Ectogenesis--How does this change the abortion debate?

[dyermaker]

I had never heard of it before doing some reading, but evidently there's a proccess in development, it's not completed yet, but you'd take the developing (and, as we know, nonviable) baby and put it into an 'artificial womb'.

 

The Roe/Wade decision was based on:

 

1. The viability of the fetus.

2. A woman's right to privacy.

 

The fetus would be able to develop without a mother, essentially allowing unwanted babies to be put into the adoption system instead of killed. The privacy issue is a non-issue, since the surgery would be equally invasive as an abortion.

 

Assuming it's safe and effective, how does this change the pro-choicers' view on abortion?

 

Sacha Zimmerman seems to feel threatened by Ectogeneis:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/24/IN273768.DTL

 

She fails to defend her position though, and the way she writes, it seems as though she's so zealously in pursuit of women's rights, she's ignoring the fact that her argument would be trampled on by this medical advancement. Can any pro-choicer do a better job defending the argument against ectogenesis?

[Papillon]

For me, the origin and genetic makeup of a human organism is irrelevant. It's the acquired humanity inside the developed human that I value.

 

That's the basis for my whole pro-choice stance.

[dyermaker]

So the fact that babies would be able to develop into human beings, capable of experiencing 'acquired humanity', without impeding on the liberty of the mother at all doesn't change your stance?

 

I can't fathom it. Elaborate, please.

 

Let's leave morals out of it, and stick to ethics. It's semantics, but you've used it before, and it's my turn

[Papillon]

You have a good memory.

 

It does raise some interesting questions. Lots to think about. Give me a few minutes to grok it.

[dyermaker]

I learned a new word.

[Papillon]

OH MY GOD! Before things get out of hand , let me cite the source!

 

Read "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein. It's one of the better books you'll ever read.

[dyermaker]

Cite the source for what? Sorry for not following.

[Papillon]

Ok, I've decided how I feel about the subject.

 

The artificial womb is just that. Artificial.

 

If the power fails, the organism inside dies. If somebody accidentily trips over the power cord, and the embryo dies, is that person a murderer?

 

The organism cannot live without the artificial womb. The presence or absence of the artifical womb is irrelevant. The organism would die without, so it cannot lay claim to any inherent RIGHT to the artifical womb.

 

It's actually not all that different from a real womb, come to think of it. Only difference is that the real womb has rights to consider, as you point out.

[Papillon]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Cite the source for what? Sorry for not following.

 

"Grok"

 

Read the book and you'll understand. Or look in the Hacker's Dictionary (google for "Jargon file")

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

The artificial womb is just that. Artificial.

 

If the power fails, the organism inside dies. If somebody accidentily trips over the power cord, and the embryo dies, is that person a murderer?

I think you present an unlikely situation, for a few reasons:

1. I think it's organic, even though artificial. It's not so much a womb with a plug coming out of it, as it is a series of machinery hooked up to create a growing environment for the fetus. I'm no doctor, but I just don't imagine it looking like an iMac.

2. If there were a plug, it would not be in a place where you could trip over it, it would be similair to being on a heart machine or something. You wouldn't put the plug in a high-traffic environment--IF there is a plug, I'm still thinking we're being whimsical.

3. Backup battery. When the power fails, a hospital is still covered.

4. It's already, by its very nature, a lifesaving procedure. If one dies in the proccess of being saved, that's all that could be done. There's no murder. True accidents are never murder.

The organism cannot live without the artificial womb. The presence or absence of the artifical womb is irrelevant. The organism would die without, so it cannot lay claim to any inherent RIGHT to the artifical womb.

It's a given that a human, at that stage of development, needs a womb. The artificial womb solves the problem of killing an innocent, without impeding on the liberty/safety of a mother.

 

Why isn't this being celebrated by both sides? Maybe I need more explaining from you or your side.

[Papillon]

What it looks like or the mechanics of its operation is irrelevant - it's still artificial. Heh, I like the iMac imagery. I want mine in tangerine.

 

Does a brain-dead human have an inborn RIGHT to a heart-lung machine that is keeping the organism's cells alive? Obviously not.

 

Same principle applies here.

[dyermaker]

I think you're misinterpreting my appeal. I wasn't arguing that the fetus, or anyone, has a natural right to any machinery.

