|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:24 pm
Wanted to get a discussion going concerning THIS:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1755908,00.html
Apparently, the whole 'artificial uterus' thing has recently undergone a spurt of development. Within our lifetimes, it might concievably be possible to remove a fetus from the uterus and stuff it into one of these things to finish gestating.
Where does this leave pro-choice?
It totally removes the 'bodily itegrity' argument, since it could mean the end of a pregnancy without facilitating the death of the fetus, but it opens up a whole new can of worms; would this practice become standard? Even compusory? Would such a thing be ethical?
I, for one, wouldn't agree to it. I want my hypothetical accidental pregnancy to NOT end with the existence of a new human. I'd sooner kill myself than reproduce, even if I didn't have to raise the thing, even if I didn't have to remain pregnant against my will. I feel that my DNA is MINE, and if I don't want to propogate it, that's my own damned business. Where do the rest of you stand?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:07 pm
;__; I find it sad that it may come before a 100% effective birth control. That doesn't involve removal of organs.
Unfortunately for those of us who do not wish to spawn ever, there is no way I can see us retaining the right to an abortion (unless, of course, removal of the fetus would kill the woman) without the bodily integrity, AKA right to privacy argument. There is the argument that not every believes the fetus is "ensouled" (for lack of a better word) at the same time and therefore not eligible for the right to live if it's mother doesn't wish it to, but I doubt it would hold up much.
-I can poke a few holes in it, though. For one thing, what the hell is going to happen to all the fetuses, uh, saved by these things? They'll probably be shovelled into the adoption system. Abortion as population control probably sounds like a really mean idea. I don't really care.
-How would they be made standard? Abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than artificial wombs. Forcing the women to pay for the womb could turn women to dangerous, illegal abortions- again, which would NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be a good thing. Paying for it through taxes would be possible, but again, it wouldn't be cheap.
-Compulsory removal into an artificial womb sounds revolting to me, but that's probably just gut reaction. It would probably depend on circumstances. If...
Sorry, I just had a disturbing thought. Compulsory removal of fetuses into artificial wombs could essentially be forcing women through pregnancies. It would depend partially on how early the fetus could be removed, but... my mom once told me she wouldn't be able to stand not knowing what was happening to her child, AKA she would have a really time giving a child up for adoption. A lot of women probably would want to keep their fetuses if they were going to be removed but still grow up. They wouldn't want to know forever that someone with half their DNA, their child if you want to go that far, was out there somewhere being raised by someone else, so they'd stay pregnant or try for an illegal abortion.
*shiver* It sounds a bit stupid in type. Sorry. sweatdrop
Question- when would it be possible to remove the fetus? The article said something about it saving preborns, but it didn't say when the earliest would be able to be removed. I can sort of see the right to abortion remaining during the first trimester if the fetus wouldn't be able to be removed.
NYAAAAAAAAAA, STOP RAMBLING SYBEX. Sorry. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:20 am
-points to sybex's post-
Everything she just said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:33 am
*nods* I agree with Sybex.
I wouldn't want my child running around and me not knowing what's happening to it. I know no one will raise it how I want it to be raised. I know I'm not up to raising a child, that's why I'd have an abortion in the first place. If I can't raise one, I'm not going to birth one, and I'm definatly not going to use an artificial womb.
I don't care if all the fundies think it's saving the widdle fetuses.
I think an artificial womb should only be used if the woman will die from pregnancy and she wants the fetus to live. Not so she can give it up, but so she can raise it herself.
If it were compulsery, they would have to lower the age at which women could obtain tubal litigations. I'd rather die than have my potential abortion fetus yanked from me and nurtured, for it to then come and find me later on and ask why I was going to abort it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:25 am
This could, possibly, be great for a baby that will be born prematurely. But I agree that it shouldn't be a mandatory alternative to abortion, because they'd still probably be dumping the kid into the foster care system (and I would rather raise it on $15 a week than let it be put in the foster care system), and... the "my DNA is MINE!" point is a great one. I agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:11 am
Well, personally, I think that, since it can be supported outside of the womb, it has a right to be raised in a place where it doesn't disrupt the mother's life.
For me, supporting abortion is not about being able to control the population, it's about a woman being able to make a choice so that she can live her life the way she sees fit. It's not about being able to decide if your independently growing DNA can live, it's about deciding if a child is what you want in your life. I don't see the point of abortion, if this kind of a thing has the same effects, except you don't know the child, the child doesn't know you, and you aren't affected.
I don't know, though. I never really understood the whole population control argument, and I don't know if I really get the core of this DNA control argument.
But I suppose that's a personal thing, more than anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:43 pm
My 2 cents: that's really stupid. It's not ethical at all. Instead of abortion let's have the grown outsid eof the womb never having real parents and then shove it in an adoption center. It's really dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:15 am
it should be an option but waht worrys me is not them stelling my DNA it is the testing that they need to do to profect it.
and i agree that if i can not rase the child i do not want it with out me i would always wonder were it was and if it was ok. Not to menchen that this world is over pouplated .
ps sorry for miss speelings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:53 am
Mcphee Well, personally, I think that, since it can be supported outside of the womb, it has a right to be raised in a place where it doesn't disrupt the mother's life.
For me, supporting abortion is not about being able to control the population, it's about a woman being able to make a choice so that she can live her life the way she sees fit. It's not about being able to decide if your independently growing DNA can live, it's about deciding if a child is what you want in your life. I don't see the point of abortion, if this kind of a thing has the same effects, except you don't know the child, the child doesn't know you, and you aren't affected.
I don't know, though. I never really understood the whole population control argument, and I don't know if I really get the core of this DNA control argument.
But I suppose that's a personal thing, more than anything. Whelp, I'm sure you've seen my massive argument against the current state of adoption and foster care; I think it would be exactly as unethical to remove a fetus from my womb and nurture it to 'birth' to ditch it in that system as it would be to physically continue the pregnancy and do the same thing. As to the DNA argument: I believe that I own my DNA. And I am adamantly against my own personal reproduction. I do not want my DNA passed into another generation of humans - I don't want to become/remain pregnant, I don't want to donate eggs- in general, I want the genetic trainwreck that has resulted in me to END with me. I feel that it would be morally incorrect for me personally to be involved in the genesis of another human. If vat wombs were compulsory, and I became accidently pregnant, there's a fair chance that said pregnancy would result in a new human, regardless of my wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:11 pm
Moniquill Whelp, I'm sure you've seen my massive argument against the current state of adoption and foster care; I think it would be exactly as unethical to remove a fetus from my womb and nurture it to 'birth' to ditch it in that system as it would be to physically continue the pregnancy and do the same thing. Quote: As to the DNA argument: I believe that I own my DNA. And I am adamantly against my own personal reproduction. I do not want my DNA passed into another generation of humans - I don't want to become/remain pregnant, I don't want to donate eggs- in general, I want the genetic trainwreck that has resulted in me to END with me. I feel that it would be morally incorrect for me personally to be involved in the genesis of another human. If vat wombs were compulsory, and I became accidently pregnant, there's a fair chance that said pregnancy would result in a new human, regardless of my wishes.
Needless to say, I don't really agree with you, because I'm pro-choice because I believe in a woman choosing to go through with the pregnancy, or not.
But... I also see the fetus as a human being-- a person. And if there's a way that it can be alive, and for the woman to have her way, then I would support that. Because I believe in woman's rights, and for the woman's right to choose what she wants for her life. I don't agree, however, to seeing the fetus as not worthy to live, just because. If there's a way both can be happy, then I'd appreciate that a lot more than anything, just because it's a way for, I thought, pro-life and pro-choice to have their way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
