Frances Kissling – the head of Catholics for Choice and a longtime pro-choice activist – argues that pro-choicers can and should value the fetus more. I don’t have a comment on this article yet, but it’s been getting a lot of discussion among pro-choice circles, so it seemed worth linking to. Here’s a sample:
What are the first five concerns and reactions that come to your mind? Is one of them the fact that this would mean fetuses need not die? My own experience in presenting this option to both advocates and opponents of abortion is that the fetus’s life is rarely a consideration. Among the most interesting reactions of those who are prochoice is a concern that some women might find the continued existence of the fetus painful for them or that women have a right to ensure that their genetic material does not enter the world. Abortion in this sense becomes the guarantee of a dead fetus, if desired, rather than the removal of the fetus from an unwilling host, the woman. To even offer women such an option is, some think, cruel. For some the right to choose abortion seems to include the right to be protected from thinking about the fetus and from any pain that might result from others talking about the fetus in value-laden terms. In this construct, it is hard to identify any value fetal life might have.
This level of sensitivity to protecting women from their feelings takes other forms. For example, some prochoice advocates have objected to public discussion of abortion that includes concern for the number of abortions that occur in the US or has as its goal reducing the number of abortions. Some bristled at President Clinton’s formula that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” If abortion is justifiable why should it be rare? Even the suggestion that abortion is a moral matter as well as a legal one has caused concern that such a statement might make women feel guilty. Words like “baby” are avoided, not just because they are inaccurate, but because they are loaded.
In a society where women have long been victims of moral discourse, these concerns are somewhat understandable, but they do not contribute much towards convincing people that when prochoice people say they value fetal life it is more than lip service.
The reaction of antiabortionists to the idea that a fetus could be removed from the body of an unwilling woman is as troubling. Again, one rarely hears cries of joy that fetal lives would be saved. The focus also is on the woman. But here, the view that women are, by their nature, made for childbearing dominates. Women have an obligation to continue pregnancies, to suffer the consequences of their sexuality. It is unnatural to even think that fetuses could become healthy and happy people if they did not spend nine months in the womb of a woman. One is led to believe that, for those opposed to abortion, it is not saving fetuses that matters but preserving a social construct in which women breed.
There’s lots more.
I didn’t read the entire article (it’s long!); I’m just responding to your excerpt.
The description of the “typical pro-lifer’s reaction” to this proposed scenario seemed so heartless and vindictive that I will assume that the description of the “typical pro-choicer’s reaction” is equally unfair.
I have to wonder how wide a cross-section of people they spoke to in order to decide what was a typical reaction.
My initial reaction to the idea was that it would then be possible for people to really be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.
I don’t think much of Ms. Kissling, and I agree with Joan about the oddness of the reaction in her thought experiment.
MY reaction is that such a device would basically end the entire abortion controversy, with both sides taking a no-score win. I don’t give a damn about controlling women’s fertility; I just don’t want women killing babies. I work on the assumption that pro-choicers don’t give a damn about killing babies; they just don’t want to have women be unwilling breeder slaves.
This machine would let everyone be happy. No more dead babies, no more unwanted children. Hooray!
Personally, as someone who considers myself reluctantly pro-life but would probably be rejected by most pro-lifers as too wishy-washy, my first reaction to this thought experiment is joy. This is great, it saves lives without trapping women. My second thought is that this is going to create a huge rise in the number of children available for adoption. That’s a problem but, since we are talking about newborns and younger, they will be the type of children that are in demand. In any case, I’d rather be in an orphanage than dead.
I will say, I have thought of this scenario before and I do know one pro-choice woman whose reaction was “a concern that some women might find the continued existence of the fetus painful.” I have no idea how common this reaction is.
First, a disclaimer. I am a man, and as such I have very little relevant input on the abortion issue. This is a controversey burdened almost entirely by women because in the end, it is women carrying the cost of one conclusion or the other.
Still, abortion is an issue sufficiently contentious as to warrant input from both sexes, though the opinion of one sex may weigh less than the opinion of another.
To split hairs, Kissling states that a transferrable preganacy (which is what she seems to describe) will exist in an age in which foolproof contraceptives are possible. This statement exhibits the primary danger of the “thought experiment.” This danger is presumption.
Also, Kissling states that on both sides of the debate, there is little value placed on the fetus’ life: “My own experience in presenting this option to both advocates and opponents of abortion is that the fetus’s life is rarely a consideration.” Now, Ive only read the excerpt, but as far as I can tell, there is a share of evidence offered justifying her statement as applies to pro-choice advocates, but no evidence to back her claim that both pro-choice and ant-abortionists hold the fetus to the same standars of value (or utility, if you like).
Third, I have a problem with the wording of the abortion debate. One side is “pro choice.” Why not “Pro abortion?” The other side is “anti-abortion.” Why not “anti-choice?” We must always be suspicious of the baggage our language carries.
Finally, I personally think the human being finds its worth when it is capable of cognitive thought and can apply this resource towards meaningful ends. This EXCLUDES the fetus, as it is wholly dependent on a host (so far as technology has allowed us). Should the day come where artificial means can create and maintain a fetus up until the time at which the organism is ready for “birth,” (whatever that may mean in this futuristic scenario) the fetus is totally dependent on the mother for something as humble as oxygen. Acting as she does, the host has the right to determine who or what will make these specific and taxing demands on her body. This holds true up until birth, when natural bodily processes expell the dependent party for the sole reason of making one more independent being. The Anti-choice advocates focus far too much on the POTENTIAL of the fetus and far too little on the accomplishments of those already born and breathing on their own. Trust me, Ive worked in a place where 35 year old people have been able to do nothing other than breathe on their own………….and the “conservative” approach to these living, mature beings is every bit as inhumane as what the “anti-choice” legion tries to paint the “pro-abortion” crowd.”
First, a disclaimer. I am a man, and as such I have very little relevant input on the abortion issue. This is a controversey burdened almost entirely by women because in the end, it is women carrying the cost of one conclusion or the other.
Still, abortion is an issue sufficiently contentious as to warrant input from both sexes, though the opinion of one sex may weigh less than the opinion of another.
To split hairs, Kissling states that a transferrable preganacy (which is what she seems to describe) will exist in an age in which foolproof contraceptives are possible. This statement exhibits the primary danger of the “thought experiment.” This danger is presumption.
Also, Kissling states that on both sides of the debate, there is little value placed on the fetus’ life: “My own experience in presenting this option to both advocates and opponents of abortion is that the fetus’s life is rarely a consideration.” Now, Ive only read the excerpt, but as far as I can tell, there is a share of evidence offered justifying her statement as applies to pro-choice advocates, but no evidence to back her claim that both pro-choice and ant-abortionists hold the fetus to the same standars of value (or utility, if you like).
