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).
I think you and violets might be talking about two slightly different things though. I think the majority of the country that is pro-abortion rights feel that way because they think a woman's rights trump anything else. Not necessarily because they don't see abortion as ending a life. I doubt they could articulate it as well as the SBP personhood diatribe, but I think for most people they consider it a necessary evil to maintain a woman's control over her own body - not that it's not a "bad" thing.
Of course I'm COMPLETELY talking out of my own ass here on what "most" people actually believe. I have nothing to back this up whatsoever except just random anecdotes and impressions. I will stand by the idea that being pro-abortion rights does not necessarily mean you aren't morally bothered by abortion 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.
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).
Oh sure. What I was trying to get across are all the people who say "I'm pro choice but I wouldn't choose it for myself" if they had an unplanned pregnancy. So they don't think anyone's choices should be limited but if they were in the situation that WaWa presents, where they could go ahead with the pregnancy and choose a family to adopt the baby, they might be more likely to choose the robo womb.
I don't know, I don't think this is likely to happen anytime soon. If it did though, I would definitely consider signing up for our fourth child. Not wanting to be pregnant again or go through L and D is the biggest deterrent to having another. I just honestly can't go through that again :)
Are we making abortion illegal for this alternative? What happens if the embryo/fetus/whatever dies during this procedure?
I'm perfectly fine being labeled as pro-abortion. I wish that more women had easy access without stigma.
That was the question - would you be ok with making abortion illegal if women didn't actually have to continue the pregnancy.
As for what would happen if the ZEF died during transfer - same thing that happens if a baby dies during birth i imagine. People are sad. We move on. It's not criminal unless somebody did it on purpose.
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.
Hmmm...actually when you put it like this... It's not the worst idea...except the Duggars. Do you think the womb thing could raise the baby too? Like...just through the formative years--till the child was fun and interactive?
The idea is growing on me.
I think this is probably a sign I'm not ready for a child...if I'm not ready for stretch marks..
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.
Hmmm...actually when you put it like this... It's not the worst idea...except the Duggars. Do you think the womb thing could raise the baby too? Like...just through the formative years--till the child was fun and interactive? The idea is growing on me.
I think this is probably a sign I'm not ready for a child...if I'm not ready for stretch marks..
But more than that it is just a debate of keeping the child alive or not when it is removed.
i don't follow this
It is more of a debate about if there was a way to keep the child alive when it was taken from the mother rather than killing it in an abortion would you support it. Of course there are a million other variables (parental rights, etc.)
if it would mean abortions would be illegal in the face of the medi-womb, than no.
as someone strongly considering surrogacy in the next year or so, i have thought about if i would be willing to donate my eggs as well since i want to work primarily with gay couples and i just cant do it. i can't stand the thought of a child of mine out in the world and for my kids to have a half-sibling out there. i know i could carry a baby that is not mine with no problems whatsoever, but i just cant make the jump to using my own eggs.
so i can see how this medi-womb would be appealing to some women with unwanted pregnancies but not all and with that, i could not stand to make abortion illegal.
and, since most women who have abortions already have other children, i really don't see this catching on.
what about the mythical woman that has 5+ abortions? are there now 5 of her kids running around, unchecked that could marry and have kids with people they don't know are siblings?
You mean just like how dudes can go around fucking as many women as they want and leaving little half-siblings scattered about the country-side who may or may not know if they're related? Not to mention sperm donation.
I agree that it's an issue, but it's not a new issue.
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.
Until someone can magically make people be responsible with birth control, I am sticking with more abortions. Less unwanted children in the world would be a good thing.
i was thinking that as i was typing. there is nothing to ensure that DH isn't just spreading little half majors all over central il. lol
but for me, it would be something i can control - the number of kids i bring into the world and i just couldnt do it. i don't see this concern being that far out of line considering the numbers of women who dont donate eggs.
oh, I agree it's a legit concern. And it's the main reason I personally would still want abortion to be an option.
I'm just not sure the legal argument is quite as straightforward.
