Nooooo, I voted wrong! I voted for the first option, when I meant to say it does NOT change my opinion.
No, i think the world is far better off with less children being born than currently are.
We, as a race, don’t know what to do with all the unwanted children (and adults) that we have now. Why on earth would anyone advocate for increasing their number, whatever the method?
Change my mind about abortion? I suppose if something like this device came about I would change my mind about abortion - I would want it more prevalent, in order to cancel out the additional mecha-births.
You’re the second person at least to espouse such a view. How would you want these extra abortions to come about? Forced, as in China? Or are you thinking something else?
No, but only because my position is that a woman has the right to control her own body, not the right to control the life of the fetus. The death of a fetus in an abortion is only an unavoidable side effect. If you can terminate the pregnancy and keep the fetus alive, of course that is the preferred option.
Note, this doesn’t mean that I think killing an embryo and killing a fetus are equivalent morally, just that giving the human a chance at life is the preferred option. I’d put unnecessarily killing a just formed embryo about on the par with going out of your way to kill bugs. (The correlation is based on complexity of the organism in question, with additional consideration being given to the human because it is a potential person.)
You’ll have to tell me how I should vote for the purposes of your poll, as I don’t describe myself as pro-life or pro-choice, yet I am not undecided.
Why should it change my mind? It looks to me like the moral perfection of abortion: instead of having a traditional abortion, women accomplish the same thing by teleporting the unwanted fetus to the artificial uterus, which they leave on Pat Robertson’s doorstep. (Or to the doorstep of whatever local fundie political preacher is within easy driving distance.)
With a card taped to the artificial uterus saying, “Good luck, dudes, in figuring out what to do with 1,300,000 babies this year. And another 1,300,000 next year. And another 1,300,000 the year after that. And another 1,300,000 the year after that. And so forth. Get used to changing A LOT of diapers!”
Oh, and everyone arguing that you can decide based on overpopulation: that same argument can be used for murder. We’re just decreasing the surplus population, after all.
As the OP established that we are speculating in an imaginary universe, I will answer by saying Zombies. Zombies will be the answer.
We’re banned from eternal damnation? Never mind then.
You know, zombies aren’t the answer to everything.
I suppose it does change my opinion, but that’s because I feel that abortion is based on women having the right to determine what goes on in their own body. Since the JB2718 gives women what they want (a body free of pregnancy at extremely low health risk) there is zero issue with requiring its use in all pregnancy termination requests.
I do NOT believe that a woman has the right to post pregnancy contraception. It’s an unavoidable consequence of the rights women have, but is not a right in and of itself. Men do not have the right to post pregnancy contraception, and we manage to survive with someone else gestating and giving birth to the child we helped conceive.
Personally, I would couple this advance with a HUGE push towards universal publicly funded contraception for people who do not want to be parents.
It won’t make me change my mind about abortion, but this has great applications in the fertility market or the pregnancy market. How many people would use this as opposed to being pregnant for nine months? Considering how much my wife hates being pregnant, I suspect that she would pay to have to carry the child. You could make a shit ton of money with this.
-
It does not change my mind.
-
No, I do not believe it will change many minds.
Much of the drive behind a pro-choice or pro-life stance is actually sentiment. Personally, I do not FEEL the gov has a right to intervene in the goings on of my uterus - no outside logic will ever change that and my logic will always defend that. This belief in autonomy and personal freedom is an axiom on which the rest of my feelings about justice and life are based on. It is unlikely any technological advances in medicine will ever move me from these completely separate and deep rooted social beliefs.
Making abortion illegal is the government imposing their beliefs and enforcing their laws inside my body - a no man’s land. The government has the same jurisdiction over the wedge of space and time (and that which consumes it) inside my uterus as they have over the surface of Pluto - ZERO. They have no right to intervene and allow or disallow abortion - they should simply stay out of my way. I will do as I please.
I see this ushering in a whole brave new world.
I love abortion, and this doesn’t change my mind at all. Embryos and fetuses unable to survive outside their hosting womb are not people and do not deserve the same rights.