Third, I have a problem with the wording of the abortion debate. One side is “pro choice.” Why not “Pro abortion?” The other side is “anti-abortion.” Why not “anti-choice?” We must always be suspicious of the baggage our language carries.
Finally, I personally think the human being finds its worth when it is capable of cognitive thought and can apply this resource towards meaningful ends. This EXCLUDES the fetus, as it is wholly dependent on a host (so far as technology has allowed us). Should the day come where artificial means can create and maintain a fetus up until the time at which the organism is ready for “birth,” (whatever that may mean in this futuristic scenario) the fetus is totally dependent on the mother for something as humble as oxygen. Acting as she does, the host has the right to determine who or what will make these specific and taxing demands on her body. This holds true up until birth, when natural bodily processes expell the dependent party for the sole reason of making one more independent being. The Anti-choice advocates focus far too much on the POTENTIAL of the fetus and far too little on the accomplishments of those already born and breathing on their own. Trust me, Ive worked in a place where 35 year old people have been able to do nothing other than breathe on their own………….and the “conservative” approach to these living, mature beings is every bit as inhumane as what the “anti-choice” legion tries to paint the “pro-abortion” crowd.”
I don’t think that removing the fetus and putting it somewhere else is really an option, because it’s still too weird and sci-fi and still would be turned into a punishment for the sexual woman. I doubt that you can see pro-“lifers” really against it, unless it does come to pass that lots of women cheerfully take this option without a second thought. If unwilling pregnant women become eager to pursue this course, and if it’s as simple a procedure as abortion, then yes I think you’ll see pro-“life” opposition.
But really, we can’t know unless it comes to pass, can we? We don’t know if women will be relieved or upset.
If this did come to pass, though, I can see the pro-life support of it for reasons *other* than fetal protection. It would be a great tool to take away the legal right to choice. Any bulwark against female agency can be applauded, even something as odd as this.
I too have often thought of this, and perhaps I would be all for it. (I am also pro-choice, but at the same time deeply grateful that I have never had to MAKE that choice — for it would be a hard and a bitter one.)
On the other hand, I could see where the simple existence of the child would disturb the mother — even if she never had to see it. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand that one might not want the product of one’s rape or incest experience wandering about the world. (Should, one might argue, rapists and the incestuous be rewarded by this chance to pass on their genetic material?)
I don’t know whether pro-lifers would be so all-fired behind it though. They haven’t yet, to my knowledge, demonstrated that much real care for The Babies. They’ll go so far as to assault a pregnant woman if they think her likely to kill it in the womb — but if that pregnant mother is persuaded, and does not abort the fetus, do they then follow up? Do they support her, in a possibly hostile or abusive family environment? Do they give her money to supplement an inadequate income? Do they ensure that the child thus saved HAS a happy life, complete with all the things — education, fulfilling work, adequate food, clothing and housing — which should be rights but are privileges?
THAT would be “pro-life”. Pro-fetus is a whole other thing.
And would all fetuses be saved, if this were an option? I am reminded, you see, of that post in Respectful of Otters’ blog (which I may even have found from here) about abortion of the physically handicapped. Again, if the disabled were to be tube-grown, would they also get support, care, and dare I say it, love?
Before any such technology might be put into place, assuming it were developed, I for one would like to see far more attention paid to care for already-existing children, thank you.
Third, I have a problem with the wording of the abortion debate. One side is “pro choice.” Why not “Pro abortion?” The other side is “anti-abortion.” Why not “anti-choice?” We must always be suspicious of the baggage our language carries.
If anti-abortion implies a person who is against abortion in all cases, then pro-abortion implies a person who is for abortion in all cases. I don’t know about you, but most pro-choice people are in favor of choice, not mandatory abortions.
My first thought was “ew, think of the sociopathic tendencies that will crop up; there’s something to be said about the humanity of a womb”
But, I have to admit my second thought was “ah, so now the military won’t have to worry about the draft anymore. With government funding, they could house all the Incubatories ™ on military bases and then have all rights to socially forming all individuals harvested from the Incubatories.”
In light of recent changes in adoption laws where the records are opened to adopted children as adults to go seek their biological parents, what will happen when your “sci-fi petri dish babies” are grown and want to meet their biological Mother? What will they think of this women who did not want them? What will they think of their irresponsible or rapist dad? Lots of moral baggage here for everyone. Counseling services everywhere would love this one.
It isn’t the real world. But there does seem to be a fair amount of incredulity among anti-choice forces as to WHY it is that so many women are unwilling to let a pregnancy proceed and place the baby for adoption. Here’s a list of issues that won’t be solved whether abortion is intra- or extra-uterine:
1. Consent of the father. Since baby will result, doesn’t biological father have veto rights? (Consent of the father is not a mere formality and should never be presumed — personal experience tells me this.)
2. Post-birth look up and discovery of the biological parents. Some women really dread it, although many welcome it.
3. Certainty and complete closure. This means a lot to some people, not so much to others.
IMHO, if the operation were simple, I suspect there would be many women willing to undergo it, so to the extent it would provide another option, it would be good news for women too. But not all women would be willing, and of course, most imporantly, there is no such operation now.
And David, you can’t “stop women from killing babies [sic]” without controlling them. Sort of like saying you don’t want to draft 19 year olds, you just want to be sure that someone is available to defend your hearth and home. It’s the kind of rationalization that justifies policies that impose all sorts of costs on other people without providing any offsetting amelioration at your own expense. Wishful thinking and denial result in some of the most toxic policies we have.
Actually, I think that the evidence that the prolife side of things only values a fetus is quite obvious. There is almost no discussion of the quality of life of a child who is unwanted. There is little discussion providing support or homes or even love for children who are born rather than aborted. The discussion is always- let’s stop the babykilling-until there is a rational discussion about what society will do to support children unwanted children- I can’t take the prolife side seriously.
Also, until the prolife side is willing to discuss making sure that unwanted pregnancies don’t happen (and abstinence education alone isn’t it) then they still don’t have any validity to their arguments in my mind.
I am obviously pro-choice, but I am not pro-choice because I believe that abortion is good; I am not even sure that I believe it is okay, but I don’t feel like it is my place to make that moral judgement for someone else- and I will thank others to keep from pushing their morality on me.
“I’d rather be in an orphanage than dead.”
Sorry about the drift, but that’s the most ignorant statement I’ve read in a long time.
