Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, this is kinda sci-fi.

But if say... A private organization funded artificial wombs and a quick and painless way to remove the embryo from your body and incubate it in a womb...

Then I would be pro-life.

But unfortunately, we do not have publically-availible artificial incubators.

So I'm pro-choice.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on it? I mean, if it were possible to remove the embryo and put it OUTSIDE your body and you could just walk away, right then right there?

The issue would fall completely and entirely onto whether or not the fetus was a person.

If the fetus were a person, legally equivalent to a born child, then yes, I would be for artificial wombs and banning traditional abortion (so long as it was quick, easy, readily available, and cost-equivalent to abortion). This is because Bodily Domain and the right to protect it from harm does not grant you a right to use lethal force in and of itself. Lethal force can only be used when it is necessary and no other reasonable alternatives exist. You can't kill someone for poking you with a stick because there are ways to stop them that are reasonably available. If the fetus were a person then you'd have no more right to kill it than a child in your home because you can reasonably remove it without killing it.

If the fetus were not a person, and nothing more than flesh, then it would be an issue of property rights. Who owns the fetus? The woman? The man? So long as it is in her body she has a right to have it removed... but does that right cover destroying the property as well? The fetus would be half the man's and half the woman's property, as such the woman can remove it from her body, but whether or not she may destroy the property would be an issue for the courts to decide.

When artificial wombs are such that they are a readily available and reasonable alternative to abortion the issue of "personhood" would need to be deeply looked into.

I'd still be as pro-choice as they come. For one, our adoption system is ********. Two, this would be of more help to those who actually WANT to reproduce, particularly women who have no trouble GETTING pregnant, but cannot sustain a pregnancy for any number of medical (or sometimes unexplained) reasons.

I'd still see it as irresponsible -- it allows a pregnancy to come to term, but it doesn't ensure that someone will be there to care for the resulting life. In that aspect, it's no different than carrying the pregnancy naturally and then dealing with the adoption system.

I understand the "I own my genetic material" thing. I really do. I just don't agree.

I see the fetus as a person. I didn't at first, but then I was challenged to explain myself and none of the explanations I came up with (or heard from others) ever sat well with me. Why *shouldn't* a fetus be considered a person? Legally, I know it isn't. But had I been born 200 years ago, neither would I. That explanation just doesn't sit well with me. So yes, I do consider a fetus to be a person and I do consider the fetus to be fully eligible for bodily domain.

Now, because the fetus is inside the woman, its bodily domain is forfeit to hers. He is the "agressor." And, since there is currently no way for a woman to protect her BD from a fetus without killing it, then I fully support abortion.

However, if there were another way, then killing would no longer be right (in my opinion). It would be like killing a rapist who was very small and frail and could have just as easily been pushed off you. If there is an alternative option (that does not cause undue harm to the woman - such as possible infertility, infection, and other risks), then I would view killing as an excessive measure.

I do agree with Mipsy that it is irresponsible to bring a child into the world when YOU (personally) cannot care for it (or, at the very least, ensure that it will be cared for). This works in tension with my other, previously mentioned, belief. But I think of other applications of this. A lot of the world's problems would be solved through selective culling. Get rid of all the chronically unemployed, for example. And sure, this would raise the quality of life for the rest of us, but is it worth it?

Once a fetus is removed from the woman's body, it is no longer harming anyone else physically. It is largely autonomous (in as much as someone in a coma or someone who requires a respirator can be said to be). Once it has reached this point, I cannot see the justification in killing fetuses. So I would have to say no and we'd just have to come up with another way of preserving our quality of life.

Wouldn't this probably be very expensive for years to come after it's creation?

...

*Suddenly get's a Matrix flashback*

o_o

The thing about artificial wombs is that it sounds like an expensive, harrowing procedure on the woman- even if it'll allow the fetus to live. I personally don't feel that the fetus is a person, not to mention the amount of sheer paperwork, as Toga mentioned, that would come into being the moment a fetus is made a person. I understand that others would consider a fetus a person, and that is fully their perogative, and their decision- I just disagree. Also, what is going to happen to those children in the artificial wombs? Who is going to pay for the wombs, and the children when they come into being? It seems decidedly irresponsible to me to bring ot life thousands more children - maybe even millions, when we can't even place the half million we have no into decent homes.

That said, if we had artificial wombs that did as little or less harm to the woman as an abortion, I'd have to think long and hard about whether or not I'd become pro-life. If the person, I'd definitely become pro-life, but since I don't consider it one, though I know others do, I really don't know.

That said, why are fetuses not considered people to me (up to a certain point)? Part gut feeling, part fact that at the stage of most abortions, the fetus's brain is non-functional. If there is no mind, how is there a person?

What makes an intelligent dog not a person? Even if it's smarter than quite a few mentally deficient people, the people are still valued more by law than the dog- so it can't be intelligence. The dog may be capable of more logic and free thinking than some people- who are still more valued by the law, so it can't be that either. Does the simple fact that one has human DNA make you superior to all other beings? If one day, more sentient beings came down to Earth and started communicating with us, would we be able to consider them beneath us even if they are equal in intelligence, just because they are humans?

When I was walking into Planned Parenthood, a woman yelled at me, "don't walk down this path! Jesus is the way!" My initial thought was that if Jesus wanted to carry it to term and raise the child, then and only then would she be right. After putting more thought into it, I stand by that thought. If someone or something will carry it to term instead of me and someone will raise it once it is born, then I don't see a problem with investigating such a solution. I, for one, have no problem with my genes being used to make more people. I rather like myself. I understand not everyone has that stance, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I'd have a much harder time justifying abortion just on that.

If there was a God, then it means that the entire religion I follow is BS! gonk

Peace-loving, caring, warmth? That ain't BS, sonnyboy!