If a fetal incubator were invented...

[Lemur866]

@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? 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?

But you surely don’t support the same rights for MEN do you? What if a man doesn’t want to bring another child into the world? What if getting a woman pregnant was a mistake, and he can’t justify bringing a baby to term? Why would he agree to having that child come to term outside his body? Does that mean he would have the right to demand that the pregnancy be terminated?

Of course, the answer today is that the baby isn’t in his body, it’s growing in the body of some woman, and she must be allowed the right to bodily autonomy. But with reliable uterine replicators (to use Lois McMaster Bujold’s term) this disparity vanishes. Both the mother and the father of the baby would have exactly the same rights over an unborn baby in a uterine replicator. If the father can’t decide to have the baby killed because he doesn’t want to bring a baby into the world, why can the mother?

Today a man can’t demand a woman get an abortion, because that would violate her right to bodily autonomy. But a uterine replicator removes this justification for abortion, because the continued life of the baby does not conflict with the bodily autonomy of the mother.

So why should the rights of the mother and the father be different? They are different today because of the different biology of the mother and the father. If the biology issue were irrelevant, then the rights of the mother and father should be identical, correct?

Today we don’t allow fathers who “accidentally” fathered a child to terminate the child. Given uterine replicators, why should mothers be able to do so? We don’t allow fathers who don’t want a child to walk away from their financial responsiblity to support the child, unless someone else adopts the child. Given uterine replicators, why should mothers be able to do so?

And the prospect of thousands of unadoptable black babies is pretty remote. If biological science advances to the point where uterine replication is about as safe as a normal pregnancy, surely we’ll have nearly foolproof birth control. We don’t need to imagine orphanages, because we could mandate that the parents of the child are financially responsable for the child, both the man and the woman, just like today we mandate that the father of a child is financially responsible for a child even if the child is unwanted.

So. A man today doesn’t have the option to unilaterally renounce his parental rights and repsonsibilities. Why (absent bodily autonomy issues) should a woman?

[XaMcQ]

@cowgirl

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.

Yeah, what she said! That’s my position almost exactly, though I tend to want to say that women who are proven to be showing reckless, callous, repeated behaviour that is likely to damage her unborn child should indeed lose that child. Our pitiful excuse for child welfare laws would let us take it from her after it is born if she endangers it, so why not before? I am pro-choice in that I don’t think anyone should ever have to be forced to become a parent, but I am adamantly pro-child in that no one should ever be allowed to abuse a child.

[catsix]

Would there be any way to absolutely, positively guarantee that the kid would never, ever show up on the doorstep of the person who had the embryo or fetus removed from her uterus?

[Marley23]

I’m pro-choice. Regardless of the date of viability, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the eliminate abortions/compulsory part of this proposal. As an option, I’d absolutely support it, but even if the [insert term here] is going to exist outside of the mother and not be raised by the biological parents, that doesn’t solve the issue for me. I suppose the problem is one of parental rights - not just the old ‘my body, my choice’ issue, but the fact that the government would be requiring that all pregnancies come to term, even if they’re unwanted. Somebody’s still losing a choice here. And I would also have questions about the government’s ability to care about all the children that would result- particularly those who would be unlikely to be adopted.

@jsgoddess

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?

I think so.

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?

Not in a million years.

I didn’t quote some of the questions here, but I think I’ve responded to all of the issues.

[Lemur866]

@catsix

Would there be any way to absolutely, positively guarantee that the kid would never, ever show up on the doorstep of the person who had the embryo or fetus removed from her uterus?

Does a man currently have the right to demand that a baby he fathers will never ever show up on his doorstep? Should men be able to demand the termination of a pregnancy they don’t want? Of course not, we all understand why not. So why are women different? Because they are different biologically. But what if there were technology that rendered such biological differences moot? Why doesn’t that erase the legal and ethical justification for treating the mothers and fathers of unborn babies differently?

[cowgirl]

@Lemur866

And the prospect of thousands of unadoptable black babies is pretty remote.

I would posit that, in this new world with uterine replicators, black people and white people would continue to produce new embryos at the same rates that they are now. There will still be just as many black babies as there currently are. How would the existence of uterine replicators affect the differential rate of black and white births? Can you elaborate on this statement a bit?

If biological science advances to the point where uterine replication is about as safe as a normal pregnancy, surely we’ll have nearly foolproof birth control.

Sure, and if we assume from the start that there won’t be any problems, then hey, there won’t be any problems, will there?

We don’t need to imagine orphanages, because we could mandate that the parents of the child are financially responsable for the child, both the man and the woman, just like today we mandate that the father of a child is financially responsible for a child even if the child is unwanted.

Except that today, people who know they don’t have the means to be financially responsible for a child can have an abortion. How would uterine replicators change that?

[Marley23]

@catsix

Would there be any way to absolutely, positively guarantee that the kid would never, ever show up on the doorstep of the person who had the embryo or fetus removed from her uterus?

Is there some reason that guarantee is necessary? Adopted kids have a right to know who their parents are, as I understand it, and I don’t see why that should change.

