posted
Neither of the ones I know about was medical-related. One divorce, one job w/ no economic pressure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there should be less of a stigma in giving up a child you won't/can't care for.
There's always the possibility of telling everyone the child was stillborn, if you are willing to lie.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:None of this is meant to address the "when does life begin" question. It's meant to make the question irrelevant.
Not so fast...you aren't getting out of it that easy.
Legally it would still matter.....because you are forcing someone to do something they might not want to do, and currently you would have no legal basis to do so. The fetus has no "right to life", and is unlikely to have one any time soon.
It would be a great option, but there are MANY problems, and not all of them relating to costs...although that is a HUGE one. The current infastructure we have for adoptions isn't working as it is, not well at least, and dropping 1.5 million babies a year (conservitly) into it isn't going to be easy....it may not be possible at all, to be honest.
If someone feels that it isn't in their best interest to use an AW, how could you legally force then to do so....and if you did, wouldn't that be as much of a violation of their rights as forcing them to carry it to term?
I think that a lot of people would choose to use it though, so the abortion rate would plummet. As long as they had no responsibility to the kids, that is.
All of this is a moot point..I don't think it will ever be a viable option. It is WAY ahead of where we are right now....it reminds me of the cloning issues raised a few years ago. Sure, we can do it, but not well, and we don;t understand why Dolly died so young, or how to prevent it form happening again....
posted
Kwea - Well I'll grant you that point on the right to life issue.
Actually, I've toyed with the idea of an AW for some time, but never really considered it in light of the abortion issue. I just thought of that recently, thus the thread. As it stands I'm pretty convinced that although it could be a good option for women with unwanted pregnancies who abhor the idea of abortion, it probably couldn't be implemented in any kind of mandatory manner, and certainly wouldn't end abortions. At least not in our current social/political climate.
Oh well, it was an interesting and surprising civil discussion on the matter, no?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, but I would consider it better than aborting the child
So would I. I was trying to point out that it is probably selfish reasons that lead people do do that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fetus has no "right to life", and is unlikely to have one any time soon.
I'm sorry, but that attitude of society sickens me. Legally true or not, it is one of the most abhorrent manifestations of selfishness regularly condoned and fought for in this country.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re male birth control, I know of at least two men who I know would consider such a thing to be damaging to his manliness. I imagine he's not the only one by a long shot.
quote:I'm sorry, but that attitude of society sickens me. Legally true or not, it is one of the most abhorrent manifestations of selfishness regularly condoned and fought for in this country.
You may believe this to be true, and you have the right to believe that; however, for those of us who don't believe sentient life begins at conception, to give the fetus rights is like giving rights to a freckle or a mole on one's cheek. It isn't that people who believe that are selfish; it's that they don't believe what you do.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people require sentience of the fetus, then I guess it is okay to "abort" beyond birth. Because sentience isn't really happening in the neo-nate. Their upper brain, because of a lack of myelin sheathing, does not function at a sentient level. It has the potential to, but it doesn't yet.
But every other definition of life, and being human, is within both the embryo and fetus though.
Genetically and uniquely human Growing Metabolizing Cells are reproducing
And once you get to the fetal stage, there is no mistaking that bit of life for any other creature. It is easily recognizable on a macroscopic level.
You cannot compare it to a freckle. You destroy a freckle, and no genetic uniqueness has been lost. You destroy an embryo, and a unique, human lifeform has been lost.
I understand that some people believe it isn't real in the first few months. But I still feelk it is a rationalization. Anyone who puts some thought into the matter realizes that such a belief is only that and as such, is a mere opinion. And it is only that opinion, on the shaky foundations that it rests, which allows them to destroy the embryo with no guilt. They must allow for the fact that they may be wrong, and it making the choice to terminate the pregnancy based on that possible error, they may be doing something wrong. And to go through with it anyway shows some selfishness.
I may be wrong, but my error will be on the side of giving rather than taking away life.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe there should be less of a stigma in giving up a child you won't/can't care for.
Shi, I wish this were true right now -- not just to reduce the popularity of choosing abortion over adoption, but to help very young mothers who really would prefer not to keep their babies but feel social pressure to do so. I would love to see young women feel that adoption is a noble thing, one of the greatest self-sacrifices possible, which IMO, is the epitome of true love.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot compare it to a freckle. You destroy a freckle, and no genetic uniqueness has been lost. You destroy an embryo, and a unique, human lifeform has been lost.
