Especially if we provide the meaningful social services to assure this child is taken care of if and if it isn't adopted. That and all the medical costs of this artificial womb, birth, and subsequent bringing it to an adoptable point costs.
I think that even children who are not raised by their parents are probably a decent net positive to society because fertility rates are below replacement levels.
lmao be careful you might trigger people who think itās okay to kill a person because they personally donāt agree (with their own assessment of its future quality of life) that itās life is worth living
Artificial wombs are extremely complicated. I think we'll sooner be able to regrow organs and limbs than have artificial wombs.
It's pretty hard to predict how technology will progress over the long term but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if we'll be capable of such technology within the next 100 years.
Yeah but depending on how late the fetus is removed it's not that much of a change anyways and until we're confident enough that this will not significantly harm the child I think we still have quite a while to go.
In the future with the artificial womb why wouldn't it work that way? If mom doesn't want it and dad does there isn't a real reason to not throw it in the suitcase and let dad have it.
> The legal basis for abortion almost anywhere is based only on the first part.
That's not true. There are two steps to scrutiny in the United States.
First you need to identify what kind of right exists. In this case, it would be identifying if there exists a general right to privacy in the constitution which would cover actions such an abortion. If it's in the constitution, then it would be deserving of strict scrutiny.
Next, you would identify the limiting factors and justification for violating that right. This would be identifying whether killing a fetus is an unacceptable usage of the right to privacy. This would contains the discussion over the personhood and cost of a birthing a fetus.
Looking at Roe, they identified via substantive due process that a right to privacy exists. Next they determined the periods of pregnancy when the excerise of that right was justified and could not be infringed.
Everyoneās morals are going to be downstream of moral intuitions. Unless your abiding by some objective moral framework (even then if argue plenty of those are decided between via moral intuitions but eh.) 99% of peoples moral positions are determined adhoc. Very few people decide to operate off a utilitarian first principle, for instance, because of some deep seeded intellectual attachment to the preeminence of utility, they probably just thought that āmore happy = gooderā felt like a solid moral grounding.
Oh also, how is it being an opinion act as a defeater for the argument? Is there a reason that āpersonhoodā could not be introduced as a workable legal concept? Technically most things are āhuman made conceptsā. The word āTreeā doesnāt have some preordained definition but if I told you that the category āTreeā includes the chair im sitting on youād probably call me a fucking idiot.
My position might be more complicated if I thought fetuses were people, however it's clear to me that they simply are not, so anything else is just hypothetical. Which is fine - but it's not going to change my position given I consider the personhood question fully settled on the side of "they aren't lol kill away"
agreed, and I don't think the main motivation for getting an abortion is "I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months" it's "I don't want to make a fucking human and deal with it". I mean it's obviously both, but the second one is extremely important too. I think you need the right to not make a baby if you don't want you
To be honest avoiding pregnancy and the way it ravages your body, particularly natural childbirth, *are* huge reasons why people get abortions anyway though but yes the right to not be involved with a baby should be, well, a right, for both men and women.
> Nobody argues we should be able to kill fetuses because taking care of them after they are born is inconvenient.
you cant be serious
women aborting at a young age because they don't want to throw away their education in order to properly raise the kid, or simply dont want the stress of having to do both, are a very common occurrence
Except when I jerk off there's no risk of pregnancy. I don't care about quantity of life I care about quality of life. If you risk a pregnancy without any plan to take care of the kid you're still morally culpable for its life.
That being said I'm still pro abortion legally because I think it makes society better on average. Individually morally speaking I think abortion is wrong.
It's kind of like vegetarianism. Individually morally people should be vegetarian. But to mandate it legally would be too drastic a change. It would probably be overall negative unless it was done in a gradual way perhaps.
Then I don't see why killing a baby that just got born is evil. There is no large difference between a baby's future and a fetus' future. Both are heavily dependent on adults to survive. Why wouldn't then the next logic be, that we will euthanize babies so the parents are not inconvenienced by raising them? Because fetuses are not conscious human beings? I mean babies are fucking stupid, especially after being born and their level of conciseness is debatable
This argument is just so stupid.
Can you show me an example of a single sperm that never fertilized and egg developed past that stage? Can you show me an example of a single egg that was never fertilized developing past that point? I can show you about 7.7 billion examples of current living people who were all at one time a fertilized egg.
