Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Debater Slayer]

Well, fundamentally I guess so. I don't believe such a right exists at all. (not to pull off topic) Just as I don't think the state has a right to execute criminals. I don't believe anyone has a right to kill except in defense.

This question doesn't make sense to me. It is a living human, that is biology. How is it not a life?

How is it a life when it can't be viable outside the womb yet?

 

[Thanda]

I think the situation you are describing is much more science fiction then you perhaps realize (and bad science fiction at that). It is not just a question of technology, but frankly it is a question of money. I know that I must come off as the worst kind of monster to talk of money when we are talking about human life, but it is a reality that must be acknowledged. Do some research and see how much money, time and effort goes into taking care of children who are born very premature. And see how often these children still die despite all the effort. So I feel the need to point out that your hypothetical question is not reasonable.

However, that being said, if I can imagine this fantasy sci-fi idea, my position would only change under the following circumstances.

1. The procedure of this "transfer" can be showed to pose less risk to the mother than a proper abortion.

2. 100% effective and 100% risk free birth control is provided to everyone 100% free of charge.(100% effective and 100% risk free birth control does not currently exist, but this is a fantasy scenario)

3. There are no longer people living anywhere on this planet who lack sufficient food, access to clean water, free and adequate medical care, and free education. And there are no longer human rights violations anywhere on the planet. Until this is true the money would be better spent on these causes then your baby machine.

And then even if these fantastical conditions are met, I would still allow exceptions in the case of rape (which would probably not exist the utopia I describe, but I mention it anyway).

So If this is the scenario you propose, then yes. That would change my mind about abortion. But I think you will agree that this is not realistic.

Cool, do you also support a right for men to waive all responsibility for a child if he wishes (before the child is born)?

 

[Thanda]

No one should be obligated to keep someone or something else alive against their will.

It really is a sad world!

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting a man should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion. I'm asserting that if a woman is allowed to avoid the trials and troubles of raising a child by killing the fetus, shouldn't a means be provided for men avoid the trials and troubles of raising a baby? Would this not be fair?

Personally I'm against lifestyle abortions but all I'm looking for is consistency - if a woman has the right should we not provide a similar right for men?

Definitely not with the present circumstances.

All I claimed was that the hypothetical you provided would certainly open up that branch of the discussion, but ultimately I believe that women are left with more of an emotional investment in producing children than men. So, the choice should lie completely with the woman.

 

[Thanda]

I agree that the choice should lie with the woman of whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. But should the choice also lie with the woman whether a man has to take care a child he did not want?

 

[Thana]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

No.
Why would you force someone to have a child? Not only that, why would you force life onto a child that is unwanted? That's beyond cruel.

And don't get me started on the fact that we need more ways to stop having children, not more ways to keep having children.

No. This is not an alternative to abortion. And we haven't even discussed the fact that this could force women to have a procedure they're unlikely to want, which goes against the very reason most people are pro-choice anyway.

 

[Nietzsche]

I agree that the choice should lie with the woman of whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. But should the choice also lie with the woman whether a man has to take care a child he did not want?

Way I see it if the man is willing to help cover the cost of an abortion, and the women wants to have the child, then without doubt the man should be exempt from further financial responsibility.

It really is a sad world!

Because I don't think someone should be forced to drop everything else in their lives to prolong the life of another person? I'm not saying "don't ever do that". I'm saying "you can't make someone do that".

 

[freethinker44]

No one should be obligated to keep someone or something else alive against their will.

I know you find it fashionable to take extreme views on things, but this is just ridiculous.
If in some bizzaro world this was actually a thing, then it would be acceptable for parents to stop caring for their children, farmers to neglect their animals, pretty much any and all forms of neglect would be acceptable, I mean you could take over your elderly relatives assets if they aren't of sound mind and then simply wheel their wheelchair to the curb until they die of exposure, and that would be legal.
It's just ridiculous. People absolutely should be obligated to keep someone alive.

 

[Thanda]

No.
Why would you force someone to have a child? Not only that, why would you force life onto a child that is unwanted? That's beyond cruel.

And don't get me started on the fact that we need more ways to stop having children, not more ways to keep having children.

No. This is not an alternative to abortion. And we haven't even discussed the fact that this could force women to have a procedure they're unlikely to want, which goes against the very reason most people are pro-choice anyway.

Cool, do you agree that we shouldn't force a man to have a child?

