Just for the hell of it, let’s see if we can come to a description of an ideal outcome (even if we currently lack some of the necessary medical technology or social institutions) that we can both agree on as desirable.
You want that no abortions should occur, right?
I don’t know what y’all THINK we want, but it is not that abortions SHOULD occur, but rather that women should possess control of their sexuality and reproductive capacities, or, to get right down to it, that no woman should ever have to be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be.
OK…hypothetical question: If women could have their embryos or fetuses (fetii? what the hell IS the plural of fetus anyway?) removed from their bodies but NOT killed in the process–easily, simply, without any more risk to their own health than they face from legal abortion today–and the embryo/fetus implanted in
a) a willing female’s uterus or
b) an artificial uterus
…and the law said that any termination of pregnancy had to rely on this technique unless the embryo/fetus were already dead for unrelated causes, and no records whatsoever were maintained linking the two people without the express consent of the woman seeking the procedure…
I would not oppose you on that. Would you folks go for that?
Well, in an ideal world. Yet, however, I am pro-life, but feel that there are situations (life of the mother in question) where abortion should be available.
**
[demagouge mode: ON]
Is that why there are outcries from the left every time someone wants to teach abstinance in schools?
[demagouge mode: OFF]
In other words, pre-birth adoption…
In theory, it sounds OK. However, what happens to these children after they are born? Are they to be put in orphanages? Given to loving parents (like any other adoption?). If the latter, I probably would have no problems with this.
I don’t see how anyone could be opposed to this in your idea world. (I’m a pro-lifer) But I have a few questions. In you idea world do we have enough willing female’s uterus or artificial uterus? Who pays for this procedure? Is it more or less expensive than abortion? Who’s responsible for the children? Who pays for these children? Does the father get sued for child support? Does the state try to collect money from the biological mother and father to defray expenses?
Ummm . . . did I miss something, or is it not true that women do possess control of their reproductive capacities (except in cases of rape), and that no woman ever does have to get pregnant in the first place, if she doesn’t want to be?
That is not entirely true. The only 100% foolproof method of birth control is abstinence, I think we all know that. But lots & lots of married couples use various forms of birth control (taking control of their sexuality and reproductive systems), and sometimes those forms fail them. No one expects married couples to abstain. And sometimes, married couples find themselves facing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. Abortion, adoption, and keeping are all choices available to them, too. Just because you’re married doesn’t mean you automatically want to get pregnant, nor does it mean you must keep the baby if you do get pregnant.
It is true that abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control. This makes the decision to have sex in every instance an acknowledgement of possible pregnancy. I do not believe abortion is wrong in cases where pregnancy is truly unwanted, unplanned, or unexpected, but I do believe it is a decision fraught with emotional and moral baggage sometimes not given proper consideration.
Militant pro-choice women are fond of saying, “My body, my choice.” My point is - you and your partner made that choice when you had sex. Pregnancy is a common consequence. You are responsible for your actions, so consider well all possible results.
The outcries are only when abstinence is the ONLY policy taught in schools. Abstinence is not reasonable to expect from sexually active teenagers, although in a perfect world it should be.
I teach a human sexuality elective in medical school. We have a panel of sexually active high school students come in every year. Last year, we had a panel of girls. Many have had kids, but still were unfazed about having unprotected sex with their boyfriends.
The pressure to have sex comes from many different directions, and we can only control some of this. It comes from girl on girl and girl on boy peer pressure. It comes from their own body, with raging hormones and newly discovered “love.” And of course, it comes from a less repressive society where we are now more open about sex.
So, I will be a medical professional soon. It is my job, in part, to defend the public health. What is more important for public health : Girls having sex or girls having babies? I answer that its girls having babies. Trying to preach abstinence is (excuse me) like farting against thunder, and it is far less likely to keep a girl from getting pregnant than teaching her about other options.
