So, I've been thinking a lot lately about ways to get past the abortion issue, and to me it seems like the only real way to do that would be to obviate the need to have abortions. If we had some way of removing an embryo or fetus from a woman's body while still allowing that embryo or fetus to develop into a baby, it seems like that would satisfy everyone. The baby doesn't die, so the pro-life people are satisfied, and the woman doesn't have to have the baby, so the pro-choice people are satisfied.
Now, in my mind, such a procedure would involve either some sort of artificial womb or some process by which the embryo is transplanted from one woman's uterus to another's. Now, let's suppose for the moment that such technology is as widely available and inexpensive as abortion is now. Let's further suppose that the technology is developed enough that there are no side-effects to the child. Finally, in the case of transplanting (rather than artificial wombs), let's suppose that there is never any coercion on any woman to receive a transplanted embryo. What other ethical issues remain?
Also, is my premise correct? Would both sides be satisfied with this solution? Or is there another need that isn't being addressed?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Being pro-life, my sole goal is the preservation of the life of the child, so I would say that theoretical solution would work.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Who would be responsible for the child while it was being "gestated" and after it was "born"?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think some people will ask why tax payers have to subsidize someone else's promiscuous lifestyle.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Why assume that everyone who wants to have an abortion has a promiscuous lifestyle?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He's not assuming it - he's saying others will.
And he's right. They will. Certainly, for at least some cases, it will be true.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:The baby doesn't die, so the pro-life people are satisfied, and the woman doesn't have to have the baby, so the pro-choice people are satisfied.
That wouldn't satisfy the reproductive rights groups. The situation already exists in the small percentage of late-term abortions - those in which pregnancy is far enough along so that the late-term "abortions" would be seen as "premature births" if it was a "baby" being delivered instead of a "fetus" being aborted. Groups like NARAL vigorously oppose any legislation that would mandate attempts to save the late-term survivors of unsuccessful abortions.
(I'm trying for fair use in terminology here - hence the use of quote marks around all the flexible terminology.)
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I stand corrected; that is, in fact, what he said.
I know in some cases it would be true; however, if we force those same people to have children and then put them into the adoption system, isn't the tax payer still bearing the financial burden for the child?
It seems to me like the people that advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion are arguing the same thing. If we want the taxpayers to avoid paying for "someone else's lifestyle," the only way to do it is to force the person who wants to have an abortion to a) bear the child, b) raise the child, and c) be sure to stay off welfare until the child is 18. Only in those ways will the taxpayers avoid spending money on the unwanted child.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: I think some people will ask why tax payers have to subsidize someone else's promiscuous lifestyle.
Since some states already pay for abortions I could still only think of this solution as a vast improvement.
Since there are still people going to foreign countries for adoptions I think providing homes shouldn't be too difficult of a job for many cases. To help with the finding homes issue I would like to see red tape cut and more funding for foster homes and such.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Megan, I don't think anyone here advocates the position vwiggen was describing.
Most pro-life activists (as opposed to pro-life people who only care about it on election day or politicians who have it as one plank in their platforsm) that I know want signficant government expenditures to support adoption, pre- and neo-natal care, and child welfare programs.
Dagonee
[ November 09, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Dag, Megan, thanks for the clarification. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Dagonee, in which case, the theoretical substitute would just be part of the package, I suppose, which would sound good to me. I didn't think anyone was advocating the position vwiggin stated; I was just responding to the hypothetical position (I guess).
Anyway, I'm something of a fence-sitter when it comes to this issue, so the theoretical substitute sounds like a good idea to me because it prevents the fetus from being destroyed while allowing the woman the choice not to bear a child.
I know some people will argue the ethics of the theoretical position that vwiggin was stating (i.e., "You have the sex, you take the responsibility.") I guess I just wonder what the response would be to those who tried to take responsibility (e.g., birth control), but something went wrong (e.g., birth control failed, as it sometimes does).
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*plays devil's advocate*
Part of taking responsibility means recognizing that with the exception of abstinence, no birth control is 100% effective.
If you have sex with a person you do not intend to raise a child with, you are basically making the risk-benefit analysis that two hours of bodily pleasure is worth the 1% chance of bringing an unwated life into this world.
