Abortion debate hypothetical

[wawa]

Because really...it's the day after christmas, and I'm tired of fighting about guns - so why the hell not talk about abortion.

Maybe I'll post about circumcising a pittbull next just to round things out.

Aaaaanyway....MH and I ended up discussing this on our drive back from visiting my family. (we always have debates while driving. it's how we pass the time)

Imagine it was possible to extract a fertilized ZEF from a woman's body and transfer it to an artificial womb with no ill-effects on either the ZEF or the mother. Would that in any way impact your thoughts on whether abortion should be legal? Assume the procedure is largely similar to a D&C in terms of intrusiveness, risk and recovery.

[Deleted]

Huh? You mean raise a bunch of orphans?

[wawa]

spenjamins, I don't understand your comment. It's essentially the "just give the baby up for adoption" argument on steroids. Takes the whole risk and wear and tear of actual pregnancy out of the picture - but still has all the other issues (still have to give up your genetic offspring, more babies in foster care, etc).

It doesn't actually change my opinion, but I was curious if it did for anybody else.

[arborgold]

For abortions where a D&C would be required, I could see this being pushed, but it would still be placing a lot of children into the system when the system is overcrowded anyway. So, yeah. Overall, not a fan.

Also, I would work my ass off such a proposal if it meant that women would be required to wait for this procedure instead of undergoing early medical abortion.

[wawa]

Dec 26, 2012 15:35:10 GMT -5 arborgold said:

For abortions where a D&C would be required, I could see this being pushed, but it would still be placing a lot of children into the system when the system is overcrowded anyway. So, yeah. Overall, not a fan.

Also, I would work my ass off such a proposal if it meant that women would be required to wait for this procedure instead of undergoing early medical abortion.

Oh good point. i hadn't even thought about early medical abortion being a lower risk procedure. I forget that exists sometimes.

[meshaliuknits]

Circumcising pitbulls made me chuckle.


I still no likey, but I can't quite put my finger on why. In this hypothetical, who/what would pay to power these artificial wombs? The woman? Government? (Unless these also hypothetically run off of puppies and rainbows, of course.)

[cattledogkisses]

You'd still end up with a surplus of unwanted children in the end though.

[kadams767]

This wouldn't change my opinion in the slightest.

[soozy87]

This would not change my opinion.

[cattledogkisses]

Dec 26, 2012 17:45:35 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

This would not change my opinion.

Curious...why? There would be no "murder" involved. Why should a woman be forced to carry if there was a hypothetical alternative?

[soozy87]

Dec 26, 2012 17:48:35 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Dec 26, 2012 17:45:35 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

This would not change my opinion.

Curious...why? There would be no "murder" involved. Why should a woman be forced to carry if there was a hypothetical alternative?

It would not change my opinion on abortion. I don't support abortion. This "fake womb" would be great. But like a PP said, you would also have to solve the problem of the extra kids.

The fake womb would also be great for people who can't carry their own child, a non-human surrogate. Someone should invent it!

[iammalcolmx]

Would there be an "extra kid" issue if the baby was Caucasian? Isn't there a long waiting list for those babies? Going to be longer if Russia goes through with banning US couples from adopting. How is that for pot stirring!

[heyjude]

Uh no.

[soozy87]

Dec 26, 2012 17:57:12 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Would there be an "extra kid" issue if the baby was Caucasian? Isn't there a long waiting list for those babies? Going to be longer if Russia goes through with banning US couples from adopting. How is that for pot stirring!

I don't know....what do abortion rates look like between races?

[iammalcolmx]

Dec 26, 2012 17:58:28 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Dec 26, 2012 17:57:12 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Would there be an "extra kid" issue if the baby was Caucasian? Isn't there a long waiting list for those babies? Going to be longer if Russia goes through with banning US couples from adopting. How is that for pot stirring!

I don't know....what do abortion rates look like between races?

No clue.

[pamela]

Actually, this weirds me out and I'm really pro-life. I really don't know what I think about it.

I was thinking what the implications would be on adoptions. Would they be harder or easier than infant adoptions are currently? Since there is no birthing mom who has a waiting period before she gives up her parental rights after the baby is born, could she come back after the baby is born in the "lab" and claim it without having to have carried the pregnancy?

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2012 15:30:01 GMT -5 wawa said:

spenjamins, I don't understand your comment. It's essentially the "just give the baby up for adoption" argument on steroids. Takes the whole risk and wear and tear of actual pregnancy out of the picture - but still has all the other issues (still have to give up your genetic offspring, more babies in foster care, etc).

It doesn't actually change my opinion, but I was curious if it did for anybody else.

no, it would not change my opinion. I am as pro-choice as they come. I would like more abortions, not less.

[shopgirl07]

No, it wouldn't change my opinion at all. I am rabidly pro-choice. If we, as women, don't have control over our own bodies, we don't have much.

[soozy87]

Dec 26, 2012 17:59:52 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Dec 26, 2012 17:53:10 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

It would not change my opinion on abortion. I don't support abortion. This "fake womb" would be great. But like a PP said, you would also have to solve the problem of the extra kids.

The fake womb would also be great for people who can't carry their own child, a non-human surrogate. Someone should invent it!

