Well, this flippancy reinforces my earlier assessment, but I’ll just ask the question directly: you know of a woman who is two months into a pregnancy she wishes to terminate. If the technology existed (assuming you’re male, there has been some serious thought along those lines, would you personally take on the pregnancy for the remaining seven?
We can speculate about artificial wombs in the further future ensuring that nobody has to take on this responsibility, but transplants to living hosts are, I presume in my layman way, closer at hand.
Even if I skip the transplant option entirely and assume the artificial womb gets invented tomorrow, then I’d have to ask if a woman who moves her unwanted fetus to such a womb can also sever all financial and parental obligations to it. If not, what’s her incentive to simply not terminate? The technology will certainly be valuable to women who want their babies but for some medical reason can’t carry them to term, but this doesn’t comprise most of the million+ cases in the U.S. every year, does it?
ON consideration, I suppose I’m seeing how this really isn’t much of a workable solution for even he least pro-choice of the pro-abortion side (I hope the distinction makes sense). It certainly does feel like a solution that might work out to save hundreds of otherwise aborted fetuses (not merely the unwanted ones, as well, but also the wanted-but-ectopic pregnancies). I also suppose that arguments would be advanced against it in the same way that arguments were made against Liberty University handing out scholarships for women wiling to forgo abortion in exchange for an arranged adoption. (in addition to the arguments likely made against it from my side you mention above)
Is it too incendiary to ask what should be done about those children whose parents have a massive changei nfortunes and no longer are able to afford to keep them up? (I’d like to add, in addition to all this, that one of the girls who works for me is a 23-year old single mother with twins, with no more than a high school education who manages to keep a roof over their heads, and can feed and clothe them. I can’t really discuss her finances, but I can add that her job doesn’t require any previous skills or knowledge. She is part of the reason why I don’t entirely buy the financial issues.)
We’re discussing this on a message board, mate, we’re not actually going to solve the world’s problems today, and I don’t think chuckling over the thought of male pregnancy makes me a monster or a misogynist.
I likely wouldn’t become a host for a child not my own, not merely for concerns about the ramifications of introducing the hormones into my body, but also for reasons of personal comfort and a severe yuck factor.
However, if my friend had the child, and due to post-partum depression wanted to kill the child, I also wouldn’t volunteer to raise it to majority, either.
Our society has other mechanisms for this, and I now do realize the inefficiency of a society introducing this procedure on a mass-level. Doesn’t change my belief on either abortion or infanticide.
I’m actively attempting to engage other posters ideas and develop a more reasoned thought process on them. I don’t feel humor impedes that. I do feel personal attacks or intimating personal beliefs previously denied by another poster does.
Your mileage may vary.
Certainly I agree it’s a pretty workable solution from the pro-life side, although solution is probably a bad word… just a better situation for them, really. It’s certainly more sellable an idea than banning abortions outright, so from that perspective it could be a good idea to go for.
I have no problem with Liberty University handing out scholarships in return for arranged adoption. Good plan, in fact. Just because I think abortion should be allowed doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a bad situation. If there’s a family all ready to take care of the kid in question, excellent!
I don’t think it’s incendiary, although I might not entirely get what you’re saying; are you suggesting that people’s view should follow on and be that such children should be killed?
Anyway, my reply would be that by this point the children in question have fulfilled my own view of what constitutes a person, and as such we don’t have the same options as we do with fetuses. In my case it’s more complicated but I imagine that would be the general pro-choice view.
Mantra #1 of GD: Anecdote isn’t data.
How many of these jobs are avaliable? How many parents would be able to cope as well as your employee? What are prices like in your area, compared to the rest of the country? What level of child support does she get? Does she need to travel to work? If for some reason you needed to lay off a few employees, how easy would it be for her to find new work, and how long could she keep her kids in good health and keeping without one?
I’m sure there are plenty of mothers across the country who do very well (or at least well) with kids or even twins. And good on them, and well done to them. But I do not think you could guarantee that to me for all women; and thus I think this is still reason to leave abortion as an option.
