Pro-Choice hypothetical conundrum

[TXlib]

Imagine, if you will, that the technology exists to implant a fetus at any age in an artificial uterus, where it can gestate to full-term.

What would this do to the abortion debate? Assume that churches, charities, and the state all fund this so that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can transfer her unwanted baby for free into this device, and never again has to deal with it.

Is there any reasonable pro-choice argument remaining? What pro-choice arguments are there, besides the freedom to choose whether or not your body is used for reproduction?

[Bunny]

1. What if the mother wanted to abort because the fetus had severe

defects? Maybe incompatible with life? What then?

[TXlib]

5. That still sounds like an acceptable reason to me.

No reason she, or the state, should have to pay for a lifetime of care. But what if a wealthy individual decides he wants to save them? He will foot the bill for their lifetime care?

[Old and In the Way]

2. Harvesting Humans sounds pretty 1984-ish to me.

I'd have no issue with it as an option, if that's what the woman decides....but what of the psychological impact to that woman? It's one thing to dispose of a few life potential cells, quite another to know that somewhere in this world your flesh and blood is alive and unknown.

[TXlib]

6. More Brave-New-World-ish

I have to say, the argument that you have flesh-and-blood alive and unknown somewhere seems much more selfish a reason than wanting control over your body. At this point, the only issue I see is that you don't have to bear the child yourself, but since technology exists to make it viable, it is no longer your decision to deny it life.

[sus]

16. selfish?

how about having children when our planet is already overburdened?

"besides the freedom to choose whether or not your body is used for reproduction?"

you don't need any other arguments. case closed.

"it is no longer your decision to deny it life."

it is if i kill myself.

[Shrek]

3. It depends on what is meant by "choice"

If the choice is to not be pregnant, then I think your scenario would satisfy both sides of the debate.

But what if the choice is to not be a parent? How could you accommodate women who make this choice without offering the same choice to men? That would open a whole new can of worms that would likely make the division over this issue even worse.

[TXlib]

8. I think this actually simplifies the issue.

Now, with abortion, typically the woman has unilateral power over the baby until it is born. The biological father doesn't really have any rights. A few lawsuits have been filed to test this, but I think they were all decided in favor of the mother, eventually.

But with this hypothetical technology, the mother could waive all parental rights and responsibilities, and the biological father would then have first claim to the child before it is put up for adoption.

[MissMarple]

4. Eventually, this won't be hypothetical.

:D And now, we can place a fertilized egg into a uterus, we would just need an artificial one. This could happen in this century, removing a fertilzed egg from a woman and placing it in another environment.

The abortion debate is held together with a lot of smoke and mirrors, anyway. It really gets the Republican base all in a dither.

I'm pro life, and pro choice. Let's see if the rabid, anti choice, government official overseeing every uterus, Christian cultists can wrap their little pea brains around that one.

Abortion is a medical procedure that doesn't need a heavy handed government poking it's uninformed nose into, unless it is to quarantee the safety of the procedure.

[TXlib]

9. I'm not just talking about implanting an egg

I assuming the technology exists to take a fetus at any stage of development out of the mother, and implanted in a surrogate uterus --either biological or artificial.

[liontamer]

7. what if I'm morally opposed to someone else raising a child I concieved

I'd still rather get an abortion and would want my right to do so protected.

[TXlib]

10. I think, if this technology existed, the courts would beg to differ.

I think the debate would no longer focus on the rights of the mother, and on the rights of the unborn. You no longer have to have your body hijacked for 9 months, you have the right to waive all parental obligations.

I do believe the courts would then see little to no difference between the unborn and the born, as far as right to life goes.

Despite you personal preference, do you think an impartial judge could ethically see it any differently?

[liontamer]

14. yes

I consider myself ethical and I don't consider a mass of cells a life. Unborn means not alive. Many cells from my body could be taken and cultured that doesn't give people the right to take it without my position. People can't steal my blood, they're not allowed to take skin samples, I don't think others have a right to take my fertilized egg.

[mairceridwen]

21. hear! hear!