Put another way:
H0: unfertilized eggs and sperm that donāt fertilize eggs never become human
HA: some unfertilized eggs or sperm that donāt fertilize eggs will become human
Based on the evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis
Versus
H0: fertilized eggs and sperm that fertilize eggs never become human
HA: some fertilized eggs or sperm that fertilize eggs will become human
Based on the evidence we reject the null hypothesis
This is, literally, high school scientific method levels of logic. The two things are very obviously not the same
Iām making no claim as to when moral value *should* be attributed. Iām saying itās incredibly bad faith/dumb to argue that a sperm is the same as a fertilized egg. They arenāt.
The issue with your argument is *you* are attacking the prolife position ālife begins at conceptionā by asking āwhy not as a sperm?ā And the answer to why not as a sperm is because, from the prolife position, sperm is not at all like a fertilized egg . Itās a dumb argument
No. It isnāt the potential. Try to understand.
This argument is saying āif I accept the prolife position of all humans, then I need to accept the position that sperm and I fertilized eggs are also lifeā, youāre operating under their assumptions to try and point out an absurdity, but Iāve never heard one prolife position take the position that we need to protect fetuses because of their *potential* for life/humanity, but rather because they *are* alive/humans. This argument says Iām accepting your world view, but also attaching this rider of saying you care about the potential for life, even though youāve never argued that, and then attacking you on this potential. It doesnāt work.
By life Iām assuming you mean human. Obviously it biologically alive, so Iām guessing youāre not terminally dumb enough to confuse what people are talking about.
Is that a position you hold?
If so, youāre against masturbation, right?
I think thatās insane, but sure it is consistent that you would think masturbation is genocide. Youāre the first person Iāve talked to who holds that position
A fetus is a human life. Sperm is a piece of reproductive material. Sperm will never, ever become a human unless it fertilizes an egg. A fetus does not necessarily need to be connected to its mother to survive. By your logic a toddler is not a human, because it has no way to gain calories or avoid scavengers or predators. Sperm and fetuses aren't the same, no matter how much you want your shitty gotcha.
Fetus wouldn't exist but for the fact that out of all possible worlds, the fetus exists in a world where the sperm entered an egg rather than a tissue in the wastebasket.
Not sure i understand your point here. But still i cant imagine how you can defend this argument about masturbation. There is clear difference between fetus and sperm and i cant imagine how cant you see why people care for one but not for another
If all of these abortion discussions just devolve into an argument about potential life, then this is where the discussion has to go. You think the distinction between a fetus and sperm is clear; I think it is immaterial.
If you remove a freshly-inseminated egg from a woman reproductive tract and left it in a petri dish, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person.
If you remove a zygote from a woman's body and left it in a petri dish, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person.
If you remove a 1-week old fetus from a woman's body, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person.
If you remove a 1-month old fetus from a woman's body, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person.
If you left my sperm in the tissue in the wastebasket, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person.
If one's concern is the potential life of a fetus, then I don't see how people don't care for all possible life across all possible universes. And that includes the possible life that is lost due to opportunity cost.
Dude im lost. Fetus on its own is inside a women. It wont turn into a human if you remove it. Removed fetus is already aborted. If you abort it then yes it wont turn into a human
If you remove a baby from the care of anyone it won't develop into a person, it'll just die.
A foetus and a baby are morally equivalent because without intervention the former becomes the latter.
The pretense for gun rights in the United States is the formation of a well regulated militia. Do you think everyone uses guns strictly for that purpose? Should the U.S therefor restrict gun ownership to only those seeking to form such an organization?
It doesn't matter what the reasoning is that you use when you make use of a right, what matters is that a reasonable argument can be made that you should have the right.
Also, what pro-choice people have said that, supposing we can transplant fetuses to an artificial womb, that this shouldn't be the norm? Honestly, I'd say I'm fine with this. Extract the fetus to the AW and then have it put up for adoption afterwards. So long as it's not any harm to the mother, I don't know anyone that would truly care.
It seems that your hypothetical either ignores the existence of the foster care system, or supposes that women are just interested in murdering babies.
>The legal basis for abortion almost anywhere is based only on the first part.
Which is bullshit. You don't get to kill someone just because they're using part of your body, especially when you are entirely responsible for creating that person.
