the key answer, I’ve only outlined a thought process and given some general idea about how to make the decision. But I don’t claim to know enough about fetal development to know exactly where to the draw the line-- I’d expect that we’d have to consult experts in that field to make the best determination. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/31 "2006-03-01T13:25:42Z")
> [@zoogirl](#): > > You’d have to scrap the “Automatic Adoption” clause and allow the ability to retain custody in cases when the fetus is removed for serious maternal health reasons. \*\*(Removal to prevent stretch marks wouldn’t qualify.) \*\* (bolding mine) Why wouldn’t it? If you’re going to perfect a process that allows fetuses to grow outside the body, why would you restrict it at all? Why not allow it for people who get morning sickness? To avoid unsightly weight gain? Really…what difference does it make WHY you choose to have out-of-body birthing? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/32 "2006-03-01T14:23:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I really only made 2 statements: > > 1. A neart-term fetus should not be aborted > 2. A fertilized egg cannot be said to be human, except in a religious sense > > As to where you draw the line between the two, which is the key answer… Does that have to be the key answer? I don’t think an object needs to have rights or personhood for a society to say that it shouldn’t be killed or destroyed. For example, a great painting, or a rare species of orchid, or an old building. We attach value to things for many reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/33 "2006-03-01T14:29:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t think an object needs to have rights or personhood for a society to say that it shouldn’t be killed or destroyed. For example, a great painting, or a rare species of orchid, or an old building. We attach value to things for many reasons. Another good point. Additionally, when it comes to animals, we impose “humane” or “anti-cruelty” restrictions on our treatment of them (in many cases), even though we don’t assign to them rights or personhood. Now I am totally friggin’ confused as to whether I think there ought to be any restrictions on killing an early-term fetus if it could survive in an incubator. The issue is more complex than I initially thought. Just as well we’re talking about it now, so that if at some point we **do** manage to invent such a thing, by that time we might have its ethical implications figured out! ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/34 "2006-03-01T15:46:23Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Does that have to be the key answer? > > I don’t think an object needs to have rights or personhood for a society to say that it shouldn’t be killed or destroyed. For example, a great painting, or a rare species of orchid, or an old building. We attach value to things for many reasons. What value are **you** attaching to the embryo or fetus then? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/35 "2006-03-01T15:57:38Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > What value are **you** attaching to the embryo or fetus then? Me? Not much. Very little, in fact. Why? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/36 "2006-03-01T16:03:11Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Me? Not much. Very little, in fact. Why? I guess I misunderstood your position (maybe confused it with what I was reading from other posters). Some folks seem to be suggesting that if there was technology to incubate a non viable embryo/fetus…that killing the fetus would be a “bad” thing. I’m trying to understand the reasoning of those who might feel that way. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/37 "2006-03-01T16:17:11Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Some folks seem to be suggesting that if there was technology to incubate a non viable embryo/fetus…that killing the fetus would be a “bad” thing. I’m trying to understand the reasoning of those who might feel that way. My support for abortion rests solely on my belief that no one has a right to use my body for their survival. Not fetus, Stephen Hawking, Kermit the Frog, or the Dalai Lama. Ending a pregnancy now requires destroying the e/f, but destroying it isn’t my goal. I don’t place much value on the e/f, so I honestly don’t care much about its destruction, but I’d be okay with others valuing it very highly indeed. And destroying something that other people value isn’t something I would do lightly. I’ve got to have a reason. Does that make my position (and I definitely speak for no one else) more clear? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/38 "2006-03-01T17:20:09Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Does that have to be the key answer? > > I don’t think an object needs to have rights or personhood for a society to say that it shouldn’t be killed or destroyed. For example, a great painting, or a rare species of orchid, or an old building. We attach value to things for many reasons. Yes, it does. Unless someone who is anti-abortion wants to argue that a fetus is an endangered species or it is a rare work of art or something other than a human being with a right to life. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/39 "2006-03-01T17:36:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Yes, it does. Unless someone who is anti-abortion wants to argue that a fetus is an endangered species or it is a rare work of art or something other than a human being with a right to life. Societally, it’s unacceptable for me to go over there and strangle my cat while he’s snoozing in a chair. As far as I know, he’s not a human being with a right to life. So, what is he? ---
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526/40 "2006-03-01T18:17:23Z")
What about overpopulation? I’d rather use our finite resources to institutonalize easier ways to adopt some of the zillions of unwanted kids from other parts of the world, than spend them on bringing more North American babies into existence. I am cynical that the desire to save these infant lives is truly based on an infinite respect for life, considering how many people (children included) we allow (through action or inaction) to die of easily preventable diseases every day. It kind of horrifies me to think that an American embryo’s right to life is more sacrosanct than that of a little African kid who dies because of a lack of vitamin A. I firmly believe that all self-sustaining humans should have a right to life if they choose it. However I do not believe this to be the case right now, as evidenced by the way this right depends so much on things like nationality and income level and other accidents of history. To be convinced that a fetus has a right to life that the state must provide for, I would have to be convinced that all humans (regardless of the circumstances and/or location of their birth) have those exact same rights. I don’t see that happening any time soon, and it disgusts me to imagine that someone would sooner take such extreme measures to preserve a fetus than to provide a decent life to a kid that is already here, sentient, conscious, loved and loving, etc. Other reasons I would not accept this incubator as an alternative to abortion are: - my utter distrust in society to effectively administer such an orphan adoption scheme through the government (look how well they do with foster children, and social services). Both Canada and the US (through their starving of social services) have repeatedly shown themselves to be pretty unconcerned with the health and well-being of needy kids once they’re born, and (related) - an expectation that, while more healthy white babies will indeed be born, there will also be even more babies that nobody wants (not white, not healthy, etc) Nope, I’m happy with the system we’ve got. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-fetal-incubator-were-invented/346526.md?page=3)