I'm confused, soozy. You don't want abortions allowed now, so in any event there are unwanted extra kids.

The question seemed more geared towards someone who was originally OK with abortions, but now you don't have to kill any ZEF AND the woman doesn't have to worry about the baby, so now have those who used to be pro-choice changed their mind to become pro life.

Right, either way you would have to find something to do with the unwanted extra kids. But either way, I see that as a better alternative than killing them.

I agree, the question was geared more towards people who are pro-abortion.

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2012 18:51:38 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

Dec 26, 2012 15:30:01 GMT -5 wawa said:

spenjamins, I don't understand your comment. It's essentially the "just give the baby up for adoption" argument on steroids. Takes the whole risk and wear and tear of actual pregnancy out of the picture - but still has all the other issues (still have to give up your genetic offspring, more babies in foster care, etc).

It doesn't actually change my opinion, but I was curious if it did for anybody else.

no, it would not change my opinion. I am as pro-choice as they come. I would like more abortions, not less.

There are a lot of people who I see pregnant and think the world would be a better place if they didn't reproduce, but I certainly wouldn't go so far to say I'd like MORE abortions.

[soozy87]

Dec 27, 2012 9:22:26 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Dec 26, 2012 18:51:38 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

no, it would not change my opinion. I am as pro-choice as they come. I would like more abortions, not less.

There are a lot of people who I see pregnant and think the world would be a better place if they didn't reproduce, but I certainly wouldn't go so far to say I'd like MORE abortions.

I agree, stop it before conception happens.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2012 9:23:46 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:22:26 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

There are a lot of people who I see pregnant and think the world would be a better place if they didn't reproduce, but I certainly wouldn't go so far to say I'd like MORE abortions.

I agree, stop it before conception happens.

Let me be VERY clear with my statement because I have a feeling if Soozy agrees with me, I wasn't. LOL.

I am 100% pro-choice, under most circumstances. I would like to reduce the barriers to contraception (make it FREE) and also reduce barriers to abortion if I were in a position to do so.

[emilyj]

Dec 27, 2012 9:20:55 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

I agree, the question was geared more towards people who are pro-abortion.

You mean people who are pro-choice.

[soozy87]

Dec 27, 2012 9:26:59 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:23:46 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

I agree, stop it before conception happens.

Let me be VERY clear with my statement because I have a feeling if Soozy agrees with me, I wasn't. LOL.

I am 100% pro-choice, under most circumstances. I would like to reduce the barriers to contraception (make it FREE) and also reduce barriers to abortion if I were in a position to do so.

Then we are half in agreement. Let no one be mistaken!

[soozy87]

Dec 27, 2012 9:29:03 GMT -5 emilyj said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:20:55 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

I agree, the question was geared more towards people who are pro-abortion.

You mean people who are pro-choice.

No, I am pretty sure I mean people who are pro-abortion.

[wawa]

Dec 26, 2012 19:28:20 GMT -5 @mrdobalina said:

The embryo would still contain propriety genetic material in this scenario, and I don't believe in forcing people to reproduce against their expressly conveyed will, so no, I would not support this weird science fiction scenario.

Sorry...it is a bit of a weird science fiction scenario. It partially came out of a book I'd read in which an artificial womb was used to gestate the daughter of god. Which as I type it I realize makes it sound even weirder.

Welcome to road trips with me.

[knitty]

Dec 26, 2012 18:55:22 GMT -5 shopgirl07 said:

No, it wouldn't change my opinion at all. I am rabidly pro-choice. If we, as women, don't have control over our own bodies, we don't have much.

But this is a scenario where the woman's control over her own body is kept, it's a way of asking about embryos and of forced motherhood, not forced birth. It's not a new idea, either, we were given a short tory along these lines in scripture class in the late 80's.

Doesn't change my opinions, though. A zygote or embryo is not a person, it's just cells. And no one should be fored to be mother.

[wawa]

Dec 27, 2012 9:32:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:29:03 GMT -5 emilyj said:

You mean people who are pro-choice.

No, I am pretty sure I mean people who are pro-abortion.

I hate this intentionally inflammatory nonsense.

But you know what...fine. I'm pro-abortion. I'm just going to consider that a sub-set of being pro-choice. I am for women being able to make their own reproductive choices, including abortion. You wanna call that pro-abortion because it makes your skirt fly up, feel free.

[emilyj]

Dec 27, 2012 9:32:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:29:03 GMT -5 emilyj said:

You mean people who are pro-choice.

No, I am pretty sure I mean people who are pro-abortion.

Pro-abortion is incorrect terminology. But I'm guessing you also know that, and just want to slap the wrong label on everyone that doesn't agree with you. Cool.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2012 9:38:42 GMT -5 wawa said:

Dec 27, 2012 9:32:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

No, I am pretty sure I mean people who are pro-abortion.

I hate this intentionally inflammatory nonsense.

But you know what...fine. I'm pro-abortion. I'm just going to consider that a sub-set of being pro-choice. I am for women being able to make their own reproductive choices, including abortion. You wanna call that pro-abortion because it makes your skirt fly up, feel free.

I will be labelled as pro-abortion with you