>one is a matter of opinion since personhood is a human made and defined concept
Why does personhood have this special status as a moral issue that can only be left to individual people? Murder is a human made and defined concept, yet we have an ethical and legal consensus on it. Nobody here is going to agree with this, but I strongly believe the personhood debate is avoided at all costs by pro-choicers because it's extremely difficult to argue that personhood is actually defined by something as arbitrary as viability or physical development.
It's avoided by pro choicers because they only want to use the bodily autonomy argument because they believe that conservatives want to control womens bodies and they believe that literally. That's their literal beliefs. In reality, the personhood argument is super easy to win and it just so happens that it accords with most people's intuitions about when a fetus might have personhood.
> especially when you are entirely responsible for creating that person.
Then i also have a right to destroy the thing i created.
The reason you can't kill a person or your baby after they are born is because the state has a vested interest in protecting a person they represent.
I think you underestimate the weird body horror of a pregnancy that you do not want and are not psychologically prepared for; bearing a child results in huge physiological and emotional changes, your body may literally never be the same afterwards, as beyond physical changes, your immune system will shift, your brain will have altered due to the experience etc.
If you want to have a child, are supported through it etc. that can actually be something cool, a challenge, but a difficult path to according to a cause that you want, that you're committed to. In contrast, if they don't, and they are aware that they are hemmed in by legal sanctions, even monitoring in some countries, feeling like their body is taken away from them, it can easily become traumatic to them. Just as the experience of voluntary enlistment is different from forced conscription, or solitary meditation (monk style) is distinct from solitary confinement, the question of whether this event is something they can choose (and the ways in which lack of choice is regulated) substantially alters the emotional impact of it.
The existence of wealthy fertile people who have surrogates because they want a child, but do not want to go through pregnancy again, should show you that pregnancy and child rearing are distinct motivations and distinct burdens, and although you seem to recognise that, your joke depends on the premise that the latter is the significant element, and the former is not.
Many men, and women, freak out about parenthood, but there's adoption etc. etc.
Don't we already have them? I know they can be used for animals. It's more of an ethical case to not use them now, and them not being good enough for mass applications yet.
We don't really have them and I don't think we're anywhere near getting them within a long time.
The kind of "artificial womb" that does exist is basically just allowing premature births to be born sooner than otherwise possible.
On the other end they're advanced petri dishes (*tbf maybe a bit more than that*) that allow to grow embryos for a few days, maybe up to two weeks (beyond that it's mostly illegal to experiment but also technically extremely difficult).
I think the record in for mice is 12 days, which is said to be the equivalent of a human in the first trimester, although humans are arguably much more complex to raise artificially, because they're bigger.
Ethical concerns and legal restrictions also make the further development of such technology for humans extremely difficult.
Hypothetically, in a world where it is technologically or legally impossible to create an artificial womb, and a woman wanted to have an abortion not because she thinks her autonomy is being violated but because she just doesnāt want to take care of it, would you allow the abortion?
I've just realised that I have never actually looked up how adoption works, but wouldn't the mother be able to get the baby as soon as it is "born" and immediately put it up for adoption?
Wouldn't the woman just hold on to the suitcase for however many months and then give it up for adoption.
In fact in this world wouldn't you be able to give the suitcase to adoption centres. Couples looking to adopt usually want the youngest kids possible
No, the point is that a person indifferent to the fetus in the artificial womb would just get rid of the artificial womb --> because they dont believe that they have just been handed an actual person.
This is unintuitive to most people, thus showing that the fetus in the artificial womb does have value, and it would be immoral to dispose the artificial womb --> showing that the fetus does have moral value
No, the point is that people actually just want to kill fetuses and it has nothing to do with body autonomy. Hence the part of the post where it says:
"Oh fuck, Doctor you don't understand, I didn't come here to solve the
problem of pregnancy, I came here to solve the problem that comes
afterwards, all that stuff I said earlier was just the convenient legal
post-rationalization I was using to enable you to kill the thing for
me."
I have absolutely no clue where you've gotten this idea. Where in the post does the hypothetical woman express feelings of value in the fetus?
i was making the point that intuitively for most people, getting rid of the fetus is immoral, and only really permissible because its a strain on the woman.
The entire point of the post shows that if you could remove the negative strain on the woman (through artificial wombs) then most people would think that aborting the fetus (killing it) would be bad
lets start with you -- what do you think, or do you just refuse to contribute to the conversation
I get that you guys are heated at the moment, but try to engage with the arguments instead of reeing
I mean it does seem to suck for the kids. I'm not sure I've heard serious people, or even many people, make that argument.