 

I want to see fetuses grow into children, as do many others who call themselves 'pro-life'.

I also have compassion for the mother, in whatever situation she is in that would lead her to consider abortion.

 

I think these solve both sides of the issue. It doesn't impede on the mother more than an abortion, and a life (in some cases, two or more) is spared.

[Papillon]

I don't like abortion. Not in the least. I feel the same way.

 

But usually there are factors that override what *I* want. Like having an alleged copyright.

[dyermaker]

Okay. I thought we were being mature about it.

 

I want to hear how other pro-choicers feel, because I think I need to grok your concepts of inherent rights for a while. Maybe, as radical as it seems, I do feel we have an inherent right to life, only because I feel like a deliberate deprivation of life in a medical environment is unethical (the ultimate ethical maxim for medical proffesionals being 'above all, do no harm').

[Papillon]

Originally posted by dyermaker

only because I feel like a deliberate deprivation of life in a medical environment is unethical (the ultimate ethical maxim for medical proffesionals being 'above all, do no harm').

 

Good point.

 

Hey...that got me thinkun...isn't there some sort of tax the gov't can levy on back alleys, then?

[Papillon]

Also, if a concerned authority or party decided that they could prevent the abortion by substituting the mother with the machine, they take that repsonsibility upon themselves.

 

Should it be legally enforcable? Interesting issue.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Papillon

Also, if a concerned authority or party decided that they could prevent the abortion by substituting the mother with the machine, they take that repsonsibility upon themselves.

 

Should it be legally enforcable? Interesting issue.

I think that's what I'm getting at.

 

Instead of going for an abortion, you'd just put it up for adoption early. Really early.

[Papillon]

What about the rights of the poor uterine lining cells?

 

Do they get discarded once their job is done?

[faux]

To me, this new possible option does not change things much. 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.

 

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. Abortion leaves a woman with a lot to cope with, as would the ectogenesis option. If this new process was made available, abortion would no longer be an option, leaving only adoption for a choice. Women would go from having the choice to terminate the baby, keep the baby, or give the baby up for adoption, to simply "keep the baby" or "give the baby up for adoption".

 

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. Is it wrong for a mother to simply have an unwanted pregnancy removed, and to let other persons "deal with it"? Would people not see this new option as more horrid than abortion? It is entirely possible that women may feel this process is easily abused, and that they need feel no guilt in giving up many unborn children. 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?

 

If artificial wombs are "safer" than natural wombs, would all mothers be legally required to have their unborn children placed in artificial wombs for ectogenesis? Is it correct to even allow this option to be pursued, when it may very well dictate how all mothers must raise their children? Could there be anything missing from an artificial womb, that a child developing within an actual person might have? Would this affect the child's development or life?

 

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. There is still a great deal of time to worry about the ethics of ectogenesis, and I think this is a good thing. The possibilities that ectogenesis would open for medical science seem to be wonderful, but at what cost would these things come?

[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. 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. I mean imagine stealing or reproducing the artificial wombs for trafic of human organs... It can really go out of hand, you know?

 

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.

 

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!

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by CurlyIam

I could not bare to know my kid exists somewhere and will grow up thinking it is not loved by his mother....Yes, it is incredibilly selfish, but it does not concern any other person but myself if I get pregnant or not.

 

 

curly, i'm at a loss.

 

you would rather your own child was murdered than have it grow up knowing you didn't love it? i think this is the worst argument i've ever heard, not just for abortion but for basic humanity.

 

what you are saying is that after making a choice to get pregnant (and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is a choice, even if the pregnancy is an accident you have placed yourself in the position where you could get pregnant, there is never no risk at all) you would then deny a child its chance for life when there was no risk to you and no inconvenience to you simply because you didn't want it to live.

 

i understand the pro-choice view very well, but to imply that you'd have an abortion because it would be in the interests of the child is scandalous.

 

not only that, but if you didn't love the child, why would you care if it grew up knowing it? you don't love it so why be bothered what sh*t it has to deal with?

 

let's be crystal clear about this. no woman who aborts a child is thinking about anything other then herself. i'm not having a go curly. i'm just saddened that anyone could spitefully deny a child its one chance purely to ease their conscience.

 

abortion is a big deal. it's not an easy decision for any woman and knowing that, to go ahead with an abortion when there is another way, purely because you can, is a terrible tragedy.

 

i hope you're never in that situation.