[John_Mace]

@jsgoddess

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?

He is a pet. If he were a pig, you could kill him and eat him.

A fetus isn’t a pet. And it’s not a pig. You’re using arguments that simply don’t apply to a human fetus. We don’t regard humans as pets, or food, or object of art, or anything other than humans. And if a fetus isn’t a human, the fact that we don’t allow you to kill you cat is irrelevant because you fetus isn’t a cat either.

[Lemur866]

@cowgirl

Except that today, people who know they don’t have the means to be financially responsible for a child can have an abortion.

Men can’t. Why is that?

[wonky]

@John Mace

He is a pet. If he were a pig, you could kill him and eat him.

A fetus isn’t a pet. And it’s not a pig. You’re using arguments that simply don’t apply to a human fetus. We don’t regard humans as pets, or food, or object of art, or anything other than humans. And if a fetus isn’t a human, the fact that we don’t allow you to kill you cat is irrelevant because you fetus isn’t a cat either.

The cat is relevant precisely because it isn’t a human. We have entire categories of things we have declared to be valuable that aren’t human. You seem to be saying that a fetus cannot be considered valuable if it isn’t at the same time considered human. Examples to the contrary, things that are valuable but not human, show that the fetus need not be human to have value. If a cat can have value without being human, why can’t a fetus have value without being human?

[WhyNot]

@Lemur866

But you surely don’t support the same rights for MEN do you? What if a man doesn’t want to bring another child into the world? What if getting a woman pregnant was a mistake, and he can’t justify bringing a baby to term? Why would he agree to having that child come to term outside his body? Does that mean he would have the right to demand that the pregnancy be terminated?
…

So. A man today doesn’t have the option to unilaterally renounce his parental rights and repsonsibilities. Why (absent bodily autonomy issues) should a woman?

I know this is a pet issue of yours, but the OP’s scenario is one that would go a long way towards evening out the inequity you see, not exacerbate it!

You seem to be somehow assuming that a man under the OP’s scenario would be on the hook while a woman wouldn’t. I would not support such a system, nor do I see it as required by the technology. The laws could, as they do now, state that both bioparents are financially responsible. I don’t like that option myself. If the state feels it in the state’s interest to prevent abortions and incubate fetuses, then I think both bio parents should be off the hook, and the state or adoptive parents bear the burden.

Mothers today are not allowed to financially abandon their children without the father’s consent any more than fathers are. Both must sign for adoption, or both must pay to support the child. Women get to choose whether or not to give birth, as you note, because of that physical difference of pregnancy. I agree with you that, once they are equal physically, they should become equal financially and legally.
Realistically, I can’t imagine how shifting the burden of child rearing to the state would be financially possible in a state’s budget, so it would not be implemented as a legal replacement for outlawed abortion. I see this as more likely a variation on adoption, not abortion. If a person wants to adopt a baby, s/he can pay for the incubation and have legal custody that much sooner, and possibly avoid the whole messy emotional bond that reluctant birth mothers sometimes develop late in pregnancy.

[cowgirl]

@Lemur866

Men can’t. Why is that?

What difference does that make to the situation at hand?

[Martin_Hyde]

@John Mace

No, it doesn’t defy logic, it simply makes a different logical argument.

One must ask oneself if a zygote (ie, a fertilized ovum) can reasonably be defined as a human life. I have yet to see a non-religious argument to that effect. Where in the devlepoment process is it reasonable to call the embryo or fetus a human? What exaclty are you “killing” when you teminate a pregancy at 1 week or 4 weeks and how is that substantially different from getting rid of fat cells during lipo? I say this in all seriousness.

We will one day be able to clone humans from skin cells. That day will come long before the OP’s incubator will be invented. Will that make getting a facial the equivalent of having an abortion at 8 months? No. We cannot call something human simply because we have the technology to make that something into a human.

I think the line of demarcation should be the issue of potential life. It has always been my opinion that the precise reason murder is so heinous has nothing to do with the act itself, but rather what it takes away. When I kill someone what have I taken from them? I haven’t taken away the 30 years they have already lived, I’ve taken away the untold experiences and years they may have lived. I’m destroying all their potential and all their future. And it is a destruction which can never be reversed and never be repaired.

Once a pregnancy begins, there is then the meaningful potential of future life. To me, the exact matter of whether or not it is life then isn’t important to me. I don’t want to get into the larger abortion debate as we know my opinions on that clear enough.

But since pre-natal “life” in this scenario has a very good chance of “future life” that is why it should be regarded as protected. Skin cells don’t have the natural or ordinary function of turning into a entity capable of future life and experiences. Something has to happen, extraneously for that.

That’s why a sperm cell shouldn’t be considered a life nor should an egg. Once they have combined, there is then an entity which has the potential for future life, and to destroy it takes that away. When said destruction is done for no reason other than a mother’s whim, that is reprehensible. I can understand the argument which justifies that destruction if it is necessary due to matters of body autonomy, but when that is no longer the case I don’t think it is meaningfully defensible to destroy and steal that future life in such a manner.

I’m trying hard to see the justification on this.

