I think it’s an embryo after it reaches the uterus, and it’s a fetus from the end of the first trimester until birth.
Even if we take out the ‘it’s her body’ angle, I stand by my earlier point that she will probably be the chid’s main caregiver (and she’s still carrying the fetus up to whatever point in time we’ve decided this fictional operation takes place). Somebody has to have a tie-breaking vote here, frankly, and I think it makes a lot more sense for the woman to have it.
It’s still her fetus, so it’s her choice to make regardless of its location.
I think this definition of ‘it’s not a pregnancy anymore if it’s not in her’ is kind of selective. It remains a developing fetus. Even if that’s how you choose to define pregnancy in this manner, it’s still hers. I’d prefer that the woman have the ability to decide what to do in this situation than the state. She has an obvious attachment to the child and the government does not.
I consider myself pro-choice and support the rights of women to have access to abortion.
I would be less supportive if the situation described could happen, but still think that it’s an option that shouldn’t be taken away. Each person needs to decide these things for themselves, and if they believe that the right path is to prevent that child from ever being born, then so be it.
Most of my support for abortion is because I find the idea that any unwanted child should be put up for adoption extremely flawed and naive. Pregnancy is a physical, financial and emotional strain that many people are not in a position to deal with. I have a lot of sympathy for women who find themselves pregnant but unable to go through a pregnancy in order to put the child up for adoption. This “technology” would allow those women to have the best of both worlds - the baby lives and is given up for adoption, the mother doesn’t have to go through a difficult pregnancy and doesn’t become pre-natally attached to a child she can’t care for. However, I could imagine that there are people who don’t want a timebomb of their genes running around out there to possibly resurface later in life with unknown consequences, and they are the people I imagine would want a traditional abortion. This does seem like the most selfish option, but I would not deny them that right for the same reason that I wouldn’t deny abortion now - there are too many situations that I cannot even dream up for me to say that it could never ever be the right thing to do. It’s something each person has to decide for themselves, and all we can do is hope that it isn’t misused or abused too often.
Nowadays I stay out of abortion threads, but this idea on the OP was very similar to one sci-fi chapter I was developing, so:
I do think that it will be possible in the future to do that; but, more likely, it will be to retrieve a zygote or pre embryonic forms. An artificial womb is very unlikely, maybe in a very far off future. The most likely early use of that technology will have to include the freezing of the embryos, and IIFC there are already cases related to saving or disposing of the frozen embryos (in-vitro ones only, so far)
IMHO, it will be hard for the anti-abortion side not to be AGAINST the development of this technology, since it will be very likely that the saved embryos will be tossed anyhow, IMO the mother:
-Will find a different and more responsible partner.
-A wanted pregnancy will occur.
-The cost and risks of restoring the frozen embryo will likely be higher than just trying naturally.
All that, means that we will be getting mostly cases of delayed abortions.
Going back to the OP: it makes sense to me, that also the developing of the artificial womb would only be possible with very unethical experiments on the way to that “final solution”. Meaning that: once again, the anti-abortion people (who are also very religious) will die first, rather than allow experiments that would allow man to get into the territory “God has domain over”.
That’s because you can’t. This discussion is no different from any other you’ve participated in. As usual, you storm in with bullshit and refuse to defend it.
Can you show anyone who has said words to the effect of “A woman is not truly a woman or a feminist until she’s had one”?
Can you show any evidence of any “evil” abortion movement taking “cruel delight in the kill itself”?
Then show that “if the technology described were to come into being, evil would continue to fight for the kill itself”.
You can’t show evidence for any of this, I know. So admit to being a bald-faced liar and then get out of the thread.
Essured stole my answer, then rewrote it into something coherent, then posted it.
If someone wanted to incubate and care for the child, be it society or a person or whatever, I would not support the woman’s right to destroy it.
