I wouldn't change my opinion (which is zero restrictions on abortion). It should still be your choice as to whether you want biological offspring out there in the world.
But I do think it would be an option that a lot of women would choose. Abortion would probably become less common.
Also, I have only ever met one person in my entire life IRL who I think was TRULY "pro-abortion." When I was out canvassing w/ PP for the election, an officer stopped us to start to yell at us that we couldn't be doing it without a permit (which we had) and when we told him who we were with, he threw out there, "yeah, I totally agree with you guys, I just didn't want you to get into trouble. Actually, I think we should be more like China." My partner and I waited for him to drive away, and then gave each other this look:
I wouldn't change my opinion (which is zero restrictions on abortion). It should still be your choice as to whether you want biological offspring out there in the world.
But I do think it would be an option that a lot of women would choose. Abortion would probably become less common.
So...this is the only place I got hung-up thinking through the ramifications of that kind of technology.
I'm having a hard time articulating this, so I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get slammed. But if there is no longer a disparate impact to take into account (i.e. women are the ones who have to actually carry the fetus to term) - then shouldn't men and women have the same amount of say over the fate of their biological offspring? Right now if a couple has sex, and a pregnancy results, the woman can choose whether to carry the ZEF to term and the man has no say in the matter.
And that makes perfect sense because it's fucking barbaric to imagine a man forcing a woman to have an abortion. And it works in reverse - if she doesn't want a baby and he does, it's barbaric for him to force her to carry it.
But...there's no carrying. She could just have it extracted alive instead of aborted, it gets put in a little machine and handed to the bio-father and off he goes. Why should her desire to avoid biological offspring trump his if the issue of the actual pregnancy is taken out of the picture?
My gut still says that she can make whatever call she sees fit...but I'm not totally sure how that logically works.
Back to the OP - I wonder if you'd have situations where women would plan pregnancies to be put into the robo-womb so they wouldn't get fat and get stretchmarks. Then again, it would be really cool for women who got pre-e and GD and other 3rd tri issues. Then again, it wouldn't stop people like the Duggars from slowing down - ever.
Back to the OP - I wonder if you'd have situations where women would plan pregnancies to be put into the robo-womb so they wouldn't get fat and get stretchmarks. Then again, it would be really cool for women who got pre-e and GD and other 3rd tri issues. Then again, it wouldn't stop people like the Duggars from slowing down - ever.
That's kinda sorta how we got on the topic. My husband and I I mean. I was bitching about stretch marks and not being able to sleep and saying that I wanted to lay squishy eggs like lizards and then just put them somewhere warm and safe and get on with my life for 9 months.
Then he said that it'd be cooler if there was a artificial womb machine. And then I started talking about a book I read with that concept, except with tons of religious overtones, and then we got onto abortion rights....and we both agreed that an invention like that would make an awful mess of the whole debate.
And then I was bored at work and wondered what you all thought.
I wouldn't change my opinion (which is zero restrictions on abortion). It should still be your choice as to whether you want biological offspring out there in the world.
But I do think it would be an option that a lot of women would choose. Abortion would probably become less common.
So...this is the only place I got hung-up thinking through the ramifications of that kind of technology.
I'm having a hard time articulating this, so I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get slammed. But if there is no longer a disparate impact to take into account (i.e. women are the ones who have to actually carry the fetus to term) - then shouldn't men and women have the same amount of say over the fate of their biological offspring? Right now if a couple has sex, and a pregnancy results, the woman can choose whether to carry the ZEF to term and the man has no say in the matter.
And that makes perfect sense because it's fucking barbaric to imagine a man forcing a woman to have an abortion. And it works in reverse - if she doesn't want a baby and he does, it's barbaric for him to force her to carry it.
But...there's no carrying. She could just have it extracted alive instead of aborted, it gets put in a little machine and handed to the bio-father and off he goes. Why should her desire to avoid biological offspring trump his if the issue of the actual pregnancy is taken out of the picture?
My gut still says that she can make whatever call she sees fit...but I'm not totally sure how that logically works.
This is a good point. I think it would probably turn into a situation where you can only go forward if both parties agree. If one doesn't, then you would probably have to abort.
I still think that a lot of people in that situation, men and women, would choose to go ahead with the pregnancy using a robo-womb or whatever though. I think our country leans right center on the idea of abortion. I don't think that most people equate it with murder exactly but that they do think it involves killing or ending a living being. If you could somehow let the pregnancy go forward without any sacrifice on your part, it would make a lot of people happier with the option of adoption.
At the end of the day, there would still be a child born with half of this woman's genetic make up (and a man's). That could open up the door down the road for that child one day to come back to find the mother (and father) - which she clearly doesn't want (not sure on the man).
I think there are too many "what-if" scenarios that I'm not comfortable to be ok with this. Even in the case of the father wanting the child, but the mother not...how do you ensure total privacy for the mother? Can you?
Not that I'm that interested in joining this inevitable train wreck, but wawa, why would it need to be an artificial womb?
I guess it wouldn't. transfer to another woman. Transfer to a goat. Doesn't really change the hypothetical. The explanation of why this was the exact scenario I was mulling over is a couple of posts earlier. Typical wandering train of thought kind of stuff.
I think our country leans right center on the idea of abortion. I don't think that most people equate it with murder exactly but that they do think it involves killing or ending a living being.
It's actually leaning more pro-abortion rights at the moment. Most individuals support access to abortion in all or most circumstances. A minority of individuals want it outlawed entirely, or permitted in only a few instances (rape, incest, life/health of woman).
Not that I'm that interested in joining this inevitable train wreck, but wawa, why would it need to be an artificial womb?
I guess it wouldn't. transfer to another woman. Transfer to a goat. Doesn't really change the hypothetical. The explanation of why this was the exact scenario I was mulling over is a couple of posts earlier. Typical wandering train of thought kind of stuff.
So, to be clear, are you asking pro-choicers if they would be fine with illegal abortion if this was available?
From my perspective, I would see this as a way to cut down abortions. I also think it would be awesome opportunity for us infertiles (and from my Catholic perspective, I'm thinking it would be inline with Catholic teaching and therefore allowable). Maybe someday science will figure this out. I think the idea is quite cool (but not with an artificial womb).
Not that I'm that interested in joining this inevitable train wreck, but wawa, why would it need to be an artificial womb?
I guess it wouldn't. transfer to another woman. Transfer to a goat. Doesn't really change the hypothetical. The explanation of why this was the exact scenario I was mulling over is a couple of posts earlier. Typical wandering train of thought kind of stuff.
Well its similar to birds and reptiles with eggs. Or even marsupials who give birth to pre-mature offspring only to have them live in pouches. There is still this young life that needs protecting but it doesn't *have* to be done by the same one who ovulated the egg.
Abortion doesn't exist in the bird world. You don't want your female bird to have babies? Destroy the eggs.