Technology as a solution to the abortion debate?

Since the abortion controversy comes down to a dispute over basic rights, if there were a means of sublating the dispute and preserving the interests of all sides, that might point towards a path where abortion-on-demand can be outlawed.

To wit: the possibility of artificial gestation. If this technology can be perfected, it provides the possibility that women who are in an unwanted pregnancy can undergo a minimally invasive procedure to extract the fetus (certainly no more invasive than an actual abortion), which will then be gestated artificially. If the mother decides she has no interest in the child, then the child will become the ward of the government. Given that the State upholds the right to life of the fetus, the State will provide the funding for the extraction procedure and gestation services, including of course care for the child if he/she is unwanted, while waiting on a foster home. Abortion-on-demand, in turn, will be made illegal and anyone involved in this procedure can be tried for first-degree murder.

Seems like the perfect compromise, to me.


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/26/h....html?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion

 

Ask yourself some questions and get back to me:

GEE, YOU haven't heard anyone complaining about taxes have you!????

Repubs whine about kids on welfare and other social programs and you want them to pay MORE taxes to bring more unwanted kids into this world?

Have you researched just how much this UNNECESSARY procedure will cost...check out what preemies cost now...you think this will get cheaper?

Is Trump's mirage health plan going to pay for it?

Do you know it costs about $250,000 to raise a kid and if the government (TAXPAYERS) does it will be double.


How would the Big Government know women were pregnant? Forced exams every month??


Another question: How would YOU like Big Government to decide to do a "minimally invasive procedure" on YOU ?



You: ""then the child will become the ward of the government"...and you think that's a good life for a child? Have you thought about the actual CHILDREN ???

 

I make the reasonable assumption, that for everyone who takes seriously the view that abortion is worse than slavery, that a tax increase to save lives is perfectly acceptable (if they don't want to be hypocrites, anyway).

I know of course that the technology isn't available now; but we can expect it to be widely available eventually, and yes at a reasonable cost (especially assuming economies of scale)

I did not propose that government preemptively try to determine whether women were pregnant. Don't put words in my mouth.

If I am the fetus (and of course we all were at one point) I definitely want the government making this procedure mandatory for pregnant women who can't afford becoming a parent. It is definitely a matter of rational self-interest.

 

Then you haven't been paying attention to those who oppose abortion. They are the SAME people who whine about a few cents of their taxes going to social programs for CHILDREN like Welfare and WIC.

..and what leads you to believe that a program on this massive a scale will be cheap or reasonable....a preemie today costs thousands...

Then what are you proposing? What if a woman just prefers an abortion?

I think you have a lot to learn if you think a fetus can think and reason.....


WHY can't you answer the questions? All of which will be part of your "solution".

Ask yourself some questions and get back to me:

GEE, YOU haven't heard anyone complaining about taxes have you!????

Repubs whine about kids on welfare and other social programs and you want them to pay MORE taxes to bring more unwanted kids into this world?

Have you researched just how much this UNNECESSARY procedure will cost...check out what preemies cost now...you think this will get cheaper?

Is Trump's mirage health plan going to pay for it?

Do you know it costs about $250,000 to raise a kid and if the government (TAXPAYERS) does it will be double.


How would the Big Government know women were pregnant? Forced exams every month??


Another question: How would YOU like Big Government to decide to do a "minimally invasive procedure" on YOU ?



You: ""then the child will become the ward of the government"...and you think that's a good life for a child? Have you thought about the actual CHILDREN ???





...and DO use the quote feature so posters know you commented.

 

I oppose abortion - and I am totally in favor of paying more $$ to fund the Welfare-state needed to uphold a comprehensive Pro-Life value system.

It doesn't need to be "cheap" to be worth doing. These are human lives we're talking about. But in any event the history of technology makes it manifestly clear that as advances are made, there is downward pressure on prices, especially again in the case of economies of scale.

What I'm proposing is, as I said, a compromise. You may be one of these Choicers who like to portray abortion as some positive good, the more abortions the merrier, that sort of thing. But as a society we end to discount the views of those who want to break the law and harm others, just because "that's what they want to do."

 

Oh , so YOU will ;pay for all of this ?? Really!

Ignoring the fact that OTHERS may not be as generous as you are won't change a thing.

FACT:Then you haven't been paying attention to those who oppose abortion. They are the SAME people who whine about a few cents of their taxes going to social programs for CHILDREN like Welfare and WIC.

Yes, it does unless you are going to foot the whole thing yourself.

...and WHO PAYS for it until then ( whenever "then" will be)

No it, isn't.

There is already a compromise, abortion is illegal after viability.