I am another who is at least willing to consider ways for men to divorce themselves of unwanted children. It’s a tricky area. But I certainly would not be for creating a new situation where people are financially responsible for children they would have preferred to abort. So, if the woman is still to be held responsible for the fetus, then I would support her right to destroy it.
My, you don’t seem to like me much. You seem to be having a hissy.
Can I provide cites for the things I’ve said? Oh, sure. I could go to the anti-abortion cites and bring in a big load of them. You’d label them anti-abortion propaganda–and you’d be quite right.
Then we could argue over every single cite, but it’s not worth it. Perhaps you’ll now say that I should have stayed out of this thread to begin with. And I’d think you right on that point, too. I don’t feel a lot of commonality with the rapid pro-life people. But I made my statements based on what I’ve read of the propaganda, and what I know of human nature. I don’t fit easily in the pro-life or -choice camp, so my (usual) strategy is just to avoid arguments on the topic. I don’t know what got into me this time. What a fool I am.
You’ve come to conclusions opposite to mine based on your own readings and experience. Fine. Let’s shake hands. Let’s kiss and make up, OK?
Or you can continue your hissy, if that’s what you prefer.
Why? At the point that it’s out of the woman’s body. she has the same options that a woman carrying a pregnancy to full term currently has. She may surrender the child for adoption, if the man agrees or allow a man who wants to raise the child to do so. The time period prior to the operation doesn’t matter, unless she would have to continue the pregnancy to a certain point for the artificial womb to be used. If the artificial womb cannot be used until the sixth month, then “it’s my body” works until then. The tie breaker in this situation doesn’t have to be based on gender- it could easily be based on willingness to raise a child.
It’s still her child when it’s born at full term, but her rights are not superior to the father’s and some choices are restricted by society. What’s the difference?
It might remain a developing fetus, but I was no longer pregnant after I gave birth, or after I had a miscarriage, and I wouldn’t have remained pregnant after an abortion. A womans right to end a pregnancy is one thing, and the “right” not to be a parent is another. They currently coincide, but with the artificial womb, they wouldn’t.
The father has just as much attachment to the child, and the mother will have more attachment to a two week old babv than the government will. We don’t allow her to kill a two week old baby, even if it was born three months prematurely. I could see an argumement against the state having any say in the matter under some circumstances, and perhaps even against the father having a say under some circumstances. But if the man is willing to be the caretaker and wants the fetus in the artificial womb, how do you justify allowing the woman to dispose of it? “It’s her body” doesn’t work, her being the main caretaker doesn’t work. And if you allow the decision to be hers alone based on her desire not to be a parent or not to support a child, then why shouldn’t the man have the tie breaker and be able to force disposal of the fetus when the situation is reversed- she’s having the fetus removed becasue of her own health issues, but wants the child in the artificial womb and intends to raise it, but he doesn’t want to be a parent or doesn’t want to support it ?
I said probably, and I think the reasons are obvious. That’s just how it works most of the time. Same reason women usually get custody of children in divorces. We’re piling hypotheticals on hypotheticals, so I don’t see what’s unreasonable about it.
The pregnancy doesn’t matter? That’s pretty Spartan. Biologically it’s still her child, so I don’t really care where it is.
Birth is the difference. I know some people have tried to argue the significance of birth right out of the life debate, but there it is.
She would still be the child’s parent even if it was put up for adoption, so they continue to coincide. It sounds to me like you’re pretending having an abortion and giving a child up for adoption are the same thing from the perspective of a parent.
Yes it does, because it’s still been in her body for X amount of time, and for it to be placed in this artificial womb thing, you still have to go in and yank it out.
I don’t think either situation makes any sense. The woman gets the tiebreaking vote as far as I’m concerned because she is still the one carrying the child (until whatever random date we’ve decided this procedure happens), and the procedure (whatever it is) will have to be done on her. If she is okay with the father raising the child alone, that’s fine. There does have to be something to break a deadlock here unless you’re saying the default should be that she has to allow the child to be born. In which case, regardless of the roundabout scientific justification, we’re still having the law force a woman to bring a child into the world.