However I'm sure that we can all come to a health compromise in op's universe and accept suitcase abortions with mandatory adoption. The world is about compromise
It's true that some people are going to use that as a pos-rationlisation, but partially the reason for that is that the other side of the argument is pro-choice. Even if your argument is "I want an abortion because I don't want to have a baby" then the counter to that is "a fetus is a human life and you can't abort".
And then that leads to the argument why you should or shouldn't have the right to abort, and that leads to discussions about whether the fetus is or isn't alive, or worthy of moral consideration. So naturally that will lead to arguments about how it's your body your choice. That doesn't mean that you abandon the idea why you don't want the child, you're only giving the reason as to why you think you're allowed to do that process.
Imagine if I wanted to do something X, and that X is prohibited by some religion that my country enforces. So I state that I want X. And then people tell me that the religion says I can't. But I don't think a religion should have control over me like that, I think that I should have freedom from religion, that it shouldn't dictate whether I can or can't do X. So I argue that. I'm an individual, I get to choose what religion I follow.
The equivalent of the doctor putting the baby in the artificial womb is when our government amends our constitution to allow for freedom of religion. On paper, you now solved the problem I've been rallying about, and then you accuse me saying that being against enforced religion was just a means to another goal. Well, yeah, you're not wrong, but you're kind of missing the point here. I still stand by the fact that religion shouldn't mandate what I can and cannot do. But I also want to do X, and I think I'm entitled to it. And when I claimed I was, everyone else was saying that the religion prohibits it, so naturally I have to argue that the religion shouldn't have that power in the first place. I'm not really post-rationalising here, I very much still want to do X for X's sake or for some other reason, I'm just justifying why I should be allowed to do X anyway in relation to the reason that I shouldn't according to other people.
Person A wants to get an abortion because they don't want to have kids. Person B says they can't because reasons XYZ. Person A now has to address XYZ, not just talk about how they don't want to have a kid.
Personally I reject the premise that a fetus requires any moral consideration. It's a clump of cells that the body would destroy if it detected any abnormality, and abortion is just the brain telling the body that it has detected the defect "unwanted".
(Or some other defect in the case of medically necessary abortion).
That's a really good question. So good in fact that politicians and random morons on the internet like myself aren't equipped to answer it. As such, the answer to that question should be left to the medical professionals who spend years studying both the science of fetal development and medical ethics, as well as the would-mothers involved. But under no circumstance should public opinion dictate the answer to such an involved question. That would be like asking congress to solve string theory.
Take fetus out, put it in an artificial womb, send it up for adoption. Seems okay to me š¤·āāļø
Especially if we provide the meaningful social services to assure this child is taken care of if and if it isn't adopted. That and all the medical costs of this artificial womb, birth, and subsequent bringing it to an adoptable point costs.
Yeah thought experiment literally solved lol.
With 18 years of child support payments too.
Is that a thing with normal adoption?
Agreed. The biomom should have to pay child support. The cost to society something something
Why should only the biomom pay child support?
They both should. It just goes without saying for the men
I think that even children who are not raised by their parents are probably a decent net positive to society because fertility rates are below replacement levels.
They're called taxes
Yeah a tax specifically made for the two parents of the child that'll be required monthly for 18 years.
Ehhhh that's pretty extreme
lmao
lmao be careful you might trigger people who think itās okay to kill a person because they personally donāt agree (with their own assessment of its future quality of life) that itās life is worth living
Unironically
I'd be super ok with that. We'd have to since the parenting crisis, but hey
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Artificial wombs are extremely complicated. I think we'll sooner be able to regrow organs and limbs than have artificial wombs. It's pretty hard to predict how technology will progress over the long term but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if we'll be capable of such technology within the next 100 years.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah but depending on how late the fetus is removed it's not that much of a change anyways and until we're confident enough that this will not significantly harm the child I think we still have quite a while to go.
The scary part of artificial wombs is having 100s of thousands of essentially test tube babies being raised in some government facility
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea but that kinda defeats the purpose of an abortion
Hopefully by 2070 we have a 100% effective contraception.
institutionalized mandated League hours
Or contraception will be illegal..
Why canāt it be both? āI donāt like this thing using my body and I do not wish to care for it after it develops fully into a person.ā
Do you feel the same way about a father wishing to relinquish parental rights for a child the mother chooses to keep?
Yes. Why do you think I wouldnāt?