As an adult, you made your choice and now you should take responsibility for your actions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Sex can create children, even with the best of precautions. You choose to accept that risk when you have sex. Once the child is created, your choice has been made."
That's not the position of the devil - that's the position of an adult who does't plan avoiding the consequences of choices.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Who would be responsible for the child while it was being "gestated" and after it was "born"?
I'm not sure. One idea could be that it would work like a child given up for adoption. The embryo would be a ward of the state until some lucky parent(s) adopted it, at which point it would be their responsibility. An embryo that wasn't adopted before "birth" would then go to an orphanage to await adoption. The way I understand it, babies are the most sought-after by potential adoptive parents. It could be that an embryo would be equally as sought after. Possibly more. And if the baby was born and ended up going to an orphanage, at least it wouldn't be dead.
-----------------------------
quote:I think some people will ask why tax payers have to subsidize someone else's promiscuous lifestyle.
That's a good point, although I think Megan's and nfl's counterpoints are also good. My hope would be that the number of people complaining about the tax burden would be very small in comparison to the number of people happy that abortion is no longer an issue.
-----------------------------
Drake, I don't think I'm very familiar with the position of reproductive rights groups. Can you elaborate a bit on why they oppose such legislation?
What if the use of such technology was not compulsory? Would that address such concerns? My thought is that if this technology were available, the number of abortions would drop very sharply, so the effect of having the technology without the legislation mandating its use in place of abortion would still be a net positive. Now, I recognize that this doesn't really address the idea that abortion is murder and should therefore be against the law, but I think that most people could still agree in this case it would still be better for there to be fewer abortions and no legislation than more abortions and no legislation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are a significant number (although small as a percentage) of abortions each year due to genetic traits of the child, chance of a particular disorder being present, or simply because of the sex of the child. There was an article in Nature recently about deaf parents desiring deaf children, and some being willing to abort hearing children if this could be determined by genetic testing.
Several courts have recognized the right of either parent to destory frozen embryos, citing the right not to reproduce. And, if we let women opt out of parenting, it seems like some men would clamor for such a right to. "You could have put the kid up for adoption, so you don't deserve child support."
Dagonee *Can't comprehend a father not wanting to support his child, but I know it happens. A lot.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I know the arguments for personal responsibility and abstinence; part of me even agrees with them. However...
I am a grad student now, and married quite happily. I have been working very, very hard for the past 4.5 years on getting Ph.D. If I were to get pregnant now, the consequences for my career would be very bad. Not unbearable, but definitely not good, especially not if I wanted to be a good parent. We are very cautious about preventing pregnancy, for that very reason.
Now, in order to use the only failsafe protection against pregnancy, I would have had to abstain for the first 6-8 years of my marriage. I may be overestimating the value of physical intimacy to a marriage, but I think that would've made for a VERY rough early marriage (if it didn't destroy it completely).
So, my options were abstain, possibly putting my marriage at risk, or take proper precautions, knowing pregnancy might happen anyway and that if it did happen, it would make my hard work to this point a little pointless.
I chose the tightrope.
I guess my point is, it isn't always a black-and-white choice between abstinence and abortion. There are extenuating circumstances, and more than two sides to every story.
Oh, and please, don't rip me to shreds. This is about the most private thing I've posted on Hatrack so far.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:And, if we let women opt out of parenting, it seems like some men would clamor for such a right to. "You could have put the kid up for adoption, so you don't deserve child support."
I don't see where this follows from the sentence before it. I mean, adoption is a reality now, so a man could already conceivably make such an argument. As far as I know, though, such an argument wouldn't hold much water in court these days. I don't see where the introduction of a new technology would change that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know, we're discovering just how important hormone levels and such are in the development of a fetus. It would really suck to find out,16 or 18 years down the road, that the hormone balance wasn't right in these things, and that many or all of the people gestated in them developed schitzophrenia or something as a result.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Megan: Sharing personal stuff is scary, isn't it? No one will get personal with their arguments with you.
[ November 09, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Saxon,
If the technology gave women an automatic "out" from parental responsibility, with state payments of some kind to the child, then equal protection might suggest something similar should be available to men.
Right now, a woman can put her kid up for adoption, but it's a private matter. There isn't a general right of child abandonment for parents.