There’s the argument that:

1. It’s my body

-But it doesn’t have to be, in fact you don’t want it to be part of your body. So I don’t see why, since this is an entity capable of future life you should be able to destroy it when it can be removed without said destruction.

Let’s say you have a siamese twin. You aren’t joined in a manner which makes it medically dangerous for you to be removed. If I kill my twin simply because I don’t want to be attached to him anymore, eventhough simple removal of a conjoined patch of skin would have affected said removal, I can’t meaningfully argue that what I did was a rational defense of my bodily autonomy.

2. It’s my DNA, I want to control what happens to it

-Then carry it to term. That’s like giving a child up for adoption and then saying 7 years later you don’t want him becoming a Catholic and want him back because you disagree with his parents decision to raise him catholic. I’m sorry, you’ve given up that right. Just as a woman in this scenario has given up the right of parenthood.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Der Trihs

Ok, disagreeing again. Killing a fetus isn’t murder, as it’s not a person. Killing a child is murder, because a child is a person.

Re the OP : I oppose any use of coercion. If either parent wants the baby, they should gain custody, or if they arrange an adoption. Otherwise, terminate it. In my opinion, the default choice should be to terminate the fetus.

A good many states define killing a fetus as murder. Scott Peterson was convicted of two homicides.

[Martin_Hyde]

@John Mace

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.

I can agree with this line of thought. If a woman chooses to have her fetus removed, she shouldn’t have to surrender all rights if it isn’t her intention to do so. But she certainly shouldn’t have the right to kill said fetus. She should have normal parental rights and that can include interviewing potential adoptive parents. That never includes killing the child.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Maureen

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.

The state has an interest in pre-natal life and the health of said life when it doesn’t interfere with the health of the mother. So, if the fetus’ health would benefit from removal the woman shouldn’t be allowed to subject the fetus to undue risks anymore than a mother can subject a born child to undue risks legally. However if it isn’t a clear cut medical fact of greater safety one way or another then the mother should have the final say.

[Der_Trihs]

@Martin Hyde

A good many states define killing a fetus as murder. Scott Peterson was convicted of two homicides.

And if you think that was anything other than a politically driven decision to drive the anti-abortion aganda, you are deluding yourself. Calling it murder doesn’t make it murder, even if a court does it. If a court say shattering a rock with a sledgehammer is murder, that doesn’t make it murder, nor does it make the rock a person.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Marley23

I’m pro-choice. Regardless of the date of viability, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the eliminate abortions/compulsory part of this proposal. As an option, I’d absolutely support it, but even if the [insert term here] is going to exist outside of the mother and not be raised by the biological parents, that doesn’t solve the issue for me. I suppose the problem is one of parental rights - not just the old ‘my body, my choice’ issue, but the fact that the government would be requiring that all pregnancies come to term, even if they’re unwanted. Somebody’s still losing a choice here. And I would also have questions about the government’s ability to care about all the children that would result- particularly those who would be unlikely to be adopted.

Yes, someone is losing a choice, but it is a choice that has been “lost” in modern society for a long time. Parents don’t have the choice of life or death of their children.

WOMEN have the right to bodily autonomy, and because of that they can expel a fetus from their body, even if it kills said fetus. But there is nothing that justifies a blanket right to fetal destruction.

[Martin_Hyde]

@John Mace

He is a pet. If he were a pig, you could kill him and eat him.

A fetus isn’t a pet. And it’s not a pig. You’re using arguments that simply don’t apply to a human fetus. We don’t regard humans as pets, or food, or object of art, or anything other than humans. And if a fetus isn’t a human, the fact that we don’t allow you to kill you cat is irrelevant because you fetus isn’t a cat either.

Ultimately in this situation something has to be resolved.

From what I can tell, in the law things are most easily categorized as pieces of property or as people. If it isn’t a person, it’s a piece of property. It seems like every time we’ve had conflicts over defining something as property or people, it’s been pretty nasty and some ultimate resolution has to happen. There needs to be the definitive legal statement.

With slavery the SCOTUS ultimately decided definitively that slaves are chattel, they are not people. We fought the most devastating war in American history and changed our constitution in order to change that legal definition.

Once you remove the issue of bodily autonomy it truly does come down to “is a fetus a person, or is it nothing more than chattel?” In such a case I find it odd that liberals tend to lean towards the chattel definition, as liberal minds have typically always favored the expansion of the definition of personhood.

[Martin_Hyde]

@cowgirl

What difference does that make to the situation at hand?

Because the answer to Lemur’s question invalidates the entire premise of your stance.

People can choose to end a pregnancy due to financial duress now because abortion is guaranteed due to the matter of bodily autonomy. A woman doesn’t have to have ANY reason for ending a pregnancy other than she just wants to do so because of bodily autonomy. Just because on common reason is financial duress doesn’t mean that’s the reason it is acceptable.

It’s acceptable because of bodily autonomy. Remove bodily autonomy and I doubt the masses would support the idea of being able to destroy viable life simply because it’s cost-effective (and I doubt the SCOTUS would lean that way.)