Which also create a new question. What right to the parent(s) have in regard to terminating in an artificial womb? At that point it is no longer in someones body so the rights should be equal. At what point can they pull the plug, for what reason, and who gets to make the decision.
Fetal transplants need to be accompanied by a major rewrite of parental and personhood laws.
For instance, if a fetus’s survival no longer is dependent on the mother, women would lose the right to have control over their own DNA. A woman can be forced into pregnancy and then the fetus can be taken from her and grown into a baby. She’d be legally liable for it despite us having the technology to abort it. Such a move would probably cause rejoicing in religious circles, as they wouldn’t have to acquiesce to the demands of a woman while still forcing life upon her and the subsequent responsibilities.
In order for this technology to be widespread, we need to be able to rewrite existing laws to no longer have the single-mindedness of helping the fetus. Parents need to be able to give up their parental rights with no consequence so that they can’t be forced to take care of it in the future in some mandatory “its for the good of the child” argument.
I would also think that if a fetus can be viable through this technology early on, personhood laws would skyrocket. Pro-lifers would argue that now that the fetus doesn’t have to die, they deserve to be protected. They’d frame it in the guise of helping the fetus simply but instead it would take away from women control of their own genetic material. Right now, if I didn’t want a finger, a toe, or an arm, I could lop it off and destroy it and no one can tell me otherwise. Whether or not a fetus can be saved through technology doesn’t change the fact that it is still a product of the woman and a man, and they, not technology, should be the final arbiters of their genetic material.
You do realize that approximately 50% of foetuses are female, right?
Is it really that hard to believe that most people who oppose abortions simply think it’s wrong to kill foetuses? Demonizing opponents is a favourite tool of the worst elements of the religious right, and when you write stuff like that you’re being no better.
It is hard to believe that when conservatives tend to foster conditions in which abortions are prevalent. Funding affordable health care, reducing poverty, and supporting low-income women and not demonizing them at the same time would decrease abortions. But there are never any momentum from the conservative side to do that, only to control women’s bodies and stick probes up rape victims’ vaginas.
Are you sure about this? It’s certainly true about healthy white infants. How are the odds for black infants with serious medical conditions?
(Admittedly this is beside the point, and doesn’t refute your position.)
In any case, the viability argument isn’t one that pro-choicer should use, because viability will keep moving closer to conception. IMHO as a pro-choicer, it’s a disengenuous argument to begin with.
The real argument is that it’s up to us as a country to decide when legal life begins. Some may want the decision to be based on a religious basis. Some may pin it to some scientific dividing line. I prefer a definition that is more convenient for the woman. I’m under no obligation to prove it scientifically or theologically.
Of course, convincing others is a different matter. But I’d prefer to handle that from a defensive standpoint: if you want to enforce your ethics on me, you have to make the point. Until then, Roe v Wade stands as the law of the land.
All of which is beside the OP’s point, except that I think the OP’s point, while interesting, has no bearing on the subject of legalized abortion.
The primary basis for a belief against abortion is the belief that a fetus has a soul. I can respect that belief, but not forcing that belief on others.
If we do not ascribe a supernatural or spiritual significance to conception, there isn’t much of an argument left.
The thing is that, to “pro-lifers” it’s not about the woman (as far as I can tell), it’s about the foetus. I don’t believe the majority of them want to “control women’s bodies”, they just don’t want the foetus to be dead. The fact that it’s inside a woman is incidental. In fact I don’t think it should even be a women’s issue at all. It should be a people’s issue.
Of course maybe they are all just misogynists. But I don’t think it’s logical to make that leap to assume the worst motives just because you disagree. It’s no better than the people who claim anti-war protesters “hate America” or that Obama is evil just because they don’t like his policies.
If it is murder to them it’s perfectly understandable that they wish to force their beliefs on others. We don’t adopt a “to each his own” attitude when it comes to killing other people. If they truly believe it is infanticide they should be trying to force their beliefs on everyone. I have more respect for that than if someone were to believe abortion is murder but that it should be allowed to go ahead anyway.