Dagonee
[ November 09, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:You know, we're discovering just how important hormone levels and such are in the development of a fetus. It would really suck to find out,16 or 18 years down the road, that the hormone balance wasn't right in these things, and that many or all of the people gestated in them developed schitzophrenia or something as a result.
I agree completely. But I see that as more a technological issue than an ethical issue. Ideally, it would be possible to design an artificial womb (or a procedure for transplant) that would handle all of that stuff, at which point the ethical problem of harm to the child becomes a non-issue. That's why I asked for the assumption of a developed technology that wouldn't hurt the embryo.
--------------------------------
Dag, I must just not understand adoption and how it plays into questions of child support and such today. What do you mean when you say it's a private matter? What would prevent it from being a private matter to decide whether or not to transplant an embryo? When you say that there isn't a general right for child abandonment, what do you mean? Under what circumstances is it not permitted to give up a child for adoption? Does giving up a child for adoption constitute abandonment? If there is no general right to give up a child for adoption, then why would a new technology necessitate a general right to use that technology?
I'm very confused by all this. But then, that's what I started the thread for in the first place.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Megan, thanks for sharing that.
I guess my response would be that an unexpected child would most likely disrupt your career plans, and probably turn nearly on its head every other plan you and your husband have made for the near future. You can bet on that. But I don't think your life would be ruined--and it could even be the best thing that ever happened.
I know our children have been reorganizing our priorities for us right from the moment we found out we were pregnant with our first. They're very good at that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Megan,
The freedom of women to choose to delay child bearing indefinitely was a big part of what prompted the feminist movement and the pro-choice movement. It still is.
I don't think you're alone at all in wanting to plan your reproductive future and have children when you are ready to care for them in the way you deem best and most proper.
And very few people advocate that married couples practice abstinence in order to avoid pregnancy.
The big argument would come, I suppose, if you were to get pregnant and came here asking advice on what to do about it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Right now, a woman can put her kid up for adoption, but it's a private matter. There isn't a general right of child abandonment for parents.
How does the legal view of the offer made to leave a newborn with a hospital, no questions asked, look? (not challenging, just curious -- I really don't know how this works from your area of expertise)
I'm thinking in particular of Wisconsin's Safe Place for Newborns program, but I know other some states have similar programs. The US map in the upper right corner of that page [sorry -- frames won't let me link directly to the map] has links to the policies in other states.
[ November 09, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Kat: Terrifying! All I was really trying to do was explaing my (somewhat muddled) position. I really have absolutely no clue what I would do if I got pregnant at this time in my life, and that tends to inform my views on this issue in general quite a bit.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
A note on Saxon's idea. It's a bit too hypothetical for me. I don't think we're anywhere near having an artificial womb and the rate of fetal death to be expected while we perfected the wished-for transplants to other women...well, I think it would be too painful to maintain the support of most groups who now argue against abortion.
A perhaps preferable approach would be to develop reversible surgeries that shut off the flow of eggs until a woman is ready to bear children (if ever).
That would cut down on the conceptions due to rape and incest too, which I think are still going to be a problem even if your technological solution works.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:That's why I asked for the assumption of a developed technology that wouldn't hurt the embryo.
I think part of the problem that Noemon raised is that we can't assume this, at least not initially -- the longterm outcomes have to be tested on the babies themselves. We sort of don't have to worry about this so long as only the one method is available, but any time you develop alternatives, there is the indefinite question of whether we will find out later that we screwed up in ways we hadn't anticipated or thought to look for, before.
I'm guessing that you want to isolate out that problem as part of the hypothetical in order to focus in on just one area of conflict, but I think Noemon is saying that it can never be isolated out in practice, and that raises ethical concerns of its own.
I'm betting Stephen might have something to say, too, about research on unwilling subjects and whether (in practice) this research would be most likely to be done on those fetuses deemed "unworthy" or "lesser" -- e.g., babies with Down syndrome that would have otherwise been voluntarily aborted at the choice of the parents.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:It's a bit too hypothetical for me. I don't think we're anywhere near having an artificial womb ...
Ooooh .. I refer you to my recent Abortion thread and the links to artificial womb technology therein. I know, I know, it isn't going to be available tommorrow, but I was astonished to find that a goat fetus has been gestated to term in an artificial womb.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
afr, I don't necessarily think my life would be ruined, but it would be taking away the life that I have spent eight years planning and replace with something I'm not even sure I would have wanted in the first place.
