Ectogenesis--How does this change the abortion debate?

[CurlyIam]

Ok, I'll explain. I'm 24.I have a stedy bf who loves me. I daresay if I got pregnant he'd even marry me. I'm having my MAster degree at a fairly good school with some good employment chances. I had sex with 2 men in life and was extra carefull not to get pregnant.

 

I honestely think that the "I cannot offer my baby whatit desirve" argument is not a viable one. Bull****, ayone can raise a child.

 

If I got pregnant right now, I would be in the biggest mess of my life. the next 2 years of my life are the most important one. I am applying for a grant next year and maybe.... some extraordinary things might happen. This is not a time for wedings and babies.

 

 

I will not KILL my baby, as it is a cell. I get biology very well. A cell. YEs, it does contain life. So do Plants. Of course I would be devastated, but I did not cross half this f*cking continent to get knocked up by a Frenchman. Do you know that if I have a baby I automatically gain citizenship? That's hyserical, if you knew the crap I have to go through every year.

 

 

And, yes, indeed, I am trully trully really selfish. And with an exaggerated sense of property. I could never do this to my child. Abandon him. I will never abandon him. Come to think of it, I don't think I'll ever be able to make an abvortion. But theoretically speaking, if I did get pregnant now, I think I would. Rather than have it taken away. I could never live with myself. It's just out of the question. I will never under no circumstances give it away. For me! And for him. I think I have too much conscience. You may think I seriously lack one....

 

IT's a very itchy subject, that's for sure!

[Pocky]

no woman who aborts a child is thinking about anything other then herself.

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion regarding abortions, but I think the above statement is a little audacious and not entirely accurate. Granted, it's based on an opinion, but it really is out of line. Some women have an abortion because the health of the baby may be compromised or the health of the mother may be compromised. There are still risks with pregnancy and there are still instances where both the mother and/or child could be in danger even in with today's technology.

 

Some women do abuse the procedure. Some women do use it in a way that many of us find horrible. However, there are some women that need to have the right to make this decision. You can't deny all of us because some of us make mistakes.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by Mr Spock

Once again, here we go. If you want this to turn into a debate on the morality of abortion, have at it. I won't participate in it. But I don't think you should argue what a woman feels when she makes the decision to have an abortion Bluetuesday until you've been a pregnant woman making that choice.

 

Keep Abortion Legal.

 

but i argued that it's a very difficult and horrible choice spock.

 

i don't need to have contemplated an abortion to know that. there are some heartless cows out there of course but i don't think anyone who holds a genuine opinion either way based on what they feel and have experienced is one of those. there are no easy answers to a topic such as this.

 

and it's only logical that women must think it's easier to have an abortion than to have the child. very few of us do anything we believe to be the worst choice. it would be completely against human nature to do so.

 

i didn't want to make this a moral argument about the pros and cons of abortion either, although it's clear what my views are. i merely stated that ectogenesis, if available, would be the preferable option for many women, who, i reiterate, find abortion a difficult and traumatic decision.

[CurlyIam]

Blue, I do not trust the system. I know that if I give my baby away, chances are that it ends up in an orphenage and in the street before 18. You just don't know. I mean it sounds soeasy to say:"give the baby away". So that it becomes what? The dirt of society? With no one to pay for his education, no one to guid him, no one to love him.... will he have dinner every day? will he have protection? Will he?

 

Think about this. Yes, some call abvortion murder. But giving the baby away is just as bad if not worst.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by Pocky

I think the above statement is a little audacious and not entirely accurate.

 

ah, pocky. ok you got me.

 

i was a tad rash with that one. sorry.

 

but i don't entirely take it back.

 

in the context we weren't talking about medical cases. but even if the child is unviable through terrible deformity outside the womb at full term i still think a parent acts in their own interest as well as the child's when they go for an abortion.

 

in some cases i still think it would be because caring for that child would be too hard for the parents, as much as i think the parents would not want the child to suffer.

 

without hijacking dyer's thread and turning it into a moral or a religious argument, i stand by what i said.

 

but i'd change the wording to 'no woman who aborts a child is being purely unselfish about it.'

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

Blue, I do not trust the system. I know that if I give my baby away, chances are that it ends up in an orphenage and in the street before 18. You just don't know. I mean it sounds soeasy to say:"give the baby away". So that it becomes what? The dirt of society? With no one to pay for his education, no one to guid him, no one to love him.... will he have dinner every day? will he have protection? Will he?

 

Think about this. Yes, some call abvortion murder. But giving the baby away is just as bad if not worst.

 

 

curly, if you abort a baby it will definitely die.

 

i'm not saying adoption is easy. i'm not saying it always works out.

 

but it's easier than being killed.

 

and nothing like as final.

[faux]

Originally posted by bluetuesday

but this discussion is about dyer's initial assertion that the procedure is NO MORE TROUBLING than an abortion. the woman is in a position where she will be subject to a certain amount of 'trouble' already.

 

Legally, ectogenesis would be far more troubling than an abortion. The mother would not be "finished" when she left the doctor's office or clinic. She would be required to sign more legal papers. Adoption is a lot of work, and not all women are comfortable with the idea.

 

 

 

but this is about whether or not, with absolutely no additional inconvenience or stress to the mother, the option of ectogenesis would cast any doubt on the pro-choice stance.

 

Ectogenesis would cause further stress and inconvenience to a mother, and in fact ALL mothers if we develop the technology further. If you want to have children in the futue, and ectogenesis is completely reliable, no doubt a judge will ORDER YOU to carry your child to term in an artificial uterus.

 

it's sheer bloodymindedness to suggest that women have a right, through termination, to protect any future negative thoughts or feelings they might have over the issue of having aborted a child, even if you accept that at the time the foetus is inside her she has a certain right to protect her body from the potentially medically dangerous task of carrying the baby to term.

 

Legally, a fetus has no rights until a certain point. This is why abortion is, at present, legal. If your views on termination were "correct", then abortion would be illegal. I suppose the legal system itself is "bloodyminded".

 

 

 

actually curly said this herself: I could not bare to know my kid exists somewhere and will grow up thinking it is not loved by his mother

 

"...[T]hinking it was not loved by his mother..."

 

I believe you misunderstood her.

 

 

 

again, curly said her attitude was 'incredibly selfish'. i didn't accuse her of anything she has not admitted. her comments about the welfare of the child must therefore be taken in the light of her own admission. had she been thinking primarily about the welfare of the child i wouldn't have tackled her. my main point was that she was acting purely in her own interests and any thought for the welfare of the child was, at best, secondary.

 

Women who have abortions ARE, many times, thinking of the welfare of their children. Consider a mother who must choose to give birth to a child with a debilitating handicap or not. Consider the mother who may give birth to a child who will die after twenty-four hours. Consider many other things, and know that abortion remains fully justifiable.

 

 

 

why? legally we can cheat on our spouses. it doesn't make it a respectable thing to do because there's no law against it. women have abortions for many reasons. if you're saying that anything that is legal must therefore be respectable you are not discriminating between women who have abortions for good reasons and women who have abortion for bad reasons. neither am i, as it happens, i was just pointing out the hypocrisy in your own argument.

 

There was no hypocrisy in my argument; I fully believe the validity of my argument. Cheating on ones spouse does not in any way enter into this discussion. I did not imply that anything legal ought to be respected. I implied that maternal choices of any sort, when done with good intentions, ought to be respected, even if you cannot personally agree with those choices.

 

Additionally, infidelity does carry legal repurcussions in the way that it provides grounds for divorce. Although infidelity is not outlawed, it is not justified by the legal system, and the legal system provides a means to attempt to deal with this issue.