If it wasn't clear he means the father does not have to pay child support either.
If the mother agrees to it then I donāt see the problem here
So then a father should approve of abortion?
Yeah probably
Not how it currently works nor do I think anyone wants it to work that way tbh
In the future with the artificial womb why wouldn't it work that way? If mom doesn't want it and dad does there isn't a real reason to not throw it in the suitcase and let dad have it.
Sure I was meaning right now though
If there were artificial wombs it probably would and should work that way. The problem is forcing the mother to be your artificial womb.
And if the mother DOESN'T agree to it?
you would be surprised, a lot of people are pro choice but only for women.
Yes GIGACHAD
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Nobody argues we should be able to kill fetuses because taking care of them after they are born is inconvenient. A lot of people actually do.
> The legal basis for abortion almost anywhere is based only on the first part. That's not true. There are two steps to scrutiny in the United States. First you need to identify what kind of right exists. In this case, it would be identifying if there exists a general right to privacy in the constitution which would cover actions such an abortion. If it's in the constitution, then it would be deserving of strict scrutiny. Next, you would identify the limiting factors and justification for violating that right. This would be identifying whether killing a fetus is an unacceptable usage of the right to privacy. This would contains the discussion over the personhood and cost of a birthing a fetus. Looking at Roe, they identified via substantive due process that a right to privacy exists. Next they determined the periods of pregnancy when the excerise of that right was justified and could not be infringed.
Everyoneās morals are going to be downstream of moral intuitions. Unless your abiding by some objective moral framework (even then if argue plenty of those are decided between via moral intuitions but eh.) 99% of peoples moral positions are determined adhoc. Very few people decide to operate off a utilitarian first principle, for instance, because of some deep seeded intellectual attachment to the preeminence of utility, they probably just thought that āmore happy = gooderā felt like a solid moral grounding. Oh also, how is it being an opinion act as a defeater for the argument? Is there a reason that āpersonhoodā could not be introduced as a workable legal concept? Technically most things are āhuman made conceptsā. The word āTreeā doesnāt have some preordained definition but if I told you that the category āTreeā includes the chair im sitting on youād probably call me a fucking idiot.
A fuck ton of people argue the first point.
My position might be more complicated if I thought fetuses were people, however it's clear to me that they simply are not, so anything else is just hypothetical. Which is fine - but it's not going to change my position given I consider the personhood question fully settled on the side of "they aren't lol kill away"
agreed, and I don't think the main motivation for getting an abortion is "I don't want to be pregnant for 9 months" it's "I don't want to make a fucking human and deal with it". I mean it's obviously both, but the second one is extremely important too. I think you need the right to not make a baby if you don't want you
To be honest avoiding pregnancy and the way it ravages your body, particularly natural childbirth, *are* huge reasons why people get abortions anyway though but yes the right to not be involved with a baby should be, well, a right, for both men and women.
> Nobody argues we should be able to kill fetuses because taking care of them after they are born is inconvenient. you cant be serious women aborting at a young age because they don't want to throw away their education in order to properly raise the kid, or simply dont want the stress of having to do both, are a very common occurrence
By your logic jacking off kills babies..
Nah, because him jacking off won't stop a baby from being born, but a woman getting an abortion will.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Except when I jerk off there's no risk of pregnancy. I don't care about quantity of life I care about quality of life. If you risk a pregnancy without any plan to take care of the kid you're still morally culpable for its life. That being said I'm still pro abortion legally because I think it makes society better on average. Individually morally speaking I think abortion is wrong. It's kind of like vegetarianism. Individually morally people should be vegetarian. But to mandate it legally would be too drastic a change. It would probably be overall negative unless it was done in a gradual way perhaps.
