BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Abortion

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
SMS
04:47 / 23.04.02
I'm going to take a guess that barbelith has some differing opinions on this, given that I see very relevant arguments from the two most obvious and most commonly reported positions on abortion.

The questions are generally obvious. Please be respectful.

I'm trying to figure out different methods of deciding the morals and ethics behind abortion.
 
 
the Fool
05:24 / 23.04.02
My 2 cents.

Abortion is an issue for the woman in question to decide. End of story. Other people may offer advice or opinions but in the end only one person should have the final say. Governments and other institutions should keep out. Laws on abortion should only be about "best practice" so as to ensure the process is as untramatic and safe as possible.

It is the woman faced with this decision that has to live with the consequences of this decision. She should be informed, have access to clean, safe facilities should she decide to use them or have access to support should she decide to go through with the pregnancy.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
06:05 / 23.04.02
abortion is an incredibly emotive issue. i expect things *will* hot up in this thread before too long.

v briefly - yes, a woman *has* to have the right to choose. i believe in decent sex education, both in the home and at school, i believe in contraception being available. sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes a woman gets raped and falls pregnant, sometimes she hasn't had the proper access to education/contraception (here in the u.k. it's pretty sketchy). an abortion *is* the ending of what would almost certainly be a life. i'm not going to pretend it's pleasant. or easy. but it is sometimes necessary. that's all there is to it.

i start getting heated up about it when men start telling women what they can and can't do about being pregnant i.e. the recent vote in ireland, which would've made abortion illegal even if the woman was suicidal. obviously a father might want a say if his partner wants a termination, but i don't believe he should be able to force her not to. *she* has to carry the child, not him. until or unless that situation changes, that's the way it has to be.

but, again, i'm not going to pretend it's easy.
 
 
Ganesh
06:15 / 23.04.02
Briefly, the woman in question has the ultimate right to decide. Opinions can be offered. Doctors have a right to refuse, but have a duty (in all cases) to secure a second opinion.
 
 
suds
10:07 / 23.04.02
i have just written a 8,000 word essay on abortion which is one of the main reasons why i haven't posted in this thread till now. yeah, i'm SICK of abortion! what pissed me off the most, though, was how all the opinions and fucking laws and the national sancity of human life day (thanks, dubya) and rows get in the way of what could be a intimate personal issue.

in the 1800s, there were no laws about abortion and the same amount were being carried out as there are now. the laws have changed nothing. i could go on, but i simply can't. if anyone wants to take a look at my essay, feel free.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:27 / 23.04.02
This is an issue which is going to die in the next couple of decades. The technology will simply outpace the problem.

Guardian Februrary 10th 2002

At which point, it becomes an adoption issue - tricky, but not nearly so emotive.
 
 
gozer the destructor
10:30 / 23.04.02
obviously a father might want a say if his partner wants a termination, but i don't believe he should be able to force her not to. *she* has to carry the child, not him.

Pretty much agree with everything you say there SFD, just wanted to re-emphasise this though, I mean your spot on that it is the womans decision-she carries the main responsibility of protecting the child during pregnancy as it becomes part of her (emotionally as well as physically)...but in a straight relationship there is the man's perspective and ignoring this reduces the males role with regards to responsibility for the child, which can only be a bad thing long term and short...
 
 
sleazenation
10:59 / 23.04.02
actually the advent of artificial wombs won't solve anything... just shift things slightly to a struggle over access to the means of (re)production...
 
 
The Planet of Sound
11:31 / 23.04.02
I read an interview with Anne Widecombe in a paper this weekend, in which she said the one thing she wishes she could have done as an MP was repeal the abortion laws; ie ban abortions.

Which brings me to: why is it always the sexless, the ugly, the sexually inadeqate, the repulsive, the prudish, who have such a problem with abortion? Is it a case of 'Well, I've never had a fulfilling sex life, so those that do should bloody well face the consequences when it doesn't go exactly how they want it to', said in a nerdy and bitter tone? And concurrent shifting of ideologies ('It's got a SOUL, you know?') to justify this petty and mean spirited stance.

Possibly?

As for devoutly religious men deciding what women should do with their bodies, well, they should all be castrated, obviously. Just to see what it feels like to have power over their anatomy taken from them, just the once.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:52 / 23.04.02
Actually, there is a line in the New Testament (Expressionless?) on entering the kingdom of Heaven like a eunuch which Origen took rather too literally....