All this right wing garbage about adoption as a loving choice, when you have really NO IDEA who could be raising the life that you helped bring into this world. I mean it could be axe murderers or republicans or pedophiles or promise keepers.

seriously, adoption is all fine and good, but not without risks and I would still want my rights protected.

plus I can only see that kind of technology being used to harvest white, able-bodied babies. scary

[mopinko]

11. what's to stop

the court from forcing people to donate sperm and eggs now for use by infertile couples? i don't see any difference.
and, the techniques used for abortions would not be suitable for retrieving a viable fetus. it would be a whole other, more complicated thing. more risk, more time, probably more impact on the woman's body.
it is just not as simple as you seem to think, and never will be. at least until star trek technology comes to pass. at which point both infertility, and unintended pregnancies would be over.

[TXlib]

12. My point is to find out what other pro-choicers think

are the main arguments for Choice.

Obviously, a woman's control over her own body is a biggie. But if that weren't an issue, what other arguments could be made in favor of choice?

That's why I'm postulating that such "Star-Trek"-like technology exists.

I don't see the connection between your hypothetical question and mine, by the way. Care to explain?

[mopinko]

13. it's about government's right to your body parts

you cannot be legally compelled to donate blood. you cannot be legally compelled to give a blood sample unless you are suspected of a crime. you cannot even be compelled to donate organs after you are dead. the government's power MUST stop at my skin. it has no place in any medical decisions. lives could be saved TODAY if this principle was not in place. but it is, and it needs to be.

[TXlib]

17. That's definitely a good point of debate

But while your blood, sperm and ova are unquestionably YOURS, it is definitely less clear that a fetus is also yours in the same sense... it has different DNA, etc.

If the issue of a woman's body being hijacked for 9 months weren't the main issue, this would be a major point of debate, here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. yes it would still be debatable as to when

i loose control over my body. i may under those situations still prefer an abortion because i dont want a child, whether or not its raised by me.

[mairceridwen]

22. ultimately, for me...

the woman has the last word, what she wants done to and taken from, her body.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. my fucking cells

and no i dont want someone else to raise it to a child...its still my decision over my body...

which part of this my body, my cells, my right: What is so difficult to understand about that?

[TXlib]

19. See my reply above

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.

[Westegg]

20. It seems to me the whole point is the "dealing with it"...

You presume some vast, benevolent consortium of churches, charities and (ugh) the state, which will take these unwanted children and give them a good life. All such institutions have traditionally failed as often as they've succeeded in "dealing with" unwanted children. I mean, in theory, the "foster family" is a good idea. In practice? Come on! How many thousands of stories of horrendous abuse have we heard about them? And religious organizations? And government? How many over-worked, underpaid and sometimes completely incompetent and/or uncaring bureaucratic state officials does it take to allow a young child in New Jersey to get abused, murdered, encased in cement and buried in the basement? Thousands, apparently. I'm sick to death of hearing these stories on a regular basis.

I'm not saying that the individual religious organization, charity, foster family, etc. can't do a good job with these kids---and many do. But on a much grander scale (like the one you're talking about), this is a risky proposition. It's like saying that we now have the technology, the science and the distribution capabilties to feed the entire world. We do! It exists! So how come (and this is a rhetorical question) so much of the world is starving?

This thesis you present strikes me as being based on and idealized world that, frankly, does not exist, nor will it ever exist---at the rate we're going. Who's to blame for the vast discrepancy between ideal and real? We all are. I call THAT human nature, and you can call me cynical if you wish. I won't disagree.

[liontamer]

23. the natural progression in your world

creates a place where there is a market for fetuses (just as there is a market for children now)
A woman could go around conceiving children for the purpose of selling the embryos. It wouldn't be that hard and particularly for a white, attractive, intelligent woman it would be profitable. (Look at the market for egg donations. $20,000 is a lot of money)

Of course if a woman no longer had the option of an abortion, any unwanted pregnancy would end up on this market. The laws of supply and demand make it so easy to rape said attractive white intelligent woman. Whoops instant, viable, sell-able fetus.
Once you take control away from a woman it is gone. The rich can now essentially breed the women they want what choice does she have in the matter.

Your scenario is sick and it is frightening.

