Technology as a solution to the abortion debate?

Well, IMO there should be some negative incentives for unloading an unwanted baby on society. A good half of society's labor is taken up in caring for children, and only an unliberated woman would fail to consider this...unless you are one of those that feels all children born to any woman deserve a free ride until adulthood and possibly even beyond.

On payment, I stated a husband or boyfriend could help pay for the artificial incubation, which IMO will be extremely pricey, since it will use costly equipment (which might not even be reusable) for months. To expect the one carrying the child, which has genetic content from both sexes, to unilaterally pay for the procedure would be even more unliberated, IMO.

Sorry to trigger your libber knee jerk responses though.

 

It's not perfectly fine in a marriage where the husband has been waiting for a child, but the wife doesn't want one. Artificial incubation could be a partial answer to this dilemma. The husband would then need to arrange the child care.

 

No woman should be forced to have a medical procedure for a non viable fetus

 

Do you mean by "non viable" a defective fetus, or one in a stage so early it could not survive?

IMO a marriage is a contract which assumes cooperation to have children, and if a wife reneges after becoming pregnant and there is a reasonable, non-harmful technology available to save the child, the father has a right to insist the attempt be made for out-of-body incubation.

IMO this right should not extend to fathers in nonmarital situations, as there is not contract present in those.

 

Viability is about week 24 depending on the state

 

A mother should not have the right to terminate a healthy fetus that their legally married husband wishes to raise and care for if there is a reasonable technology that allows for this outside of her body and that does not damage the mother. Becoming a parent is part of the marriage compact unless a specific prenup states otherwise.

 

I am sorry but I couldn't make heads nor tails of that post....or how it relates to the post of mine you quoted......what are you trying to say?

 

NO, becoming a parent is NOT a part of every marriage "compact" or contract...That's ridiculous......Where is the LAW that says that?

There is NO reasonable technology outside the body and no woman is obligated to provide any man with a kid..

.....being married to someone or getting someone pregnant does NOT mean you own them

 

That's ridiculous, married people do not always have a contract...that's a paper with writing on it signed and notarized and agreed on by all parties...

Without one no MAN can insist someone provide him with a kid.....slavery is dead (so far)

 

Which means what? It's still welfare for number of kids based on the published scale. So, you get a part time job. Alert the media. The original assertion made about the paucity of welfare is still refuted by the grant of this. Note to that you don't actually have to have worked in any meaningful way for any defined duration. Even if you only worked one week in a year, you're eligible.

 

No man should be able to force a woman to engage in a life threatening medical process. That is barbaric

 

The earned income credit is not welfare anymore than EXXON's depletion allowances are welfare. Oil, Gas, and Coal received some $600 BILLION in subsidies in 2015. The total for all "welfare" programs excluding healthcare was $350 Billion. If it's government spending you're concerned over you're looking in the wrong place.

If you're unhappy with the EIC perhaps you should jump on the side of people wanting increases in the minimum wage.

 

If you reread your own post (click the little arrow to find it) it is responding to that.

 

I specified that if the woman did not wish to become a mother this could be specified in a prenup.

The traditional marriage compact assumes the intent to have children. IMO only the most unliberated would fail to protect themselves from this with a prenup if that is against their intention.

I also specified my pov held if and when the appropriate tech is available, which, of course, as yet it is not.

 

There is no contract you can sign that can force you to have a medical procedure against your will

 

Marriage creates an unstated agreement to have children and parent them as part of the arrangement. That's a major part of what marriage is.

 

No it does not. An unstated agreement is unenforceable

 

I specifically specified safe.when I said "does not damage the mother".

 

Everey medical procedure has some risk. People die going to the dentist. NO ONE should be forced to have a medical procedure against their will

 

Not anymore and that's as it should be.

Getting married does not make two people each other's property.



You didn't refute a word of the post you quoted nor answered the question:


"""""NO, becoming a parent is NOT a part of every marriage "compact" or contract...That's ridiculous......Where is the LAW that says that?

There is NO reasonable technology outside the body and no woman is obligated to provide any man with a kid..

.....being married to someone or getting someone pregnant does NOT mean you own them"""""

 

How quaint ! ...and ridiculous to say that anyone who marries is obligated to have kids

 

Maybe there should be a law for these specific cases, of a legally married man attempting to rescue his unborn child.

 

Men who marry should, then, insist on prenups.

 

I suppose you are including women who agree to incubate the babies of the more affluent in this? Or don't they "count"?

 

IMO women with the above beliefs regarding marriage have no business getting married in the first place. Leave the label to real women that really want a husband and children.