 

 

 

this is an assumption i didn't make. no-one is saying ectogenesis would or should be legally enforceable as a replacement for abortion. i am not against people having rights faux. i am against them using their rights to avoid responsibility for their actions when the choices the make cause unnecessary suffering to those who can't defend themselves. i don't think this is a mute point. you are arguing for 'rights' yourself. we both think it's important that rights are protected, but my argument against abortion and for ectogenesis seeks to protect both the mother and the child.

 

Unborn fetuses do not "suffer". It is often difficult not to attribute human characteristics to animals, and as I can see, even more difficult not to do this to a collection of developing cells. You imply that, if ectogenesis were a feasible option, persons who would choose abortion are vile, unethical, immoral and are murderers. You suggest that depriving them of the choice of abortion would be a positive thing, or at the very least show that if there were a new alternative, this should heavily influence persons against the choice of abortion. Therefore, it does not appear that you are all for individual rights at certain points in your argument.

 

 

 

beside the point. curly was not arguing about this and i didn't address it.

 

The topic in itself, ectogenesis, brings this point to argument.

 

 

now you're talking like a man. many women who choose abortion find it an incredibly hard choice to make, horrible to go through with and they live to deeply regret it.

 

but the reason women choose abortion is because it is easier than having a baby. for whatever reason - social, economic, medical. if it were less easy than having a baby, they wouldn't choose it.

 

Women do not choose abortion simply because it is "easier". Adoption is, to many women, more difficult a choice, or just as difficult a choice.

 

it being easier does not mean it isn't horrible faux. it just means the women who abort care more about themselves and the consequences they might face than they do for the life of the kid.

 

Why do you insist that women who have abortions do not care, and that they are selfish? On what facts do you base this?

 

if there was a way round it, the best of both worlds, a situation where the mother got what she wanted (not to be pregnant) and child got to live, it'd be a pretty heartless world if we didn't take it.

 

It would not be heartless to choose an alternative to a solution which brings "the best of both worlds". There is always a choice involved in every situation. Women who choose abortion now are not heartless, and women who would choose abortion over this proposed solution are as well not heartless. I believe there are many ideas you have not yet considered. There would be some severe repurcussions over ectogenesis if it became fully realized.

 

Many factors which have been proved highly important for the development of an unborn fetus cannot be duplicated in an artificial womb. This could possibly cause severe damage to the child. Consider that governments would mandate that all women must give birth by way of ectogenesis, as it is far "safer" for the child? Consider that there would be more children waiting to be adopted, who must deal with all the horrors adoption can very well bring. Consider that some women may fall in love with ectogenesis and abuse it, by drinking, smoking, and doing all the drugs they want while their baby remains safe in a manufactured mother? What if this technology were incorporated into cloning technology? It is entirely possible that, through ectogenesis, two homosexual men can have a child? What are the ramifications for this sort of thing in our world?

 

This issue goes far beyond the possibility of a new alternative to abortion.

[CurlyIam]

curly, if you abort a baby it will definitely die.

 

Well, it is a baby if it's older then 22 weeks (or 28, I'm not sure). Before that, it's just abvortion.

 

i'm not saying adoption is easy. i'm not saying it always works out.

 

Maybe in your country it always works out. Not in mine (I'm East European). Kids living in the streets are part of everyday life. So is kids doing drugs and selling themselves for money. So is head masters of orfenages spending the money for food on their personal needs, etc etc.

 

 

but it's easier than being killed.

 

and nothing like as final.

 

Cells are not being killed. Yes, it may be a baby, but it's not ! This is why women have this choice. This other alternative... I don't now. It is on each person to do as they feel. I can't remember for the life of me where I read this - or if I saw it in a film- but did you know that Hitler's mom wanted to have an abvortion and changed her mind at the last second? I mean, in the end, it's a totally personal choice.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by faux

The mother would not be "finished" when she left the doctor's office or clinic. She would be required to sign more legal papers.

 

yeah. signing your name's really hard. i stand by this faux. the thought of having denied a child the right to life should be much harder than the thought your child is alive and not with you. self, self, self.

 

If you want to have children in the futue, and ectogenesis is completely reliable, no doubt a judge will ORDER YOU to carry your child to term in an artificial uterus.

 

utter cr*p! and completely off topic.

 

Legally, a fetus has no rights until a certain point. This is why abortion is, at present, legal. If your views on termination were "correct", then abortion would be illegal. I suppose the legal system itself is "bloodyminded".

 

you would suppose right. but this is a matter of vogue, not ethics. abortion is currently legal in the uk. it has not always been so. it may not be again. the ethical arguments have not changed. legality has no bearing on what is ethically "correct". but if they changed the laws in the usa you'd be against abortion all of a sudden? sure you would.

 

"...[T]hinking it was not loved by his mother..."

 

I believe you misunderstood her.

 

maybe i did. but maybe you have no idea what love is. a loving mother would not usually wish her child dead or to have never existed faux. you're splitting hairs.

 

Women who have abortions ARE, many times, thinking of the welfare of their children. Consider a mother who must choose to give birth to a child with a debilitating handicap or not. Consider the mother who may give birth to a child who will die after twenty-four hours. Consider many other things, and know that abortion remains fully justifiable.

 

sigh. this was not what curly was speaking about and you know it! i've posted my views earlier in this thread about the disability debate. but to recap, i don't buy that being dead is better than being alive. you don't know the value of anyone else's life. did chris reeve say he wished he had been killed falling off that horse? no.

 

I implied that maternal choices of any sort, when done with good intentions, ought to be respected, even if you cannot personally agree with those choices.

 

who decides faux? and what are good intentions? you say you didn't imply anything legal ought to be automatically respected and then you make the argument that good intentions should be respected.....in what way? legally? that's absolutely what you're saying. if the woman has good intentions, whatever the outcome, if it's legally ok it should be respected. you're contradicting yourself.

 

Unborn fetuses do not "suffer".

 

there's evidence to say that they do. and not only suffer, smile, feel emotion and all at well before the time it's currently legal to abort them. when i'm through with this reply i'll post a link.

 

You imply that, if ectogenesis were a feasible option, persons who would choose abortion are vile, unethical, immoral and are murderers. You suggest that depriving them of the choice of abortion would be a positive thing, or at the very least show that if there were a new alternative, this should heavily influence persons against the choice of abortion. Therefore, it does not appear that you are all for individual rights at certain points in your argument.

 

persons who would choose abortion on demand for no good reason other than they don't want a child at that time, yes.

 

and i believe very strongly in individual rights but it would be madness to suggest that rights are the licence to do what you want, when you want and for whatever reason you want. if my rights harm you faux, you'd be pretty pissed off. an unborn child cannot express its concern, that should make us more protective towards it, not less.

 

Women do not choose abortion simply because it is "easier". Adoption is, to many women, more difficult a choice, or just as difficult a choice.

 

on what facts do you base this?

 

Why do you insist that women who have abortions do not care, and that they are selfish? On what facts do you base this?

 

i don't insist they do not care. i insist that if abortion was not the option they wanted they would not have one. the fact they choose abortion shows they think this to be the right choice for them. i don't think i've been unclear on this point. no human consciously makes the choice they think is wrong for them. we always act in the way we think is right. humans can justify all sorts of things because they think they are right. hitler thought he was right or he wouldn't have done it.

 

Many factors which have been proved highly important for the development of an unborn fetus cannot be duplicated in an artificial womb. This could possibly cause severe damage to the child. Consider that governments would mandate that all women must give birth by way of ectogenesis, as it is far "safer" for the child? Consider that there would be more children waiting to be adopted, who must deal with all the horrors adoption can very well bring. Consider that some women may fall in love with ectogenesis and abuse it, by drinking, smoking, and doing all the drugs they want while their baby remains safe in a manufactured mother? What if this technology were incorporated into cloning technology? It is entirely possible that, through ectogenesis, two homosexual men can have a child? What are the ramifications for this sort of thing in our world?