I think motherhood is a grand and glorious profession, but it isn't a profession I choose for myself.
And for me, it's the choice in that phrase that really makes the difference on this issue for me.
Bob, exactly! That choice is what feminism means to me--not that you have to eschew motherhood, or augment it with something else, but that you can choose NOT to experience motherhood (and still have a marriage).
Oh, and if I got pregnant, the only way this board would hear about it is if I decided to have and keep the baby. What can I say, I'm shy like that. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I must just not understand adoption and how it plays into questions of child support and such today. What do you mean when you say it's a private matter? What would prevent it from being a private matter to decide whether or not to transplant an embryo? When you say that there isn't a general right for child abandonment, what do you mean? Under what circumstances is it not permitted to give up a child for adoption? Does giving up a child for adoption constitute abandonment? If there is no general right to give up a child for adoption, then why would a new technology necessitate a general right to use that technology?
I'm very confused by all this. But then, that's what I started the thread for in the first place.
I took your idea (or really, posts made in reply to it) to be a kind of guaranteed right to give up the child to an artificial womb facility and thereafter have no responsibility. I assumed the facility could not refuse abandonment.
Right now, barring the situation Sara describes, a mother isn’t guaranteed finding a set of parents to adopt. She is legally responsible for the child until someone voluntarily accepts that responsibility.
So there’s a generalized right to give a child up for adoption, provided a recipient is found. I assumed this condition is no longer applicable in your hypothetical.
quote:How does the legal view of the offer made to leave a newborn with a hospital, no questions asked, look? (not challenging, just curious -- I really don't know how this works from your area of expertise)
I'm thinking in particular of Wisconsin's Safe Place for Newborns program, but I know other some states have similar programs. This US map links to the policies in other states.
These are exceptions – they do create a generalized right to relinquish responsibility for a child. It would be interesting to see if any fathers attempt to make use of these to get out of child support.
I have no expertise in this area at all.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think many if not most states have "safe haven" provisions for newborns. At least in Wisconsin, the baby has to be no more than three days old, and it has to be the mother that drops the baby off at the hospital.
Some other states allow for this up to 60 days or more after birth, but each state seems to have its own quirks and rules.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Looks like they're not state-wide in many states though. I'll need to look into this.
Dagonee
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:afr, I don't necessarily think my life would be ruined, but it would be taking away the life that I have spent eight years planning and replace with something I'm not even sure I would have wanted in the first place.
I think motherhood is a grand and glorious profession, but it isn't a profession I choose for myself.
Which is fine. I have no problem with that. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sara -- wow! Artificial wombs for goats!
That's amazing.
Okay, here's the deal, we store embryos in cryogenic suspension.
We shoot them off into space towards a likely solar system, lets say.
We program the artificial wombs to gestate them.
Then, voila! The planet of the goats.
A few years later, we send in the lions.
Or humans.
Whatever...
I like it!
And actually, I see nothing wrong with artificial wombs if we can truly deal with the children who are born from that process.
Wouldn't it be simpler to find a way to do reversible tubal ligations or something?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
afr: I'm glad! My main point, though, was that it is the choice to delay motherhood (or even to avoid it altogether) is frequently the driving force for people who are pro-choice...or at least, it is for me, anyway.
Like I said (either in this thread, or the other thread where I'm talking w/Dagonee about abortion, I forget), I hope I'm never put into the position of having to consider exercising my right to choose abortion. Since I have a hard time seeing the tiny collection of cells that is the fetus in the first trimester as child, though, I hope that I continue to retain the right to choose.
[ November 09, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I think the tubal ligation thing would be offensive to Catholics.
As is any kind of birth control.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I think Noemon is saying that it can never be isolated out in practice, and that raises ethical concerns of its own.
Exactly Sara.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I think Noemon is saying that it can never be isolated out in practice, and that raises ethical concerns of its own.
Oh, absolutely. Trust me, as an engineer, concerns like this are something that I potentially have to deal with on any project. But, like you said, it's not that I think that in practice this is a non-issue, it's that I am trying to separate the issues and just focus on one part at a time.
------------------------------
quote:Wouldn't it be simpler to find a way to do reversible tubal ligations or something?