Woman have a right to control of their own bodies. Therefore abortion has to be legal. Bam. Done. (I know that anti-abortion rights people think this is debatable, but really....it's not) But I think the question of whether people have an inviolable right to control of their genetic offspring is debatable.
We've certainly denied men that right in favor of women's right to control their bodies (i.e. they can have an abortion or not regardless of the bio-father's thoughts on the matter) - what is the balance of rights without the bodily integrity portion?
msmery (I think) mentioned maybe it'd be a both have to agree or else it goes to abortion since both parties would have an equal say in the spread of their genetics. That makes the most sense to me, but the argument against that is very emotionally poignant. (i.e. I want this ZEF but my sexual partner doesn't...and so the ZEF will be destroyed. :-( )
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).
How is this inline with Catholic teaching? I thought all third-party reproduction (including surrogacy) was a big no-no. isn't this just glorified surrogacy? And, if a machine, even more of a "getting in between you and your husband" sort of violation of Church-sanctioned family building?
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).
How is this inline with Catholic teaching? I thought all third-party reproduction (including surrogacy) was a big no-no. isn't this just glorified surrogacy? And, if a machine, even more of a "getting in between you and your husband" sort of violation of Church-sanctioned family building?
Maybe I'm confused...
Obviously I could be completely off the mark, but I would think that this would be considered different than surrogacy. To me, it seems more like an adoption earlier in the life of the child. Also, in this scenario, conception didn't involve a third party and was not artificial.
say you have a couple where the woman does NOT want the ZEF to continue to live yet the man does. So does the man automatically get the right to keep the ZEF in the medi-womb until it can be born just b/c he wants it? or will there have to be some kind of competency hearing? what if the man is homeless while the woman could provide for a home for the ZEF? What will be the determining factor in keeping the ZEF alive? Just the desire to have it or the ablity to care for it?
I've been mulling this over since you posted it.
1st - thanks because this is exactly the kind of pointless nitpickery of bizarre hypothetical that keeps me entertained.
2nd - I am really not sure what I think about this.
One one hand the idea of a parental competency hearing that would determine whether or not a ZEF is terminated sounds AWFUL. Like, no. Absolutley not. That's a terrible idea.
But on the other hand...does it really make sense to bring a ZEF to term in a robo-womb, just to release them to an unfit parent? Where they'll just end up in the system anyway? But it's not as if being homeless alone is cause to take kids away, is it? Families live in shelters together, right?
Huh. I don't think I know enough about how that works to make a real call, but I don't think parental competency should come into it. I'm still not sure how you balance conflicting rights to control of genetic material though. Absolutely no idea what the "right" answer is there - either legally or morally.
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).
How is this inline with Catholic teaching? I thought all third-party reproduction (including surrogacy) was a big no-no. isn't this just glorified surrogacy? And, if a machine, even more of a "getting in between you and your husband" sort of violation of Church-sanctioned family building?
Maybe I'm confused...
The Catholic Church has issues with surrogacy because it involves the "artificial" creation of life, it's created by doctors not intercourse. So yes, the Church would likely view this as adoption which is accepted and even encouraged since it's a person/couple taking in a child that is already in existence.
FIL said that he doesn't think there is any condition that could endanger a woman's life and require abortion. Also, if you can carry a fetus to 12 weeks, medical technology has advanced such that they could keep the baby alive and it would survive.
He says he sees it all the time (as a fucking cardiologist, I have no idea how this is the case, especially since he tanked his OBGYN courses and has stayed far away from the field since).
But anyway.... maybe something like this already exists. Or FIL is crazy. I think the latter is more likely.
Holy crap that's crazy he has a medical license. 24 weeks is an absolute miracle. Not 12. Or I'd have 4 kids by now.
Post by PinkSquirrel on Dec 27, 2012 16:53:02 GMT -5
I think it would reduce the number of abortions, but for a lot of people having abortions it isn't just the wear and tear on their body that keeps them from choosing adoption. I've talked to loads of women who would very much want to continue their pregnancy, but they have to choose between continuing the pregnancy and being able to feed the child they already have. For them, it's the idea of a child of theirs running around with someone else that is the big barrier.