Sam said: “The discussion is always- let’s stop the babykilling-until there is a rational discussion about what society will do to support children unwanted children- I can’t take the prolife side seriously.”
And Katherine said: “They haven’t yet, to my knowledge, demonstrated that much real care for The Babies.”
So people aren’t allowed to oppose killing unless they’re also willing to provide for the victim for as long as necessary? Am I not allowed to be against infanticide (to take a close analogy) unless I also support a variety of welfare programs? Yes, supporting those programs might be a good idea, but if I fail to lobby for them as wholeheartedly as some might wish, I’m therefore somehow suspect for opposing infanticide? How odd.
As I understand it, abortions often happen because the woman doesn’t feel she has enough financial support. So it doesn’t really make sense to say “I don’t want you to have an abortion, but I don’t support measures to help you care for the child if you go through with the pregnancy.”
“So people aren’t allowed to oppose killing unless they’re also willing to provide for the victim for as long as necessary? Am I not allowed to be against infanticide (to take a close analogy) unless I also support a variety of welfare programs? Yes, supporting those programs might be a good idea, but if I fail to lobby for them as wholeheartedly as some might wish, I’m therefore somehow suspect for opposing infanticide? How odd.”
Not odd at all. If you are willing to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body, you sure as anything better have a contigency plan. Being against “infanticide” is pretty meaningless if you don’t value the quality of the life that is produced. In other words, these babies, these infants, are ideological to you. Not real. If you believed they were real, you would have no problem supporting them. To you they are a moral hinge, upon which your moralistic selfworth and selfrightesouness swing. You currently pay taxes, which supports the military, which supports the active killing of children and pregnant women, but you wouldn’t support a hypothetical child forced to maturate in a testtube. Now *that* is odd.
This machine would let everyone be happy. No more dead babies, no more unwanted children. Hooray!
I’m with Robert on the above.
But I also agree with Katharine’s points here:
It doesn’t take much imagination to understand that one might not want the product of one’s rape or incest experience wandering about the world. (Should, one might argue, rapists and the incestuous be rewarded by this chance to pass on their genetic material?)
The whole scenario would certainly put the pro-lifers on the spot in terms of looking after all these extra children (or get them serious about that “no-risk, no-failure” contraceptive)! Barbara did a good job of nailing all the other problems…
good discussion, all!
Looks like it’s time for my obligatory comment that there are such things as pro-life liberals, though they may be a minority. (But really, who knows whether we’re a minority? Maybe we’re just not as organized or as loud as the right-wing, anti-abortion Pharisees.)
To see another point of view, check out the Consistent Life coalition:
http://www.consistent-life.org/
Fetal transfer is the same hypothetical I’ve brought up many a time. Sure, it brings up a whole new bag of issues but it’s very effective in getting both sides to step outside the knee jerk rhetoric and really isolate what their fundamental issue is with abortion.
Something I hadn’t really thought a lot about before – the prevalence of women who think their right to choose includes a right to be protected from the emotional consequences of that choice. I understand why it’s important to correlate the two for political purposes. From a pro-choice perpspective, it is important to make abortions accessible and easy. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s a good thing to encourage women to take the choice to abort casually. In fact, from just about every fence-setter I’ve ever discussed the issue with, that’s their primary concern: That women* would use abortion as their primary means of birth control and NOT try other contraceptive methods. And I have to agree with that position. It should be a last resort where other methods have failed.
*One thing that needs to change: The emphasis that abortion/ getting pregnant is solely the worry & responsibility of the woman. Truth is, if there was no contraception used then men are also relying on abortion as birth control. Many times, in fact it’s the man who pushes the woman into it. I don’t see the pro-lifers addressing this at all.
And, frankly in this hypothetical situation I don’t think the logic of women feeling they’ve a right to be protected from the thought of their genetic offspring walking around really flies.
Because – if you insist on that right being paramount, then you’ve no choice but to give the father the same consideration (I’m talking in a consensual situation). Once you’ve removed the ‘my body’ part of the “my body, my choice” argument, it comes down to “my dna, my choice” which a consensual father has equal rights to.
“1. Consent of the father. Since baby will result, doesn’t biological father have veto rights? (Consent of the father is not a mere formality and should never be presumed — personal experience tells me this.)”
1: I, personally, think this is a discussion you should have BEFORE you get yourself into a situation where someone’s getting pregnant. Every guy I’ve ever slept with knew where I stand, that I’m not ready for a child and I’m trying like hell not to have one (by being protected ALWAYS first of all).
2: The father isn’t the one who’s pregnant. This is not to say his voice is invalid. But at least in an immediate sense, he’s not the one who has to go to work with morning sickness…he’s the one who can go to work and look normal and have time to pretend there’s no pregnancy. This is not to say every father is uncaring, or they don’t have a place in the decision, but by definition the pregnancy affects the mother more. If he’s not willing to financially support her while she’s pregnant so she doesn’t have to work through nine months of pregnancy (if this is necessary), or help her in any other way, then he’s not as emotionally invested as he thinks he is.
3: ditto to the ‘you should raise this baby so I can visit him occassionally and give you fifty bucks a month’ don’t-have-an-abortion fathers.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that the father DOES have a say, but only if he’s really serious and not just spouting crap. He’d better damn well be ready to take on all the responsibilities of a child if she chooses not to if he’s the one stopping her from terminating the pregnancy. Otherwise, he has no say. “You do this while I watch” gets you no say.
Just to note, I know a ton of involved wonderful fathers. My sister’s boyfriend is 22 and has a 3 year old and the mother is nuts and missing and he’s just amazing with that little girl. So don’t think I’m dissing all fathers, just ignorant ones. I have seen fathers unwilling to do the barest minimum to help, but rail the instant something they don’t like is going on. And they can shut up.
If the fetus has nothing that resembles a working brain, then the state has no business interfering. In which case, it doesn’t matter to me how the woman makes her choice.
In this hypothetical Brave New World, will I be required to surrender the fetus to its new non-woman breeding ground (or to a willing woman) every time my body finds itself inadvertantly housing a fetus ?
Uhhhh… I think that a decline in overall population in the Western world could only be a boon for our environment. Maybe I could make a deal with the pro-lifers saying that they can have the first fetus I conceive for their petri dishes or babe-less aspiring Mom. However, once this “replacement level” procreation obligation is met on my part, I don’t want to be compelled to contribute any more fetuses as a burden to an already reeling planet.
Someone get on the horn with Ralph Reed and ask him if we have a deal. :p
I support mandatory human sterilization for the entire world population. That’ll take care of the abortion debate right now.
I think men should have a say in the decision — as far as I’m concerned, men get a 49% say in deciding to carry a pregnancy to term.