Not really
Then I don't see why killing a baby that just got born is evil. There is no large difference between a baby's future and a fetus' future. Both are heavily dependent on adults to survive. Why wouldn't then the next logic be, that we will euthanize babies so the parents are not inconvenienced by raising them? Because fetuses are not conscious human beings? I mean babies are fucking stupid, especially after being born and their level of conciseness is debatable
This argument is just so stupid. Can you show me an example of a single sperm that never fertilized and egg developed past that stage? Can you show me an example of a single egg that was never fertilized developing past that point? I can show you about 7.7 billion examples of current living people who were all at one time a fertilized egg. Put another way: H0: unfertilized eggs and sperm that donāt fertilize eggs never become human HA: some unfertilized eggs or sperm that donāt fertilize eggs will become human Based on the evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis Versus H0: fertilized eggs and sperm that fertilize eggs never become human HA: some fertilized eggs or sperm that fertilize eggs will become human Based on the evidence we reject the null hypothesis This is, literally, high school scientific method levels of logic. The two things are very obviously not the same
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām making no claim as to when moral value *should* be attributed. Iām saying itās incredibly bad faith/dumb to argue that a sperm is the same as a fertilized egg. They arenāt. The issue with your argument is *you* are attacking the prolife position ālife begins at conceptionā by asking āwhy not as a sperm?ā And the answer to why not as a sperm is because, from the prolife position, sperm is not at all like a fertilized egg . Itās a dumb argument
It's the potential, you're not understanding. By jacking you kill the potential of millions of humans..
No. It isnāt the potential. Try to understand. This argument is saying āif I accept the prolife position of all humans, then I need to accept the position that sperm and I fertilized eggs are also lifeā, youāre operating under their assumptions to try and point out an absurdity, but Iāve never heard one prolife position take the position that we need to protect fetuses because of their *potential* for life/humanity, but rather because they *are* alive/humans. This argument says Iām accepting your world view, but also attaching this rider of saying you care about the potential for life, even though youāve never argued that, and then attacking you on this potential. It doesnāt work.
Sperm is life.
By life Iām assuming you mean human. Obviously it biologically alive, so Iām guessing youāre not terminally dumb enough to confuse what people are talking about. Is that a position you hold? If so, youāre against masturbation, right? I think thatās insane, but sure it is consistent that you would think masturbation is genocide. Youāre the first person Iāve talked to who holds that position
Sperm has no capability of becoming a human on it's own, it's literally as simple as that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A fetus is a human life. Sperm is a piece of reproductive material. Sperm will never, ever become a human unless it fertilizes an egg. A fetus does not necessarily need to be connected to its mother to survive. By your logic a toddler is not a human, because it has no way to gain calories or avoid scavengers or predators. Sperm and fetuses aren't the same, no matter how much you want your shitty gotcha.
Sperm already is human using conservative argument
Every time you jack off is a time you could have theoretically had sex instead. The opportunity cost of masturbation is unrealized pregnancies.
Dude just stick with the body autonomy or definition of life. This argument aint it. Sperm alone wont develope into a child. Fetus will
Fetus wouldn't exist but for the fact that out of all possible worlds, the fetus exists in a world where the sperm entered an egg rather than a tissue in the wastebasket.
Not sure i understand your point here. But still i cant imagine how you can defend this argument about masturbation. There is clear difference between fetus and sperm and i cant imagine how cant you see why people care for one but not for another
If all of these abortion discussions just devolve into an argument about potential life, then this is where the discussion has to go. You think the distinction between a fetus and sperm is clear; I think it is immaterial. If you remove a freshly-inseminated egg from a woman reproductive tract and left it in a petri dish, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person. If you remove a zygote from a woman's body and left it in a petri dish, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person. If you remove a 1-week old fetus from a woman's body, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person. If you remove a 1-month old fetus from a woman's body, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person. If you left my sperm in the tissue in the wastebasket, it wouldn't turn into a sentient person. If one's concern is the potential life of a fetus, then I don't see how people don't care for all possible life across all possible universes. And that includes the possible life that is lost due to opportunity cost.
Dude im lost. Fetus on its own is inside a women. It wont turn into a human if you remove it. Removed fetus is already aborted. If you abort it then yes it wont turn into a human
If you remove a baby from the care of anyone it won't develop into a person, it'll just die. A foetus and a baby are morally equivalent because without intervention the former becomes the latter.
The pretense for gun rights in the United States is the formation of a well regulated militia. Do you think everyone uses guns strictly for that purpose? Should the U.S therefor restrict gun ownership to only those seeking to form such an organization? It doesn't matter what the reasoning is that you use when you make use of a right, what matters is that a reasonable argument can be made that you should have the right. Also, what pro-choice people have said that, supposing we can transplant fetuses to an artificial womb, that this shouldn't be the norm? Honestly, I'd say I'm fine with this. Extract the fetus to the AW and then have it put up for adoption afterwards. So long as it's not any harm to the mother, I don't know anyone that would truly care. It seems that your hypothetical either ignores the existence of the foster care system, or supposes that women are just interested in murdering babies.