Nick - I don't understand how artificial wombs is going to help. Either women are compelled to look after the child after it has been brought to term, or another child is dropped into the adoption system, with an ever-shrinking chance of being taken up as numbers grow. Also, the mother is presumably compelled to undergo a far more traumatic ioeration than early-term abortion to remove and transplant the foetus. Unless you mena that everybody should be chemically sterilised and parturition allowed to occur only through artificial means, which would actually be kind of cool but rather expensive.

Plus, that assumes that the only argument against abortion is that the "mother" doesn't want something "alien" growing inside her, whereas "I do not want to look after a child", or even "I do not want to have a child, whether it is raised by me or not" also strike me as obvious motivations.

What the artificial womb does do is complicate the issue of at what point abortifacient action may legally be taken - at present the law is, as I understand it, in the UK, at least theoretically decided on when the foetus could survive outside the womb (although, perversely, at that point it is mandated that it be allowed to stay there). If the foetus can survive theoretically outside the womb at any time, then a term would have to be set either arbitratily or according to some philosophicolegal understanding of when "human life" spiritually begins.
 
 
Ganesh
15:20 / 23.04.02
I believe that was the same Anne Widdecombe interview in which she waxed loathsome over "irregular" relationships...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:38 / 23.04.02
I don't understand how artificial wombs is going to help. Either women are compelled to look after the child after it has been brought to term, or another child is dropped into the adoption system, with an ever-shrinking chance of being taken up as numbers grow.

Neither of which is technically an 'abortion', is it? Yes, it causes problems in related areas. But the whole 'killing unborn child' debate is over at that point.

Plus, that assumes that the only argument against abortion is that the "mother" doesn't want something "alien" growing inside her, whereas "I do not want to look after a child", or even "I do not want to have a child, whether it is raised by me or not" also strike me as obvious motivations.

And here I always thought 'mother' was one of those terms which was immune to scarequotes. What are they for this time?

As I said, I'm not suggesting it makes all the problems go away, but I think it deals with the most traumatic one.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
16:07 / 23.04.02
Well also the idea of artificial wombs solving the "abortion debate" kind of pre-supposes that those having abortions, if they had the option, would save their unborn child. And yes I use that phrase deliberately.

One of the reasons that the abortion debate never gets solved is because one group of people claims to arguing in the name of a tiny human and the other is arguing in the name of a choice.

I think it’s an interesting option, actually, and one I’d probably go for if I found myself unexpectedly preggers and that option was available to me. But it’s shortsighted to think that every woman who would otherwise have abortions would be willing to go through this procedure. Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot easier to take some RU486?

Interesting, though.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
16:13 / 23.04.02
"I'm trying to figure out different methods of deciding the morals and ethics behind abortion."

That's only natural. It's always a good idea to check out all the sides of an argument. But I think you'll run into trouble with this one.

See, I'm thinking that most people who go the moral and ethical road on both sides play by the same ethical rules, by which I mean they agree on most moral issues. For instance: both sides agree that it not right to take an innocent individual's life. I don't think you'll find anyone who'll disagree with that. This bit is obvious. Unfortunately, the situation is never so simple, even though some apparently think it is.

"Is the fetus an individual?" Hard to say. This is a choice that everybody makes by themselves after looking at the evidence, which could be used to further either sides argument. This, obviously, is a bit of a problem. Different folks with different ideas as to what makes an individual take different sides, and if they're on the right side, the other side is wrong. But the problem isn't in the morality of it all, but in the definition of what an individual is.

I had more to say, but it's all old arguments set against each other. The gist of the post is that applying abstract terms to the situation, especially black v.s. white terms, is trying to make these abstract things into concrete structures so that you can not only weigh one against the other, but classify them into their proper levels. Which is the greater of the two goods? If one good is indeed better, does that make the lesser good bad? Is the lesser of two evils good? And so on and so forth. Applying black and white morality will get you nowhere. You can't turn abstract ideas into concrete things. The abstract may make itself manifest in a concrete thing or action, but if you're playing by the black v.s. white rules, the two can't ever be the same thing. Abstract is never concrete just like black is never white.