As far as Ms. Kissling’s (and others here) pooh-poohing of the concern about having one’s children wandering around in the world, how does she feel about forced egg donation? What about forced sperm donation? There is a widespread acknowledgement that biology is a powerful thing — courts routinely recognize this power when looking at adoption cases. It is no small thing to say that controlling one’s fertility is a powerful thing. Ms. Kissling is asking women to relinquish this control, once again.
From the excerpt you have posted, my immediate thought was to simply cry “Strawman!”, and much of the full article is the same sort of “well, some people (with no indication of where, when or even the general social make up of the people he is pointing at as Bad) have this view, which sucks, thus in many ways the whole philisophical group (including those who don’t actually share the view that sucks) needs to rethink its position because, as I said, their view sucks”
Of course, as strawman arguments go, it’s quite good, as it does balance the attacks on both side by using the opponent’s criticism of a view to point out flaws in each side’s respective retoric.
Of course, that balance does make it a strawman, with the writer setting up the most easily defeated arguments of both sides before defeating them.
It also doesn’t say anything new, a concern for ‘the children’ is already inherent in the ‘pro-choice’ movement, as you would be hard pressed to find pro-abortion advocates who aren’t also pro-child support and pro-effective birth control (education and contraceptive wise), a fact that cannot be said about the mainstream ‘pro-life’ movement (it’s one of the main examples of rank hypocrisy pointed at by pro-abortion advocates, at least in recent months).
It also makes no mention of the lessening of abortions under the clinton era, the socialist abortion and health/child care policies of europe which combines together with contraceptive based sex education strategies in public schools to both lower unwanted pregnancies and to enable parents to better be able to look after children should they get pregnant – so that the majority of abortions are actually selfish or 100% medically or ethically neccesary, rather than the current majority which are done for pragmatic reasons (i.e. economic, social and cultural reasons).
I just have serious mixed feelings about this article, on one hand it does suck for some reasons, but on the other hand, it sucks less than alot of other crap I’ve read since kerry lost.
Is there any news that left wing causes and views are being mass marketed to the nation yet? because any talk or discussion of ‘how to frame things’ falls over if the ‘masses’ only see stuff in the frames right wing zealots want them to see things in.
Of course, I have no suggestions to how to change things so me even saying things like are kind of pointless…
“As far as Ms. Kissling’s (and others here) pooh-poohing of the concern about having one’s children wandering around in the world, how does she feel about forced egg donation? What about forced sperm donation?”
Yes, but our eggs and sperm are ours exclusively, our property just like any other part of our body. I can’t see classifying a live fetus as the exclusive property of a woman giving her the right to secure its death if it is not even gestating in her body. Even Roe acknowledged the state’s interest in protecting unborn life, balanced against the interest of the woman carrying it–but if she’s NOT carrying it then I’m not sure what could legally stand in the way of the state assuming responsibility for the protection of that life, just like it would for any other abandoned infant.
I found some interesting about subj, look at it. http://www.eddiereva.com
What Alsis said. Maybe it’s cold and heartless of me, but just thinking about the sheer number of abortions in this country alone, and then thinking about each of those abortions being gestated somewhere and turning into a baby which grows up and gobbles up resources like every other American…horrifying. We really, really, REALLY need to get our best scientific minds working on better birth *CONTROL* not creepy sci fi wombs-with-a-view.
“I can’t see classifying a live fetus as the exclusive property of a woman giving her the right to secure its death if it is not even gestating in her body.”
How exactly do you envision that “live” fetus getting from the womb to the petridish? Are you saying that the woman wouldn’t have to consent to the fetus being removed from her body? Obviously if we ever get to this state, it would just be easier to shoot all female children at birth, harvest their eggs, and incubate at will in the future.
“Are you saying that the woman wouldn’t have to consent to the fetus being removed from her body?”
We’re talking about a scenario in which removal of the fetus (abortion, to which the woman certainly must consent) does not necessitate its death. Once it’s removed (at her request), I think legally her power over its life or death would come to an end and the state, if it chose, would have the right to artificially gestate it. At least, that’s how I see it from the perspective of Roe.
By the way, there are two different Annes commenting.
“Are you saying that the woman wouldn’t have to consent to the fetus being removed from her body?”
We’re talking about a scenario in which removal of the fetus (abortion, to which the woman certainly must consent) does not necessitate its death. Once it’s removed (at her request), I think legally her power over its life or death would come to an end and the state, if it chose, would have the right to artificially gestate it. At least, that’s how I see it from the perspective of Roe.
Anne: that presupposes that the mother would want the fetus to survive because the technology exists — is that your understanding? Is there then an ethical/moral imperative that is led/created by technology? Does technology trump personal conviction? What would happen to the woman who desires not to be pregnant or to parent who also has severe moral prohibitions against artificial life support? Would she face merely social stigma, or would the presence of technology preempt legislative punishment against her, similar to what women currently face if they are habitually drunk or using illegal drugs during their pregnancies? It seems to me, in your scenario, that the woman loses all human agency/rights at the moment of conception. If this is so, then women’s lives are valued only up to a clearly limited extent: an empty uterus. As soon as the uterus is not empty, the individual woman is subsumed by the fetus and is in fact a living incubator, not a full human in the sense that males are considered fully human. [a man is fully human even after conception because his bodily integrity is not affected by the state of pregnancy]. A woman, in your scenario, is only a woman [and only human] when she is not pregnant. Being pregnant makes her an archaic pseudotechnological production line.
Anne:
I don’t think Roe tells us anything about the woman’s rights in regard to an embryo or young fetus that has been removed alive from her body. It says only that after the end of the second trimester the state’s interest in the “life or potential life” of the fetus becomes great enough to permit it to ban abortion.
Of course, embryos capable of being gestated are already routinely (and legally) destroyed under the direction of their mothers and fathers following IVF procedures.
“As soon as the uterus is not empty, the individual woman is subsumed by the fetus and is in fact a living incubator, not a full human in the sense that males are considered fully human. [a man is fully human even after conception because his bodily integrity is not affected by the state of pregnancy]. A woman, in your scenario, is only a woman [and only human] when she is not pregnant. Being pregnant makes her an archaic pseudotechnological production line.”
I’m not sure I’m following you. Do you mean that not having the power to secure the destruction of a fetus once it’s removed from her somehow detracts from a woman’s humanity and bodily integrity? I don’t see it that way at all. She could carry it, or she could have it removed–it’s totally her choice. Isn’t that what the pro-choice movement has been about from the very beginning–the right of a woman to decide what happens to her own body? That’s what I’ve always thought, which is why I’m a pro-choicer, albeit a reluctant one. But in this scenario we’re not talking about a woman’s body at all–we’re talking about only the existence of a separate being in whose life the Supreme Court has already acknowledged that the state possesses an interest. That’s the distinction.
