Abortions are EVIL!!! Pro-Life or Pro-Death?

[Big Phil]

There, did that get your attention? Good.

I have an idea for eliminating the need for abortions altogether... it goes a little like this:

Rather than killing the unborn fetus, it is transplanted into either
a) another living host (i.e., a mother)
b) a mechanical womb
The fetus, rather than being killed, is simply moved to a willing host or a machine if a willing host cannot be found. It is probably adopted at birth.

Here are my questions:
1. Would you support outlawing abortions if this option were available? If you were to oppose it, on what grounds?
2. Would Christian fundamentalists support this option, or if they would oppose it, on what grounds?
3. Is the medical technology developed that would even make this feasible?
4. Is this even right, moral, or just?

[Cthulhuvong]

1. If the option was available, I would still think abortion should be legal. Abortion clinics should have to tell people they have this option though.
2. They would be offended because god intended that the woman who got pregnant should carry the child to term.
3. I'm not sure, maybe in 10-20 years.
4. Its another alternative to killing something that could be a human, so its right in that sense. I don't know about the moral, or even physiological implications though. It could cause damage to the child that it must carry throughout its life because it didn't develop correctly.

[nickolay1]

4. Its another alternative to killing something that could be a human, so its right in that sense. I don't know about the moral, or even physiological implications though. It could cause damage to the child that it must carry throughout its life because it didn't develop correctly.

Killing something that could become a human? That's irrelevant. Ottherwise, we're guilty of millions of murders every time we masturbate.

[kheegster]

Even if this possibility exists, it would still be far more expensive and complicated to perform than a simple abortion, even it's performed at the embryonic stage.

[Exonerate]

What exactly does this process involve? Do we have to cut the woman open and sew her back up after taking the fetus, or do we have some magic transporter technology that does this with no side-effects?

Even assuming the process is entirely safe to the mother, what exactly are you going to do with all the future babies? If you took all fetuses that are aborted and assumed they would make it to childhood, you'd be overloading the adoption system. Unwanted children are a bad thing.

I think the Christian fundamentalists would be divided over this issue - some would probably welcome the idea, since it prevents perceived murders, while others would claim it's unnatural, playing God, etc. Catholics would probably be very much opposed to this, since they're even more adamant about the entire pregnancy process being free of human intervention.

I'm sure it's probably possible to transplant fetuses, but I don't feel qualified to spectulate whether it would be feasible at all.

I'd say the process itself is not immoral, although forcing it upon women would be ethically dubious.

[Lord Zentei]

I have an idea for eliminating the need for abortions altogether... it goes a little like this:

Rather than killing the unborn fetus, it is transplanted into either
a) another living host (i.e., a mother)
b) a mechanical womb
The fetus, rather than being killed, is simply moved to a willing host or a machine if a willing host cannot be found. It is probably adopted at birth.

You're not the first to think of this, but hey.

Who pays the bills for the maintenance of these machines?

Here are my questions:
1. Would you support outlawing abortions if this option were available? If you were to oppose it, on what grounds?
2. Would Christian fundamentalists support this option, or if they would oppose it, on what grounds?
3. Is the medical technology developed that would even make this feasible?
4. Is this even right, moral, or just?

1) I support early abortion and oppose late term abortion, as I see the begining of humanity (as opposed to the beginning of life) when the brain comes online. The possibility of this technology would not change that.

2) They might oppose it as being "unnatural" at first, but I think that they would eventually go for it when they realize that foetuses could be saved from abortion this way.

3) Not to my knowledge.

4) I con't see anything more wrong with it than setting newborn babies up for adoption. If one of the two is OK, both are. Of one is not OK, neither is. Of course, the risk of the operation has to be factored into this.

[Gil Hamilton]

What exactly does this process involve? Do we have to cut the woman open and sew her back up after taking the fetus, or do we have some magic transporter technology that does this with no side-effects?

Actually we've got alot of experience doing this. It's called a caesarian section. Cutting a woman open, taking out the baby, and sewing her back together is exactly what happens.

[Drooling Iguana]

What exactly does this process involve? Do we have to cut the woman open and sew her back up after taking the fetus, or do we have some magic transporter technology that does this with no side-effects?

Stick a long probe up into the uterus, apply a bit of suction, and viola! No need to cut the woman open when she's already got a perfectly good orifice available.

[Exonerate]

What exactly does this process involve? Do we have to cut the woman open and sew her back up after taking the fetus, or do we have some magic transporter technology that does this with no side-effects?

Actually we've got alot of experience doing this. It's called a caesarian section. Cutting a woman open, taking out the baby, and sewing her back together is exactly what happens.

How does that apply to premature babies/fetuses? Doesn't that somewhat complicate the process?

[wilfulton]

4. Its another alternative to killing something that could be a human, so its right in that sense. I don't know about the moral, or even physiological implications though. It could cause damage to the child that it must carry throughout its life because it didn't develop correctly.

Killing something that could become a human? That's irrelevant. Ottherwise, we're guilty of millions of murders every time we masturbate.

I'd say you're fucked either way. If you don't masturbate your swimmers simply get reabsorbed back into your body, or come out in a nocturnal emission. Those people who complain about having nocturnal emissions don't masturbate enough, it's the most easily cured condition on the planet.


As for the OP...

1. No, her body, her choice. I don't have to like it, just is.
2. Fuck 'em. Why should I care about what some raving lunatic has to say?
3. Vaccuum hose and a scapel, what more do we really need? Besides sutures if you plan to use the scapel
4. Don't care.

[Kuja]

It's not pro-life or pro-death, it's pro-choice or anti-choice.

This concludes Kuja's threadjack.