[TXlib]

24. rebuttal

creates a place where there is a market for fetuses (just as there is a market for children now)
A woman could go around conceiving children for the purpose of selling the embryos. It wouldn't be that hard and particularly for a white, attractive, intelligent woman it would be profitable. (Look at the market for egg donations. $20,000 is a lot of money)

This differs from the situation now how? There's nothing technologically stopping people from doing this today, and as far as I know, it's not rampant.

Of course if a woman no longer had the option of an abortion, any unwanted pregnancy would end up on this market. The laws of supply and demand make it so easy to rape said attractive white intelligent woman. Whoops instant, viable, sell-able fetus.
Once you take control away from a woman it is gone. The rich can now essentially breed the women they want what choice does she have in the matter.

OK, suppose somebody rapes a woman because he wants her to be the mother of his child... rape is still a crime, and he'd go to jail for it.

As I surmised earlier in the thread, I think it's likely that even with this technology, abortion will never go away completely. It would, however, shorten dramatically the timeframe from debating the legality of third-trimester abortion to debating over fifth-week abortion. So, the cases of rape or incest or failed birth control is still covered.

Your scenario is sick and it is frightening.

No, yours is.

[liontamer]

25. how that world merges with this one

what makes you think the rapist would get caught? Or go to jail if he did. Men rape women now all the time. They're not all in jail. why not have someone else rape her. Rape is about power. This power comes from taking away choice. The person who wants it done doesn't need to do it his or her self.

You said with this technology it would not be considered "ethical" to choose an abortion because a woman wouldn't have to carry the fetus to term. If a judge rules that a woman can't have an abortion (i.e. takes away her choice), but rather must either carry the baby to term or give it over to be carried, women everywhere have lost.


women today have the choice to sell their eggs, embryos, or be surrogates. Some choose to do so. I am trying to convey to you what would happen if this decision were not a choice for the women involved.

[Pithlet]

28. Fetuses R Us

That is what would happen.

[Pithlet]

26. It's a huge difference

The process of egg donation and extraction is expensive, lengthy, and poses health risk to the woman donating. Those are a few of the reasons why most women aren't willy nilly selling their eggs for a quick buck. The most important difference, however, is eggs are never extracted against a woman's will.

If the technology you propose ever becomes reality, and you make it mandatory if a woman doesn't want to carry the baby, then you've just turned women into fodder for fetus factories. Even with this technology available, it HAS to include full consent, for that very reason. Imagine the millions of fetuses in these huge facilities being churned out, and women filing in line to have their fetuses extracted to feed the mill.

Your scenario is indeed chilling.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. i completely agree

[arcane1]

29. indeed, imagine building full of children that are not being adopted

oh wait, we don't have to imagine that either. There are already more than enough children to go around, we need to work on slowing THAT down, not finding more ways to create orphans


this whole thread is chilling me :scared:

[Xithras]

30. IMO, a mother has no "rights" over a fetus

Pro-Choice simply means that a pregnant woman can choose whether or not to be pregnant. The right to control your own body is inalienable, which is the entire reason that abortion exists....to control your body.

There is no right to a have a destructive abortion and kill the fetus however (the fetus, after all, is a genetically unique life form...it is NOT "you"). We kill the fetus today because it is the ONLY way to remove it from the female body, not because the mother has any choice in the matter. If technology like you suggest were to become available, I would certainly support legislation banning the use of destructive abortions in favor of "extractive" abortions.

From the legal point of view, there are really no differences or civil rights arguments involved. If the mother wants it removed, there will be nothing stopping her. That she might suffer emotionally for it is legally irrelevant.

BTW, while there ARE people working on artificial wombs today that might someday be capable of birthing an "aborted" child (we'll probably see functional ones in less than 20 years), the main problem with this technology will be the transfer of an existing fetus out of the mothers body without destroying it. Extracting a 4" long fetus in a 6" placenta full of amniotic fluid without rupturing the sac or substantially interrupting its bloodflow will be nearly impossible without major surgery. While the technology to raise a fetus into a baby is coming, I don't expect that we'll see these kinds of abortive transfers in our lifetimes. If we did, I'd support it, but I seriously doubt that we will.

