I’d be okay with that. But my opposition to laws against late term abortions would probably fade away, too.
Some of these kinds of scenarios could also be applied to infanticide. If they have the baby and then decide they don’t want it, it seems like that example implies that they should be able to terminate its life. Like in the case of rape, if the person doesn’t know if the pregnancy was because of rape or because of someone they were having consensual sex with, they might wait till birth to do a DNA test. If they found out it was from the rape, infanticide wouldn’t be an acceptable solution.
If there was an artificial womb, I think that would be the alternative. Someone can say they don’t want the pregnancy, but they can’t say that the fetus should be terminated even though it could successfully be raised in an artificial womb. It’s like the Safe Harbor baby drop boxes. Someone can leave their unwanted newborn at the fire station. They can’t commit infanticide.
Giving birth is a much clearer dividing line than any others, other than fertilization, I guess.
“I don’t want this fetus, so force me to have a delicate operation, which will be free for me somehow, and then maintain the artificial womb for free, and then deliver the baby to a drop box” seems very different than just having a safe harbor drop box. Now, do that a million times per year and watch those foster homes just sprout like crazy!
The anti-abortion crowd would still oppose it; they oppose allowing third term abortions even when the fetus is dead. Opposition to abortion isn’t about the “baby”, it’s about punishing women. Whether it’s for the sin of having sex, or of being “uppity”, or being a “daughter of Eve” and therefore the source of all evil it’s always been about punishing women. Which is why they don’t care if the fetus is dead, or if the mother will die, and will turn around and coerce the woman into getting an abortion if it’s more convenient for them.
Claiming that they care about the fetus means talking about an imaginary anti-abortion movement that doesn’t resemble the real one at all. It’s a fantasy. Once the technology becomes a real thing I fully expect the anti-abortion movement to oppose artificial wombs, specifically for the purpose of making sure women are still forced to have painful life-and-health threatening pregnancies. This is still the same political faction that opposed anesthetic for childbirth back in the day because the purpose of childbirth was to punish women for being enemies of God; they’ve just changed targets slightly.
No, a baby that’s been born is independently alive, and therefore “my body, my choice” no long applies since it’s not the mother’s body anymore. The personhood of the fetus is fairly irrelevant since “my body, my choice” applies just as much to definitely-people adults; another person doesn’t get to steal your kidney just because they need it.
Lots of issues both moral and practical change after birth; the father’s opinion is just as important, the state taking custody is now an option, some other people entirely could adopt the baby and so on.
The anti abortion crowd is large and diverse. The number of people who object to aborting a healthy 6 month fetus a vastly larger than the number who oppose removing a dead fetus from the womb. (That baby was already spontaneously aborted when it died, i think.) While there are certainly a number of “punish the woman” voters out there, i don’t think there are enough to actually force legislation on the rest of us.
I note that anesthesia during delivery is currently the standard of care and uncontroversial in mainstream discussions.
Because they lost the argument, and switched to forbidding abortion as an even more effective means of hurting and killing women. Anesthesia during delivery is currently uncontroversial because the controversy was motivated by hatred for women, not medicine; when the misogynists switched targets the controversy therefore died. Just as the anti-abortion movement is motivated by hatred for women; if the misogynists found some better method for persecuting women then the controversy of that would die down as well, because the hatred is the driving force for it.
The Right is never well meaning, it is never motivated by benevolence. It’s always about cruelty, bigotry and power lust. People convincing themselves otherwise is self destructive, and has done nothing but enable & empower the Right and let them do vast amounts of harm with little resistance.
The cruelty is the point. Always. And any position the anti-abortion crowd holds is therefore always going to be calculated to cause the maximum amount of harm and suffering, because that is the point. Not “the baby” or “life”. Just cruelty and selfishness.