For babies who are born past the point of viability, we effectively do have a replacement for a uterus, which is why most babies born after 24 weeks survive.
That said, if we had the ability to replicate the function of a uterus from conception until birth, I don’t think that it would be morally wrong to have an abortion instead of transferring the fetus until it reaches a certain level of development.
But they aren’t killed before removal.
As an aside, I honestly can’t tell if you’re mixing up “fig leaf” and “olive branch” or if you’re consciously hinting that the olive branch you’re offering is a fig leaf…
Yes, and i know two women who suffered life threatening preclampsia. Both ended up in the ICU for a week. One had an emergency c-section, and her daughter is now a healthy young adult living in Singapore, iirc, and the other, who desperately wanted a child, had an emergency abortion, and was advised she had a 50% chance of dying of she became pregnant again. She ended up hiring a surrogate, and now has an adorable toddler. But it cost her a huge amount.
The difference between the two was how far the pregnancy had progressed.
They are killed before removal for legal reasons. Also, the homeless guy might survive sleeping out in the cold. The fetus won’t, so killing it before, after … It doesn’t really matter except for the legalities. (If it’s born live, there’s a legal obligation to attempt to save it.)
For the majority of abortions, those in the first few weeks, they don’t actually kill the embryo, they just expel it and let it die on its own.
this is an abhorrent and absurd statement. And as SuntanLotion rightly points out, very few humans wouldn’t qualify as “parasites” under your definition
Not directly physically parasitic on another human’s body, though.
I don’t think anyone here is denying that most pregnant people are happy, or at least willing, to voluntarily share their bodies with a fetus. That’s what “wanted pregnancy” means.
But when the pregnancy is unwanted, the pregnant person is being subjected to a degree of nonconsensual physical parasitism that nobody should be forced to undergo.
Nah, it’s basically just acknowledging a biological fact, separate from the equally valid facts of human affection and consent.
A parasite is an organism that lives on or inside a host organism and obtains nutrients at the host’s expense. When that’s what the pregnant host wants to happen, it’s beautiful and wonderful and joyful and every good thing (even if still physically quite dangerous in many respects).
When it’s not what the pregnant host wants, we shouldn’t try to sugarcoat its severe nonconsensual burden with oblivious sentimentality about the sacredness of motherhood and so on. Pregnant people seek abortions precisely because in their own case, the fetus’s physical parasitism isn’t being compensated for by desire to have a child.
Yeah. I don’t think anybody here would disagree that if an early-term embryo/fetus could be removed from a pregnant person’s body and still continue to survive and develop, there would be at the least a very strong argument that there’s a humane duty to go on nurturing it outside the womb, similar to the obligation to nurture living babies.
But that is not currently possible for fetuses until quite late in pregnancy, so in most abortions it’s a moot point.
When it’s born. That’s it. The anti abortion worldview only makes sense if you think a fetus/embryo should have more rights than an already born person. There’s so much we don’t force people to do because we respect their autonomy even if it could save someone’s life (like a drunk driver being forced to give blood organs to someone they injured) but for some reason this respect should go away merely because the “person” in question exists inside a woman’s body? Nonsense.
Ay. I wanted my baby like crazy and it was freaking miserable being pregnant. And I had a severe psychological crisis immediately after childbirth. And my body is permanently changed as a result of giving birth.
I have a very pro life relative who talked often about women not wanting the “inconvenience” of pregnancy. Inconvenience!
Yet she sure had a number of complaints when she was the one who was pregnant.
My body is also permanently worse for having carried two babies. I wanted those babies, and having kids was worth it to me. But being pregnant is a big f***ing deal, and to repeat myself, an unwanted pregnancy is an abomination that should be ended as quickly as practical.
^^^ This, in emphatic typeface.
I think such hypothetical removal procedures should require the mother’s consent by default. She has the general right not to be intentionally touched or harmed against her will.
~Max
I think society has a responsibility to make abortion unnecessary before it has earned the right to consider these questions at all. When no mother has to give up her education, or her career, or her future, in order to have a baby, then we can discuss it. But right now, no man is ever affected by parenthood the way a mother is affected by it. Let us develop the basic childcare and financial support needed, and then see where we stand.
But most of the people who want to force births are the same ones who want to deny a social safety net. I find that appalling.
Oh, completely agree. I was thinking in terms of a pregnant person who had already chosen to terminate the pregnancy and have the embryo/fetus removed.
Twisting your hypothetical a little, why should a patient (and her doctor) be forced to choose between carrying the pregnancy to term and undergoing an intrusive, expensive, potentially harmful procedure, if a relatively unintrusive and safe medical abortion is indicated?
~Max
Um, the point of the follow-up here isn’t totally clear to me. Are you talking about potential conflicts of interest (in the hypothetical situation where an early-term embryo/fetus could survive and develop if removed from the uterus) between a patient’s desire for a less invasive medical abortion that would kill the fetus, and the state’s potential interest and/or obligation to preserve its life by performing a (somehow not fatal) surgical abortion instead?
On the one hand, I tend to agree that the choice of procedure should by default be up to the patient and the doctor, irrespective of whether it kills the fetus.
And on the other hand, I figure, hell, this whole scenario is completely counterfactually hypothetical anyway, let’s hypothesize a medical abortion procedure that also can extract the fetus without killing it, why not. I think we might be running out of useful practical insights that can be derived from this imaginary premise.
Let’s not forget the impact on her health and body of being pregnant.
Yes, my point was that even with a removal procedure you still get the conflict of interest between the patient and the state, if the state wishes to intervene to protect the embryo. In fact, such a removal procedure is not hypothetical at all. Before IVF caught on, the first human embryo transfers involved flushing the blastocyst out of the donor and implanting it in the surrogate mother. It only works during those few days between fertilization and pregnancy (implantation), and was hit or miss due to the small size and fragile state of the blastocysts. IVF is used today because it is vastly superior in terms of fertility and risk to the patient. But in theory, one could flush naturally fertilized blastocysts and freeze them, with today’s technology.
~Max
I reflected for a moment on some kind of structure in which the mother would formally declare the fetus to be a person, and then they’re qualified for whatever benefits and esteem that entails, and they couldn’t easily back out of it, because the state could claim an interest if you soaked up a lot of benefits and then didn’t actually produce the child.
It’s nice to think there’s a clever legal structure that could address multiple concerns in one swoop, but that could get ugly and complicated quick, so I’m not sure if any of that is a good idea. And what need is really served by being able to declare a fetus a person at any time before it’s actually born? Little that I can see, other than creating a gap for bad-faith meddlers to exploit.
Instead, just make the clean, elegant choice – you can call it whatever you want, as long as the woman has absolute inviolate sovereignty over it and her body until it exits her body.
Are you suggesting that a woman in labor could tell the doctors to end the baby and they should do that as long as the baby is still inside of her?
I am pretty sure no doctor would ever do that.