[liontamer]

33. i takes a long time for a fetus to become 4"

extracting a few cells the size of an m and m is easier but i think it's immoral to create unwanted children against the will of the mother

[Pithlet]

34. We won't see it in our lifetimes

Nor our children's, most likely. However, I do have a problem with making any procedure mandatory. I think it should still be up to an individual to decide if she's going to contribute to the fetus pool, if this technology were ever to become available. It's not a matter of who has rights over the fetus. It's a matter of refraining from denigrating a woman's position in society, which would most certainly happen if they're forced, through the misfortune of an unwanted pregnancy, to undergo such a procedure. Then, what happens to the product of that procedure?

What would be very likely if such a thing were to occur is poverty stricken orphanages crowded with the children resulting from these procedures, and half of the population that has no full say in what happens to them reproductively.

In your opinion, a woman has no "rights" over a fetus. That is wrong. She is a fully developed human being with rights. The fetus is not. It certainly isn't worth the costs to society to elevate it to an equal status using convoluted, intrusive technology. All parties must be fully consenting.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. hopefully when this 'science' is perfected

the human race would have found a cure for sexism...so this is no longer even an issue to be debated...

[Xithras]

42. Where does sexism enter into this discussion?

If anything, I see it as more of an animal rights argument.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. sexism is when this is not recognized

as a womans right to not have her cells grow into a child.

[TXlib]

50. Flip side of your argument

So, assuming this technology existed, and the procedure to transfer, rather than abort, were no more invasive than abortion, then what of the rights of the father? If the woman no longer has to carry the child and give birth to it, the biological father should have as much say in whether the child is born as the woman does. If she doesn't want it, she can waive all responsibility.

[Pithlet]

58. It's about consent

The woman should still be in 100 consent, regardless of who it is that desires the fetus in her body; the father, a potential adoptive family, or a fetus processing facility. Consent is at the heart of the issue. Choice isn't about "until something better comes along" It is all about the rights of our bodies, men or women, and what we decide happens to them, what procedures are performed on them, and when, and when that results in a child. Another person or entities wishes, thoughts or desires should not override our own when it comes to our bodies and what happens to them. It really is only a woman's issue because it is women who get pregnant, but they are basic rights that belong to anyone regardless of their sex.

[TXlib]

60. I beg to differ

The main thing here is that the hypothetical technology would be no more invasive than an abortion would be. You might win the argument on the choice issue if any party other than the biological father were involved.

Currently, the biological father has little to no say in the matter, because it's not HIS body in which the fetus must gestate for 9 months. And that's appropriate, in my opinion.

But if the woman no longer has to have her body used as a baby factory for 9 months, I do believe the courts would side at least with the biological father, if with nobody else, if the mother wishes to abort and anybody else protests it.

[Pithlet]

62. Differ all you like

Ethically and morally, you cannot compel someone to reproduce, and you cannot compel someone to ANy medical procedure, no matter how non-invasive. 9 days or 9 months; it does not matter. I know your technology is hypothetical. But, I don't care what technology comes down the pike. The day the government can force ANYONE to undergo any procedure is the day none of us are free.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

31. It might be a viable option for some...

but not for those who simply do not wish to put another living being on this overcrowded planet.
...not for those who don't want a living record of a rape or a genetically fucked up product of incest.

There must always be a choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. excellent point

[Xithras]

35. I disagree - The Pollywog Argument

For the sake of discussion, let's try to eliminate the mental baggage and biases that go along with the abortion debate, and view this simply as a biological discussion.

Let's imagine that you have a pollywog living in your stomach (after all, a 12 week old fetus is about the same size and has the same developmental status as a pollywog...they're equals in all practical senses). Now you, as a human being, should not be forced to live with this pollywog in your stomach. It is an alien life form, leeching off of your food supply, passing its wastes into your bloodstream, and otherwise taking up space that it has no right to occupy.

Do you have the right to remove it from your body? Absolutely. Do you have the right to kill it? No. We have laws that protect the rights of animals to keep them from being killed or tortured without reason, and most people would agree that killing an innocent pollywog out of spite is just plain evil. You can remove it from your stomach, you can even remove it from your pond, but to dice it up simply because you don't want it to exist is criminal, and it is depraved. Life forms, all life forms, are deserving of protection, and should only be destroyed if there are no other alternatives. Today, there are no other alternatives so we destroy them. But if science offers us another option, we would be irresponsible not to take it.