,


NO, I portray rights as good and defend women's right to ignore controllers and live their own lives and make their own decisions, just like YOU do.

No, just as many abortions as women wanting an abortion.

Yes, as a society we protect everyone's rights from Anti-Choicers who want to break the law and harm others...just because that's what they want to do.


You champion your "solution" yet you can't think past your "brilliant" idea to the problems ....that's why, if your solution was so wonderful you could answer my very pertinent questions and you can't.:


Did you really think you wave a magic wand and all that happens?


IF your solution was so great you'd be able to answer these questions:

GEE, YOU haven't heard anyone complaining about taxes have you!????

Repubs whine about kids on welfare and other social programs and you want them to pay MORE taxes to bring more unwanted kids into this world?

Have you researched just how much this UNNECESSARY procedure will cost...check out what preemies cost now...you think this will get cheaper?

Is Trump's mirage health plan going to pay for it?

Do you know it costs about $250,000 to raise a kid and if the government (TAXPAYERS) does it will be double.


How would the Big Government know women were pregnant? Forced exams every month??


Another question: How would YOU like Big Government to decide to do a "minimally invasive procedure" on YOU ?



You: ""then the child will become the ward of the government"...and you think that's a good life for a child? Have you thought about the actual CHILDREN ???



Your continuing evasion of these questions does indicate you have nothing to stand on...

 

I'm not one of those people. Overgeneralizing doesn't help your point - but it does reveal where your true motives lie: abortion-on-demand as a positive good for is own sake. You make it so easy for the rabid right. And it's not a matter of "generosity" - taxes are not charity. Ironically enough, it is a typical right-tactic to respond to every proposed social program with, "You can pay for it with your money!" -Hah, deep down, Americans both on the Left and Right are basically the same.

It's a proposal, predicated on the general availability of this tech as perfected, as I said. Here's a tip: dial back the argumentativeness, dial up your reading comprehension...

Well, I'm just as much a liberty to reject that as any genuine compromise. Aside from the fact that "viability" is a figleaf-criterion, my proposal actually preserves the fundamental rights of all parties: women who don't want to be pregnant can end their pregnancies, and no one has to be killed. That you are responding to this hypothetical with such vitriol, really confirms the worst stereotypes that Prolifers have of you people.

In case you haven't noticed, we authorize the "controllers" of the State to intervene in our choices all the time, if those choices are going to bring physical harm to others. Maybe someday liberal social-justice advocates will be more consistent about this.

- I don't reply to everything people write, because not everything is pertinent. I already answered your questions that I thought were relevant. If you think I'm wrong to ignore some, well then restate them instead of doing the whole cut-and-paste.

 

.


Well, it takes lots of people to pay for your proposal...how many do you think you can find who want to spend millions of dollars on kids that nobody wants?

-


I didn't over generalize...there are people who object strongly to paying more taxes for unwanted kids.

My "real motives" do not have to be "revealed" because they aren't a secret but they are not abortion on demand "as a positive good for it's own sake" no matter how much you lie about it.

I believe women have a right to abortion on demand and I will fight to keep women having the same rights as everyone else.

What you don't get is you are being generous with other people's money....people who whine about funding abortion and whine about supporting children through social programs will fight you when your plan is proposed.

Your denial that the procedure and subsequent children will cost taxpayers millions if not billions isn't going to impress them.

Well, you'll have to put on your big boy pants if you want to propose something as silly as you're proposing because I won't be the only one with those uncomfortable questions

.

Reject away, it's the law

Viability is hardly a 'fig leaf(whatever that means) and there is only ONE party involved, the woman.

.


There is nothing wrong with killing a fetus if one doesn't wish to have a baby....

Oh, you need the "gang" to back you up? You don't speak for all Anti-Choicers...


I responded to your proposal with facts, pertinent questions, NONE of which you answered.

BTW, who is "you people" ?

I was referring to Anti-Choicers, those with a sick twisted need to control women.

I am consistent about this.....women have rights and I will fight Anti-Choicers who want to take them away.

All my questions were relevant....but your denial shows you haven't thought out your wonderful proposal....and have no answers.



Here's another you'll run from: Do you think your plan will stop abortions?

How?

 

If you're going to force Americans to get a "minimally invasive" procedure, then it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to make all men get a vasectomy at 12 - they can get it reversed when they want a kid.

 

A fetus has no capability to "want."

AND

For a large percentage of anti-abortion types pregnancy is the punishment women get for being "impure." Your "solution" will do nothing to change their views.

 

Well, this is the point of view of someone who isn't interested in compromise. That's your prerogative but not what the thread is about.