[faux]

Originally posted by bluetuesday

curly, i'm at a loss.

 

you would rather your own child was murdered than have it grow up knowing you didn't love it? i think this is the worst argument i've ever heard, not just for abortion but for basic humanity.

 

I think she has a good argument.

 

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

 

what you are saying is that after making a choice to get pregnant (and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is a choice, even if the pregnancy is an accident you have placed yourself in the position where you could get pregnant, there is never no risk at all)

 

This is not choosing to become pregnant. Choosing to become pregnant would be planning to have a child, then trying to have one. One who uses contraception to help prevent pregnancy does not choose to become pregnant. Perhaps if you phrased this better, I would be more receptive of what you are attempting to say.

 

you would then deny a child its chance for life when there was no risk to you and no inconvenience to you simply because you didn't want it to live.

 

If ectogenesis was used as an option, it would lead to adoption. Adoption very much requires the involvement and demands troubling the mother. If the mother believes the child should be terminated, then that is her right and her choice. So long as the option is there for termination, it is a reasonable choice. Although it may be difficult for you to understand how some women may feel about adoption, it certainly is not difficult for many other women to comprehend. One woman may feel that a termination is a better choice, while another woman might feel such a thing is horrible, and think adoption to be much easier, and much more humane. In some ways, I can see how termination would be a more humane alternative to adoption.

 

i understand the pro-choice view very well, but to imply that you'd have an abortion because it would be in the interests of the child is scandalous.

 

It is not scandelous. It makes sense.

 

not only that, but if you didn't love the child, why would you care if it grew up knowing it? you don't love it so why be bothered what sh*t it has to deal with?

 

Who says that a woman wanting an abortion would not, can not, or does not love her child? You are jumping to conclusions, and you unfortunately have no supporting evidence as to your claims. I am certain that you do not know CurlyIAm personally enough to make such a judgement. Women who opt for abortions believe that doing so is the best choice under the circumstances. Such choices MUST be respected.

 

let's be crystal clear about this. no woman who aborts a child is thinking about anything other then herself. i'm not having a go curly. i'm just saddened that anyone could spitefully deny a child its one chance purely to ease their conscience.

 

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. It is barbaric for you to suggest that women who opt for abortions are selfish, uncaring, and if I infer correctly, unfit to be mothers in the first place.

 

abortion is a big deal. it's not an easy decision for any woman and knowing that, to go ahead with an abortion when there is another way, purely because you can, is a terrible tragedy.

 

Women who go through with abortions must have their choices respected. 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.

 

Ectogenesis would end up as an adoption. I think you might agree that, in life, it is very important to have choices. Ectogenesis may end up taking away one of the options for dealing with pregnancies, which would be abortion. While many people disagree with abortion, I think a great many more would agree that it is wrong to strip women of a choice which, to some of them, makes perfect sense. 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.

 

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

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by faux

This is not choosing to become pregnant. Choosing to become pregnant would be planning to have a child, then trying to have one.

 

faux, if you choose to have sex when you're capable of conceiving, you choose to have sex when you're capable of conceiving. you may or may not take precautions that will reduce the likelihood of this happening, but your choice to have sex contains within it the option that conceiving is one of the possible outcomes. we all know this and we still choose to have sex. the choice therefore, is effectively made prior to conception.

 

If ectogenesis was used as an option, it would lead to adoption.

 

naturally.

 

Adoption very much requires the involvement and demands troubling the mother.

 

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.

 

If the mother believes the child should be terminated, then that is her right and her choice. So long as the option is there for termination, it is a reasonable choice.

 

legally, you're right. 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. 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.

 

Who says that a woman wanting an abortion would not, can not, or does not love her child? You are jumping to conclusions, and you unfortunately have no supporting evidence as to your claims.

 

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

 

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. It is barbaric for you to suggest that women who opt for abortions are selfish, uncaring, and if I infer correctly, unfit to be mothers in the first place.

 

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 go through with abortions must have their choices respected.

 

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.

 

Ectogenesis would end up as an adoption. I think you might agree that, in life, it is very important to have choices. Ectogenesis may end up taking away one of the options for dealing with pregnancies, which would be abortion.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[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.

 

How many countries do you think will have the money to raise a fetus or zygote or whatever for 9 months? Who pays for the cost? The taxpayers?

[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.