“What would happen to the woman who desires not to be pregnant or to parent who also has severe moral prohibitions against artificial life support?”
What happens today to a woman who gives birth to a premature baby who requires some sort of life support to survive initially but nevertheless has an excellent chance of survival and a normal life? Does she get to end that baby’s life? No. And what we’re talking about is a time when a very early fetus would be for all practical purposes a premature baby which the state would have the right to protect, if it chooses, regardless of anyone else’s wishes to the contrary.
Hmm… I definitely like the sci-fi petri dish scenario. I find the “never mind that the fetus isn’t in her body directly imposing on her anymore — what if she doesn’t want a baby to exist, period?” argument horrible. It would seem to imply that even giving birth naturally, after the whole nine months, does not end a mothers’ right to abort the baby. After all, a mother could decide that she doesn’t want a newborn to exist. Or a three year old. Or a twelve year old. I grant that the mothers who would actually kill a newborn baby — or even terminate a 7-month pregnancy except under SERIOUS medical circumstances — are vanishingly rare, but it still seems to me that the argument that abortion is a way of preventing a baby from living, not merely keeping a woman’s body to herself, is very wrong.
To me, fetal lives do have some value, at some point in time. I’m not sure how much. My view is that the value of a fetus rises incrementally over time. I think that the difference in value between a newborn and a 8.9 month-old fetus is very small — though, of course, a newborn imposes far less, bodily, on a woman than a 8.9 month fetus. I think that a just-implanted blastocyst is definitely not a person.
The reaction of people to the artificial womb idea reminds me of Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood’s near-future science fiction novel. In it, a megacorporation creates a sorta mix of a chicken and a hookworm, a sessile organism with no nerve tissues, and just a gut through which nutrients are poured. These things, called ChickieNobs, are harvested as a cheaper substitute for chicken. The ChickieNobs are supposed (from the impression I got) to be horrifying. My thought was, “seems like a lot better solution than killing chickens that actually DO have brains and such.” The horror, I think, is supposed to be something like “aren’t we perverting nature here?” or something, but I really didn’t feel that way.
I think that Don P. has basically identified the precise analogy: Living embryos are frozen (or sometimes not) and are allowed to die at the behest of their “parents.” Is Anne saying that the state should step in and find willing surrogate parents for these embryos? Or do they attain a protected status only once they’ve implanted in a woman’s uterus, and if so, why?
And for those who follow actual legal developments in this area, women have not been given exclusive dominion over frozen embryos — men have successfully prevented their ex-wives from implanting them after the couple has divorced. They are the property of each, and each has a veto power as to how they can be used. Their fate is permanent limbo or death, in the absence of a change of heart. Does this offend anyone?
Should we, in order to prevent the potential death of frozen embryos, preclude couples from having children through the help of reproductive technology?
Barbara, I believe that is Senator Santorum’s position: not that I’m endorsing it, mind you :^).
Anne:
What happens today to a woman who gives birth to a premature baby who requires some sort of life support to survive initially but nevertheless has an excellent chance of survival and a normal life? Does she get to end that baby’s life? No.
But she does get to end its life if it’s an embryo (assuming the father agrees or there is no legal father). Tens of thousands of embryos are intentionally created and destroyed under the direction of their parents in American fertility clinics every year. So the argument you’re making here–that a woman has no right to destroy the product of conception independently of her right to eject it from her uterus–obviously isn’t accepted even today.
But I really don’t think this is a very meaningful issue. We are not even remotely close to developing an “artificial womb,” there is no significant effort underway to develop such a device, and even if it were technically possible it would almost certainly be hugely expensive, on the order of millions of dollars per gestated fetus (even today, medical treatment for a preemie may run to hundreds of thousands of dollars). So it’s not a remotely realistic alternative to abortion in general in the real world. Perhaps we should focus on more realistic questions.
See… the idea that the value of a fetus or embryo is constant throughout all stages of pregnancy, (for pro-lifers) full person or (for pro-choicers) entirely valueless except to the mother is precisely what Frances Kissling is arguing against in the early parts of her article (not that I’ve read the whole thing). Embryos frozen in the first week of development might not have the same moral status as a 3-month old embryo.
You know, I had a very similar discussion with a pro-life friend of mine about seven years back, except we weren’t going with the artificial womb thing*, we were going with “embryonic implants”, where an embryo or fetus could be transferred from one woman’s womb to anothers. We both agreed that this would be an awesome solution–but we were both fourteen at the time.
But in any case, I believe that the artificial womb thing is a pretty cool idea–it’ll be the routine procedure offered for terminating pregnancy. That being said, however, I still think that first-trimester abortions should still be legal under this scenario, simply because there would be no way to prosecute embryocide without destroying the Bill of Rights.
And if anyone feels that being incubated in a womb somehow confers a sense of humanity–go read Robert Heinlein’s “Friday” now.
“I don’t think Roe tells us anything about the woman’s rights in regard to an embryo or young fetus that has been removed alive from her body. It says only that after the end of the second trimester the state’s interest in the “life or potential life” of the fetus becomes great enough to permit it to ban abortion.”
You’re right, Roe doesn’t address that exact issue. But in drawing the line at the end of the second trimester the Court relied on the concept of viability, the point at which the fetus can survive outside the body–which can and most likely will change with technology. Yes, I know all about the IVF embryos. But we’re not to the point of early viability yet and won’t be for a long time. And the state may not choose to protect early life–there are many other factors involved besides the mother’s wishes, not the least of which is cost. I’m only saying that in theory, under present law, the state could well opt to protect viable early life and I’m not sure what the most effective argument to the contrary would be since it would not be about a woman’s bodily integrity. Of course, it’s not an issue for today, but it would be interesting to be alive a hundred or so years from now and see how the law will keep up with advancing reproductive technology.
Offline until after the weekend. Great discussion here.
Julain Elson:
See… the idea that the value of a fetus or embryo is constant throughout all stages of pregnancy, (for pro-lifers) full person or (for pro-choicers) entirely valueless except to the mother is precisely what Frances Kissling is arguing against in the early parts of her article (not that I’ve read the whole thing). Embryos frozen in the first week of development might not have the same moral status as a 3-month old embryo.