[Pithlet]

36. It would be irresponsible, not to mention highly unethical

to FORCE a woman to take it. I don't know if you fully realize the ramifications of what you're suggesting.

Do you realize how many unwanted pregnancies occur in the US alone? Can you imagine what kinds of facilitates, and how large and numerous they would have to be to process all of them? Like I said in another post in this thread, you are essentially reducing women to nothing more than fetus producers against their will. If faced with an unwanted pregnancy in such a Brave-New-World-esque future, my choices would be have the baby anyway or submit to the fetus extraction facilities to add yet more fetal product? I'm sorry, but it's insane to say the least, and just about the most horrifying future I can imagine for women and reproductive freedom, and our basic rights.

[Xithras]

38. Nobody is forcing anything

The choice to the woman will not change, and this discussion has yet to show ANYWHERE where the legally recognized rights of the woman would be trampled. Roe v. Wade simply said that a woman has the right to decide if she wants to carry a baby or not. Period. End of story. It did not grant a right to torture a fetus, to kill a fetus, or to have any say whatsoever in its developmental processes...it simply recognized the female right to determine whether or not it developed within her body.

That the decision to abort requires us to kill the fetus is beside the point, and is more of a technological consideration than a legal or ethical one.

You, not as an American or as a woman, but as a human being, have a right to determine your own fate and to control your own body, but a fetus is neither your property or an extension of yourself...it is scientifically recognized to be an independent life form. What you are doing in your argument is asserting "ownership" of an independent life form. That is your right, of course, but government DOES have the constitutionally recognized ability to control and regulate what you do with independent life forms in your control...the same way they can pass laws regulating how you treat your cat. A fetus should have the same rights and protections as any other animal life form.

[Pithlet]

44. The fetus is in my body

Drawing blood, liquids and nutrients from my body so it can continue to grow. I don't have to assert ownership. It just is. And if I don't want it there, I have every right to the procedure that removes it if I so choose. Now, a nifty new technology comes along allowing humans to extract embryos and putting them into artificial wombs. This doesn't change the "my body" argument. I could still get an abortion, unless that option has been taken away from me. In that case, if I still don't want the pregnancy, my only other option is going to the fetal extraction factory to drop off my fetal matter into the fetal pool. It's a hellish, nightmarish world that this would take place in, and I don't even want to think about the lives of those children who resulted from the fetus factories.

[Xithras]

52. I'm not challenging your right to remove it from your body.

If I did, I certainly wouldn't be a liberal. I'm simply saying that a fetus is not you. While you have the inalienable right to get rid of it, I believe that society has the right to determine what happens to it after you part ways. Your right to determine its fate ends the moment it leaves your body.

As for what the world would be like...well, I'm not so willing to take a stab at that one, because anything anyone proposes about it would be pure conjecture. I have a feeling, though, that most all of them would be adopted before birth (the worldwide waiting list for newborn adoptees is staggeringly long).

[Pithlet]

57. Then why

are there so many unwanted children? Why do we have foster homes full of children that aren't "adoptable".

Society does not have the right to force me to procreate. And that is what you're proposing. If I do decide to donate to the fetus pool, THEN society can determine what happens. But, it cannot tell me that I MUST submit and hand over a fetus that will eventually become a child I had no intention of having, and trust that society will find a home for that child that will be at least adequate.

If you're not willing to take a stab at such "conjecture" than how can you really propose what you're talking about? I realize that this is all really just philosophical right now, but if you're willing to entertain the possibility, than why not the ramifications? You think your proposition is rescuing little doomed fetuses, and you don't seem willing to go beyond that. It is intruding into a personal affair and a woman's body and decision.

[Pithlet]

37. Oh

And to address the whole pollywog thing, yes, I think a person would have a right to kill it if they didn't want the alien in their bodies. I'm totally against aliens coming to our planet and forcing us to be incubators. We shouldn't stand for it if that scenario ever happens, either :silly:

Edit: and the same goes for frogs, or boxturtles. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

39. The mental baggage can't be eliminated.

Emotions are as much a part of biology as the physical act of giving birth.