We are in a transition towards a society in which sex is deemphasized. Say what you will about this, but I don’t see us returning to the Victorian outlook any time soon. We must control public health accordingly, and a Victorian solution will not work in this transition.
It is the “except for rape or incest” part that gets me. If the fetus is such a sacred life, why is it okay to abort it in the case of rape or incest? Isnt that also a "human life worth blah blah blah…:? The answer usually boils down to “well the baby would bring pain and suffering to the mother.”, which makes me wonder what sixteen year olds forced to go through with unwanted pregnacies go through, ultimate joy? If the idea is to avoid suffering, I think that abortions are the best choice on some occasions.
So then, they start bringing in “personal resposebility”, which means if a woman is going to have sex she should morally take responsibility for the outcome. This is often an argument against birth control as well. If there are no babies (or STDs) there are no negative consequences. That suits me fine, but some people believe that preganancy is some sort of mystical vengence wrought upon the sexually active and we should keep the unpleasent parts out of some sence of duty.
So, lets have it. What IF there was a way to not have the baby that wouldnt kill the fetus?
Well, I’m glad you haven’t had to face that hypocrisy. Most of the pro-life people I know hold to this very way of thinking. They think that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or incest and that is a cowardly, hypocritical way to think.
There is a difference between what one thinks is moral, and what one is resigned to accept for political purposes. I don’t know your acquaintences, evilbeth, but they would probably tell you that they believe that killing an unborn child does not magically become morally right because of the circumstances that brought that life about.
However, the world being what it is, there are certain things one has to swallow to move ahead, even if only for small gains. If abortion-on-demand leads to 1.3 million dead babies, and abortion-with-exceptions leads to 13,000 dead babies, simple math comes into play.
Sometimes, to get legislation passed, one has to sacrifice absolutes for the sake of practicality. Of course, the point is rather moot as far as legislation is concerned. I don’t think I will live to see the day where the abortion bell gets unrung in this country.
Sorry for the hijack, but this has to be addressed. When you hear conservatives pleading for schools to teach abstinence, what they are really pulling for is schools teaching ignorance. The idea is if we tell them as little as possible about sex, except that they shouldn’t have it because they can get diseases and babies, then they will take our word for it and suddenly we’ve got a whole new generation of virgin teens! Whoopee! OK, I’m exaggerating a bit. The point is, however, that this kind of “education” is completely ineffective. It attempts to force one analysis of the situation on the students, whithout equipping them to look at all options. A good sex education program will of course point out the benefits of not having sex. It will also point out the hazards of unprotected sex and the methods of reducing these hazards. The idea that a school curiculum can halt teen sexuality is a bone headed one.
What am I, chopped liver? I hold that every sexual act is implied consent for a subsequent pregnancy. If you did not give consent…if someone stole your genetic material while you were asleep, or if someone implanted genetic material inside you against your will, you cannot be held responsible for carrying the child. It doesn’t matter that with our current technology the baby you remove from your body will die, we can’t force you to carry it. We can’t say that you made your choice when you got pregnant, since you did not make a choice. Of course it is sad that the baby will die, but what can we do?
Also, we should put the life of the mother first…you are not obligated to risk your life to save another person’s life, whether they are your child or not. Besides, uh, if the mother dies, the fetus dies to, right? Even the catholics allow medical treatment that will result in the death of an unborn baby as long as that is not the primary purpose of the treatment. Say you have cancer, and need chemotherapy. The catholics would allow you to get chemotherapy with their blessing, even though it will kill the baby.
What’s hypocritical about that? Incest is more problematic. If what we have is really statutory rape, then of course there is no consent. If it is incest with informed consent then why is that different than any other pregnancy? Of course inbred children are at higher risk for birth defects, but this does not mean that they should be aborted. Abortion in the case of birth defects can follow the same reasoning as other medical care. If withholding medical care from a newborn infant with the same condition would be moral, then aborting the baby would also be moral. If you don’t develop your brain, if you have no chance of survival, and doctors would do nothing other than keep the baby comfortable until it died, then abortion is really the same thing.