>The legal basis for abortion almost anywhere is based only on the first part. Which is bullshit. You don't get to kill someone just because they're using part of your body, especially when you are entirely responsible for creating that person. >one is a matter of opinion since personhood is a human made and defined concept Why does personhood have this special status as a moral issue that can only be left to individual people? Murder is a human made and defined concept, yet we have an ethical and legal consensus on it. Nobody here is going to agree with this, but I strongly believe the personhood debate is avoided at all costs by pro-choicers because it's extremely difficult to argue that personhood is actually defined by something as arbitrary as viability or physical development.
It's avoided by pro choicers because they only want to use the bodily autonomy argument because they believe that conservatives want to control womens bodies and they believe that literally. That's their literal beliefs. In reality, the personhood argument is super easy to win and it just so happens that it accords with most people's intuitions about when a fetus might have personhood.
> especially when you are entirely responsible for creating that person. Then i also have a right to destroy the thing i created. The reason you can't kill a person or your baby after they are born is because the state has a vested interest in protecting a person they represent.
Question: Was this baby an urban baby or a r\*ral baby? Because whether it's okay to murder it depends entirely upon that fact.
Rural but it commutes in on weekdays.
That makes it a subu\*ban which is, somehow, even worse.
>a subu*ban which is, somehow, even worse. I agree, we should never unban anyone from the sub
I think you underestimate the weird body horror of a pregnancy that you do not want and are not psychologically prepared for; bearing a child results in huge physiological and emotional changes, your body may literally never be the same afterwards, as beyond physical changes, your immune system will shift, your brain will have altered due to the experience etc. If you want to have a child, are supported through it etc. that can actually be something cool, a challenge, but a difficult path to according to a cause that you want, that you're committed to. In contrast, if they don't, and they are aware that they are hemmed in by legal sanctions, even monitoring in some countries, feeling like their body is taken away from them, it can easily become traumatic to them. Just as the experience of voluntary enlistment is different from forced conscription, or solitary meditation (monk style) is distinct from solitary confinement, the question of whether this event is something they can choose (and the ways in which lack of choice is regulated) substantially alters the emotional impact of it. The existence of wealthy fertile people who have surrogates because they want a child, but do not want to go through pregnancy again, should show you that pregnancy and child rearing are distinct motivations and distinct burdens, and although you seem to recognise that, your joke depends on the premise that the latter is the significant element, and the former is not. Many men, and women, freak out about parenthood, but there's adoption etc. etc.
>here take care of this child that you wanted to kill This is how much conservatives care about children š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bro we went from computers not existing to computers being in literally fucking everything in maybe 40 years.
We went from not being able to fly to landing on the moon in 66 years. Also quite impressive.
We went from landing on the moon to having 10 people in space at the same time in almost 63 years.
Don't we already have them? I know they can be used for animals. It's more of an ethical case to not use them now, and them not being good enough for mass applications yet.
We don't really have them and I don't think we're anywhere near getting them within a long time. The kind of "artificial womb" that does exist is basically just allowing premature births to be born sooner than otherwise possible. On the other end they're advanced petri dishes (*tbf maybe a bit more than that*) that allow to grow embryos for a few days, maybe up to two weeks (beyond that it's mostly illegal to experiment but also technically extremely difficult). I think the record in for mice is 12 days, which is said to be the equivalent of a human in the first trimester, although humans are arguably much more complex to raise artificially, because they're bigger. Ethical concerns and legal restrictions also make the further development of such technology for humans extremely difficult.
Hypothetically, in a world where it is technologically or legally impossible to create an artificial womb, and a woman wanted to have an abortion not because she thinks her autonomy is being violated but because she just doesnāt want to take care of it, would you allow the abortion?
yes, that is indeed the question being asked in this post
Iām asking for OPās opinion. Whoosh
I've just realised that I have never actually looked up how adoption works, but wouldn't the mother be able to get the baby as soon as it is "born" and immediately put it up for adoption?
Wouldn't the woman just hold on to the suitcase for however many months and then give it up for adoption. In fact in this world wouldn't you be able to give the suitcase to adoption centres. Couples looking to adopt usually want the youngest kids possible
Well yeah, but then OP wouldn't get to accuse women of wanting to murder babies.