I rarely encounter anyone who argues that a fetus has no value or rights at all. Most supporters of abortion rights do seem to believe, as I do, that the fetus has some value and some rights, and that these increase during the course of the pregnancy. They may disagree about the type and magnitude of the fetus’s rights at very stages of pregnancy, but the basic idea that the rights of the fetus track the course of its mental and physical development is widely shared. And as far as I’m concerned, no other position makes sense. The idea that the rights and value of the fetus come into being all at once, that there is some bright line in the human reproductive process that separates valueless tissue from full-blown human person, whether that line is drawn at fertilization, viability, birth or anywhere else, seems to me utterly nonsensical.
Anne:
You’re right, Roe doesn’t address that exact issue. But in drawing the line at the end of the second trimester the Court relied on the concept of viability, the point at which the fetus can survive outside the body–which can and most likely will change with technology.
Yes, but as I explained, a major reduction in the time to viability is not likely for decades, if ever. And even if an effective and affordable “artificial womb” is developed, you cannot infer from Roe that the court would apply the viability standard to earlier stages of pregnancy. As I said, it is already possible to gestate an embryo produced via IVF in a uterus other than that of its genetic mother, but we still permit the genetic mothers of such embryos to destroy them.
Yes, I know all about the IVF embryos. But we’re not to the point of early viability yet and won’t be for a long time.
We are at that point for IVF embryos. They can’t be gestated in an artificial womb, but they can be gestated in the womb of a surrogate human mother.
And the state may not choose to protect early life–there are many other factors involved besides the mother’s wishes, not the least of which is cost.
The state already chooses not to protect early life, by allowing women (and men) to destroy their IVF embryos. And this right is not contingent in any way on cost. Even if another woman offers to gestate the fetus free of charge and cover all costs associated with the pregnancy, relieving the state and the genetic parents of all financial burden, the genetic parents have the option of destroying the embryo anyway. The point is that the right of a parent to destroy the product of her conception independently of the burden of pregnancy is already established. It may not yet be established in constitutional law, but then neither are most rights.
Sorry I implied that you thought fetuses had no value beyond that to the mother, Don P. Maybe I was thinking of Lindsay Beyerstein’s view.
That said, if you believe that the value of a fetus incrementally increases, and presumably the baby as well, then surely you must believe that the “right of a parent to destroy the product of her conception independently of the burden of pregnancy” ends somewhere, sometime. A 75-year old mother has no right to put her 50-year old daughter to death, I assume you’d agree. In that case, I assume you would say that a woman has the same right to terminate a fetus in artificial womb as in her own uterus, not based on the concerns of bodily sovereignty but based on the specific condition of the fetus in the artificial environment or uterus. Is this the correct interpretation of your view?
If so, I should note that merely because the state does not prohibit and action does not mean that that action is a right, as you apparently infer from the fact that parents have the authority to destroy embryos they have created. There is no right to drive at 65 miles per hour on interstate highways. If the government reduced the speed limit to 55 miles per hour, then it would not be violating anyone’s rights. However, that does not mean that it is wrong for the government to allow driving a 65 mile per hour either. Similarly, I have no right to post here. Barry Deutsch contingently allows me to do so, but were he to ban me, he would not be violating my rights, though once again he is not morally compelled to ban me either. I believe that a woman’s right to an abortion for a fetus in her uterus is based on her bodily sovereignty, and, as such, prohibiting an abortion for a woman with a fetus in her womb would be violating her rights. Parents of frozen embryos are allowed, under our law, to destroy those embryos, but it would be incorrect to infer from a contingently legal practice that there is a right to engage in that practice. It is possible that parents have a right to destroy what they have conceived independent of the burden of pregnancy, but this cannot be infered from the fact that it is legal.
>> It would be a great tool to take away the legal right to choice.
It seems to me, at first blush, that the supposed right to choose is based on control over one’s body rather than the unlimited right to terminate another human life.
>> This EXCLUDES the fetus, as it is wholly dependent on a host (so far as technology has allowed us).
In this thought experiment there would still be a host. The artificial womb would be operated by the new host. Dependancy based on someone not pulling the plug is still dependancy. Think of a premature child in an incubator.
>> The Anti-choice advocates focus far too much on the POTENTIAL of the fetus and far too little on the accomplishments of those already born and breathing on their own.
Whether in an incubator or in a womb or in the arms of a parent, a child’s life holds potential and is of intrinsic value even if it is not valued by those upon whom the life depends.
But if one adheres to your criteria for grading value of all human life, then, dependancy devalues all of us to a greater or lesser extent. That leads to a reduction of the right to control one’s own body even as an adult.
—
The scenario would add a form of “pregnancy control” in tandem with “failproof contraceptives”. Such a combination would erode the arguments that favor unrestricted choice. Morally, politically, and legally — although less so legally given our current status quo. The bits of this discussion that touch on Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART) reveals just the tip of the iceberg.
>> We don’t know if women will be relieved or upset.
Truthfully, I do think we can foresee that many women would choose such an option even if they wanted to raise the child but did not want to go through the inconveniences, or health risks, of carrying a child to full term. If the past repeats itself, this might even become a newly established civil right of the mother rather than the preborn child. Consider the recent emergence of scheduling Cesarean Sections for convenience rather than necessity. Removal of a preborn child could become even more popular. If it could safely include “freezing”, then, it might even eliminate the abortion of pregnancies that are “mistimed”.
And this would provide the legal fig leaf for treating the procedure as just another matter between a woman and her doctor, thus dodging the broader and more urgent issues being discussed. As in, don’t restrict access to artificial wombs because wombs on demand is an absolute right.
>> It doesn’t take much imagination to understand that one might not want the product of one’s rape or incest experience wandering about the world. (Should, one might argue, rapists and the incestuous be rewarded by this chance to pass on their genetic material?)
Is that all the preborn child is, genetic material? a product walking around *out there*?
This quickly returns us to the legal minefield we already have but with several additional layers of moral confusion.
For instance, the hard cases described above are often the exceptions that are acknowledged by many of those who favor legal restrictions on abortions for all other reasons. That is, the narrowest legal concept of the right to choose is drawn around these exceptional cases.
The proposed scenario would greatly diminish the mother’s risk of traumatization (and thus the risk to the life of the preborn child) in these hard cases. Balancing the right to life and the right to control one’s body would tip toward the preborn child.
Okay, I know that the artifical womb concept is totally fictional, but in our fictional world, still no one is talking about what happens to the child after it has been gestated artificially.
Does the state come back to the biological mother and say, okay you are legally and financially obligated to support this child- and possibly the father if the father is identifed.
Does the state take care of the child in state run kiddie farms?
Can the biological mother or father come back and claim the child? What is the limit on their parental rights/responsibilities?
