Reply #19: See my reply above

[TXlib]

Once the issue of YOU having to bring the child to term in your body is made moot, I think this is a much shakier argument. The developing fetus is not genetically YOU. This is why there is a difference between your blood, your internal organs, and the fetus.

Right now, the debate centers on a woman's right not to have her body hijacked for an unwanted pregnancy. That's a strong argument to me. It's why I am pro-choice. But I am pro-choice largely for pragmatic reasons: I don't claim that a fetus is not "alive". It meets the biological requirements for life; to say otherwise is to ignore evidence simply because it counters your world-view. For me, I think it's wrong once the fetus would have a reasonable viability outside the womb (if it were up to me, I'd define it as a 50% survival rate). I support choice because I believe abortions will happen, legal or no, and the minimal cost in human suffering will occur if they're legal and safe.

If it were no more costly or invasive to the mother to transplant that developing fetus to a surrogate womb, I think the ethical thing would be to give that mass of cells the benefit of doubt as to whether it's "alive" or not.

What is so difficult to understand about it not being all about YOU, if such technology existed?

Now, I'll admit, even if my hypothetical technology existed, there probably would still be a window, albeit a short one, where the "it's just a non-sentient mass of cells" argument would hold sway. But instead of arguing about whether third-trimester abortions should be allowed, we'd probably be arguing about whether fifth-week abortions should be allowed.