If genetic uniqueness defines what is valuable about a fetus, then there should be no problem arising from voluntary abortion of one of a set of identical twins. I don't think that's what you mean to claim, though.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, it occurs to me that you might have missed saxon75's thread, Ethics and Abortion Substitutes from late last year. There are some links to the current state of artificial womb technology. Additionally, Lois McMaster Bujold has addressed some of this in her science fiction novels -- you might find them an interesting read.
Amka, like you I am very interested in artificial wombs for the sake of caring for micropreemies. Thanks for that insight -- it is indeed something we often fail to consider in debating he worth of the technology. It hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, thanks for the link. It wouldn't be the first time I've had an idea and then found out it was already out there and developed beyond what I had imagined.
(I once started a story about a guy who plugged himself into a computer only to find out there was a whole established genre of the stuff called Cyberpunk. So much for being an original thinker. )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think it's an excellent (although, of course, potentially problematic -- as Dag notes) idea, and I thought you might enjoy the thread. You and I have been thinking along similar lines, that's all. I think these things tend to seethe around a bit in the background before they bubble up to the surface, anyway.
My trigger was Anne Kate's recommendation of LMB's books, where I was absolutely struck by the implications of artificial gestation. I was in the NICU at the time, so I did some reading up on it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One possibility for coming up with the technology would be to start developing it as protective incubators and nutrient/oxygen delivery systems for preemies, and gradually moving the viability line backwards. In such a context, I think at some point preemie care would evolve into artificial wombs.
Worried? About what? If it's that I'm offended, don't be, even a little bit. First I'm not offended and second, you'd have to try pretty hard to say anything offensive that wouldn't automatically get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Good. I was worried that it might be read in a snippy, superior tone, when actually I was just excited about the goats. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that irks me about debate, not just debates about abortion but most of them, is the attempt to pigeonhole people by assuming that the are creating a double standard. I’m in favor of making most abortions illegal because: a fetus displays the signs of life that Amka mentioned, it is not a part of its mother but genetically distinct, it has the potential to function on its own in some sense, it is completely innocent in regards to the situation that has led to the consideration of its abortion, and has zero voice in its own future.
Does that mean that every single thing on earth that can’t speak up for itself should be protected? Even rocks and plants? No.
Does that mean that anything genetically distinct from another person should be protected no matter what? Or, like Sara mentioned, that anything that is not genetically distinct can be destroyed? No.
[edit: It also doesn't mean that something has to perfectly, 100%, meet those requirements to be protected.]
You can try to pick this apart into a million pieces and there will be nothing left. But you can do that with anything. My decision to support some serious regulation of abortions, to the point of illegalizing nearly all of them, comes from the consideration of all of these points, weighing them individually, and attempting to create a bigger picture. Very little in this world is black and white. I would say that, in general, a potential human deserves a voice. In general, innocence should be protected. In general, something that exhibits the signs of being an individual life form with human characteristics should have rights. That does not and can not extend to every single thing that might possibly meet some of those criteria. It’s not a double standard. It’s about making a decision. I can see the value of debate and considering all angles. But the only reason we have this freedom to sit here and talk about it all day is because people out there are actually making decisions and putting them into effect. Sometimes those decisions are wrong, but nothing will be gained by refusing to make any decision at all until we can be sure it’s perfect. That will never happen.
posted
PSI, just for clarification: I'm not trying to pick apart you or Amka, or your arguments, or to establish that anyone is trying to set up a double standard. Really, I'm not. Although I am very familiar with the tactic, and I'm sympathetic to the automatic bristling that comes up when it seems like someone is edging into that hostile territory.
But really, what I'm trying to do is puzzle through reasons, when it is reasons (as opposed to pure faith) that is offered. I'm suspicious of the strength of my own position and constantly re-evaluating it. Even so, the best I can do is along the lines of an essay of reasoning filled with caveats and exceptions -- nothing at all tight, clean, and clear-cut.
I'm both puzzled and intrigued when someone presents a tight, clean, and clear-cut version of their own position, and I find it fascinating to try to figure out what I'm missing in understanding it. That's all. When someone says "this is terribly complicated, and I'm not quite sure but I think this is where it goes for me," I'm not as intrigued. So, for example, I normally wouldn't get excited about responding to your rant above, because I "get" where you are coming from already.
Don't mean to be a spoilsport, just find the topic so important and so meaningful that I can't resist trying to understand it better.
posted
I'm not trying to blame you, Sara. It's more of a generalization of what half of the purpose of debate seems to be. I like the part about finding answers and understanding people. Not the other part. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry. I wish I hadn't put your name in there. I was trying to use it as an example, and I thought if I left it with your name off , then it would be obvious that I was annoyed with you or something. I really am not trying to single you out.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have very broad shoulders (to hold up my freakishly huge head), and I don't take things as more than they were intended.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