 

you're saying because the technology may be open to abuse it shouldn't exist? the technology that allows us to kill babies in the womb is open to abuse too.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by faux

A woman who wants an abortion is going to want an abortion. She is not going to want to do some new form of adoption, which is exactly what this ectogenesis seems to be. Instead of giving up the child for adoption after it is born, the woman would be giving up her unborn child. There will still be a choice involved in the matter.

Nobody "wants" an abortion. It's not a fun, safe thing you go out and do for recreation. It's something you do because you have to.

 

I'm looking for the reason to kill the unborn child if it can be saved. You've failed to provide that reason.

 

If this technology is available as yet another choice for women, then so be it. I do not believe the introduction of such technology would stop people from wanting actual abortions, however. I am not even sure that most women would be able to deal with the emotional consequences of such a choice. Knowing that the child a woman gave up, and would have had aborted, is still out there, alive somewhere, would be quite disconcerting to a woman.

What the hell are you talking about? How would the emotional consequences of putting a child up for a closed adoption be worse than the emotional consequences of killing it? You do realize that an abortion is a traumatic experience, right? People have awful nightmares coupled with intense feelings of guilt.

 

You're revealing the pro-death extreme of the pro-choice argument. If you're truly pro-choice, and not pro-death, why not support something that's equally respectful of a woman's right to not be pregnant?

Furthermore, ectogenesis would no doubt raise even more ethical and moral questions among the populace. Is it natural, or even acceptable, to grow a child within a machine? I understand that you have already stated that artificial wombs would be organic, but an artificial womb would most likely be seen, by many, as a machine, and as something unnatural.

Induced abortion is equally unnatural. In fact, having a baby in a hospital at all is unnatural, if you want to follow the laws of nature, you should just give birth to the baby at home, and if you die, you die, too bad, that's natural selection.

 

I think we can safely continue the discussion recongizing that humans transcend nature, or else, go to our humanity vs. nature thread.

Are people not already concerned that abortion could be abused? Would the unborn child not be put at risk during the transfer operation, from mother to artificial womb?

I'm concerned that abortion is being abused, I'm an old-school purist when it comes to medicine; Above all, do no harm.

 

Additionally, the child has more chance to survive a transfer to an artificial womb than say, survive saline solution, or survive dismemberment.

 

Would this affect the child's development or life?

Remember that you're comparing the proccess to an abortion. So, yes.

 

Fortunately, ectogenesis is not a viable option at this time. Fetuses can only survive for a few weeks at best in these artificial environments. It may be feasable at some point in the near future, to use artificial wombs as a "short term" solution to medical problems, but it will not be possible to carry an embryo to full term through ectogenesis for a very long while, or perhaps ever.

You're speculating, and I'm calling your bluff.

 

Goats have been delivered through ectogenesis, and it will probably be around 5 years (very long while?) before its fit for humans.

 

Originally posted by CurlyIam

I think I have heard that if you are in the early stages of pregnancy, you don't have to make an abvortion(first months), you just take some pills. In France, the clinics offering this are forced to offer one month compulsory counselling before handing the pills.

 

If it were me getting pregnant, I'd take the pill.

That's still an abortion. You're still killing whatever you want to call it.

 

The pill, RU-486, is basically a caustic saline solution that burns the baby to death. Additionally, it's not as safe for the mother as other forms of abortion. I don't think you'd be so keen on trying it.

 

Why the pill and not the artificial womb? Because it is a part of me and I could not bare to know my kid exists somewhere and will grow up thinking it is not loved by his mother. The children I make are Mine and I find the very idea of forcing me to deliver part of my body away propostrius. Yes, it is incredibilly selfish, but it does not concern any other person but myself if I get pregnant or not.

Adoption is a reality, people step up to the plate and raise children that aren't theirs all of the time. That's not just a human thing either. Adopted kids, if they even know they're adopted, are still capable of love and attachment.

 

Additionally, ectogenesis would allow for a safer delivery of babies, because you don't have to worry about keeping the mother alive during the birth, because the mother is no longer present. It would allow adopting families the chance to bond with their child right at the moment of birth. I think it's wonderful, and I'm excited about it.

 

I mean if i ever decided to cut off my left arm, would the authorities fine me for throwing away a perfectly good arm? Would thay force me down to the hospital and stichted it back? I don't think so.

Whoa! Red Herring.

 

A left arm is YOURS, it contains your DNA, with 46 of your chromosomes.

 

A human child has seperate DNA, and is a seperate human being, with only 23 of your chromosomes.

 

Because in the beginning it is just a cell, but it does turn into a human being. This procedure can be optional, but NEVER compulsory!

Even that one cell isn't "yours" by the time it's fertilized.

 

Originally posted by faux

Also, abortion is not murder. If it were murder, it would be outlawed.

Murder isn't just a legal term. It's a function of natural law, fundamental human ethics, and in order for you to convince me that it's not murder, you'd either have to prove:

1. It's not human.

2. It's not alive.

 

You can't.

If ectogenesis was used as an option, it would lead to adoption. Adoption very much requires the involvement and demands troubling the mother.

Shame on you for talking about an institution you don't understand. Closed adoption doesn't require the involvement or 'trouble' of the mother.

In some ways, I can see how termination would be a more humane alternative to adoption.

That probably stems from a misunderstanding of the adoption system.

 

Who says that a woman wanting an abortion would not, can not, or does not love her child?

I do.

 

If you're killing something, you're not loving it. That's common sense.

 

Women who opt for abortions believe that doing so is the best choice under the circumstances. Such choices MUST be respected.

Precisely!

 

BUT

 

If ectogenesis becomes a reality, the CIRCUMSTANCES have changed. No longer is the dichotomy:

 

a. Be Pregnant

 

b. Get rid of it (through killing it)

 

It's

 

a. Be Pregnant

 

b. Get rid of it (through giving it up)

Again, many women who have abortions are thinking about more than themselves. They are thinking about what type of life the child would have, and quite possibly that such a life would be intolerable for the child. They are thinking about the child's health, opportunities, and many other influencing factors.

They don't have to keep the child.

There are other options besides abortion, but abortion is STILL an option for many reasons. I can understand that you do not agree with it, but your arguments seem to be based simply on your disapproval of the act, rather than points that I would consider more important.

Stick to ectogenesis in this thread. That changes the nature of the debate entirely, because basically what you're saying is that death should be a choice, even if it's just as easy to save the child, and take care of the mother's "problem" as well.

 

One must also remember that not all women have an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy, but due to health concerns for child and mother, and other legitimate medical reasons.

This would alleviate the health concerns for the mother!

 

Face it. Abortion is useful. If it were so horrible and uncalled for, no woman would choose it as an option, but many do.

With ectogenesis, the circumstances change.

Originally posted by Mr Spock

If it was used as another option for women carrying unwanted pregnancy that's fine. But if it's used as method to try and outlaw abortion, no.

To you, and all: What's the justificaiton for keeping abortion legal, if this were a (pardon) viable option? What problems remain for you?

 

This is where you're crossing the line from 'pro-choice' to 'pro-death'.

 

Originally posted by CurlyIam

Think about this. Yes, some call abvortion murder. But giving the baby away is just as bad if not worst.

That makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.

 

You're trying to turn abortion into an unselfish act of compassion, and I'm not buying the spin.

 

Originally posted by faux

Legally, ectogenesis would be far more troubling than an abortion. The mother would not be "finished" when she left the doctor's office or clinic. She would be required to sign more legal papers. Adoption is a lot of work, and not all women are comfortable with the idea.

Again, if you don't understand the proccess of closed adoption, don't pretend you do, because it's misleading to people who realize how intelligent you are in other threads, and take your testimonial as reasonably factual, when it's not.

Ectogenesis would cause further stress and inconvenience to a mother, and in fact ALL mothers if we develop the technology further. If you want to have children in the futue, and ectogenesis is completely reliable, no doubt a judge will ORDER YOU to carry your child to term in an artificial uterus.