I’m not sure why it occurs to me, but if we have all this technology, why can’t the government just require every woman to get pregnant at least once? If they don’t want the child, they can have it removed and someone else can raise it, and if they do, they keep it. Required breeding. If all of what you’ve written above applies, I don’t think you should have any problem with this.
In general, I agree with you, i.e. “no person has a claim to use another person’s body without that person’s consent”
However, if I knock you unconscious, put you on a spaceship and we both end up on Mars, where you have to be connected to me until you regain consciousness, I can see that I might have an ethical obligation to help keep you alive, since it was I who took you there without your consent.
And, if I say, “well, I don’t have to keep this person alive because “it’s my body”, and no person has a claim to use my body without my consent”, that *would * seem callous (given that it was I who was responsible for you being in the situation you’re in)
Similarly, a fetus/baby got where they are not by their own decision, but by the decisions/actions of the mother, so she has some ethical obligation to help keep them alive. (Whether the “ethical obligation” should be made into law is another debate)
So, if you consider the fetus as having similar status as a person, then saying “it’s my body” is callous.
I’ve been civil in this thread. Sorry to see that disagreement for you requires such immature behavior on your part. Next time, please take it to the pit at an earlier stage.
I’m not at all trying to argue the significance of birth out of the debate , but think about it. Why is birth significant? Because that is when the fetus is no longer dependent on the woman’s body. If a fetus is expelled at 4 weeks, it’s not called a birth, if it’s expelled at 30 or 40 weeks it is. The real difference the OP makes is in viabilty. It will allow the fetus to live outside of the mother’s body at a much earlier point than is presently possible. And I expect this paragraph from Roe v Wade would apply until there is some new decision
The state can already regulate post-viabilty abortion in order to promote potential life. I have not seen large numbers of people advocating the right to an abortion right up until the moment of birth. It seems that most pro-choice people don’t have a problem with viability being the cutoff.
And in truth, the situation in the OP seems very close to that of a premature birth where the baby is immediately hooked up to medical equipment. We don’t let the woman in that situation decide not to provide medical treatment. Why should it matter whether the removal was spontaneous or at her request?
According to the OP, it’s being yanked out either way. The only question is what happens afterward.
But you are using “it’s my body” to justify the tiebreaker. And “it’s my body” doesn’t work after it’s out of your body. Sure, there has to be a default. But it needn’t be based on gender- it could just as easily be if either parent wants to raise the child, it goes into the artificial womb- , and if not allowing the woman the tie breaking vote is forcing women to bring children into the world, then we’re already forcing men to bring children into the world, since they don’t get to decide the woman has to abort.
I have no idea where you got the required breeding from. I never said anything like that. In my opinion, the only thing that justifies the woman’s extra opportunity to avoid a child walking around with her genes is the fact that she has to carry it. If, she doesn’t have to carry it, she’s in the same situation as the man involved. Both have contributed genes, both will be responsible for the support of the child, and neither is supposed to be able to surrender the child for adoption without the other’s consent. If the transfer can’t take place until the third month, then as far as I’m concerned she is free to decide on an abortion until then.
Fine, you are free to think it’s callous. I disagree, but that’s what opinions are.
Now tell me, do you wish for those things that you deem “callous” to be legislated? Will you be available to make the “callous-call” for every situation that may arise?
Elective post-viability abortion is so rare, if it even exists, that nobody needs to fight for it. This is odd, given the ‘partial-birth abortion’ debate.
Of all the things in the OP, that makes the least sense to me. Why is the doctor performing surgery on her and leaving her no choice? Maybe that’s my problem. I think that scenario is not only unrealistic but frightening.
You didn’t. It was just a thought. If the woman won’t be carrying the child anyway, is forcing her to get pregnant a problem? It’ll be removed and she still won’t have to care for it if she doesn’t want to.