Dang, I forgot to comment on the OP. Yes, of course this is the best of all possible worlds. Uterine replicators and fetal transplantation would solve the abortion problem, at least in wealthy countries. The only reason to force someone to bear the child against her will is that unless she does the baby will die. If the baby will not die, if there are other safe and effective means of taking care of it, great, we have a win-win situation.
I imagine that most of these babies will be adopted normally. Although it is difficult to place children with problems, there is a waiting list a mile long for healthy babies. And since the birth mother would sign away her rights the moment the fetus was removed she wouldn’t have the experience of bonding with the baby, the baby wouldn’t grow inside her, she wouldn’t give birth to the baby. Adoptions would be streamlined since the uncertainty would be eliminated.
AHunter, it’s funny you mention ideal outcomes and conceive (no pun intended) of fantasy medical procedures without conceiving of a pregnancy prevention device that was 100% reliable and readily available. That would be the ideal, wouldln’t it? Plus it seems much more attainable a goal than removing fetuses from wombs and transferring them to another “host” body.
Besides, where in the world did you get the idea that pro-lifers don’t care about these children BEYOND preventing their death? Do you think they believe that any old womb will do?
Along the same lines, I guess you think that vegetarians only care about saving the animals from death. How the animals are treated after that means NOTHING to them.
In light of some of the other replies above, I think I need to reiterate the OP in clearer terms: no woman should ever have to be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be, even if she likes to have sex a lot, even if her circumstances have changed since Wednesday of last week when being pregnant seemed like a good idea. YOU may not agree with that premise, but ass long as enough of US believe fervently in that sense of sexual and reproductive control belonging to women (who have to put up with periods and PMS as part of the package too, it ISN’T a free ride), focusing your (pro-life) efforts on making abortion illegal and unavailable means we end up cancelling out each other’s energies.
That leaves us with…what? Here are my thoughts, and please add your own, looking towards areas of agreement:
a) as PunditLisa says, ironclad-infallible, safe and reliable birth control. Something where non-fertile is the default condition that you have to override in order to conceive. Something that doesn’t screw up your body when you’re using it. Something that doesn’t require you to say “Umm, hold on a moment while I insert/cover/take/ this…” and that doesn’t put a discernable physical barrier between the parts of the partners. Something you don’t have to remember. Something your kids are using as of the moment they are fertile/virile. And it has to work for both sexes, so both sexes have to say “yes”, actively, to cause conception to occur. So, hey, how much of the '00 budget went towards promoting development of such technologies? Can we at least have a decently impressive tax break to encourage some r&d?
b) sex education. Would it surprise you pro-life folks to know that we tend to be in complete agreement with you that simply explaining how the plumbing works and how the buttons are pushed is NOT adequate? Sexuality and sexual feelings have a strong emotional component. To whatever extent delaying sexual activity is a good recommendation for young teens (and I don’t think it always is), the reasons lie in the complexities of emotions and vulnerabilities. I would not use the word “abstinence”–it sounds permanent! Are we in agreement here that sex itself is a good thing, regardless of how bad it can be under the wrong circumstances? And “until marriage” isn’t reasonable since not everyone intends–ever–to marry. But some message that teaches (rather than moralizes) “until love and trust makes it safe”. How would you feel about your our kids hearing a panel of adults and older kids describe what it is like to be attracted, sexually liked, hit upon by someone they don’t like, dumped, overlooked in favor of someone else, made to feel used and discarded, trusted completely by someone they love, etc? Can “falling in love”, with all its risks and possibilities, come out of the closet as a sex education topic in our schools?
c) I think that would get us most of the way there, leaving only those unwanted pregnancies in which the woman changed her mind as her circumstances changed. You pro-lifers don’t think such a woman should be able to have an abortion (unless perhaps her life is in danger) and I think it is vitally important that she not have to be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be. Ergo, the somewhat science-fictionish scenario I described in the OP.
