AmericanPapist Comments
I do not believe that artificial wombs would end the abortion debate. Artificial wombs would not put an end to misgivings about having a child you will never come to know, or fears that growing up in an orphanage is a fate worse than being aborted. The complexity around removing, caring for and finding a home for the fetus would lead those who do not accept its humanity to merely go the less intrusive route and exercise their "right" to abortion, just as millions do now even with the option of adoption. To those pro-choice activists who compare embryos to bits of tissue or parasites, abortion rights transcend beyond simply controlling the effects of reproduction on ones body, it involves choosing whether or not you wish to allow your offspring to exist. To me artificial wombs would just allow for earlier adoption, which sadly isn't that popular of an option now.
Something that you don't mention in this post is the fact that, if there were the possiblility of using artificial wombs, one could "see" the infant a lot more clearly and see if there were "defects", which could prompt the people in charge of the artificial womb "factory" (or whatever) to dispose of a "defective" fetus. This would NOT end the abortion debate. I think this whole thing just adds a disgusting, distasteful dimension to it.
You're right, laura, it wouldn't end the abortion debate, but it WOULD remove the "viability" argument from those who promote abortion.
My 3rd daughter was born at 26 weeks gestation. 10 years ago she most likely would have died. Certainly 20 years ago. While this would seem to make it obvious that "viability" changes, nothing would make it more obvious than an artificial womb. Heck, Lily was basically in one for 15 weeks, getting oxygen, nutrients via a PICC line and numerous IVs, blood transfusions, and numerous medicines.
I, like you, would find artificial wombs abhorrent. But with viability removed from the argument (because every baby, no matter how undeveloped, is now viable), then the abortion supporters are stuck arguing things like "quality of life" and "undue burden", which isn't as strong in the marketplace of public opinion. After all, how is being dead better than being alive, even if one does have cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis? CP is a possibility for my daughter, CF was a possibility that has been ruled out (thank God. The low muscle tone, early glasses, weak lungs, and numerous other health problems will be plenty enough for her). But how many people would agree that someone else has the right to make that quality of life decision for an unborn baby? Many fewer than currently accept the viability argument.
Lord Jesus, please come quickly.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how any underdeveloped baby would then be viable? For instance, if the baby turned out to be a boy, and the couple wanted a girl and changed their minds, they could just "shut off" the artificial womb which would be the same thing as abortion. If a mother had "health problems" and wanted to abort the baby in HER womb...and the baby was only 13 weeks or something...the baby still wouldn't be viable. They couldn't "switch" it to an artificial womb. Do you see what I mean? I don't get that the arguement for viability would be closed with an artificial womb. Am I missing something? Also, if the art. womb just spontaineously stopped working or shut down, the baby would still not be "iable" if it were before the 18th week or so, right?
Sorry about the spelling errors, the baby from my real womb keeps sitting on me and affecting my typing!
The viability test in Roe et. al. would seem to make the decision null (in certain states) if (1) medical advances could support human life from and through conception, and (2) a state took this opportunity to declare the child viable and assert its overwhelming interest in protecting its life.
This is where Roe falls down in terms of permitting abortion. None of the baby-killers on the court in 1973 could have predicted the advent of artificial wombs.
WAC
"The womb" in the Roe test means, I am sure, the natural womb. Artificial wombs could be considered medical life support (incubational though it may be.) So I think that the age of "survival outside the womb," if an artificial womb were created, would be pushed back to Alpha.
WAC
Amen, Viking.
Artificial wombs would only perpetuate the theory that the unborn are less and human...that they are only potential humans. They put children on the level of possessions and convenience. An artificial womb is almost as dehumanizing as abortion. People just seem to have no idea, no grasp of the humanity of the developing child. There is a reason I do pro-life work for a living...I hope one day to change that.
The "artificial wombs" discussion also raises the question of ownership and parents' rights. One hears constantly the argument of a woman who wants control over her own body (i.e., she 'has the right' to have an abortion). How could her 'ownership' be upheld over an artificial womb, being outside her body? Additionally, what about parents who had a legitimate desire to bear (although I don't know how it could be called that if the mother doesn't carry the child in her womb) and raise their child own brought to full term? Their guardianship over their child in psedo-utero would be under the control of doctors, or some facility that was in charge of 'raising' the growing babe.
My moral compass is being confused.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