Well, Aeschines, you’ve made outrageous statements about what pro-choice people say and their reasons for saying it, but by your own admission your only support for those statements is pro-life propaganda (your words). I think that pretty much disqualifies you as a person worthy of civility.
The way I read the OP, it was her choice to have the surgery to remove the fetus from her body, and I believe it should be entirely her choice whether or not to have the surgery, since after all, the surgery does involve her body. But once she makes that decision, the question of what happens to the fetus is a separate issue , which does not involve her right to control her own body and in which she has precisely the same standing as the man involved. My husband had just as much right as I did to make decisions involving our children once they were out of my body. And he would have had have had just as much right as I did even if I had delivered at the boundary between viabilty and non-viability, where hours before the decision to abort would have been mine alone.
Of course forcing her tp get pregnant will still be a problem. There’s no way to do that wihout involving her body. Even retrieving eggs would involve her body. You’d need a very different and extremely unrealistic hypothetical for me to say that a woman could be forced to have her eggs fertilized and gestated in an artificial womb. It would have to involve the eggs being expelled from her body prior to fertilization, under circumstances in which her other rights don’t come into play.
Perhaps. Or perhaps most pro-choice people actually don’t believe that a woman has an unqualified right to an abortion right up until the moment of birth, and believe viability is the appropriate point to impose restrictions. This really isn’t a new issue- the idea of medical advances pushing the point of viabilty to earlier in the pregnancy has been discussed almost since Roe v Wade was decided. In fact, fetuses are viable at an earlier point now than they were then.
Okay. I just didn’t find that in what the OP wrote:
"And what if the procedure for abortion was such that the doctor inserts an instrument into the woman, grabs the fetus and asks the woman “I can pull this fetus out now and put it in the artificial womb, where it will be kept until birth, or I can crush it’s skull. Which do you prefer?”
Yes, they definitely don’t all believe that. (Whether it’s most or not, I have no idea.) That said, see what I said before. Most abortions are before the fetus is viable and that will probably continue to be true. At best, maybe this would eliminate some non-elective or health-related abortions.
Where in the sentence you quoted does it say that the “doctor performs surgery on her and leaves her no choice”?. She is going in to have an abortion, and during the procedure he gives her a choice.
In any case, it seems that others also misunderstood the scenario in the OP, and in response to a question by Ethilrist, I later clarified it:
It doesn’t, I said it was unclear. I said that meaning “if this is what the OP means, I don’t understand it.”
Okay then. Sorry I didn’t see it.
Yes, I think it’s still her decision in the event of a deadlock (that being the only case that actually matters- if the woman and the father can work something out it’s a non-issue). I don’t know how else you’d resolve it, and she did carry the child for X amount of time.
But you didn’t address my example. In that case, if the person whose actions caused the other person to be dependent on him, refused to help him using the “it’s my body” argument, wouldn’t you think that was a callous argument, and that the whole behavior was unethical?
First, I already said in my previous reply: “Whether the ‘ethical obligation’ should be made into law is another debate”, so no, I wasn’t proposing it in this particular case. (I should point out that other “ethical obligations”, such as “don’t steal” *are * made into law, so this wouldn’t be a first)
Second, it would be an ethical obligation only if we agree that the fetus has the same status as a person. If it doesn’t, there is no ethical obligation on the part of the mother, so no need to legislate anything.
Since we as a society haven’t agreed on the status of the fetus, I guess it’s best to leave it up to the mother to decide.
All the “callous” remark was trying to accomplish was the following:
If we consider the fetus as a non-person, the “it’s my body” argument is irrelevant, because the mother needs no other argument than “just because” to extract some tissue from her body.
If we consider the fetus as a person, the “it’s my body” argument is callous, in the sense that the mother is the one responsible for bringing that person to the situation they’re in, and just saying “it’s my body, I don’t care” is unethical.