You're contradicting yourself. If the child is in an artificial uterus, you're not carrying the child to term at all. It causes no more stress than abortion, and, because of the trauma associated with abortion, in some cases, less.

Legally, a fetus has no rights until a certain point. This is why abortion is, at present, legal.

I've read Roe V. Wade, and Zimmerman summed it up in the article I linked to.

 

Abortion is legal because:

1. A woman retains right to privacy, including the right to not be pregnant.

2. A fetus can't be gauranteed the right to life, because it imposes on another's life.

 

This is a solution because:

1. A woman still retains her right to privacy, as both procedures are still invasive.

2. A woman retains her right not to be pregnant.

3. A fetus no longer imposes on the life of the mother.

 

You've used the "horrors" of adoption as a red herring, because you've failed to address the issues above.

Unborn fetuses do not "suffer". It is often difficult not to attribute human characteristics to animals, and as I can see, even more difficult not to do this to a collection of developing cells.

This is veering off track the subject of ectogenesis, but it's important to note that you're wrong about this as well.

 

1. We're all a collection of developing cells. In terms of human development, birth is an arbitrary milestone.

2. A fetus is human. That's not an opinion.

3. Suffering, or at least pain, is a function of nerves, which the fetus develops quickly.

Why do you insist that women who have abortions do not care, and that they are selfish?

This thread was about how Ectogenesis changes the abortion debate.

 

If it was possible to keep a child alive, with no extra burden on the mother, it would be cruel and selfish

 

Your only argument against this so far is based on total misunderstandings of the adoption system. I can't speak for the adoption system in France, but volunteering in places that insure good homes for children whose mothers just had to sign a paper and forget about their child, I can assure you that:

 

1. Adoption isn't cruel to a child. Although the system isn't perfect, a kid isn't given to a bad home. These are people who, unlike the original mother, want a child.

2. Closed adoption isn't burdensome on the birth mother.

 

The next few faux arguments take us further down the slippery slope, and further from healthy debate, but I'll indulge.

Consider that some women may fall in love with ectogenesis and abuse it, by drinking, smoking, and doing all the drugs they want while their baby remains safe in a manufactured mother?

Even though your slippery slope argument is, by its very nature, fallacious, wouldn't that be better than having kids born with fetal alcohol syndrome?

It is entirely possible that, through ectogenesis, two homosexual men can have a child?

An ovum would still be neccessary, it's not as though two sperm cells could be spliced.

If you have studies showing that it's healthier for a child to be killed in the womb than raised in a gay home, please let me know.

 

but did you know that Hitler's mom wanted to have an abvortion and changed her mind at the last second?

Anything with the word 'Hitler' in it doesn't belong in discussion.

 

That's anecdotal, and apocryphal. It's not like she wrote in her diary, "Dear diary, I was going to abort adolph, but did not. Hope he doesn't exterminate people."

There's a similair pro-life anecdote about Beethoven almost being aborted.

 

Thats pointless in the discussion though, because ectogenesis wasn't an option for either of those two.

[faux]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Nobody "wants" an abortion. It's not a fun, safe thing you go out and do for recreation. It's something you do because you have to.

 

I know of a few women who have had abortions, because they wanted abortions. It was a choice they wanted to make considering their situation.

 

I'm looking for the reason to kill the unborn child if it can be saved. You've failed to provide that reason.

 

The reason to kill an unborn child when it can be "saved" : The woman chooses to have the abortion, despite the fact that a new technology touted to be the save-all alternative is available. Additionally, animals born through ectogenesis fair quite poorly after birth, if the fetus can even be carried to term. It has been found that the heart beat of a mother, and the hormones in the mother's body, are highly influential to the development of a fetus. These things are not present in ectogenesis.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? How would the emotional consequences of putting a child up for a closed adoption be worse than the emotional consequences of killing it?

 

I know several women who opted to have an abortion, as they believed it would be easier than having to deal with the pain of having a child out there who has to go through hell in the adoption system, or thinking that his mother does not love him, or that he was an accident and is good for nothing.

 

You do realize that an abortion is a traumatic experience, right? People have awful nightmares coupled with intense feelings of guilt.

 

You do realize that adoption is a traumatic experience, yes? And that people have awful nightmares about their adopted children, mixed with feelings of guilt?

 

You're revealing the pro-death extreme of the pro-choice argument. If you're truly pro-choice, and not pro-death, why not support something that's equally respectful of a woman's right to not be pregnant?

 

You are implying that, if ectogenesis were a valid option, persons CHOOSING to have an abortion would be horrible monsters. Abortion is still a choice. I am defending any choice that a woman might make. I see a repeated trend that ecotegenesis must, and should, replace abortion. I did state that, if a woman chose this as an option, then "so be it".

 

Induced abortion is equally unnatural. In fact, having a baby in a hospital at all is unnatural, if you want to follow the laws of nature, you should just give birth to the baby at home, and if you die, you die, too bad, that's natural selection.

 

I firmly believe that ectogenesis will receive just as much, if not more, opposition from persons who have problems with abortion already. No doubt religious organizations will find the idea to be unacceptable. I did not state that abortion is unnatural, nor did I mention that birth in a hospital is unnatural. The birth of a child under severely unnatural circumstances, however, WILL cause a huge fuss in the future.

 

I think we can safely continue the discussion recongizing that humans transcend nature, or else, go to our humanity vs. nature thread.

 

Rather than wondering if birth in an artificial environment is "natural", which it clearly is not, wonder then if it is correct, in any way, to raise a child who may suffer more damage in this artificial environment than in a woman's body. From what I gather of ectogenesis, unless we make very rapid advancements in medical science, even suggesting that a human fetus be brought to term through this method would be monstrous.

 

I'm concerned that abortion is being abused, I'm an old-school purist when it comes to medicine; Above all, do no harm.

 

One can do no harm to a collection of cells which is, in fact, nothing very important. How is abortion not abused, in your opinion? Are there any situations in which you believe abortion is fully justifiable?

 

Additionally, the child has more chance to survive a transfer to an artificial womb than say, survive saline solution, or survive dismemberment.

 

A human fetus would have great difficulty surviving ectogenesis. Animal tests are not going terribly well. Again, unless this technology advances very quickly, it just is not feasible to risk the life of an unborn child to prove that this should work.

 

What if the mother does not want the child to live?

 

From what I understand, you are concerned over the lives of unborn children. Do you believe that using unborn children as test subjects, to determine whether or not ectogenesis is feasible, is correct? This the only way, you know, that ectogenesis will ever begin to take off: Many uborn fetuses being sacrificed in the name of science.

 

 

You're speculating, and I'm calling your bluff.

 

I am not speculating.

 

Goats have been delivered through ectogenesis, and it will probably be around 5 years (very long while?) before its fit for humans.

 

Goats have been delivered by ectogenesis, yes. The longest these goats have lived is for a few weeks. Very wonderful results, I should think.

 

That's still an abortion. You're still killing whatever you want to call it.

 

Why, then, is abortion a legal option? If it is, in fact, killing, or murdering, why is it allowed to continue?

 

The pill, RU-486, is basically a caustic saline solution that burns the baby to death. Additionally, it's not as safe for the mother as other forms of abortion. I don't think you'd be so keen on trying it.

 

Still, this is an available option.

 

Adoption is a reality, people step up to the plate and raise children that aren't theirs all of the time. That's not just a human thing either. Adopted kids, if they even know they're adopted, are still capable of love and attachment.

 

One cannot dismiss the reality that an adopted child may suffer quite a bit through his life, moreso than a child not adopted.

 

Additionally, ectogenesis would allow for a safer delivery of babies, because you don't have to worry about keeping the mother alive during the birth, because the mother is no longer present. It would allow adopting families the chance to bond with their child right at the moment of birth. I think it's wonderful, and I'm excited about it.