By giving women incentives not to; this of course will involve criminal penalties for infanticide. If the alternative is a relatively simple procedure at the clinic, most women - probably the vast majority - will opt for that, especially seeing as they won't have to deal with the trauma of actually terminating the life.

 

Well the problem with this suggestion is obvious enough: First, it's doubtful if such a procedure on young people will be effective, or not cause other problems, or be reliably reversible. Second, I don't think it's wise to go around subjecting people to involuntary sterilization. But; if these potential problems and concerns could be addressed, that would be a fine alternate compromise to the one I'm proposing here... though of course nothing rules out employing both approaches.

 

Any invasive procedure can result in death. Infection. Reactions to anesthesia.
Taking an intact fetus from a woman is not child's play and the possibility of damage to the womb or infection is a real concern.
Funny you would point out the hazards for the male but completely ignore any hazards to the female. Telling, isn't it.

 

You could just as easily make a legalistic argument to the same effect about nonhuman animals - and neonates, for that matter. Instead we do not require full-blown sentience in order to classify living things as rights-bearing entities, with objective interests that are attributed on the basis of the nature of the being that they are.

So what? If the women in question are over 18, they don't have do as their elders say.

 

Nah, there already is a compromise - the pregnant woman &/or spouse can hire someone to carry the fetus to term. These arrangements already exist, & have for a few decades, TMK. There may even be standard agreements in place, for all I know. That's the compromise.

& it's limited to cases where the fetus is likely to be delivered live & healthy. It doesn't address cases of severe genetic or environmental damage that has crossed the uterus/placenta/umbilical barrier - which might still necessitate abortion. The need/desire for abortion is a medical issue - I doubt that Congress nor Judiciary will want to intrude on that relationship of doctor/patient.

Yah, the biomedical tech will likely advance to the point that a fetus can be grown in utero (someone else's) or in vitro, but the latter alternative is still some time away. & I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to prohibit nor allow the possibility of abortion to be negated, once it's been found to be Constitutional.

 

Note I did not suppose those hazards to be life-threatening, on the side of the males. On my hypothetical scenario, the extraction of the fetus would be done very early, minimizing any risk.

 

No one is suggesting torturing fetuses. That is a different conversation. We kill cows. The argument is that a fetus has the capability to express "wants." No such capability exists.

AND...

Non-responsive. People who view pregnancy as punishment believe sex, except for procreation, is "sinful" and abortion as avodiding "God's" punishment. Age is irrelevant.

 

Then I can end this debate right here. Since we are talking advancements in science - are you willing to host a fetus if the technology advances to that point - there would only be a small chance that you would die or suffer a septic infection during the procedure.

Didn't think so. End of discussion.

 

?? This is not a serious point.

 

Simply pointing out that you are suggesting other American citizens be subjected to procedures and risks that you yourself are not willing to be subjected to.

 

Evidently you are not aware of just what happens in an abortion procedure.

Well, it's obvious that that's the argument you want to make; but my position does not and never has rested specifically on the capacity of the fetus for suffering.

Look, if people choose for themselves not to have an abortion, I'm not going to second-guess their motives for making it. It remains the morally correct course of action.

 

It sounds perfect because you don't have to do anything. Do you have any idea where kids raised by the system end up? If you were sincere about saving these precious little lives, you would open your home and accept the responsibility you are asking others to accept. Consider your claim to care challenged.

The reason you and I agree on this issue is my belief in personal freedom. While the right attempts to infringe on personal freedom with abortion laws, those on the left are in no position to point fingers. Both parties are just two sides of the same ugly coin.

 

Bu your analogy is not adequate. My position does not depend on such things as whether or not I have adopted children myself, nor whether I would be willing to serve as a surrogate. That's a red herring. In an abortion we are talking about a clash of fundamental rights. If a woman has willingly engaged in activity that has led to her pregnancy, she bears a responsibility towards that life quite distinct from what third parties do or do not do. That's part of being an adult. My (not so-)hypothetical solution maximizes her autonomy under the circumstances, while not cancelling the basic rights of the gestating human in question.

 

And isn't it wonderful that they have that choice? You may call abortion "immoral" but that doesn't mean abortion is immoral. Some people believe working on Sunday is immoral. Not going to church 3 times a week is immoral. Drinking coffee or soda is immoral.

A fetus is not a person any more than an egg is a chicken or an acorn an oak tree.

If you're not willing to accept the science then your arguments are based on your religious beliefs. AND in this country you don't get to use the government to enforce your religious beliefs.

 

Working backwards...

If a woman fails to conceive while fertile has she failed to live up to her "responsibilities" to that egg? After all, the egg could become a person?
If a man masturbates has he failed as well? Could this be a "moral" defense to rape? After all, those little swimmers could become a person as well.