It depends really on the particular pro-choicers/pro-lifers. I’m sure some on each side would think it ok or horrible.
There’s a couple of problems with this. We’d need to have the technology, and not just in fancy top-class hospitals - abortions happen all over the country, after all. Depending on how the procedure works, the woman could end up with as much intrusiveness as having the baby would be, so it wouldn’t end up as a compromise for that particular side. The opinions of some would need to be changed; how would taking this option be seen by people? As already brought up, who’s paying for all these kids? Where are they staying? As much as I sympathise with your ideals, I don’t think the system would cope without very considerable changes if only half the current abortions were stopped in this way.
I’m all for compromise, but i’m really not sure there can be any compromise that all are halfway happy with on this issue. One side thinks the other is murdering helpless babies. The other side thinks the former are seeking to usurp control over other’s bodies, life, and their freedom to choose (i’m generalising). Neither side is going to back down on this.
One assumption that can be inferred by the OP is that the reason for the abortion is the inconvenience of the pregnancy or the birth to the mother. How about times when it’s known that the fetus has a serious defect? Tay-Sachs disease, for example, is untreatable, and leads to a baby who starts out fine, deteriorates gradually and tragically, and dies within a few years.
Let’s see… 1.3 million abortions in the US each year… what could prevent them from joining the 13 million American children already living in poverty?
If this procedure were available, I don’t see too many women getting it who were planning on abortion. If anything, I think the women who choose adoption (but still have to deal with the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy) would opt for the extraction/incubation.
However tragic the lives of those born with Tay-Sachs, autism, Down’s Syndrome, or sickle cell anemia may be, you’re recommending a policy of eugenics. Would the other three be grounds for terminating a fetus? If genetic science progresses to the point that markers of native intelligence, sexuality, or musical skill could be determined in utero, would those also be qualifying reasons for a mother to terminate her fetus?
That could be handled in the same way that unwanted paternity is currently handled: both parents are required to financially support the child, whether or not they get a say in its birth.
I know people who are against abortion under any circumstances other than ectopic pregnancies or ones where the mother’s life is in danger, who support easily available birth control and a woman’s right to easily put a baby up for adoption without having to take on any responsibility (ala “Baby Moses” drop-off points). I think that they are truly pro-life and not wanting to punish the woman. I can understand their views and feel that they are truly pro-life. I don’t think they are the kind of people you are talking about.
There are a lot of people who are against abortion that do seem to be the woman-punishing sort. They are usually pretty easy to spot - they generally oppose birth control, and don’t have problems with abortion in situations where the pregnancy is due to rape. I truly believe that if you think abortion is wrong unless the woman is raped, you are not truly pro-life. If you really felt that the unborn child was a human life to be protected just like any other, what difference would the circumstances of the conception make? Is a baby born to a 13 year old raped by her father any less a human than one born to a 20 year old who had a one-night stand? For these people, the primary concern is enforcing reproductive responsibility - if you have sex and get pregnant, you have to have it, unless it was not your fault. These people make me sick.
I don’t like abortion, in a perfect world I’d like to think that no babies would have to be deliberately killed, but I don’t live in a perfect world. I don’t want the government deciding for women whether or not they have to have a baby they don’t want, and I don’t want women being forced to lie about the circumstances of conception or, even worse, going to an illegal abortionist and being afraid to go to a hospital when she won’t stop bleeding afterwards.
Last I heard (hard to find a cite), a two year old baby is about as mentally aware as an adult dog. Semen is about as mentally aware as a fern. Even if you believe that a human has a soul that is being killed, when does the soul come into being? Is using a condom an abortion? Is “The Pill”? When a baby is nothing more than a pimple of fleshy cells, is it a human and is destroying it an abortion?
I suspect that you don’t view semen as being a human. So at what point are you viewing it as becoming “an abortion”? The “morning after pill” causes the death of a fertilised egg, for instance.
Thankfully, Planned Parenthood’s own medical director testified that even illegal abortions were, by and large, not dangerous. She said that they overhwhelming majority of them were, in fact, conducted by licensed physicians and that they were quite safe.
Isn’t that because nobody was bothering to enforce the laws? I like to ask those proposing new abortion bans to spell out how they would be enforced and I don’t often get an answer.