It's quite a dilemma, if you play by the black v.s. white rules. That's why I got into zen, so I wouldn't have to. Now I just swallow the whole thing like a good little zenarchist.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:23 / 23.04.02
Re Artificial Wombs:

The parent(s) of the fetus growing in these artificial wombs could desire an abortion for such reasons as (a) the child would be born with a major birth defect (b) she/he/they want children with specific characteristics (see the "Lesbians choose to have a deaf child") thread, or as Haus intimated, someone decides they aren't ready or able to care for a child in the interim.

Obviously none of these reasons have to do with a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, as the fetus is no longer depedent on the mother's body. What would be the justification for aborting a fetus in an artificial womb then? Would there still be a right to abortion in this case?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:25 / 23.04.02
Nick - well, no. Speaking for myself, I would at this stage of my life rather kill an unborn child than have a little Hauslet running around, and not just because of the prophesy. And a sudden collapse of an overstrained social services sector doesn't strike me as the best thing ever. So one either has this as an option as well as abortion, in which case the pro-life lobby is still going to campaign, or you have it instead, in which case the state is taking away people's reproductive rights.

And you are right, "mother" is outside the reach of scarequotes. Along with "truth", "justice", and the "American Way". In this instance, however, quotes are used as a reference to the fact that if one describes a pregnant woman as a "mother", one is quoting from a particular perspective which uses language politically. I would say that a pregnant woman is not a mother, as she has no child *to* mother, only a foetus to incubate. Simple, really.
 
 
netbanshee
16:32 / 23.04.02
When looking at the "sides" of the debate, it really represents the difficulty in helping people understand the entire scope of the issue. I'm pro-choice for the basic reason that one person in this world may want that option and even if I would rather not see the end of a potential life, I also don't want to take away a person's ability to decide what is right for themselves. It's pretty simple. Life is about options...otherwise no one's really living anyway...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
18:34 / 23.04.02
Cherry:

One of the reasons that the abortion debate never gets solved is because one group of people claims to arguing in the name of a tiny human and the other is arguing in the name of a choice.

Play fair. There are gradations. I don't see a just-fertilised egg as a tiny human. It's hard to see exactly where that category becomes accurate. So one group of people is arguing that this tiny human has rights, and another is saying 'it's not a tiny human yet, and the mother has the right to call a halt until it is'. And there are thousands of variations on the theme.

the idea of artificial wombs solving the "abortion debate" kind of pre- supposes that those having abortions, if they had the option, would save their unborn child

Actually, I'm not sure how relevant that is if the rechnology is universally available. At the point where it's an unborn child - and possibly even earlier - if the technology is present to provide an alternative to extinguishing it, does anyone have the right to insist on that option except on specific medical grounds? Can you control your own genes' replication? Morally or legally?

Haus:

I would at this stage of my life rather kill an unborn child than have a little Hauslet running around...And a sudden collapse of an overstrained social services sector doens't strike me as the best thing ever.

I didn't say this was a perfect solution. What it does is provide an alternative to terminating foetuses. That being the case, I'm not convinced that either your preference not to have a little genetic heritor running around, or the resultant heavy load on Social Services is really relevant. Desirable or not, it's coming.

And frankly, if the system can't cope, we fix it, yes? Or are we going to apply that argument more broadly? "I'm afraid the bureaucracy can't cope with you altering the status quo, Mr. Mandela, so if you wouldn't mind going back to what you were doing and not making any more fuss..."

So one either has this as an option as well as abortion, in which case the pro-life lobby is still going to campaign, or you have it instead, in which case the state is taking away people's reproductive rights.

Oh, that's interesting. A reproductive right not to have children - even if their presence will never alter your life. Genetic copyrights?

In this instance, however, quotes are used as a reference to the fact that if one describes a pregnant woman as a "mother", one is quoting from a particular perspective which uses language politically. I would say that a pregnant woman is not a mother, as she has no child *to* mother, only a foetus to incubate.

And we're back to one of the many 'square one' questions of the abortion debate: is the foetus a 'child'? Let's not go down that road; it's an open question. You want to say 'incubating' rather than 'carrying a child' that's fine - but we're no closer to any anwers because of it.
 
 
SMS
20:53 / 23.04.02
Does anyone here know when the fetus is developed enough to suffer? (I wouldn't expect four cells to do so) I never hear this discussed, and, even if it doesn't solve our problems, it does seem relevant.
 
