Abortion & artificial wombs

[Teleros]

One of the most common arguments in favour of abortion is that a woman has the right to control her own body. That's all well and good, but does this change if you live in a society with the technology to provide artificial wombs? For example:

1. It's no more dangerous than carrying a baby to term naturally.
2. It can work from the moment of conception.
3. It doesn't require that the mother do much beyond turn up to the hospital to have the baby transferred (or fertilised egg even).
4. Cost depends on the healthcare system. Something like the NHS might provide it for free at the point of use, but ideally it would be cheap enough that most women could use artificial wombs if they wanted. Obviously, artificial wombs so expensive only the richest in society can use them... rather detracts from the whole point of this topic.

Feel free to play with the above assumptions, I'm just interested to see what people here think about this. Abortion acts in part as a form of population control and a means of saving money on bringing up children - subjects like these will of course be affected to some degree as well. I'm concerned mostly with the ethical side of things here - it doesn't matter how it works for example, just that it does.

So, any thoughts?

[Broomstick]

Yeah. Who takes care of the unwanted children after they're born?

[Teleros]

You're assuming then that with technology like this, abortions will be, if illegal, then extremely rare then? I was hoping for something more than just a one-liner full of assumptions .

[Broomstick]

Yes, it' s one liner, but abortion implies "I don't want a child". If I don't want a child, or don't feel I can take care of a child, what the hell good does it do to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb (avoiding pregnancy, yes) if nine months later I get a baby I don't want/can't take care of dumped in my lap? You don't see that as an issue? Let me guess - you're young, single, and male, right?

If you didn't want to drag abortion and the issues of unwanted children into this you shouldn't have used the "a-word". If you just wanted to discuss how artificial wombs would change society then you should have just said that.

Your artificial wombs produce people, people who must be raised and taken care of. You can't separate that issue from the technology.

There's a whole bunch of OTHER stuff that could change with such technology, too, but as soon as you say "abortion" you slant the conversation.

[Darth Wong]

The "pro-lifers" would find themselves in an uncomfortable situation in this case, because the artificial womb would have a greater chance of safely bringing the child to term than the natural childbearing method. A large proportion of pregnancies are aborted naturally (ie- miscarried), many of them so early that the woman isn't even aware she's pregnant yet. So, if their position is logically taken to its extreme, they would have to accept more artificial intervention in the pregnancy process, not less.

[Broomstick]

Not the Catholics, much of whose argument has been for decades has been "no interference with reproduction". Thus, while there are anti-abortion Protestants (based on "life begins at conception) who don't have a problem with birth control (nothing has been conceived yet) the Catholic Church also opposes birth control, as it conflicts with their "no interference" stance. Likewise, the CC is against things like artificial insemination, even with a married man's own stored sperm whereas there are anti-abortion Protestants who are just fine with that.

So, the CC would flat out oppose artificial wombs for any reason. It is entirely possible that other anti-abortion groups might approve of them

[Darth Wong]

Not the Catholics, much of whose argument has been for decades has been "no interference with reproduction".

Yeah, but now they'd be in a position where they'd be forced to admit that their argument is anti-life rather than "pro-life": many more fetuses would survive with artificial wombs.

[Teleros]

Yes, it' s one liner, but abortion implies "I don't want a child". If I don't want a child, or don't feel I can take care of a child, what the hell good does it do to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb (avoiding pregnancy, yes) if nine months later I get a baby I don't want/can't take care of dumped in my lap? You don't see that as an issue?

Of course I do, but my point was that you're just assuming that, if we had technology such as this that there wouldn't be much, if any, choice over whether to have the child or not. The fact that you can have a scenario in which there is the right to control your own body without the need for abortions does not mean that you will have such a scenario. And assuming you did end up with just such a situation, would it be right?

[Darth Wong]

The artificial womb would really fuck up some of the reasoning used in the old days regarding abortion, such as the "viable outside the womb" argument. It would now be viable at any point in the pregnancy. Mind you, I never liked that argument anyway; my personal position on abortion has always been based on the appearance of higher brain function.

[Samuel]

This appeared in the Beserker series. And guess what? They had alot more babies than anyone wanted so they kept them in "storage".

Not to mention the process of extracting the fetus is probably more risky than just having an abortion.

[Broomstick]

Not to mention the process of extracting the fetus is probably more risky than just having an abortion.

Why would that necessarily be so? Especially early in the pregnany?