 

[Thanda]

Because I don't think someone should be forced to drop everything else in their lives to prolong the life of another person? I'm not saying "don't ever do that". I'm saying "you can't make someone do that".

And I'm still saying it is a sad world. So if a mother decides to stop feeding their baby you would be okay with that?

 

[Mister Emu]

How is it a life when it can't be viable outside the womb yet?

I still having difficulty find the sense in that question. It is undeniably alive and human, and therefore a human life.

You are, I presume, speaking not of an objective sort of life, but a metaphysical one. This is why I asked you how it wasn't a life, because that statement sans context appears like a denial of the science and I don't think that is what you mean.

 

[fantome profane]

Cool, do you also support a right for men to waive all responsibility for a child if he wishes (before the child is born)?

If the mother does decide to bring the child to term, then the father does not have the right to waive responsibility (nor does the mother at that point). After the child is born we have to do what is in the best interest of that child, not the best interest of the parents. The rights of the child trump the rights of the parents (at least in some aspects). That is the difference between a child and a fetus.

This may seem unfair to the father because the mother has a choice, but the father may not. But that is the reality of nature. Biology demands more of the mother than the father, before the birth she has more responsibility and more choice than he does. After the birth the responsibly should be equal.

But keep in mind the child didn't get a vote in this. If the child could decide I doubt the child would choose to waive the fathers responsibility. If I owe you 100$, I don't get to decide that I don't want to pay you, you may decide to forgive what I owe, but I can't just decide not to pay what I owe. And the parents owe a responsibility to the child. They can't just decide to waive that debt.

 

[Madhuri]

How is it a life when it can't be viable outside the womb yet?

A fetus is alive whether or not is can survive without the womb. Generally the question is at what point during the pregnancy can the foetus be said to be 'human' which is why there are restrictions on when during the pregnancy a woman can no longer get an abortion.

For me the question always comes down to whether or not the entity has consciousness and/or is able to experience pain.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I still having difficulty find the sense in that question. It is undeniably alive and human, and therefore a human life.

You are, I presume, speaking not of an objective sort of life, but a metaphysical one. This is why I asked you how it wasn't a life, because that statement sans context appears like a denial of the science and I don't think that is what you mean.

But my point is precisely that it is not alive if it can't be viable outside the womb. Before that point it is just a group of cells. I don't see how that's not science.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A fetus is alive whether or not is can survive without the womb. Generally the question is at what point during the pregnancy can the foetus be said to be 'human' which is why there are restrictions on when during the pregnancy a woman can no longer get an abortion.

For me the question always comes down to whether or not the entity has consciousness and/or is able to experience pain.

I guess we're operating from different definitions of "alive," then. To me, "alive" means "having feelings and able to experience pain" at the very least.

 

[Thana]

Cool, do you agree that we shouldn't force a man to have a child?

Men don't have children, Women have children. Men get children.

 

[Thanda]

If the mother does decide to bring the child to term, then the father does not have the right to waive responsibility (nor does the mother at that point). After the child is born we have to do what is in the best interest of that child, not the best interest of the parents. The rights of the child trump the rights of the parents (at least in some aspects). That is the difference between a child and a fetus.

This may seem unfair to the father because the mother has a choice, but the father may not. But that is the reality of nature. Biology demands more of the mother than the father, before the birth she has more responsibility and more choice than he does. After the birth the responsibly should be equal.

Well under our scenario nature wouldn't require all that much of the mother. As soon as she finds out she is pregnant - which is usually after 6 weeks - she can give that baby up to develop in some machinery. Thus she really would hold no moral high ground on the issue - nature is demanding very little more of her than the man.

Think of it like this. What if a man somehow stole a woman's eggs and fertilized them with his semen. He then puts the fetus in a piece of machinery that allow it to develop into a fully grown baby. Would you agree that the mother of the baby is still fully responsible for the baby after it's born - that she should be forced to help pay for the costs of raising it?

 

[Madhuri]

I guess we're operating from different definitions of "alive," then. To me, "alive" means "having feelings and able to experience pain" at the very least.

Yes, which after a certain point in development, the fetus is capable of. Hence, it is 'alive'.

 

[Thanda]

Men don't have children, Women have children. Men get children.

The woman wouldn't be having a child either since the child would develop in a nifty piece of machinery. So the question still stands.

 

[Madhuri]

The woman wouldn't be having a child either since the child would develop in a nifty piece of machinery. So the question still stands.

I don't know if many people will be moved by this argument since most women probably are motivated to get abortions for different reasons.