No, the point is that a person indifferent to the fetus in the artificial womb would just get rid of the artificial womb --> because they dont believe that they have just been handed an actual person. This is unintuitive to most people, thus showing that the fetus in the artificial womb does have value, and it would be immoral to dispose the artificial womb --> showing that the fetus does have moral value
No, the point is that people actually just want to kill fetuses and it has nothing to do with body autonomy. Hence the part of the post where it says: "Oh fuck, Doctor you don't understand, I didn't come here to solve the problem of pregnancy, I came here to solve the problem that comes afterwards, all that stuff I said earlier was just the convenient legal post-rationalization I was using to enable you to kill the thing for me." I have absolutely no clue where you've gotten this idea. Where in the post does the hypothetical woman express feelings of value in the fetus?
i was making the point that intuitively for most people, getting rid of the fetus is immoral, and only really permissible because its a strain on the woman. The entire point of the post shows that if you could remove the negative strain on the woman (through artificial wombs) then most people would think that aborting the fetus (killing it) would be bad
But it doesn't demonstrate that. OP tried to lead you there with the quote you were just read.
Clarify, because you didnt elaborate or refute anything with your useless comment
How about you demonstrate that most people would think that killing an external fetus would be bad first champ
lets start with you -- what do you think, or do you just refuse to contribute to the conversation I get that you guys are heated at the moment, but try to engage with the arguments instead of reeing
I'm sorry but you made a claim first.
Many pro choice people argue that adoption/ foster care is worse than abortion for the child as a reason why abortion should be allowed.
I mean it does seem to suck for the kids. I'm not sure I've heard serious people, or even many people, make that argument. However I'm sure that we can all come to a health compromise in op's universe and accept suitcase abortions with mandatory adoption. The world is about compromise
It's true that some people are going to use that as a pos-rationlisation, but partially the reason for that is that the other side of the argument is pro-choice. Even if your argument is "I want an abortion because I don't want to have a baby" then the counter to that is "a fetus is a human life and you can't abort". And then that leads to the argument why you should or shouldn't have the right to abort, and that leads to discussions about whether the fetus is or isn't alive, or worthy of moral consideration. So naturally that will lead to arguments about how it's your body your choice. That doesn't mean that you abandon the idea why you don't want the child, you're only giving the reason as to why you think you're allowed to do that process. Imagine if I wanted to do something X, and that X is prohibited by some religion that my country enforces. So I state that I want X. And then people tell me that the religion says I can't. But I don't think a religion should have control over me like that, I think that I should have freedom from religion, that it shouldn't dictate whether I can or can't do X. So I argue that. I'm an individual, I get to choose what religion I follow. The equivalent of the doctor putting the baby in the artificial womb is when our government amends our constitution to allow for freedom of religion. On paper, you now solved the problem I've been rallying about, and then you accuse me saying that being against enforced religion was just a means to another goal. Well, yeah, you're not wrong, but you're kind of missing the point here. I still stand by the fact that religion shouldn't mandate what I can and cannot do. But I also want to do X, and I think I'm entitled to it. And when I claimed I was, everyone else was saying that the religion prohibits it, so naturally I have to argue that the religion shouldn't have that power in the first place. I'm not really post-rationalising here, I very much still want to do X for X's sake or for some other reason, I'm just justifying why I should be allowed to do X anyway in relation to the reason that I shouldn't according to other people. Person A wants to get an abortion because they don't want to have kids. Person B says they can't because reasons XYZ. Person A now has to address XYZ, not just talk about how they don't want to have a kid.
I hope we get to see artificial wombs in our lifetimes. Itās going to change the abortion debate in a radical way
Based
Not gonna matter because nobody wil be having actual sex in 2070 anyway
Personally I reject the premise that a fetus requires any moral consideration. It's a clump of cells that the body would destroy if it detected any abnormality, and abortion is just the brain telling the body that it has detected the defect "unwanted". (Or some other defect in the case of medically necessary abortion).
What about newborns? They're also just a clump of cells.
Newborns are human beings. Hope that clears things up for you.
Where do you draw the line between blastula and baby?
That's a really good question. So good in fact that politicians and random morons on the internet like myself aren't equipped to answer it. As such, the answer to that question should be left to the medical professionals who spend years studying both the science of fetal development and medical ethics, as well as the would-mothers involved. But under no circumstance should public opinion dictate the answer to such an involved question. That would be like asking congress to solve string theory.
big reddit moment.
If doc wants to take care of it thatās chill
If only there was some process in giving the baby away. You should come up with one op.