[Broomstick]

Of course I do, but my point was that you're just assuming that, if we had technology such as this that there wouldn't be much, if any, choice over whether to have the child or not. The fact that you can have a scenario in which there is the right to control your own body without the need for abortions does not mean that you will have such a scenario. And assuming you did end up with just such a situation, would it be right?

Banning abortions doesn't mean a woman can't control her body in other ways, such as using birth control, consenting (or refusing) surgery, and so on. What is means is that she loses control once she is pregnant (and even then retains some form of control).

I've heard pregnant women argue that even with legal abortion they still lose control over their bodies when pregnant in that they can be denied many types of medical treatment on the basis of protecting the fetus, even when the risk is low or when the risk of NOT treating a disorder or disease is high to either mother, child, or both. But I don't want to get sidetracked.

If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want a child she doesn't want to stash it in an artificial womb for nine months, she wants it gone. It is possible that in such a society abortion may remain legal. In fact, if someone(s) rents (or whatever) an artificial womb, starts a fetus growing in it, it may be legal for them to terminate the arrangement, in effect, aborting that fetus if they change their mind. Society may legalize abortion only to a certain point (pick any your like), allow it up until the moment of birth, or ban it entirely.

About the only significant change I could see is if you have a situation where a woman wants to abort and the father does not - in which case it might be possible for her to terminate all parental rights, hand the fetus to the man (only figuratively, one hopes), he rents an artificial womb, then HE takes care of the kid.

Certainly, it would be a bonus to folks who wish to incubate a child but can't due to a lack of uterus.

But, although our laws were written with the assumption that children incubate inside a living woman's womb I don't see where they would need to change much, if at all, to accommodate artificial wombs. It would, of course, upset the moral applecart of many people, but that's a slightly different part of the whole.

[Kitsune]

Artificial Wombs are used in a number of different science fiction universes I have read but each of the assumes a society which has not run out of living space. On earth, we will soon run out of living space. Eventually, if we like it or not, we will likely be limited to one or two kids just to keep the planet from being depleted.

[Surlethe]

Life is a process. Any pro-choice position must assume that there is a point in this process before which it is okay to end it, else one is sucked into the "abortion is never okay" crowd. If a woman can decide on a whim to end the pregnancy before this point while it's inside her body, then why can't she decide to end it while it's outside her body?

[ray245]

Life is a process. Any pro-choice position must assume that there is a point in this process before which it is okay to end it, else one is sucked into the "abortion is never okay" crowd. If a woman can decide on a whim to end the pregnancy before this point while it's inside her body, then why can't she decide to end it while it's outside her body?

However, doesn't artificial means the males also has a choice in this matter? The fetus is no longer in the woman's body, nor is it in the male's body.

[Surlethe]

You missed the point, Ray. If it's okay for the woman to kill it on a whim before a certain point, then it's okay for anybody to kill it on a whim before that point.

[ray245]

You missed the point, Ray. If it's okay for the woman to kill it on a whim before a certain point, then it's okay for anybody to kill it on a whim before that point.

So you are saying the males get the chance to terminate the fetus as well, if they want to?

[Broomstick]

Yes, that's what he's saying.

Although, personally, I prefer that if one of the two parties wishes to keep the child and the other does not then the "I don't want a kid" party has the option to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. But yes, it could be a situation where legally either party has the right to terminate. Or possibly more than just the biological parents have the right, the owner of the artificial womb might also have that option.

[ray245]

Yes, that's what he's saying.

Although, personally, I prefer that if one of the two parties wishes to keep the child and the other does not then the "I don't want a kid" party has the option to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. But yes, it could be a situation where legally either party has the right to terminate. Or possibly more than just the biological parents have the right, the owner of the artificial womb might also have that option.

Which is certainly more human and reasonable. In this case, the woman is not forced against her will to keep the fetus inside her body.

Although what will happen to people cannot afford to pay for all the equipments halfway? Should the government provide financial support? (Although if it is a NHS system, this question will be null)

[Samuel]

Not to mention the process of extracting the fetus is probably more risky than just having an abortion.

Why would that necessarily be so? Especially early in the pregnany?

You need it intact. Of course, given the technology needed to support a fetus in an artificial womb, that probably won't be a significant problem.

Yes, that's what he's saying.

Although, personally, I prefer that if one of the two parties wishes to keep the child and the other does not then the "I don't want a kid" party has the option to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. But yes, it could be a situation where legally either party has the right to terminate. Or possibly more than just the biological parents have the right, the owner of the artificial womb might also have that option.

Which is certainly more human and reasonable. In this case, the woman is not forced against her will to keep the fetus inside her body.