I also think you would see a whole new pool of people who would traditionally not consider abortion choosing this option.
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.
Have you been reading Dean Koontz Wawa? Because that is TOTALLY a Koontz storyline.
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.
Have you been reading Dean Koontz Wawa? Because that is TOTALLY a Koontz storyline.
Post by basilosaurus on Dec 27, 2012 23:55:22 GMT -5
LM, he probably read Brave New World and thought it was non-fiction. I believe babies can possibly live prior to 24 weeks (like 23.5), but even at 24 it's a 50/50 chance in the best of cases.
As for the hypothetical, I'm opposed. It would necessitate both parents signing off which probably wouldn't happen, but our culture would still likely push mom to be the sole parent. So, essentially, dad gets a bigger vote. Add in the issues of minority adoption, so only white kids would be taken care of. And then you have the issue that we're already overpopulated....
Woman have a right to control of their own bodies. Therefore abortion has to be legal. Bam. Done. (I know that anti-abortion rights people think this is debatable, but really....it's not) But I think the question of whether people have an inviolable right to control of their genetic offspring is debatable.
We've certainly denied men that right in favor of women's right to control their bodies (i.e. they can have an abortion or not regardless of the bio-father's thoughts on the matter) - what is the balance of rights without the bodily integrity portion?
Actually, you DO have a human right to determine the number and spacing of your children.
Because women are the one who bear the brunt of children (carrying a pregnancy, and even now, raising children) this right has focused on them, because they also have rights to bodily integrity, life, and health that pregnancy impacts.
And the more I think about this, the more squicked out I get. If a woman is pregnant, and CHOOSES to undergo a procedure to place a ZEF in an artificial womb, that's one thing. But for anyone, even the ZEF's paternal donor to force her to do so? No bueno. No fucking bueno.
As for micro preemies, if you have a strong stomach, go ahead and read this from a NICU nurse about caring for them. It's definitely more thoroughly entrenched my thoughts on abortion, and helped me develop my thoughts on whether I would want extraordinary measures if I ever gave birth to an micro preemie:
Woman have a right to control of their own bodies. Therefore abortion has to be legal. Bam. Done. (I know that anti-abortion rights people think this is debatable, but really....it's not) But I think the question of whether people have an inviolable right to control of their genetic offspring is debatable.
We've certainly denied men that right in favor of women's right to control their bodies (i.e. they can have an abortion or not regardless of the bio-father's thoughts on the matter) - what is the balance of rights without the bodily integrity portion?
Actually, you DO have a human right to determine the number and spacing of your children.
Because women are the one who bear the brunt of children (carrying a pregnancy, and even now, raising children) this right has focused on them, because they also have rights to bodily integrity, life, and health that pregnancy impacts.
And the more I think about this, the more squicked out I get. If a woman is pregnant, and CHOOSES to undergo a procedure to place a ZEF in an artificial womb, that's one thing. But for anyone, even the ZEF's paternal donor to force her to do so? No bueno. No fucking bueno.
But we've pretty much negated a father's rights to determine the number and spacing of his children as long as he's willing to have sex. Once he inserts tab A into slot B - his wishes don't matter from a legal POV. And this makes sense because it's the mother who has to deal with the pregnancy.
So if you took the pregnancy issue away - how do you balance the (theoretically) equal rights of the mother and father to determine number and spacing of children when they are in conflict? Does she still have final say since she has to undergo the procedure? Assuming she does not want to raise a child, does she still get final say if the procedure from her POV is essentially identical (D&C vs. Sci-Fi ZEF extraction)? (obviously if it's early enough for a medical abortion then this doesn't apply. I'd fight pretty hard that she should maintain the right to choose the less invasive procedure regardless)
I agree with you in general btw - the whole idea squicks me the fuck out. But my understanding of how these rights have been parsed before is that they all come back to the mother being the one who has to carry the baby, so she's the one who gets the final say. It seems like you take the pregnancy part out of the picture and suddenly the question of who has which rights gets awfully muddy.
And just to be clear, though I know I'm like a broken record, I'm not trying to prove any kind of point here. This was just a random hypothetical that I came up with to pass some time. Like zombie apocalypse action plans.
