marshmallowcreampie
A false uterus is made. At any stage in the pregnancy, a fetus or embryo may be removed from the woman's uterus and placed into the false one, where it can develop there. Initially the technology was made to help women whose lives were put in danger by the pregnancy, but it becomes cheap and available enough for it to be used in any case where a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy. She has a non-invasive procedure to put the fetus/embryo in the false uterus, and when it's developed enough as to not need to live in there, it can be put into foster care. The woman doesn't have to go through either pregnancy or motherhood. Would you support making abortion illegal in such a situation?
Well, support in what sense? I certainly wouldn't initiate making abortion illegal, but I wouldn't be opposed to making it illegal with this alternative in place.
Having a noninvasive procedure to remove a fetus, however, is pure fantasy, and I want to add; I would still be okay making abortion illegal with an invasive alternative procedure so long as the risk of complications is no higher than that of an abortion.
Quote:
A second situation, the opposite of the Soylent Green style one: the world is becoming under-populated. The human population has been declining, entire neighborhoods are abandoned and there aren't enough people to work in all the industries. Would you support making abortion illegal in that world?
Hell no. I will become a suicide bomber first. I've read
The Handmaid's Tale, and I'm not interested.
Quote:
Think of the Soylent Green situation mentioned above. Now, in that situation, would you start supporting FORCED abortions?
Nope. I might start supporting forced sterilizations, though.