Foster care? Adoption? Are these realistic options for the welfare of the child ( and by extension the welfare of the community since the child will grow up to become a full member of the community)?
Will the public be willing to cough up the $$ required to adequately raise the children? Who will be responsible guardians for the children? The state? Does that mean the state can do whatever it wants with the children? (eg. train them to be come soldiers?)
The main issue I have with the theoretical argument presented by Kissling is that it doesn’t talk about what happens to the children after they are born. I said this earlier, but still no one wants to take up that part of the discussion. Perhaps actually that is a good thing because it highlights the overemphasis on a fetus which is not viable outside of a womb which in turn emphasizes the unwillingness to deal with the quality of life issues for unwanted children.
Clearly this debate does nothing to change the fact that anti-choice side is more concerned with the fetus than the mother, and the pro-choice side feels exactly the opposite. But sci-fi intellectual exercises where we “get” to grow babies without women do a remarkable job of re-emphasizing the anti-choice view–that fetuses are the issue here, not women’s rights–for those who can’t decide.
Anne said:
“But we’re not to the point of early viability yet and won’t be for a long time. And the state may not choose to protect early life–there are many other factors involved besides the mother’s wishes, not the least of which is cost. I’m only saying that in theory, under present law, the state could well opt to protect viable early life.”
What many other factors are involved, besides the mother’s (and father’s) wishes and costs?
If I understand what you are saying, you believe that the value of a pre-viable fetus could justify the “state” (a euphemistic, Orwellian doublespeak way of saying you and me, or in this case, just you) forcing women to transfer such a fetus from her uterus to another uterus, in lieu of having an abortion, because the possibility of the fetus’s continued existence through a willing surrogate trumps the biological parents’ right to determine the fetus’s fate.
I see no difference between the “potential” for life of IVF embryos and the potential for life of another pre-viable fetus (indeed, we currently HAVE the technology to pull off the IVF embryo transfer — there’s an entity called Snowflake that does nothing but arrange “adoptions” for frozen embryos).
Now, you will likely say that the “state” can draw lines based on some presumably rational basis, which I’m not going to try to articulate, but the current pro-life case is precisely that there should be no lines, that the “value” of a zygote, an embryo, a blastocyst, and a pre-viable fetus, cannot be differentiated from that of a post-viable fetus or even a full-term baby.
Maybe this is not your stance. However, if cost and technological feasibility are considered important factors, then it seems to me that your case differentiating the “early” life that is an embryo from the later pre-viable life that is an implanted fetus falls apart. It’s a heck of a lot easier to transfer an embryo to a receptive uterus, when it hasn’t already been implanted in somebody elses.
So again, what are these “factors” that make it appropriate to prevent abortion but not outlaw the destruction of ART conceived embryos?
It wouldn’t be the fact that IVF embryos almost universally represent the offspring of married couples wishing, presumably, to fulfill their gender roles, while women undergoing abortion are basically seeking the opposite?
Well, I think that the way IVF is done is grisly and disrespectful. The idea of knowingly creating more embryos than you are going to want, knowing that the “extras” are going to be destroyed, disturbs me even more than a woman aborting an accidental pregnancy. If you desire that strongly to experience pregnancy and give birth to someone with your own DNA, would you be willing to go through the whole IVF process and only make two embryos, implant those two and give birth to them? This would mean going through the whole process again if the pregnancy doesn’t take.
If that seems too costly (financially, physically, or psychologically), I think you should consider adopting. The huge amount of money that IVF costs would pay very nicely for the prenatal care and birth expenses for someone out there who is considering an abortion for purely economic reasons (I know that not everyone who chooses abortion does so for financial reasons, but there are many who do).
The reason why you risk creating more embryos than you need has to do with the high rate of attrition at every step of the process.
Adoption is also costly, and it requires the additional psychological cost of foregoing the birth of biologically connected offspring. IVF is easy. It takes a high degree of technical expertise by those who do it, but it’s not generally that taxing to the female and it isn’t taxing at all to the male (except to those males who never masturbate or look at porn). It is certainly less time consuming and less intrusive, and not generally more expensive than adoption.
But I have to say I am probably going to back out here for the time being, because honestly, Joan, I find it offensive that you presume to sit in judgment on people who want nothing more than to do what most humans assume is natural, correct, and expected. Did you preferentially adopt over having biological children? And if you didn’t, why not? I had biological children because I wanted to and I could, well, with IVF a whole new class of people can have biological children, and guess what, their biological urges are as strong as mine and most of the rest of humanity.
Maybe you should look at the post that morphed into a discussion of biological versus step parenting.
If the thing that makes IVF easy is the fact that you can make excess embryos that are considered expendable, then that conflicts with the pro-life point of view. Lots of things become much easier if the life of the unborn is not valued, but those who value fetal life feel that the lives of the unborn are being sacrificed so that we grown-ups can have everything the way we want it.
You are correct that I chose to become a biological parent, but if I had not been able to conceive, I would have accepted it, though with great sadness. I would have either adopted or just gone on with parenting my stepkids.
(Can someone link me to the post about biological vs. step-parenting?)
Joan, my point is that you are carelessly advising people to be altruistic in ways that may be antithetical to their deepest beliefs and feelings, and in ways you’ve never had to be or experience yourself. Dismissing them with the proviso that you can’t have everything you want in life is about what I expected in response. Not being able to give birth to your own children isn’t like not getting the car or house or job of your dreams. As a parent you should understand that, and like it or not, you are saying to a rather large group of people: The world would be better if your children hadn’t been born. It’s no mystery why the average pro-lifer steers clear of this part of the debate.
It isn’t that I don’t place some value on eggs, embryos, and fetuses, but I certainly don’t value them equally to children who have already been born (or even fetuses at a much later stage of development) and since the frozen embryos are hardly conscious of their fate I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about them. They have potential. It isn’t absurd or unfair that not all potential is fully tapped, and there seems to be no shortage of people who embody that sentiment for children who have already been born.
I don’t do links, but the other discussion begins somewhere in the middle of Amp’s thread about ssm with the name “Elizabeth” in the title. Look on the list of posts on in the righthand margin.
In regard to the Clinton quote of “Abortions should be “Safe legal and rare”, amen to that. The fact that abortions should be legal and safe doesnt mean we want everyone and their mom having one once a year or anything.
If everyone was using proper birth control on both sides and being responsible about when they actually want to have kids and with whom, abortions WOULD be rare and we would all be much better off for this increase in personal responsibility.
“These things, called ChickieNobs, are harvested as a cheaper substitute for chicken.”
Interesting! I thought those were called “McChickens”.