Although what will happen to people cannot afford to pay for all the equipments halfway? Should the government provide financial support? (Although if it is a NHS system, this question will be null)

Certainly. This would come under family planning and childbirth- it isn't exactly a cosmetic procedure.

[Ted C]

Although what will happen to people cannot afford to pay for all the equipments halfway? Should the government provide financial support? (Although if it is a NHS system, this question will be null)

Oh, surely the "pro-life" groups would turn their resources to maintaining artificial wombs, thereby eliminating the problem of abortion forever, right?

[Ender]

Life is a process. Any pro-choice position must assume that there is a point in this process before which it is okay to end it, else one is sucked into the "abortion is never okay" crowd. If a woman can decide on a whim to end the pregnancy before this point while it's inside her body, then why can't she decide to end it while it's outside her body?

Because while inside her body forcing her to carry it to term is devaluing her (an existent person) rights over the rights of the fetus (a potential person). Once it is outside the body (in one of these artificial wombs) it would no longer be directly infringing on her rights. The current argument of abortion vs adoption fails on the grounds that until such time that the baby is born, the woman is in essence held hostage, with her rights severely curtailed. In this scenario you would be in the situation where the choice would be to destroy a potential person, or to sign care and responsibilities over to another person or a government agency. In this case, the unnecessary destruction would be the more immoral act, by virtue of being unnecessary (a scenario very similar to animal rights cases).

[Melchior]

Not to mention the process of extracting the fetus is probably more risky than just having an abortion.

Why would that necessarily be so? Especially early in the pregnany?

It's not trivial surgery, actually, especially if you need to preserve the mother's reproductive ability for hypothetical, future and desired pregnancies. Among other things, when pregnancy is discovered (especially a unwanted one), the embryo is already implanted in the endometrium (the inner layer of the uterus; I apologize for the probable upcoming terminological strangeness, my textbooks and lectures are not in English), the endometrium is rich in oedematous blood vessels needed for supplying nutrients to the embryo, which is also extremely frail (minimal disturbances in the migration pathways of the various cellular populations tend to cause severe malformations that would still develop even in an artificial womb).

[GuppyShark]

Yes, it' s one liner, but abortion implies "I don't want a child". If I don't want a child, or don't feel I can take care of a child, what the hell good does it do to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb (avoiding pregnancy, yes) if nine months later I get a baby I don't want/can't take care of dumped in my lap? You don't see that as an issue? Let me guess - you're young, single, and male, right?

If you didn't want to drag abortion and the issues of unwanted children into this you shouldn't have used the "a-word". If you just wanted to discuss how artificial wombs would change society then you should have just said that.

Your artificial wombs produce people, people who must be raised and taken care of. You can't separate that issue from the technology.

There's a whole bunch of OTHER stuff that could change with such technology, too, but as soon as you say "abortion" you slant the conversation.

There's another "a-word" which is relevant here.

Adoption.

In South Australia, only a handful of babies are offered for adoption but there is a very long list of highly suitable people who cannot have children of their own who would like to adopt.

This is part of the reason adopting overseas is so popular, as local women who do not want to raise a child usually abort.

I don't doubt that the effect of artificial wombs would solve this shortage as well as giving a viable option to fathers who do not want to see their children aborted but are not able to prevent it currently.

Whether demand would begin to exceed supply is questionable. Removing a baby from the mother and implanting it in a machine for months will definately be more expensive than terminating it, so it's unlikely to be enormously popular.

[Surlethe]

Life is a process. Any pro-choice position must assume that there is a point in this process before which it is okay to end it, else one is sucked into the "abortion is never okay" crowd. If a woman can decide on a whim to end the pregnancy before this point while it's inside her body, then why can't she decide to end it while it's outside her body?

Because while inside her body forcing her to carry it to term is devaluing her (an existent person) rights over the rights of the fetus (a potential person). Once it is outside the body (in one of these artificial wombs) it would no longer be directly infringing on her rights. The current argument of abortion vs adoption fails on the grounds that until such time that the baby is born, the woman is in essence held hostage, with her rights severely curtailed. In this scenario you would be in the situation where the choice would be to destroy a potential person, or to sign care and responsibilities over to another person or a government agency. In this case, the unnecessary destruction would be the more immoral act, by virtue of being unnecessary (a scenario very similar to animal rights cases).

Perhaps the line may be drawn at a different point than a mere abortion, but I think in principle my argument holds. It depends on how much you value the potential. If life is a continuous process where the fetus has no value at conception and full human value by the third trimester, then there's still a point where the actual value of the fetus is outweighed by the cost of caretaking until birth from this hypothetical artificial womb.