We do not need more people in this world. Bringing fetuses unwanted by their biological parents to term through this technology is an enormous waste of money and resources. However, it’s fantastic news for women/couples who have issues with infertility or recurrent miscarriage.
Technology has made it increasingly easier and easier to take a premie and raise its survivability. I think I’ve mentioned it before, but my issue with abortion is about the woman’s control over her own body more so than the fetus: I don’t consider fetuses different enough to deserve a life over the objections of its very alive and birthed mother. Hell, I support killing fetuses after birth as long as the umbilical cord is still connected.
To me, fetuses are no different than a fingernail or a hair, an extraneous part of a person that the person can do with as they wish. Should cloning technology be available, would most people like it if someone can steal a piece of your DNA from a nail or some dead skin and clone you? I suspect they wouldn’t, because they consider their DNA to be theirs. No matter how much I would love to clone multiple Megan Foxes, its her DNA to decide to do with as she wants. Fetuses are property belonging to the mother to do with what she wants. If she wants it dead, then it should be killed, end of story
That’s a pretty bold statement; I know a lot of people tolerate it, but I don’t hear a lot of people saying they actually love it.
The abortion issue is about finding a balance between two rights:1. a person’s right to control their own body.
2. a person’s right to exist.These rights come into conflict when a person is gestating inside another and that other does not wish to continue the process.
In the world outside Skald’s hypothesis, the personhood of a fetus is nebulous enough that the first right clearly takes precedence. Thus, abortion is acceptable until the fetus’ personhood is better established. (That line is very fuzzy and is something reasonable people can disagree on.)
Within the world of the hypothesis, a person can exercise the first right without affect the second right. That is, the pregnancy can be terminated without destroying the fetus. Thus, an abortion under these conditions would be an unnecessary infringement of the fetus’ rights.
Once a fetus is extracted, what should be done with it? In general, parents-to-be do not have the right to destroy a fetus. That is only allowed as a side effect of ending a pregnancy. Within the hypothetical, both biological parents would be on an equal footing: they are financially and morally responsible for raising the fetus they helped create.
I haven’t read past the original post, so I apologize if this duplicates others’ thoughts.
What I find interesting about this scenario is that the people who are most opposed to abortion are usually also the people who are most opposed to welfare. I think very quickly they would become more pragmatic about this situation faced with the cost of raising all of these unwanted kids, and are likely to be unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.
This would be fabulous technology. The way I see it going after the initial insanity is that (assuming the cost is reasonable) all unwanted fetuses would be transported into said machines, where they’d be kept alive for a brief period to allow them to be claimed by someone willing and capable of raising them after birth. Unclaimed fetuses would have life support withdrawn, and most people would be uncomfortable with the whole thing, but more comfortable than they would be raising 20 or so kids themselves. Meanwhile, no one would have to deal with the whole pregnancy thing, or the infertility thing, ever again. It would be awesome.
I hadn’t thought of that possibility - that once they get put in the artificial womb, they don’t necessarily have to stay there until “birth” (decanting?). I don’t know if that would make anti-abortion people happier or less happy, though - now we have two interventions, ending in a dead fetus.
Well, I’ve often been called bold.
I honestly think safe, legal abortion is one of the most wonderful amenities of our modern age. Without it, women risk their fertility, health and lives trying to achieve unsafe or illegal abortions through various, often horrific methods (my teenage aunt almost died and had her fertility permanently affected by a ‘back-alley’ abortion of a fetus resulting from a rape, shortly before legalization). Without it, more unwanted children are born to reluctant mothers who may be able to provide less than adequate care. And more babies are victim to abandonment, infanticide, and other desperate measures taken by mothers who do not want a baby. It’s a win-win for everyone; unless you think early term embryos are human beings with rights. Which I think is a retarded opinion, but YMMV.
I think people who are against legal abortion forget that making it illegal does not mean fewer deaths and less horror. Infanticide has been a common practice throughout history. Now THAT is murder.