Julian Elson:
That said, if you believe that the value of a fetus incrementally increases, and presumably the baby as well, then surely you must believe that the “right of a parent to destroy the product of her conception independently of the burden of pregnancy” ends somewhere, sometime.
Yes, of course.
A 75-year old mother has no right to put her 50-year old daughter to death, I assume you’d agree. In that case, I assume you would say that a woman has the same right to terminate a fetus in artificial womb as in her own uterus, not based on the concerns of bodily sovereignty but based on the specific condition of the fetus in the artificial environment or uterus. Is this the correct interpretation of your view?
Essentially, yes. The pregnant woman, of course, has the additional right to remove the fetus from her uterus, which in the case of abortion necessarily results in its death.
If so, I should note that merely because the state does not prohibit and action does not mean that that action is a right, as you apparently infer from the fact that parents have the authority to destroy embryos they have created.
Yes it does.
There is no right to drive at 65 miles per hour on interstate highways.
Driving (on public highways) is a privilege, not a right. In order to drive at all, you need to be licensed by the government. So this analogy is specious.
I believe that a woman’s right to an abortion for a fetus in her uterus is based on her bodily sovereignty, and, as such, prohibiting an abortion for a woman with a fetus in her womb would be violating her rights. Parents of frozen embryos are allowed, under our law, to destroy those embryos, but it would be incorrect to infer from a contingently legal practice that there is a right to engage in that practice.
Nonsense. The reason we don’t ban the destruction of IVF embryos by their parents is because we recognize the right of parents to destroy them. Laws don’t create rights, they only secure them.
What’s this “preborn child” sentimentality? Exactly how much guilt should a woman go through for having a “late period” or recognisable spontaneous miscarriage due to genetic defect or having failure to implant due to natural uterine conditions (for instance, a low-grade infection). Or for having “200 sons and 200 daughters” in a single miscarriage, as one Puritan-era headstone had it – hydropic placenta with failure of embryo to develop. I do realize that women and their men who are trying to have children grieve over early miscarriages, but they are grieving a 7# liveborn infant they anticipated, an infant with capacity to respond to and learn from its environment, not an anticipated anencephalic (generally considered to be environmental in etiology) or trisomy 18 liveborn, much less a more severe genetic defect. A very large proportion of human conceptions fail in the natural course of events to reach live birth, and in the majority of those cases in first world countries, the reason is “God’s quality control in operation” disposing of a defective fetus, and not poor uterine conditions.
Which comes up to a key question in this thought experiment. Who will volunteer to bear severely defective embryos/fetuses, and raise them if they are live born, and not ship them off to the usual location, a state home for the severely impaired, where they are often abused by other residents who have mobility, and by staff. We are going to be able to identify predispositions if not actual inheritance of a wide range of conditions. With that genetic knowledge will come the demand for genetic testing, not by all expectant mothers/couples, but by many. And some will decide (rightly or wrongly) that they do not have the emotional or practical resources to deal with children with major physical or mental impairment. I can see a hearing couple freaked by genetically deaf but otherwise normal fetus being able to successfully adopt away said fetus to a deaf couple – after all, deafness is no problem, and is an asset, in the deaf culture. But where is the realistic adoption market for a child with severe mental retardation prone to violence? Who is going to want to take a chance on raising someone else’s genetic child who has a high likelihood of paranoid schizophrenia?
Julian, if an action is NOT made illegal by some code or statute you do have a right to engage in it — you cannot be stopped from doing something unless the law prohibits it. Whether, under our particular legal system there are things that the law could not even prohibit you from doing without proposing a constitutional amendment — such as speaking freely — that, obviously, is limited to a much narrower category of actions. Perhaps that’s what you meant by the use of the term “right.”
By the way, we already know that the viability standard in Roe does not apply to all stages of pregnancy. It is already possible to safely remove a very young embryo from one woman’s uterus and complete its gestation in another woman’s uterus, through the procedure known as surrogate embryo transfer, or “uterine lavage and embryo transfer.” The window during which this procedure is possible is small–typically the first five days after fertilization–but it nevertheless represents another stage of pregnancy at which the fetus is viable (that is, it can survive and complete its gestation after being removed from the pregnant woman’s uterus).
Despite the existence of this procedure and the viable nature of these very young embryos, women have the same constitutional right to abortion during this window as they do during the rest of the first two trimesters.
I’m wondering if all this science-fiction stuff, when and if it becomes feasible, won’t simply move the argument one step backwards. Some of the argument has always been about who has the right to control women’s fertility, after all, or put in other words the question is whether a woman can decide if she reproduces herself or not.
This is quite hidden in a lot of the abortion debate but countries have always been interested in trying to make women have children when children are deemed desirable and in trying to stop them from having children when children are not desirable. Of course, patriarchy has assigned to ownership rights to women’s fertility to their male relatives, ultimately the husband. Once the idea that women have a right to their own bodies spread, many of these facts went underground but they’re still affecting the abortion debate, as well as the contraception debate. If the abortion debate went away we’d still have this fight, I think.
Sam the Girl and Nancy Pat:
I’m with you – I would be far more interested in what would happen to all these “rescued” fetuses. Given the direction of things these days, disposing of them would almost certainly become a for-profit business, which would mean that the demand would be for healthy, white fetuses with no mental or physical defect, paid for by reasonably-well-off white parents, who would be the only people who could afford the artificial womb/transplant surgery. So what would happen to the “undesirables?”
My guess is that the “womb transfer” option, if it were to become available, would be used to justify illegalizing abortion, the end result being to force many women (especially those poor and not white, whose fetuses would be less “marketable”) to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and deal with having unwanted children.
Also, like alsis and Jasper, I’m more concerned about just how many human babies the world can support (especially resource-guzzling American ones) than about preventing abortion.
Interesting discussion! And remarkably civil.
MG
So what would happen to the “undesirables?”
Stem-cell research, of course, since a large wing of the pro-life movement has decided it’s really OK to kill a baby as long as one personally benefits from the resulting medical research.
In that case, I assume you would say that a woman has the same right to terminate a fetus in artificial womb as in her own uterus
Unlikely. Roe is based on the balance of the woman’s privacy interest and the State’s interest in protecting fetal life. A fetus in an artificial womb does not bring up the woman’s privacy interest in her own body.
Interestingly, there has been a “frozen embryo” case where the parents divorced, the mother wanted to implant an embryo, and the father (no longer married to her) did not, saying it would force him to become a parent against his wishes. The court sided with him.
Pingback: Word Munger
Pingback: Kermit the Blog
Pingback: green gabbro
Pingback: green gabbro