Second, the laws which protect animals only apply to certain animals. No one blinks an eye at the extermination of rats, mice, cockroaches, or virii.

A woman's wish to terminate her pregnancy is no more depraved than the mother bird who abandons her nest of fertilized eggs.

[Xithras]

41. Again, I disagree

I meant to divest emotion from the argument, and the laws, not the actual act. I certainly understand that abortion...whether "destructive" or "extractive", would be an emotional and painful experience, but laws should be made based on facts and sound science, not emotions and opinion.

Oh, and we do arrest people who torture rats and mice...inhumane treatment is inhumane treatment. In fact, mice present a great argument for my point. As a homeowner, you have a right to determine what exists in your house, but the government regulates what kind of traps and poisons can be used to remove them. Traps and poisons that are seen as too dangerous or cruel can be banned, in favor of more humane or faster killing traps. The government can't tell you to keep the mice, because they are in your house and you have a right to decide what is welcome within your walls, but you don't have carte Blanche to burn them out or to use certain poisons known to cause extreme agony in rodents.

As to your bird example, a mother bird who abandons her nest isn't killing them, she's leaving them to their own devices...exactly what a "fetus incubator" would do. There is nothing to stop another bird, or a human with an incubator, from grabbing the abandoned nest and trying to raise the chicks artificially. Destructive abortion is more akin to the mother bird flipping her nest over and breaking the eggs before flying off.

[liontamer]

46. by mental baggage

do you mean rational thought? Based on facts and sound science we would spay and neuter huge portions of the general population. This is an issue of emotion. Were it not, we wouldn't even have this thread

[GoddessOfGuinness]

48. No you don't understand...

Yes, sometimes abortion can be a painful experience, so can bringing a child into this world that you don't want...regardless of whether it's kept or put up for adoption. And the fact that "sound science" has not yet delved into the inner workings of emotion does not mean that they are not to be considered when creating laws, because emotions affect a person's overall physical health.

And as to your second point, a mother bird who abandons her eggs knows very well that they will not survive. She is not willfully leaving them for someone else to raise.

[Xithras]

51. I guess I just don't buy that argument

Because YOU are not bringing a child into the world at that point, a machine is. We could argue this all night, but I'll never buy into the belief that it's OK to kill one living thing just to another one can feel better about itself. All living things have certain inalienable rights, but those rights have to be weighed against each other and a solution worked out that will best accomodate all parties. All animals have a fundamental right to live, and while a persons right to control their own body currently trumps the right of a fetus to exercise its right to live, it certainly doesn't remove it. If a way opens to allow people to exercise their rights to control their own body while allowing other lifeforms to exercise their right to live, then we as a species are morally and ethically bound to pursue that way using all possible means. The only other course is oppression.

All other factors removed, a womans right to feel good about herself does not trump another lifes right to exist.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

55. Ever kill a cockroach? Ever eat eggs?

In the first place, it's not "killing a living being", it's preventing a life from beginning.

I suspect it is more difficult for a man to understand, simply because a man cannot get pregnant. Compound that with the fact that he can't get pregnant as a result of rape, incest, or a relationship that went kaputt, etc; and there's an entire dimension of understanding that seems next to impossible to enlighten him on.

But take heart, maybe in your next life, you'll be a woman. :)

[liontamer]

45. two issues I have with your argument

1)I don't consider a fetus alive.
2) We kill "life forms" all the time. And I do mean real living organisms. A tapeworm that invaded your body would be killed. So would a roach in your house. Your immune system constantly kills microorganisms. Deal with it. And even vegans kill the plants that they eat.
Your argument is weak. I understand if you personally view all developing fetuses as potential little smiling children with pigtails but that viewpoint should affect how you make decisions about your body not mine or anyone else's

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. especially since that particular body is male

and will never have to make this choice.

[Xithras]

49. But that argument has no valid basis

1)I don't consider a fetus alive.

And? People once thought the world flat, but believing it doesn't make it so. I never said they were intelligent or that they could survive on their own, but it's really disingenuous to argue that they aren't even alive. They process energy, have functioning rudimentary neural capabilities, respond to external stimuli, experience cell division, and basically meet every known litmus test for "life". All life deserves respect, and should only be destroyed if there is no other solution. Whether we're talking frogs, trees, or fetuses, the argument is the same.