 
Ganesh
20:55 / 23.04.02
At the risk of being wanky, define "suffer"...
 
 
Rage
21:31 / 23.04.02
Give me a break. Whose body is this?
 
 
Persephone
21:47 / 23.04.02
One of the reasons that the abortion debate never gets solved is because one group of people claims to arguing in the name of a tiny human and the other is arguing in the name of a choice.

Play fair. There are gradations. I don't see a just-fertilised egg as a tiny human. It's hard to see exactly where that category becomes accurate.

I was about to agree whole-heartedly with Cherry, and now I am thinking about what Nick is saying...

...but isn't it, Nick, not that *you* don't see a just-fertilized egg as a tiny human or where that category becomes accurate, but that the pro-life side does pretty clearly? And that the pro-choice side tends not to address this tiny human idea, but tends to abstract to choice? So it will be forever apples and oranges until you can get pro-lifers to talk about choice and pro-choicers to talk about life, as sfd has done actually? But then I don't suppose even then we will come any closer to agreement, as I can't imagine a conversation going over well wherein I say, "Fine, life begins at conception. So we're talking about the mother's life and quality-of-life vs. the life of the tiny human. Mother trumps tiny human. Kill the tiny human, if she wants."

For instance: both sides agree that it not right to take an innocent individual's life. I don't think you'll find anyone who'll disagree with that.

See, I would. If you're alive, the chances are very good that your life tramples on innocent individual lives. I think that's what a lot of people have a hard time accepting. I mean, what does it mean to accept that? Probably the most moral thing to do is to do something about that, but I think the least moral thing is to not admit it.

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm going to make it to the end of my life having done no harm. I'll try to stick to the lesser harm, but I'll know that it's still harm.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:35 / 23.04.02
But, Nick, the idea of somebody else playing with your caged baby universe bring you out in hives, but the idea of somebody else playing with your uncaged baby baby doesn't...

That's cool. That's fine. That's absolutely your decision. Which is only weakened by the idea that disagreeing with the argument that a state cannot forcibly alter the ratio of adopters to adoptees is somehow connected to being *racist*...

Tell you what. How about if I mention the Nazis, then we can short-circuit the whole thread?

Women may have motivations outside your situation model. They may not. I humbly suggest that you accept the possibility.
 
 
SMS
23:28 / 23.04.02
Ganesh: At the risk of being wanky, define "suffer"...
It needs to be addressed, but I really don't know how. Is pain less arbitrary?

Rage: Give me a break. Whose body is this?
Some would say that it is yours and the fetus' body both.
Some would say that it is yours alone and thus that the phrase "the fetus' body" is linguistic short-hand for your other body, or that portion of your body which happens to be a fetus.

After you resolve this question, you have neither resolved the moral question, nor the ethical question.

I should clarify what I mean by that. By ethical, I mean the societal norm we wish to advocate. By moral, I mean a more personal set of questions that relates to me only. "How should I act, think, and advise?"

The philosopher by the name of Thomson gave an argument by analogy that, if the fetus were a full-grown person (a violinist, in fact), that the mother would still have a right to abort the violinist. It was a very convincing argument that I personally decided had a flaw I was unwilling to accept, but others did not agree with me.

There may be arguments that even if this is entirely your body, and not the body of a fetus in the sense of property, then it may still be immoral, if not unethical or rightly illegal, to have an abortion. Most of these arguments would be a bit weaker, I imagine than Thomson's violinist, but I haven't given it much thought what these might be. Is an abortion a violation of the principle of love? The government cannot regulate whether you are a loving person or not, but you can. Haus' arguments make it sound just the opposite; abortion is an expression of love. But I cannot see it as plain.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
23:54 / 23.04.02
I'd like to humbly resubmit my mode of inquiry, this time framed as a thought experiment:

To wit, imagine that artificial wombs are available and readily accessible. All you have to do is add some sperm and egg to the EZ BAke oven, if you will. Then gestate for 9 months.

Now, per Haus and my post above, there are many reasons a parent may want to abort a child, even if it was planned. In the case of the artificial womb, the common argument that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body is moot. In that case, when is abortion ethical in the case of the artificial womb, and in the case of fetuses created with the donations of two separate individuals, who gets to decide if the pregnancy should be determined or not?

