In loco parentis ___ Artificial wombs might end abortion

Worldmagazine ^ | 01 November 2003 | Gene Edward Veith

[ChewedGum]

Fascinating development. So, because the fetus can live outside the womb (in a fake one) and because the woman does not have to have the child inside her (her 'choice'), abortion goes away.

What is interesting is the idea of a solution such as this is taken by the left (Sarah Zimmerman) as a threat to reproductive rights. They would rather kill these babies then allow them to be born even if it does not inconvenience the mother any more than an abortion would.

Very telling attitude.

Gum

[Gunslingr3]

Zion ping

[The Old Hoosier]

Everyone could have sex with everyone else, according to their preferences, since sex would be liberated from both culture and biology.

I don't know. How many women are going to want invasive surgery to implant their child in an artificial womb?

And I don't see how motherhood and fatherhood would end. Something has to be done with these kids.

That all said, it's a pretty spooky thing.

[jae471]

Huxley, you were a visionary.

Just keep the alcohol out of the blood-surrogates, and remember to practice "The Method"...

[RightWhale]

Only government approved fetuses will be allowed in government hatcheries.

[Centurion2000]

bump .... sppoky indeed .. it's a Brave New World

[Ditto]

Huxley, you were a visionary.

Just what I was thinking. Sick New World.

[MHGinTN]

Sacha Zimmerman argues that the artificial womb will be, in the words of her title, "The Real Threat to Roe v. Wade." "If and when" ectogenesis is perfected, she writes, "the legal and philosophical premises underpinning Roe could be completely dismantled." Alas, the truth behind the defenders of abortion on demand is far more sinister ... they believe, really believe, that a woman must have the right to kill a fellow human being in order to avoid the reality of that human being adversely effecting her 'quality of life' (or his, in the case of a male pushing her to abortion) by receiving responsibilities to that fellow, innocently conceived, human being.

[Petronski]

...At Cornell...

City of evil ping! Who runs those?

[Lorianne]

I don't know. How many women are going to want invasive surgery to implant their child in an artificial womb? Few. That's the point. And the procedure would be no more invasive than an abortion.

The artificial womb would negate all of the standard arguments for abortion.

I think it's a good development in that regard. Another good development of this is that the co-procreaters could be required to pay the government to keep the fetus/baby alive and cared for unless or until he is adopted. That would make both persons at least financially responsible for the fetus/baby/child created regardless if they wish to keep the baby themselves. This would have the effect of bringing home the main issue, that both parties to sex are responsible for the consequence of procreation.

Overall, I think it clears up the issues involved so that no one can hide behind murky reasoning for abortion. It will force the pro-"choice" crowd (both men and women) to admit that they want the fetus killed no matter what, whether it is in the mother or not. It's not that they don't want to be mothers/fathers as many claim as a reason for abortion .... in truth, they don't want the child to exist at all.

[KarlInOhio]

Just keep the alcohol out of the blood-surrogates

Epsilon -- er, uh -- Edward Kennedy appears to have started out with way too much alcohol in his blood surrogate.

[Question_Assumptions]

Abortion is almost never about ending a pregnancy, per se. It is almost always about killing the baby. Proof? Consider all of the reasons that people give for having an abortion and ask yourself, "If the woman were to go to the clinic and simply have the baby removed alive, to live out its life, would the reason why she chose to have an abortion be satisfied?" In almost every case, the answer is "No."

[arielb]

I wouldn't be too surprised if some mothers elect to have their babies raised outside of the womb as opposed to all the real pain-and numerous inconveniences that make pregnancy so hard. But it wouldn't be so good for the baby along with the mother for similar reasons as why breastfeeding is better than formula

[wizardoz]

Women would be liberated from being wives and mothers. Men would be liberated from being husbands and fathers. Children would be liberated from their parents. Everyone could have sex with everyone else, according to their preferences, since sex would be liberated from both culture and biology. We would all live in a Brave New World.

That's quite a leap. I seem to remember the same predictions about surrogate motherhood.

[Lorianne]

Exactly. When women in abortion clinics are polled as to the reasons for the abortion decision, not wanting to be pregnant or give birth is not among the reasons given. Similarly, the same reasons given by women could just as easily be (and often are) given by men who would be the fathers. Pregnancy and childbirth is not at issue in abortion decisions (despite that being the basis of Roe v. Wade). Parenthood and responsibility, especially the prospect of sole responsibility, are the issue.

[Henchman]

They need to develop another part of the female anatomy so that those who date these "choicers" can by pass them totally!

[ellery]

"...technological obsolescence of motherhood..."

What rubbish. Motherhood is about raising a child, not about bearing it. Does the writer wish to see more people adopting children? If so, he should not be perpetuating a stigma that adoptive parents are not "real" parents. What utter ignorance.