 

Ectogenesis, in this very way, can cause far more problems than I believe you are willing to address. If the environment is definitely safer than natural child birth, who is to say that governments will not require all births to come from ectogenesis? Who is to say that a drug addict mother will be able to have a baby, because she can trash her body as much as she wants without hurting her child? There are many children waiting for homes in the adoption system. Is it really right to shove even more children into this situation?

 

Murder isn't just a legal term. It's a function of natural law, fundamental human ethics, and in order for you to convince me that it's not murder, you'd either have to prove:

1. It's not human.

2. It's not alive.

 

There are arguments both for and against these very questions.

 

You can't.

 

Everyone has a different opinion on these topics, all opinions being drawn from religious and scientific information.

 

Again, if abortion were murder it would then be outlawed. Murder is a behavior which humanity has deemed necessary to control through laws.

 

Shame on you for talking about an institution you don't understand. Closed adoption doesn't require the involvement or 'trouble' of the mother.

 

That probably stems from a misunderstanding of the adoption system.

 

It is often not wise for an individual to resort to logical fallacies when arguing a point. I believe that I should know very much about the adoption system, VERY much indeed, unless my childhood is unimportant regarding this topic.

 

 

I do.

 

Congratulations.

 

If you're killing something, you're not loving it. That's common sense.

 

It is possible to kill an individual whom you love.

 

 

 

If ectogenesis becomes a reality, the CIRCUMSTANCES have changed. No longer is the dichotomy:

 

a. Be Pregnant

 

b. Get rid of it (through killing it)

 

It's

 

a. Be Pregnant

 

b. Get rid of it (through giving it up)

 

They don't have to keep the child.

 

They also have one less option.

 

Stick to ectogenesis in this thread. That changes the nature of the debate entirely, because basically what you're saying is that death should be a choice, even if it's just as easy to save the child, and take care of the mother's "problem" as well.

 

My argument, in entirety, has very much to do with ectogenesis. If you are willing to discuss ectogenesis, then you ought to be prepared to discuss it in full.

 

This is where you're crossing the line from 'pro-choice' to 'pro-death'.

 

I see that abortion is now a choice for women. I believe that, if abortion were taken away from the list of choices, this would not be fair. I do not believe that I am "pro-death" as you call it, but there are women who have, in their minds, very good reasons to terminate a pregnancy. I do not know that a woman would feel all too right with herself if she allowed a severely handicapped child to be brought to term, when she decided it would not be possible for her to care for it. It may be confusing, but there are women who find abortion a necessary choice in their lives.

 

 

That makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.

 

It makes perfect sene to me. It is always best to approach an argument, having taken into consideration all sides. It does not appear that you are attempting to prevent your emotions from entering into the discussion.

 

You're trying to turn abortion into an unselfish act of compassion, and I'm not buying the spin.

 

Assume, for a moment, that you are a woman. Assume, also, that you have found out your child, if it is born, will suffer from a severe debilitating mental disorder. Do you wish to bring this child to term? Are you prepared to raise this child? If you cannot raise this child, are you prepared to deal with the overwhelming emotions involved in adoption?

 

Things become more difficult.

 

 

Again, if you don't understand the proccess of closed adoption, don't pretend you do, because it's misleading to people who realize how intelligent you are in other threads, and take your testimonial as reasonably factual, when it's not.

 

It is not very polite to assume that an individual does not understand something he or she may very well understand. Not everyone's experiences with this sort of thing are universal. Pay close attention to what we have to offer, as it may very well open your squinted eyes.

 

You're contradicting yourself. If the child is in an artificial uterus, you're not carrying the child to term at all. It causes no more stress than abortion, and, because of the trauma associated with abortion, in some cases, less.

 

You forget what it would be like for the woman. You think of the child, but not of the mother.

 

I've read Roe V. Wade, and Zimmerman summed it up in the article I linked to.

 

Abortion is legal because:

1. A woman retains right to privacy, including the right to not be pregnant.

2. A fetus can't be gauranteed the right to life, because it imposes on another's life.

 

This is a solution because:

1. A woman still retains her right to privacy, as both procedures are still invasive.

2. A woman retains her right not to be pregnant.

3. A fetus no longer imposes on the life of the mother.

 

According to persons with education in law, the argument could still be challenged as to whether or not the fetus imposes on the life of the mother. Ectogenesis is not the splendid "end all" as you view it.

 

You've used the "horrors" of adoption as a red herring, because you've failed to address the issues above.

 

Issue addressed. Ectogenesis would not provide a clear win in the court room. Do not forget that adoption is very much a stressful issue for a mother to cope with.

 

This is veering off track the subject of ectogenesis, but it's important to note that you're wrong about this as well.

 

You are incorrect, as I will detail:

 

1. We're all a collection of developing cells. In terms of human development, birth is an arbitrary milestone.

 

The fact that humans are a collection of cells does not make for our humanity. Humanity is dependent on far more than this.

 

2. A fetus is human. That's not an opinion.

 

A fetus is of our species, yes. But is it a functioning, thinking, capable human? There are arguments saying "no", and rather good arguments at that.

 

3. Suffering, or at least pain, is a function of nerves, which the fetus develops quickly.

 

Science does not know how "human" a fetus is in the womb. No one knows how much an unborn fetus can comprehend, how and if it can think, and if it could very well "suffer" in the way that you would.

 

 

If it was possible to keep a child alive, with no extra burden on the mother, it would be cruel and selfish

 

What if the mother honestly disagreed with that statement? There is emotional burden involved in adoption. You seem to forget this.

 

Your only argument against this so far is based on total misunderstandings of the adoption system. I can't speak for the adoption system in France, but volunteering in places that insure good homes for children whose mothers just had to sign a paper and forget about their child, I can assure you that:

 

Again, do not assume that persons do not understand the adoption system.

 

[qute]1. Adoption isn't cruel to a child. Although the system isn't perfect, a kid isn't given to a bad home. These are people who, unlike the original mother, want a child.

 

Children are very often given to bad homes by mistake. Indeed, the system is not perfect.

 

2. Closed adoption isn't burdensome on the birth mother.

 

So, I take it that emotions would not enter into it then.

 

The next few faux arguments take us further down the slippery slope, and further from healthy debate, but I'll indulge.

 

I believe that I know how to conduct a proper dialogue, and proper debate. I do not believe, however, that you wish to view my confidential college transcripts and past educational history, nor my involvement with local community groups, local government, and the like. I apologize for getting personal, but it appears that you strive to touch upon a personal note, in an attempt to prove yourself somehow superior.

 

Perhaps this is not your intention, but it does seem to be on many occasions.

 

Even though your slippery slope argument is, by its very nature, fallacious, wouldn't that be better than having kids born with fetal alcohol syndrome?

 

A healthy child born to drug-addicted parents? Healthy?

 

An ovum would still be neccessary, it's not as though two sperm cells could be spliced.

If you have studies showing that it's healthier for a child to be killed in the womb than raised in a gay home, please let me know.

 

You miss the issue here. Ectogenesis raises a great many issues. It is not unhealthy at all for a child to be raised in a gay home, but ectogenesis would open new moral arguments and viewpoints regarding homosexuality.

[dyermaker]

Choice is based on circumstance, and ectogenesis effectively changes the circumstance. You haven't, in your analysis, accounted for that change in circumstance. Human Ectogenesis isn't a reality yet, so you can't say what's present and what's not. Hormones can be suplemmented, and the vibrations/sound of a heartbeat can be simulated.

 

This is an option that's compassionate to both the mother and the developing child, and you're continuing to use exbuberant rhetoric to skirt around my questions. You're defending the idea of choice without an actual reason why that choice would be so valuable if it were unneccesary.

 

It's not an absolute right, the court decision is contingent upon ideas I've already outlined, and you've ignored. These ideas are not challenged by ectogenesis, so how do you reconcile Roe V Wade if this development sees light?