I’m not disgusted as such but I’m rather dismayed by the casual disregard (if not willful ignorance) of the rights of women expressed in your statement, and I choose not to generalize your statement to be typical of some larger group.
There’s no disregard nor wilfull ignorance of the rights of women in my statement. There’s a stark disagreement regarding the ‘right’ of parents to decide whether or not their children may live.
A few months ago, I read that women with incomes below the poverty level are four times more likely to have an abortion than women with incomes above the poverty level. If a woman’s having an abortion because she cannot afford pre-natal healthcare, let alone the cost of childbirth or raising a child, what makes you think she’d be able to afford the cost of an incubator and the other expenses involved in caring for a child until the child’s adopted?
I’ve heard people say that not being able to afford a child is a lousy reason to have an abortion, but five years ago, I was out of work for seven months and had no health insurance. (Fortunately, I also wasn’t having sex.) I suspect few employers will hire a visibly pregnant woman and I have no idea if I would have been eligible for some sort of government-funded health insurance. Even if I were, that would have gone against your statement that “both parents are required to financially support the child.”
The problem is, one thing I think might go a long way to reducing abortions is something that isn’t part of traditional libertarian principles. That thing is making sure that adequate prenatal care is available to all women, regardless of income level. Uninsured people in America do make the choice between doctor’s visits and paying the rent.
I’d also like to see some numbers on the number of abortions versus the number of adoptions per year, preferably broken down by race, since, unfortunately, I gather it’s easier to find homes for white babies. I hope this has changed. Would implementing this marvelous new technology result in childless couples adopting kids they love and care for as their own, or would it result in more unwanted children?
:dubious:
Holy God, man! Now I understand: no one before had ever told me that a developing child was merely another sort of tumor until the moment its head popped through the legs of its mommy, whereupon it magically transforms into a creature with all the rights and responsibilities of the rest of us.
I’m ever so glad you informed me of my mistake. This really is a simple issue, innit?
But, let’s go with it. What rights do the kids have to know their parents? Where is it they stay? There’s a million more kids in care, all of whom need seperate paperwork, accounts, and so on to get that money. Do the parents need to pay merely for the raising of the child, or do they need to pay a percentage towards the new system? Or are we talking raising taxes in general?
Yes, I know that it’s shocking for someone to presume that unintended consequences can be foisted onto someone for their actions. But the poverty level of these women doesn’t mean that their child’s life should be tossed out. That’s the issue with most pro-lifers like myself, not any desire to inflict a difficult or dangerous pregnancy on women. The OP’s theoretical solution would allow for the child to be born while removing those medical dangers carrying a child to full term would have.
There are laws preventing companies from discriminating in their hiring practices based on pregnancy. All 50 states provide Medicaid eligibility for pregnant mothers. But had you gotten pregnant, and had the child been born, you would have been eligible for child support from the father, no matter his financial situation or his wishes regarding the birth of the child.
I work in the finance department of a large emergency room: many uninsured people today don’t make that choice, they just utilize emergent and urgent facilites due to federal regulations forbidding EDs from refusing treatment to patients. But any health care funding debate, and any accusations of me of being a libertarian, are for another place.
I’ll see if I can dig those stats up for you. I’m sure you’re right on the race front. It doesn’t mean anything to me, though, in terms of where I stand on this issue.
The OP’s technology doubtlessly would create more opportunities for childless couples to adopt as well as more unwanted children.
Is forcing males to pay child support for children they don’t want currently popular? Whether or not it’s a popular result, it’s already been enshrined as a legal necessity.
In my conception of this system, one or the other of the two parents would raise the child. Foster care and adoption options wouldn’t change. In fact, the surplus of children adoptable from ‘birth’ would decrease the numbers of couples who go abroad to adopt newborns.
There may be laws preventing discrimination because of pregnancy, but good luck proving any discrimination. There are laws against age discrimination, too. Tell that to a 60+ person with a marvelous resume who, after every in-person job interview just happens to not be “a good fit.” A visibly pregnant woman will have a heck of a time getting a new job, and she won’t be told, or be able to prove, that her pregnancy is the reason. If pressed as to the reasons why Jane or Joe got the job instead of Sally, the answer will always be something intangible and impossible to refute.