Simpler, perhaps. But in my opinion probably also much less effective, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, or to eliminate them entirely. Not to say that it wouldn't have any effect, just that I think it would be less effective. Why? It seems to me that the majority of people wanting to have abortions probably fall into several categories:
The parents engaged in nonconsensual sex. (e.g. Rape, incest, etc.)
The parents engaged in consensual sex without intending to conceive and used no birth control.
The parents engaged in consensual sex without intending to conceive and the birth control failed.
The parents engaged in consensual sex intending to conceive but for some reason have changed their minds.
There are probably others, but those are the ones that stick out in my mind, and I would be willing to bet that those cases cover the vast majority of abortions. Now, assuming we had completely effective and completely reversible birth control available to us, it still wouldn't do anything in cases 1, 2, and 4. The problem with some birth control procedure is that it relies on people first being willing to undergo the surgery, and then to actually go and do it. I don't think that people can be counted on to be responsible enough to undergo voluntary surgery for this reason. To say nothing of the fact that some people just mistrust the medical profession. So the only way to make it as effective as some post-conception solution is to make the surgery compulsory. And clearly that has its own problems.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Right now, barring the situation Sara describes, a mother isn’t guaranteed finding a set of parents to adopt. She is legally responsible for the child until someone voluntarily accepts that responsibility.
So there’s a generalized right to give a child up for adoption, provided a recipient is found. I assumed this condition is no longer applicable in your hypothetical.
I get you. Well, I guess that does pose something of an ethical dilemma. Would responsibility-free adoption services (that is basically what this amounts to, I think) hurt people who need child support? And, if so, is it still worth it? Tough questions. I'm still not convinced that there isn't some way to have both, but I guess I can see the possibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, I don't buy the likely argument on child support, and I think there's a way to get around it.
Dagonee
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
eslaine, I think it would be offensive to Catholics. But they (we) would get over it, at least in the case of non-Catholics. Birth control is more of a religious sticking point than abortion, in my opinion. I can argue against abortion based on non-religious grounds, but I can't really expect non-Catholics to never use birth control.
I think that the Church would continue to advocate against extra-marital sex and would continue to try to persuade people not to use birth control, but they'd be quite happy that babies weren't being killed. I'm willing to accept a relatively minor "evil" if it means that those babies aren't killed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One of the groups that strongly supports abortion rights is ZPG. They believe that stopping the birth of unwanted children is needed to cutail population growth. From there point of view, allowing the population to expand until the earth is dispoiled and the quality of life for all of the earth's citizens is deplorable -- is unethical. They would certainly find expendeing our finite resources to provide artificial life support to an unwanted fetus to be unethical..
(PS. I am not a ZPG advocate. I am merely pointing out that there are those who would find the goal of ZPG and ethical reason to oppose this alternative)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree with vwiggin that if you have sex, you should be willing to take responsiblity for the baby that may result. I think the only solution to the "abortion problem" is to work on the cause, not the effect, and work toward changing the attitude towards sex in this country and this world.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
The Rabbit : I don't think that in this case there would be more children born. I mean, with such a proceed, adoption would be quite easier, you could even adopt a child in the artificial womb or have in your own womb if there is a technology to prepare it for that. So persons with fertility problems would less likely use in-vitro and others helps to have a child.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: So persons with fertility problems would less likely use in-vitro and others helps to have a child.
Anna, I would hope that that would happen, but sometimes people have very strong connection to their genetic identity. This is true in both big and small ways, in understandable and harder-to-understand matters.
I'm jus not sure we can justifiably assume this.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*bump for KarlEd
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Also, is my premise correct? Would both sides be satisfied with this solution? Or is there another need that isn't being addressed?
I am not involved in the abortion debate. My wife and I have one child, we practice birth control, in the future we will have another child. If she gets pregnant before we plan to have our second child, we will accept the responsibility and see him/her as a blessing.
I would never date anyone who has had or would have an abortion. I assume they wouldn't ever date me--so don't take my question as an act of condoning the idea....
Are there a group of people who like abortion because it is a form of population control? If India had better birth control AND clean safe abortion clinics, would it start to reverse overcrowding
I assume there are a group of people in the world who see abortion as a legitimate knot to tie off failed birth control so that we can control the popultion growth.
I don't think they would be willing to invest tax dollars to turn every abortion into a life that needs to be adopted or needs to be supported by the state.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)