 

The birth of a child in a hospital is, by its very nature, unnatural. The use of painkillers is unnatural. Cesearean sections are unnatural. Importance is subjective, and we're all just a collection of cells. To me, you're not very important, but I wouldn't terminate your life. It's bothersome to have you consistently derail the topic to choice vs. life. That was a different thread.

 

This is a thread about how ectogenesis changes the parameters of Roe V. Wade. Are you ever going to get to that?

 

I'm sorry it's getting personal. I had a long response to everything, but I changed my mind, to discourage the derailment. Focus on the parameters of the court decision?

 

Arguments about the emotional burdens of adoption, the philosophy of human worth, the ethical questions of letting gays have kids, and whether or not a poor quality of life is worth the extermination of that life are irrelevant.

 

Still, this is an available option.

Her perception was that RU-486 isn't an abortion, and she's mistaken. That's all I was saying.

[CurlyIam]

Oh, dyer, my mom's a doc. She told me some stories about abvortion that would make you puke for a week. I am going to say that I am not French, but from Eastern Europe. Most specifically, from a country best known for the poor treatment of disabilited people and homeless children, along with God forsaken orphenages.

 

I shall not even get into how abvortion takes place if don't have money and are a teenager. I shall only say that they don't give you aenastisia, but put plain serum inside the seringe. Yes, dyer, it is LIVE. MAny many times. Abvortion isn't covered by insurance. Women who don't have money to tip everyone from nurses to doctors - which is the case of most women going through this in mycountry - are in for the hell of their live. This is why I made the comment about the pill. Less mutilated women. Phisically and Emotionally. Literally. Did you know that if a woman abvorts the fisrt time she gets pregnant she risks not having babies forever?

 

What about people living in countries that have awful healthcare systems? A country where babies are "dropped" by the nurse on the floor and killed, a country where people have died from having their apendics removed, where people have waited 9 hours for the ambulance to show up? There is more to my country than this, but medical care ain't one of them.

 

Or social assistence. You cannot imagine how most the orphenages look like here. And I am talking about the capital of the country. What do you do when the alternative is so grim that you don't even consider it?

 

 

 

 

I'll give you my pov. Babies are not a mistake. Getting pregnant without desiring the baby is. So you find yourself in a situation, and you know it is your fault.What do you do? There are 2 alternatives:

 

1.Turn away asap - abvortion

2. Try to make it go away by ignoring it's existance - give the baby away.

 

 

 

 

I find no.2 "hiding the problem under the carpet". That baby exists, and awful awful things can happen to it if left alone, without a family. Even perfect systems like the American one has flaws. Not all children are being adopted!

 

If one admits having made a mistake, one should also bear the consequences. To me ectogenesis is another way of having women get away with it. To the very least, should they decide to have the baby, they should cary the pregnancy to the term. Ensure his phisical development.

 

As I see it, while still a cell, yes, having an abvortion is easier. Yes, it does not feel pain, it does not feel hungry or cold. It's only a cell. A cell that contains life. A possibility of an extraordinay man, an average man or a horrible man. The "Hitler" jk I used was to emphasize just that. You do not commit to a baby. You commit to yourself alone. That's always the best way.

 

 

 

No one has a say on what you do with your body. Why are drugs illegal? Because the gov doesn't want you to alter your body? Or because it is an addictive substance that has a whole industry behind it?

 

 

 

 

To me, having an abvortion is quitting while you're ahead. Taking the responsability. Being the only one to blame, taking all the responsability and not hurting other people. How can you even suggest that etnogenesis be compulsory? This is not an industry.

 

Etnogenesis deprives women of:

 

1.the right to choose. They may not want to have the chidren to that man, they may not want to have that children ever again, as she wants to adopt babies from Africa- you know, the overcrowded planet.

 

2.the system would practically steal. Yes, the baby may have only half the mother's cromozomes, but the other half does not come from the system. Or the government. It comes from the father. That is not a valid argument to take any baby away. It is STEALING.

 

3.closure. Not only would the woman feel guilty for having that child, but she's not even delivering it. It is monstruos, dyer. Monstruos. Because there will be life coming from there. Instincts lossed. Like hearing the mom's heart and her voice and her movements.

 

 

The system is actually forcing onto itsself a responsability that it cannot possibly comply to. Do you realise how many babies we would be talking about?(regardless of how safe the procedure is) In every state, in every country all over the world?

 

What about other rights women have? What would happen to women who want to have their tubes tied? Will the system deny them this right saying once again "etnogenesis"? where will it stop?

 

 

 

Dyer, do you watch Animal Planet? At some point,at Monkey business, as one of the apes - I think it was an urangutan - was about to deliver, another female came over to assist. How can you say it is not natural? Is it not natural for monkeys to use tools? Like if they use a rock to break a coconut and eat it. should we stop apes from doing that because it's not natural?

 

Humans have more brain. Going to hospital is natural. Having a woman help you deliver home is natural - I don't know the term in English. Animals have instincts too. They know which plant to eat in order to stop headaches or stomachackes. We are not that different after all.

 

 

What we do have is the ability to judge. To decide. And by making etnogenesis compulsory, we are depriving ourselves of just that.

[dyermaker]

Etnogenesis deprives women of:

 

1.the right to choose. They may not want to have the chidren to that man, they may not want to have that children ever again, as she wants to adopt babies from Africa- you know, the overcrowded planet.

I can't speak for your country.

 

In our country, women don't have this absolute right to choose to kill their baby. They just DON'T. They have a specific right, guaranteed by a single court case, and backed by certain principles that are challenged by ectogenesis. Their right to choose is based on the right NOT to be pregnant (which ectogenesis doesn't threaten) and the lack of fetal viability (which ectogenesis solves).

 

2.the system would practically steal. Yes, the baby may have only half the mother's cromozomes, but the other half does not come from the system. Or the government. It comes from the father. That is not a valid argument to take any baby away. It is STEALING.

You're mistaken. Ectogenesis would be an alternative to abortion, you wouldn't have one unless you were giving up the child for an adoption anyway. No one 'takes' the baby away.

 

3.closure. Not only would the woman feel guilty for having that child, but she's not even delivering it. It is monstruos, dyer. Monstruos. Because there will be life coming from there. Instincts lossed. Like hearing the mom's heart and her voice and her movements.

That makes no sense at all. How is it monstrous to give your child to a loving home, who can now be there at the birth and bond with their child in the crucial first few minutes, but not montsrous to have it burned to death or dismemebered in your womb? We're NOT talking about replacing vaginal birth with ectogenesis. We're talking about saving babies who are unwanted, and would otherwise be killed, without a detriment to the liberty of the mother.

 

I'm not on here because I want to practice arguing. I'm on here because I'd sincerely like to hear if there's a case for Roe V. Wade after ectogenesis becomes a reality.

 

What about other rights women have? What would happen to women who want to have their tubes tied? Will the system deny them this right saying once again "etnogenesis"? where will it stop?

That doesn't follow. Ectogenesis challenges a specific NON-universal right, and has nothing to do with the right of anyone to sterilize themselves.

 

Dyer, do you watch Animal Planet? At some point,at Monkey business, as one of the apes - I think it was an urangutan - was about to deliver, another female came over to assist. How can you say it is not natural? Is it not natural for monkeys to use tools? Like if they use a rock to break a coconut and eat it. should we stop apes from doing that because it's not natural?

 

Humans have more brain. Going to hospital is natural. Having a woman help you deliver home is natural - I don't know the term in English. Animals have instincts too. They know which

plant to eat in order to stop headaches or stomachackes. We are not that different after all.

This is off-topic, and we actually have a thread about it--but there's a difference between an ape's medical knowledge, and a human's. If an ape is going to die in childbirth, the other apes can't help at all. They're not going to be able to recessitate the mother, perform a c-section, or provide postnatal care if there's something wrong with the child. The reason is that in the wild, it's survival of the fittest. In civilization, we don't have that, and that's unnatural.