The artificial womb is actually a great complicant to the abortion debate, and throws a number of issues into high relief.
 
 
Persephone
02:33 / 24.04.02
I was going to say that in my mind it doesn't boil down to the fetus being inside the mother's body, but rather the child in the mother's life. Frankly if I had a healthy baby at home & my body was popped back into perfect shape, I'd pretty much consider my life to be destroyed anyway. So the artificial womb thingy isn't a complicant to my mind, only I do think it would be better for pro-choice to expand its rhetoric beyond just the body.

Then I read this (from the article): 'At present, this means killing the foetus. But if artificial wombs are developed, the foetus could be placed in one, and the woman told she has to look after it once it has developed into a child.'

First of all, WHAT??? But second, this particular application of the technology actually falls within the scope of present rhetoric--i.e., presumably taking the fetus out of the woman's body would be an invasive procedure for which her consent would be required, unless things get very bad indeed.

But for the sake of argument, let's say instead that above scientist would be told that he will be taking care of my little jar-baby once its born, being that it's his jar... I would indeed sneak into the laboratory at night to decant my jar down the drain --not so much for genetic copyright issues, but rather more because having offspring alters your identity & I would not choose my identity to be so altered, however abstractly. I wouldn't be an egg donor for the same reason.

Plus the most horrible part, I don't want to be confronted when I'm sixty by a thirty year old resentful mini-me who doesn't understand what an unloving and unnatural mother I am --this being precisely the reason I have chosen not to reproduce, and against which I have taken precautions up to the gills. Should these for any reason fail, I would continue to attempt to exercise this choice by any means necessary.
 
 
SMS
03:08 / 24.04.02
But for the sake of argument, let's say instead that above scientist would be told that he will be taking care of my little jar-baby once its born, being that it's his jar... I would indeed sneak into the laboratory at night to decant my jar down the drain --not so much for genetic copyright issues, but rather more because having offspring alters your identity & I would not choose my identity to be so altered, however abstractly.

How does this alter your identity?
 
 
sleazenation
08:31 / 24.04.02
How this scenario where women can have their eggs removed at an early age (because women IIRC possess all the eggs they will ever produce from the very start of their life where as men continually manufacture sperm).

women would have complete freedom within their own bodies... but would not be able to reproduce with the autonomy that they have moment. What do people think of that? freedom to?? freedom from?? patriarchal control? every answer throws out new questions...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:23 / 24.04.02
Persophone:

but isn't it, Nick, not that *you* don't see a just-fertilized egg as a tiny human or where that category becomes accurate, but that the pro-life side does pretty clearly? And that the pro-choice side tends not to address this tiny human idea, but tends to abstract to choice?

The reason pro-choice advocates often abstract is that many of their opponents begin from the position you mention: that a human is created the instant an egg is fertilised. That's still an open question to me. When last I looked, science was unable to answer, and even theology was hazy on the subject of when souls come in to the equation.

This issue is deadlocked, and we could spend our lives arguing (a waste by the standards of either side). I think the artificial womb has the potential to break the deadlock in the majority of cases. What do you think?

Haus:

But, Nick, the idea of somebody else playing with your caged baby universe bring you out in hives, but the idea of somebody else playing with your uncaged baby baby doesn't...

I also said, if you recall, that once the universe existed, I had no right to order its destruction. I find the parallel intriguing as a marker of my own thinking. I'd thank you if you hadn't so clearly intended this as a snotty putdown. Do you think we could at least restrict our insults to the matter in hand?

That's absolutely your decision. Which is only weakened by the idea that disagreeing with the argument that a state cannot forcibly alter the ratio of adopters to adoptees is somehow connected to being *racist*...

Haus, I'm sure you know that's nonsense. But just in case you actually think that's what I was trying to do, I'll talk you through it, all right? It's one of your favourite tricks.

1. Your argument: "The system as it is cannot cope with what you propose. We'll have to junk your new idea."

2. Another context where that argument might have been used, where its fatuousness is more apparent (Mandela).

3. Your response: "Mandela isn't relevant, and shame on you for invoking so tender an issue in your trivial defense of your indefensible position."

Haus, I've said repeatedly that this is not a panacea. I do think that it has the potential to reshape or obviate the debate on abortion, because it presents a powerful alternative, if one were to deploy it in that way. And yes, it would require a radical reshaping of social services and possibly of our society.