Actually, you DO have a human right to determine the number and spacing of your children.
Because women are the one who bear the brunt of children (carrying a pregnancy, and even now, raising children) this right has focused on them, because they also have rights to bodily integrity, life, and health that pregnancy impacts.
And the more I think about this, the more squicked out I get. If a woman is pregnant, and CHOOSES to undergo a procedure to place a ZEF in an artificial womb, that's one thing. But for anyone, even the ZEF's paternal donor to force her to do so? No bueno. No fucking bueno.
But we've pretty much negated a father's rights to determine the number and spacing of his children as long as he's willing to have sex. Once he inserts tab A into slot B - his wishes don't matter from a legal POV. And this makes sense because it's the mother who has to deal with the pregnancy.
So if you took the pregnancy issue away - how do you balance the (theoretically) equal rights of the mother and father to determine number and spacing of children when they are in conflict? Does she still have final say since she has to undergo the procedure? Assuming she does not want to raise a child, does she still get final say if the procedure from her POV is essentially identical (D&C vs. Sci-Fi ZEF extraction)? (obviously if it's early enough for a medical abortion then this doesn't apply. I'd fight pretty hard that she should maintain the right to choose the less invasive procedure regardless)
I agree with you in general btw - the whole idea squicks me the fuck out. But my understanding of how these rights have been parsed before is that they all come back to the mother being the one who has to carry the baby, so she's the one who gets the final say. It seems like you take the pregnancy part out of the picture and suddenly the question of who has which rights gets awfully muddy.
And just to be clear, though I know I'm like a broken record, I'm not trying to prove any kind of point here. This was just a random hypothetical that I came up with to pass some time. Like zombie apocalypse action plans.
But you're STILL forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure of your choosing.
And that negates her right to bodily integrity just like banning abortion.
But we've pretty much negated a father's rights to determine the number and spacing of his children as long as he's willing to have sex. Once he inserts tab A into slot B - his wishes don't matter from a legal POV. And this makes sense because it's the mother who has to deal with the pregnancy.
So if you took the pregnancy issue away - how do you balance the (theoretically) equal rights of the mother and father to determine number and spacing of children when they are in conflict? Does she still have final say since she has to undergo the procedure? Assuming she does not want to raise a child, does she still get final say if the procedure from her POV is essentially identical (D&C vs. Sci-Fi ZEF extraction)? (obviously if it's early enough for a medical abortion then this doesn't apply. I'd fight pretty hard that she should maintain the right to choose the less invasive procedure regardless)
I agree with you in general btw - the whole idea squicks me the fuck out. But my understanding of how these rights have been parsed before is that they all come back to the mother being the one who has to carry the baby, so she's the one who gets the final say. It seems like you take the pregnancy part out of the picture and suddenly the question of who has which rights gets awfully muddy.
And just to be clear, though I know I'm like a broken record, I'm not trying to prove any kind of point here. This was just a random hypothetical that I came up with to pass some time. Like zombie apocalypse action plans.
But you're STILL forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure of your choosing.
And that negates her right to bodily integrity just like banning abortion.
So, still, no bueno.
Ok, so I'm assuming here that she's going to choose a medical procedure regardless. She has chosen not to continue the pregnancy and is past the point of RUwhateverit is being an option. If the procedures are essentially the same thing...just in one the ZEF is discarded as medical waste and in the other it's transferred. (hey...it's my imaginary medical procedure, I can make it whatever I want) Do you think that's still not ok?
I'm mostly convinced. Doctors have to get releases for EXACTLY the procedure they're performing, right? (barring emergencies) They can't get you opened up and decide to do something slightly different and be all "well, it's the same in terms of impact to your body, so why do you care?." this makes sense to me. I think the line is a lot less bright, but she's still the pregnant one, so it's still her call as to which procedure she undergoes. Seems clear.
Although now I'm thinking about scenarios where women think they are going in for a D&C and the doctor secretly extracts the ZEF and transfers it. *shudder* I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that this kind of tech WILL NEVER HAPPEN before I give myself nightmares.