 

As I see it, while still a cell, yes, having an abvortion is easier. Yes, it does not feel pain, it does not feel hungry or cold. It's only a cell. A cell that contains life. A possibility of an extraordinay man, an average man or a horrible man. The "Hitler" jk I used was to emphasize just that. You do not commit to a baby. You commit to yourself alone. That's always the best way.

 

No one has a say on what you do with your body. Why are drugs illegal? Because the gov doesn't want you to alter your body? Or because it is an addictive substance that has a whole industry behind it?

Firstly, we're off the topic of Roe V Wade, but if you're not from America, I guess that's not your problem.

 

Secondly, by the time anyone has an abortion, it's more than a 'cell'.

 

Thirdly, the argument that a fetus can't feel pain is scientifically ignorant. Have you seen an abortion performed?

 

Fourthly, if it were *your* body, it would have *your* DNA.

 

Blah. Derailment.

[CurlyIam]

I had to say "if etnogenesis was inforced and abvortion illegal" then see point 1, 2 and 3. As in no woman is allowed to have an abvortion, but she can have etnogenesis. That is why I said stealing.

 

 

 

If etnogenesis were just an option, I'd say "hail Marry, America rules". The only thing that etnogenesis brings new the picture is only the fact that the woman no longer carries the baby to term. We are still in the debate abvortion - giving the baby away. Don't get that wrong.

 

 

 

 

And since we're speaking pain and unnatural events, how do you know that the transferr isn't hurting the baby? Isn't causing irreparabal damages? Do you know for a fact that the operation that etnogenesis determines isn't just as painfull to the mom as abvortion?

 

People still play God, dyer. At least they should have the right to say "no" because it is about life to the creation of they participate.

 

 

 

Please, read again my post and answer my question, keeping in mind that I understood that you mean for abvortion to be made illegal and etnogenesis cumpolsory.

 

thanks

 

P.S. How was the midterm?

[CurlyIam]

In our country, women don't have this absolute right to choose to kill their baby. They just DON'T. They have a specific right, guaranteed by a single court case, and backed by certain principles that are challenged by ectogenesis. Their right to choose is based on the right NOT to be pregnant (which ectogenesis doesn't threaten) and the lack of fetal viability (which ectogenesis solves).

 

what about the right to give life? Yes, phisically speaking, I understand the points that yoy make. But it is not a bunch of meat growing inside you that you just replant somewhere else. We are talking about women's right to create LIFE. What stops the gov to create babies in cells should there suddenly be a need (read excuse, Idon't know, make something up)?

 

 

You're mistaken. Ectogenesis would be an alternative to abortion, you wouldn't have one unless you were giving up the child for an adoption anyway. No one 'takes' the baby away.

 

So it would be having the baby and giving it away or etnogenesis, right? Read the paragraph above.

 

That makes no sense at all. How is it monstrous to give your child to a loving home, who can now be there at the birth and bond with their child in the crucial first few minutes, but not montsrous to have it burned to death or dismemebered in your womb? We're NOT talking about replacing vaginal birth with ectogenesis. We're talking about saving babies who are unwanted, and would otherwise be killed, without a detriment to the liberty of the mother.

 

1. you cannot guarantee a home for the kid. you cannot guarantee a loving home for the kid. It is not a kid until 28 weeks, it's just a cell.

2. moms should have the liberty to decide if they want LIFE to be taken out of their body.

 

I'm not on here because I want to practice arguing. I'm on here because I'd sincerely like to hear if there's a case for Roe V. Wade after ectogenesis becomes a reality.

 

I understand that. My point is that etnogenesis should be an OPTION, not mandatory.

 

 

That doesn't follow. Ectogenesis challenges a specific NON-universal right, and has nothing to do with the right of anyone to sterilize themselves.

 

Really? what about the right one has not to have babies? Ever again? And that person happened to get pregnant? Tell me how is taking pills better than taking a pill when you've found out you're 2 weeks pregnant?

 

 

This is off-topic, and we actually have a thread about it--but there's a difference between an ape's medical knowledge, and a human's. If an ape is going to die in childbirth, the other apes can't help at all.

 

Because they can't. Bitches tear the ombilical cord with their teeth. Trust me, if they could have epidurals, they would ! The difference is that they can't.

 

They're not going to be able to recessitate the mother, perform a c-section, or provide postnatal care if there's something wrong with the child. The reason is that in the wild, it's survival of the fittest. In civilization, we don't have that, and that's unnatural.

 

Nope, not civilisation. Humanoid society that happened to evolve. Survival is the key to any specie. They all would do it if they could. They can't. We can. We are not that special.

 

 

Firstly, we're off the topic of Roe V Wade, but if you're not from America, I guess that's not your problem.

 

My country does have the bad habit of imitating the US. I presume most country do. Of course that makes it my problem. Hell, I'll even vote for an American, if I could. You have a far grater responsability than any other country.

 

Secondly, by the time anyone has an abortion, it's more than a 'cell'. that is argumentative.

 

Thirdly, the argument that a fetus can't feel pain is scientifically ignorant. Have you seen an abortion performed? The same goes for the surgery while removing the eg from the mother to the artificial woumb.

 

Fourthly, if it were *your* body, it would have *your* DNA. It may have half the DNA, but I'm very sure that the other half does not belong to the "system". And since the whole process takes place inside the woman's body, that makes it her decision. Completely.

 

Blah. Derailment. ? Please explain.

[Fayebelle]

IMHO

 

I can see absolutely nothing to support Roe vs Wade if this were an option. Legally - abortion should be outlawed at that point.

 

Ethically- it raises a few questions

 

1- anonymity- usually w/adoption - a profile of the biological parents is provided- if the parents refuse to disclose any info about themselves- would the baby be less likely to be placed

 

2- human interaction- at what point is the child placed- would adoptive parents be able to visit their adopted fetus- speak to it- build a human bond

 

3- how would the child be chosen- totally random- would their be a Pick Your Baby superstore where potential parents can choose among the fetuses- or again would it go to biological parent profiles

 

4- what happens to babies that are not placed

 

5- as Spock mentioned- who will fund this effort

 

6- This may reduce the # of parents willing to adopt children from other countries- think of the # of Chinese girls who need homes and are brought to America

[SoleMate]

I see a problem with ectogenesis, dyer, that you may want to consider. Leaving aside the technology issues, there are serious legal/financial problems. Would society be forced to pay pay the doubtless high costs for artificial wombs and incubation? How much are we talking here - probably USD20,000-30,000 per pregnancy even AFTER the technique is perfected and becomes common. These would be fetuses/babies with NO acknowledged parents and probably minimal or zero health history. They would inevitably have a higher rate of medical problems, due to the troubled circumstances of their conception (such as a woman who took toxic medicine or was exposed to rubella before realizing she was pregnant). There will also be alcohol and crack exposure in some babies, plus the whole cohort of fetuses that were planned to be aborted because of severe chromosomal or other prenatal defects. Of course, some will be healthy, but I believe that proportionately, there will be a much higher rate of medical and developmental problems.

 

Finding adoptive parents is already hard enough. Where are you going to find 1 million sets of parents a year for a high risk, medically questionable population? If adoptive parents cannot be found, do these unfortunate, parentless children then end up in the hellish orphanages that we have all seen the pictures and which CurlyIam alludes to? The reality is that abortion happens because the natural caretakers of the future child, its progenitors, feel themselves UNABLE or UNWILLING to care for the child. That's a big gap in caretaking ability.

 

Let's see:

 

(1 million averted abortions/year) * (USD 25,000 for womb space + USD150,000 for 18 years of support and medical care) = USD175,000,000,000 per year.

 

And that's conservative, becuase I didn't account for major medical problems, just ordinary support. I am compassionate, but can't fathom our rich society absorbing this kind of burden. Much less the poorer countries.

 

I'd rather use that money on the "already-born", not to mention pregnancy prevention, better contraception, drug treatment, education, etc., thus attacking the problem of unwanted fetuses at its ROOT cause. I see abortion, particularly of early stage embryos or medically impaired fetuses, as a sometimes painful necessity, but not a crime equivalent to murder. And guess what? So does most of the US population.

[netrie]

Originally posted by faux

I If it were murder, it would be outlawed.

 

IT IS OUTLAWED...

[blind_otter]

It's commonly accepted in the psychological community that the first stages of psychological development occur within the womb. This means that how we behave as adults is partly affected by the environment within the womb, and even related to the emotions the mother felt during her pregnancy (high levels of stress, for example, increase ambient levels of cortisol). I remember reading a study concerning the infants of a group of dutch women who had suffered severe malnutrition during WWII, and I believe there were some striking findings. I doubt that exogenesis would be considered a viable option in the context that you are referring. I don't want to speculate, but I think it would probably be used in medically necessary cases, more than anything.

 

1. This is way too expensive. Who would pay for the costs of maintaining the equipment, holding facilities, and personnel to attend to the equipment - the mother? Prospective adoptive parents?

 

2. Adoption is difficult. There is currently a big problem with prospective adoptive parents demanding "desireable" children - that is, children of their ethnicity for example. Unfortunately the racial demographics of the majority of children put up for adoption do not match that criteria. In my state the DCF (Dept. of Children and Families) is currently under federal investigation because a massive number of children have been revealed to be living in horrible conditions, being starved, or have simply been "lost" by the system - in fact they cannot be located!!!

 

3. This would not be an "adoption" situation, that is inherently fallacious. This would be similar to the surrogate mother situation - the adoptive parents pay for the medical expenses of the prospective mother and then take the child after it is born.

 

The first time I was pregnant (I miscarried after 8 weeks the second time, so I never actually got to see the ob) my ob/gyn gave me an informational packet that included a sheet listing the average cost of delivering a baby in the hospital I had selected - the cost was about, total $8,000-10,000, and she also cautioned that if there were complications the cost could sky-rocket. I assume that gestating a fetus in an artificial womb would at least cost that much.

 

I would not have an abortion, however I am pro-choice for everyone else. I stand by a philosophy I apply to many legal idiocies - NO ONE CAN LEGISLATE PRIVATE MORALITY. The existence of medical technology does not change my opinion. I have never carried a pregnancy to term...I've had two miscarriages, one in the first trimest, the other in the second trimester. But I admit I know several women who have had abortions, both for good and bad reasons, and I admit I have considered it for myself. I didn't because I have the luxury of having supportive, fairly well-to-do parents, a good paying job, and I own my house outright. Not everyone does, and I recognize that.

 

Beyond the practical arguments, I was aware I was pregnant both times from the very moment I conceived. However, I was not as devestated when I miscarried after 8 weeks as when I miscarried at 13 weeks. What I saw on the ultrasound screen changed massively in 5 weeks - initially i didn't know her gender, all there was was a little blip that squirmed around. At 13 weeks I knew it was a girl and she was fairly baby-shaped...

 

I know this is more personal experience and less scientific.

[Pocky]

legality has no bearing on what is ethically "correct".

 

When it comes to my body I should be the only one that decides what is ethically correct. And as long as the child starts from an egg that is produced by my body - all of it is my body until it is separated from me.

[brashgal]

When it comes to my body I should be the only one that decides what is ethically correct. And as long as the child starts from an egg that is produced by my body - all of it is my body until it is separated from me.

Amen sister.

[CurlyIam]

Oh...but it's not your DNA...

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

As in no woman is allowed to have an abvortion, but she can have etnogenesis. That is why I said stealing.

Stealing what? If she would have had an abortion, she wouldn't have a child!

And since we're speaking pain and unnatural events, how do you know that the transferr isn't hurting the baby? Isn't causing irreparabal damages? Do you know for a fact that the operation that etnogenesis determines isn't just as painfull to the mom as abvortion?

This is a hypothetical, since ectogenesis isn't a reality yet. It's basically me saying, "If ectogenesis worked, how would that change roe v wade?" Not killing the baby/hurting the baby/damaging the baby/causing pain would be among success factors.

People still play God, dyer. At least they should have the right to say "no" because it is about life to the creation of they participate.

Induced abortion is no more playing god than ectoegenesis--the only difference is the benevolence of the God you're playing.

 

P.S. How was the midterm?

Oh it was hell! We had 30 minutes to write this insanely long essay. Thanks for asking though.

We are talking about women's right to create LIFE.

No! It would be an alternative to abortion, not childbirth.

It is not a kid until 28 weeks, it's just a cell.

Who taught you that? It's way more than "a cell". Things start out as "a cell", and then grow pretty rapidly.

Really? what about the right one has not to have babies?

Ectogenesis not only doesn't challenge that right, it helps ensure it without abortion! You can still choose not to be pregnant, you just don't have to kill the fetus to do so.

Because they can't. Bitches tear the ombilical cord with their teeth. Trust me, if they could have epidurals, they would ! The difference is that they can't.

That was my point. Humans aren't evolving anymore, which is why we have hospitals and such.

Secondly, by the time anyone has an abortion, it's more than a 'cell'. that is argumentative.

No, it's totally not. Do you understand the proccess of fetal development? It's not like it's an amoeba until 28 weeks, when it suddenly turns into a human.

The same goes for the surgery while removing the eg from the mother to the artificial woumb.

In America, surgery is performed with an anasthetic.

It may have half the DNA, but I'm very sure that the other half does not belong to the "system". And since the whole process takes place inside the woman's body, that makes it her decision. Completely.

In America, that's not what our court decides. Roe V Wade has nothing to do with "systems".

Originally posted by Pocky

When it comes to my body I should be the only one that decides what is ethically correct. And as long as the child starts from an egg that is produced by my body - all of it is my body until it is separated from me.

That's just bad science. The egg is only half of the human.

 

It's not your body. It only needs your body to grow, because we're mammals. Ectogenesis removes the "my body, my decision" argument, because the child no longer needs your body to grow.

 

Roe V Wade doesn't gaurantee the universal right to kill anything growing inside of you. It simply gaurantees you the right to not be pregnant, which, currently, abortion is the only solution to, and because of fetal inviability, abortion is legal.

 

This would still gaurantee you the right to not be pregnant. It would still give you full control over your body. Instead of killing the baby, it would allow it to live.

[faux]

I took some time away from this discussion, hoping that I could state my ideas more clearly.

 

As far as being a new choice for women, I think ectogenesis would be great, as long as it was found to be absolutely safe for a child to be brought to term using this method. I think that some women would opt for ectogenesis as opposed to having an abortion. However, I do not think that ectogenesis should nullify abortion, or make abortion illegal. I believe that, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she believes that abortion is the best choice. The choices of an individual are seldom understood by others. I think that abortion ought to remain an option for women, even if ectogenesis came about.

 

Some women may feel that ectogenesis is nearly the same thing as adoption, and some women have preferred abortion over adoption. A woman who is concerned about carrying her child to term, then giving it up for adoption, may have some of her concerns alleviated through ectogenesis, but then she may not.

 

If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, I am going to respect her decision. Any decision involving an unborn child is a difficult one for a mother, and not everyone will agree with the decision a mother makes, regardless of whether she has the child, gives the child up for adoption, or uses ectogenesis to give her child up for adoption.

 

There are many other problems ectogenesis could create, but I found myself getting carried away with those other possibilities. After taking a breather, I see that I ought to stick with ectogenesis in as so far as abortion is concerned. I think ectogenesis could be good, not taking into consideration the problems it can create, but I do not believe it would be right for abortion to be banned because of ectogenesis. I do not think the advent of ectogenesis will result in the banning of abortion.