Gosh, what a terrible thing to suggest, especially in a forum under the 'Revolution' heading. Excuse me whilst I flagellate myself.

How about if I mention the Nazis, then we can short-circuit the whole thread?

Be my guest. It's going to be mentioned at some point in the public debate, so it's a relevant topic to discuss here if you're interested.

Women may have motivations outside your situation model. They may not. I humbly suggest that you accept the possibility.

You've never done anything humbly in your life. However, if anyone wants to bring up these motivations, then we can talk about them. And we could weight the ethical pros and cons of these desires against the 'abortion is murder' POV or the pro-choice POV in all its guises. Should be fascinating, actually, because it would provide a yardstick of exactly how comfortable pro-choice thinkers are with their position. The possibility of another set of concerns is exactly what this debate needs - options rather than trenches.

And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not selling this. I'm suggesting it's inevitable.

Persephone:

I would not choose my identity to be so altered, however abstractly.

Your identity alters all the time, of course. And the experience of chosing not to alter your identity in this way will redefine it significantly.

But this statement just increases my desire to look at the 'Body Fictive' again in the light of this debate.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:51 / 24.04.02
Persephone has just proposed another motivation. You have refused to accept its validity in two sentences. Can I, once again with humility, suggest that this is an abortifacient mechanism of debate? (And indeed that retooling the franchise after the removal of an artificial and bureaucratically-maintained system is an entirely different challenge than plucking adoptive parents from the sky, but never mind)

Meanwhile, I'm still unclear on how the artificial womb would change things, except for women who wanted a baby at that time but did not want to go through pregnancy, for whom it would be a godsend, unless its use was mandated by law. Could you explain, without abuse if possible, how exactly you believe this will change the playing-field on a practical level?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:23 / 24.04.02
Persephone has just proposed another motivation. You have refused to accept its validity in two sentences.

I did not refuse to accept it. I'm intrigued, and I want to know more. (Persephone, if I seemed dismissive, my apologies. Not the intention.)

plucking adoptive parents from the sky

Please, Haus, we disagree one enough. Could you not stick to what I actually said?

I'm still unclear on how the artificial womb would change things

I've been talking about a direct substitution of operations, on the basis that you start with something crude and then refine it. So: any time anyone is contemplating an abortion for other than medical reasons (such as the foetus having only a half a heart), they have the foetus 'replanted' instead. End of story from the biological mother's point of view (except in the case of Persephone's concerns about altering one's identity, which I'm not going to comment on without more information). Do you not see that this could alter the debate? In some countries, this will inevitably be considered as an alternative to legal abortion.

Question: in the event that such a technology exists, does the mother have any more right to abort the foetus than the father would to demand such an action on her part in a situation where it does not?

without abuse if possible

[sigh]

All right, Haus, I'll make you a deal. You try not to sound snide, and avoid egregious misrepresentations of my positions, and I'll try not to get stroppy with you. Okay?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:36 / 24.04.02
Thing is - I imagine that the operation to remove the foetus (in order for it to be transplanted into an artificial womb) would be actually more invasive and distressing than current early-term abortion practices are (I imagine it would involved a caesarian section, in order to avoid damaging the foetus). The woman would then have to go through recovery from a major surgical process rather than a minor one, *and* have to deal wiht the normal processes of recover from an abortion or miscarriage. So in cases where the abortion takes places for non-medical reasons (such as 'I don't want to have a child right now' or 'I can't afford to maintain a child properly') this approach would, I think, be substantially worse from the woman's point of view.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:40 / 24.04.02
Let's suppose that the technology is equal to the task - it's a question of engineering and technique, after all, so if the will exists, the proceedure will follow.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:43 / 24.04.02
But even if the technology exists, the woman will still have to go through a more invasive procedure and more painful recovery.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:59 / 24.04.02
Well, how about if the foetus can be transferred from womb to womb without surgery, by matter transport? What are the other arguments for retaining a woman's right to choose abortion?

(And if matter-transportation isn't an option, then I see Kit-Cat's point - it might be rather hard not to think of the health establishment as victorian moralist, crying "if you are not ready to use your womb vagina for the purpose God intended, then we will cut you open")
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply