Would the invention of an Artificial Womb make the Abortion debate moot ?

If the fetus is undesired , or dangerous to the mother then the state can transplant it from her into an artificial womb and take full custody and responsibility of the infant. (The assumption here is that the "transplant" is not a more medically complicated procedure than regular abortion).

Everyone wins , the mother has nothing to do with the undesired infant , will not even know its identity, nor be burdened by carrying it to viability .... and pro-lifers will get what they want ...win/win.

Just a sociological thought experiment (aka the ones used in modern physics)

Sure, that's a winner. The death panels could decide which ones make it to the decanting day...

The Alphas could live off the work of the gammas and deltas forever, without dissent, and if they got even a little pissed off, there's always a misting of Soma nearby! lol

Who will get sued?

What they choose to do is their own business--and some of them might choose that route, should it ever be a possibility. But the government cannot force women as a class to submit to surgery if they become pregnant and desire to end the pregnancy. There are ways of ending a pregnancy that do not require surgery--for example, RU-481, which as it is improved, will become more and more common as a method of abortion. There is no way to "transplant" a fetus via pill. It is simply not possible for the two to EVER have similar "medical complications".

where the fetus can be "beamed" within a second from the mother to an artificial womb ,during a routine office visit, would the procedure be acceptable then ?

It's her body--unless we throw away the notion of a right to medical privacy, then nothing can be done to a woman's body without her direct consent unless she's convicted of a crime or deemed mentally deficient and incapable of making her own decisions (in which case the consent would fall to her next of kin--NOT the government, unless she literally had NO next of kin).

If she consents, that's fine. If not--then no.

If a pregnancy could be terminated without killing the fetus, would it change the discussion?

In fact, let's take it a step further. Using the fetus transporter, (the new best and least invasive pregnancy termination process), the fetus can be transplanted.

Does that render the argument moot?

To render the argument "moot", there would have to be a way to remove a fetus (via abortion, "teleportation", or Magical Happy Hope Wishies!) without doing ANY harm to ANY woman's right to medical privacy. Unless you also have a Patriarchal Brainwashing Ray that could enslave the minds of women and ensure that ALL women consent for eternity, then eventually SOME woman is going to say NO. Since she says no, then the argument is NOT "moot".

People cannot be legally compelled to submit to a medical procedure, no matter HOW trivial it might be, for another entity's benefit. Your teleportation device is still a medical procedure, in that it changes the state of a woman's body, and using it upon a woman without her consent would be akin to forcing her to undergo a medical procedure for the benefit of her fetus. There was already a ruling on this issue--Google McFall v. Shimp, a case in which a man tried to have his cousin forced to donate bone marrow, as his cousin was the only compatible donor and refused to consent to the procedure. The court ruled that while the cousin's refusal might be morally repugnant, the law could not FORCE him to undergo the procedure for someone else's benefit. That same basic legal philosophy applies, whether we're talking scalpels and bone marrow or Magical Teleportation Rays and fetuses.

In the end, it always comes down to consent.

For purposes of this discussion, the new, state of the art abortion technique is the fetus transporter. If you request an abortion, this is the tool used.

The question the OP asks what happens to the fetus if an artifical womb were available for reimplantation?

a) mom chooses
b) mom and dad choose (either both must agree or one preferred decision is reached by default in the case of disagreement)
c) government chooses

For the purposes of this discussion, we'll just posit that there ARE no "fathers" and that the parthogenesis technique has finally been perfected enough for humans to reproduce SOLELY by combining the DNA from one egg with another, creating ONLY female embryos. The male mutation of the species is redundant and dies out. After all, in order for a "fetus transporter" to become the ONLY abortion technique available, we have to be talking hundreds of years in the future--obviously we'll have rid ourselves of the unnecessary male mutation by then. Now, where were we?...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, I find YOUR "given" for the "purposes of this discussion" to be about as offensive and repulsive as you find mine. If you keep inventing fantasy bullshit that gets more and more ridiculous, then I'd rather invent my OWN game than play along with yours.

Toodles!

One is the subject of consent - which the other posits to not be the issue, as consent is a given - and the other is re-transplant of the fetus, which is NOT abortion in the first place.

Those are two completely different subjects.

Like I said, unless there's some Brainwashing Ray that ensures that women ALWAYS consent to this and NEVER oppose it, then "consent" is most certainly NOT a given.

As for the poster I was arguing with--he's just trying to lead me into a fight about whether or not fathers should have a say in what happens to a woman's embryo/fetus. Let me finish our "debate" based on the reply of his stating that "consent is not the issue":

Me: Well obviously the mother would have the sole ability to choose what happens to her fetus if she doesn't want to carry it to term. It's her body, after all.
Him: AHAH! But if a Magical Teleportation Ray could remove the fetus without affecting the mother at all, then the FATHER should have an equal say in what happens to the fetus!
Me: Shut up, MRA douchebag.
Him: Bite me, feminazi hag.

There ya go. Argument done. (Mostly kidding, of course. Mostly.)

:rofl:

and my answer (somewhere else in this thread) was no because they're miserable unhappy people and want everyone else to be miserable and unhappy too...

like that old saying / misery wants company -- they've got major control issues also...

However, one more attempt at serious: Considering the way the gov't treats its veterans, let's imagine how it will care for these unwanted infants, especially those with critical medical problems like spina bifida.

Are these neonates permanent gov't wards or are they put up for adoption? If so, how? Lottery?

Finally, is this program voluntary or mandatory? If mandatory, the fundies will have exactly what they want -- absolute control over every woman's reproductive life.

isn't a thought experiment. A thought experiment by the very definition of experiment has to be based in reality. Riding a beam of light may be a good subject for a thought experiment; human beings are too complex.

Further, you didn't answer my questions, ie what happens to 'snow flake' after s/he is decanted. Stone serious, you would give these infants over to the fed to care for?

Stone serious again, would your program be mandatory or voluntary? If voluntary, not much would change. If mandatory, for starters, how would it be enforced?

Finally, why the hell should we care what the fundies think{sic}?

p.s. i think that i'm not even going to bother being serious today / lol...

Roe V. Wade simply guaranteed a womans right to end a pregnancy. It did not guarantee or specify any method of doing to. A law prohibiting D&C's while implementing federally funded and on-demand "embryo transplants" would probably survive a constitutional challenge, because it would preserve a womans right to end her pregnancy.

The government could legally ban D&C's outright tomorrow, if they could show a safe and viable legal alternative that preserved a womans right to choose.

So the real question is whether an embryonic transplant would be "safe and viable".

a fetus. That particular "extra" was inserted by someone else into the discussion--not the OP.

And I think you're assuming too much. By the time we have "artificial wombs" that are fully functional and cheap enough to be available to ALL unwanted fetuses, then we'll have technology enough to ensure a form a birth control so good that there ARE no "unwanted fetuses" anymore. I can see a use for artificial wombs for women who can't carry a baby on their own, or gay male couples (with an egg donor) who wish to be fathers, but honestly--by the time we have them available as an alternative to abortion, we won't NEED them for that purpose anymore.

Frankly I think this whole discussion is already moot.

this is no different from giving the child up for adoption.

Many women just don't want to deal with the feelings associated with knowing there's a child out there that they've given up.

The OP posited
Choice A) abortion
Choice B) prenatal adoption and reimplantation.
... neither medically preferred.

What I've been hearing up till now is that the issue is one of medical autonomy. "My body, my choice".

Is it really about feelings?

You make it sound like this one person has suddenly revealed THE TRUTH--as if it has to be ONE way rather than the other. Let's turn this around.

Why do people choose to brush your teeth? What I've been hearing up till now is that they do it because they care about tooth decay and oral hygiene, but I saw a post on DU where this person said that they only brush their teeth because they feel that an unclean mouth tastes icky.

Is it really about feelings? Or (dare I suggest it?) could it possibly be about MORE than one thing?

:eyes:

That said, if there's a general belief that abortion isn't simply a difficult choice that women make for predominantly medical reasons, it changes the debate.

I think that people are generally accepting of "my body, my choice".

...But what if it's not? You asked a very good question.

Many issues are way more complicated than they appear on the surface.

feelings certainly do enter into it.

The position, "My body, my choice" is number one.

Others have already stated that.

I merely came at this from another angle...feelings. I don't care what anyone claims about how, as the OP stated:

"Everyone wins , the mother has nothing to do with the undesired infant , will not even know its identity"


Many women who give their babies up for adoption soon after birth also don't know their identity...yet, having known that one's body provided the environment...or, at the very least, the virtual Petrie dish, for another life, it's not all that easy to just put the issue from one's mind.

This is something that I do not believe men can, or ever will, fully understand.


Also, I do not think it's true that "everyone wins".

Sometimes the biggest losers in this whole thing are the kids.

Plus...and this disturbs me greatly...what about women who have multiple children whom she never meets, and who do not know each other...

What if, by some chance, a half brother and half sister meet and fall in love and marry? Or they could even be full blood siblings if the fathers are the same.

Are people prepared for DNA gathering and databases so people don't end up marry their own siblings? Who ends up "winning" if two people already meet and marry and only later on find out they're siblings? How many lives get ruined that way?

That's one of the reasons I don't really care for anonymous adoption. Yeah, everyone "wins" there except for unsuspecting people who might fall in love only to discover they're brother and sister.

The OP didn't mention this aspect, but if abortion is not medically preferred to reimplantation, should the father play a decisionmaking role in what happens to the fetus?

Once the "Anti Choice" people discovered that the government...via THEIR tax money...would be supporting these kids, I'll bet they'd put up such a stink as we have never seen before.

"HELL NO!!!! Not MY tax money!!!!!"


So much for caring about innocent life

:eyes:

if it didn't cost too much that is. :rofl:

they're never happy / never satisfied / they want everybody else to be miserable too no matter what it is...

Your idea is way too costly and emotionally draining.

what if technology develops farmed meat that does not involve the development of a nervous system. Therefore vegetarians might decide to accept eating such meat because no suffering is involved .

See , but the crucial point then is that it is a matter of personal choice whether the vegetarian person will eat such meat or not.

Addressing the ethical dilemma of terminating the Fetus does not resolve the other ethical dilemma of maintaining personal freedom and control of one's body.

So , no , such a technological advance will do nothing to resolve this debate.

as it is, women "of child bearing age" are not generally disposable. It is not until we hit the mid-40s or later that that we become disposable resource units.

in male apes. Blood-rich organs like spleens and livers seemed to work. Let the male gestate, then do a variant of the C-Section.

So, the 'pro-life' could put their bodies where their mouths are, so to speak.

But a large number of others would stay on the prochoice side.

That should end the whole 'I don't want to go into a bar that allows smoking, as I am often forced by others to do' thing.

Any more than a man who whacks into a cup in a sperm bank is a "father". Legally and ethically, she would be no different than a woman who donated her eggs today...she contributed genetic material, but that's about it.

The REAL question would be about the genetic fathers rights. Right now men who impregnate women get no say in whether the embryo is brought to term, but assume full legal rights after the childs birth. If a woman chose to terminate a pregnancy, and the fetus was born after spending seven months in an artificial womb, would the contributor of the male genetic material be the father? Would he be able to claim legal rights to the child?

This one is a real minefield of possibilities.

As I mentioned above, by the time we have "artificial wombs" that are functional and cheap enough that we can outlaw abortion and replace it with "artificial gestation" instead, then we will have advanced enough (medically speaking) that there won't BE any unwanted pregnancies anymore. It's simple economics. What's a cheaper, more effective long-term goal--creating millions and millions of artificial wombs for every unwanted embryo EVER, or creating a handful of birth control variations that are 99.9999999999% effective? In the end, we're always going to shoot for the goal that accomplishes the same ends (basically ending abortion) with the lowest cost. That's the one thing you can ALWAYS count on with Americans, sadly.

It is fine as long as it doesn't cost them anything personally. What they really want is control, and for some.. maybe most they want punishment for the woman who is pregnant, who they see as being a person of bad moral values.

no way i'd give up even an unwanted fetus to a "transplant"

nope, no way. i would have an actual abortion, not this plan.