2) We kill "life forms" all the time. And I do mean real living organisms. A tapeworm that invaded your body would be killed. So would a roach in your house. Your immune system constantly kills microorganisms.

Yes, we kill life forms all the time because it's NECESSARY. We kill plants to eat, because if we don't, we'll die. We kill tapeworms because they are resident in our body, and removing them REQUIRES killing them. We kill cockroaches because we have a right to determine what lives in our homes, and there is no way to remove them without exterminating them. We kill fetuses today because we have the right to determine what lives inside of us, and there's no way to take them out alive.

But ask yourself this. If there was a cockroach planet where they could all live peacefully and happily, and you had a transporter device that would remove all of the cockroaches from your house and transfer them to this cockroach heaven, would you use it? Or would you still insist that they die? If you could remove tapeworms from your body painlessly and transport them to a place where they could be happy without harming you or placing others at risk, would you take that route, or would you insist they die? If you could remove the mice from your house using humane traps that wouldn't harm them, and release them in a habitat where they could live out their natural lives with plenty of food and in harmony with the way they evolved, would you do that? Or would you insist that the mice be killed anyway?

So what's the difference between THOSE pests, and an ordinary fetus? Besides emotion and ideology, that is?

[liontamer]

56. coackroach planet?

"We kill cockroaches because we have a right to determine what lives in our homes, and there is no way to remove them without exterminating them" I could remove all pests from my home without killing them, which I do with spiders. However I kill roaches because they are in my home. I can pick up a roach and move it outside my home, but I don't have to. When it's in my home, it is subject to my wishes.

[Elginoid]

53. what about child support?

deadbeat dads can't just walk away, financially speaking, from a kid that has his dna, so why should a mother be able to?

[Xithras]

54. I would imagine...

...that it would be the legal equivalent of putting your child up for adoption.

[politicat]

59. Where do we put the hypothetical 1 million children who would result?

Their parents don't want them.

We have millions of children ALREADY in need of foster and adoptive homes.

Do we leave them in orphanages? Those children are wards of the state, so they have to grow up in state run institutions, where religion must therefore be outside of bounds (major first amendment issue if a state run orphanage started preaching....) The fundies won't like that.

I expect that under 10 percent will be adopted, and considering how badly adopted children end up getting treated in this country in the name of "therapy" (pm me if you want details on this) they'll be just as damaged as their unadopted counterparts.

It will cost us about $60K (2004 dollars) per year per child to get them to age 18, assuming no major health problems; they'll probably require mental health care because of socialization issues. We don't know how to socialize group-reared children anymore. Where do we get the extra 60 mill a year to care for them? Even if they get good care, there's a strong likelihood that they'll still have mental and emotional problems that will result in a strain on social services and the criminal justice system. (We know that crime started to abate about 15 years after Roe v. Wade.) Assuming they survive, how do we pay for education for them (college) to assure that they can become productive members of society? Or do we create a great underclass of throw-away people?

The reasonable pro-choice argument that remains is a hard-headed, unpleasant, economic argument: We cannot afford to raise as a society a million, unloved, unwanted children a year. We can't absorb them into the culture, we can't socialize them into the society, and we can't afford the environmental impact of an extra million first world consumer babies a year.

The moral argument that remains is that every child should be loved and wanted and cherished. The child has the right to come into a world where she won't be thrust into an industrial rearing situation, or a situation where she's tortured for not obeying her adoptive parent(s) (see Candace Newmaker.)

Politicat

[TXlib]

61. I was always under the assumption

that there are more adoptive parents than babies to be adopted.

But I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong.

Do you have a link?

[Maddy McCall]

63. Well, if that technology existed, then everyone could create their...

own baby, and they would have no need to adopt someone else's fetus. Adoption rates would plummet--when the world can implant a fetus into an artifical womb, then technology will be able to help "baren" couples become fertile.

But unwanted pregnancies would STILL happen, which is why, even in this Boys of Brazil world you describe, abortion would be necessary.