You mean there’s a waiting list for healthy * white * babies. There isn’t much of a demand for minority babies. When people adopt, they want to know as much as possible about the baby’s background. If the mother has used drugs in the past, or is unhealthy, that will cut down the baby’s chance of being adopted as well, even if the baby seems healthy.
I’ve got a story about this one. I used to have tenants who were extremely Baptist (he was going to school to be a minister) and we were talking about abortion. She said she was against it in all cases, and I piped up with “except rape, right?” and she turns 8 shades of red.
SHE HERSELF was a product of rape. Her mother was raped, but kept her baby, and my tenant was the result. Talk about trying to backpeddle. It was like saying she didn’t belong here because of the circumstance of her conception.
Now I just avoid those conversations at all costs.
That’s one of many things I want. I won’t go into all of them now (I have lunch soon) but I’d like to live in a society where being unmarried, young and pregnant does not “tell” people you’re an irresponsible slut. I want this society to embrace its young instead of shoving them aside or abusing them. I want . . . etc etc etc. I want the notion of killing a person to be foreign (I know this isn’t going to happen. I can dream).
It’s an interesting idea, and one I was discussing with my mother a while back. Among other things, the blood type would have to be the same (or something along those lines). We couldn’t figure out if the tissue would have to be identical (as in with organ donors).
Difficult question. Good question, for which I applaud you. IF it were scientifically possible, and IF the chances of survival with one mother (the implantee) were higher than those with the other mother (the implanter), I’d say it sounds okay.
HOWEVER. Legal issues . . . hooooo boy. you get into wrongful death, malpractice, who “owns” the baby . . . and similar problems to surrogate mothers . . . i.e. the mother gives the baby away but then wants him/her
back.
So, in other words, I think that, in the sense that (if we can assume) less life will be lost, then yes I think it’s a good idea in terms of the OP.
However. The idea of a woman being able to have sex and giving away any pregnancy she may get . . . I don’t like that. Part of the deal with sex (most of the time) is that every time you have sex, there’s a chance you’ll get pregnant. And sometimes a chance to get STDs or such. taking away a consequence like that . . . I can’t explain it, but I don’t like it.
But AHunter3, why not just teach the couple about NFP (Natural Family Planning)? My parents have been using that since 1988 and they haven’t gotten pregnant. They’ve been OPEN to the possibility of it, and would embrace any child they conceived with as much love as any of their other kids got. But they didn’t plan to have any more kids.
This idea of fetus transplantation also makes me think of all the pain birth mothers go through . . . just think how hard it is to give up a child and not see him or her for sometimes upwards of 20 years. In that same sense it would be very difficult, I think, for anyone to NOT want access to their baby.
IOW, I think we’re talking about boatloads upon boatloads of emotional, psychological etc. baggage. Stuff on the order of “My mother didn’t care about me long enough to be pregnant.” Stuff like what I have heard from friends who were adopted. Personally, I can’t imagine a more loving act than to give a baby up for adoption, but that’s just me, the hopeless loving romantic. Other people can’t see any love in it at all.
Persephone: "That is not entirely true. The only 100% foolproof method of birth control is abstinence, I think we all know that.
I disagree. In terms of the likelihood of getting pregnant, you can still get raped (in which case you’re still abstinent because you didn’t CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX) and get pregnant from that. If you get your tubes tied, as far as I know the likelihood of getting pregnant after a successful tubal ligation is 0.
Lissa: there is a waiting list for non-white babies as well. One of my aunts adopted from El Salvador. A former teacher (and my father’s classmate in high school) has so far adopted two Korean babies. It just takes a LONG time. And sometimes when you really want a baby you’re willing to take on any medical expense. My cousin from El Salvador has fierce medical problems. He’s also a really funky guy:)