Should abortion be banned if an artificial womb is created and commercialized?

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm not sure I comprehend the "artificial womb". Is it some sort of "cloning tank", or something else? Or like removing the fetus from the mother's body and transplanting it in the "artificial womb" to grow and be nurtured before being born, like a "test tube baby".


By the way, I'm conflicted about abortion. I am in favor of bans on third trimesters, with limitations depending on the stage of the child in second trimesters, and no restrictions on first trimesters.

[Bo]

I'm not sure I comprehend the "artificial womb". Is it some sort of "cloning tank", or something else? Or like removing the fetus from the mother's body and transplanting it in the "artificial womb" to grow and be nurtured before being born, like a "test tube baby".


By the way, I'm conflicted about abortion. I am in favor of bans on third trimesters, with limitations depending on the stage of the child in second trimesters, and no restrictions on first trimesters.

I guess an artificial womb would be similar to a test tube baby, but the sperm and the egg will be fertilized inside the womb and then get placed in the artifical womb if the woman doesn't want her baby anymore. You know who stem cell research made it possible to create some artifical organs? Well, I was thinking of using stem-cell research to create an artifical womb (which is an organ, I believe, or part of an organ).

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Yes, but if liberals' main support towards abortion comes from the fact that women are allegedly entitled to kick babies out of their bodies...

Technically they support killing the baby inside the womb and removing the dead body. I still haven't see a defense for killing the child before removing him / her.

their is a difference between a potential person, and i believe that it is only in the 5th month that both areas of the brain can connect.

[milhouse24]

Would anyone support forced sterilization or incentive sterilization, perhaps of men.  Put the seed in bank, save it for later when you actually want a child. 

This would stop abortion before it begins.  Promote sterilization, its win-win.  Get your pets spade or neutered.

[James Rivington]

Your Huxleyian fantasy has no relevance to the issue of abortion, which is about privacy. 

Yes, but if liberals' main support towards abortion comes from the fact that women are allegedly entitled to kick babies out of their bodies, and if it is possible to place the baby into an artifical womb (immediately) after it has been removed from the woman's body, I don't see how that is a matter of privacy since the woman got what she wanted with her body and now the baby would either die or be placed in an artificial womb. Women would still be able to remove babies from their bodies if this scenario ever became true, it's just that the babies won't be able to be allowed to die since there would be a way to save their lives.

The abortion movement already supports partial-birth abortion legalization, where the baby might be able to survive outside the womb but is killed anyway. This would hardly make any difference in the debate...

Aren't most Americans against partial birth abortion, though? I think I saw some polls that stated that between 60 and 70% of Americans oppose abortions in the third trimester (I'm assuming this is the definition of partial-birth abortion), so I think even many pro-choicers are opposed to partial-birth abortion (and I think the country is split roughly 50-50 on the abortion issue). Besides, if an artificial womb is created, liberals are going to look like hypocrites if they say that they are protecting those who cannot protect themselves (the middle class, minorities, etc.) if they're going to say that they will not protect innocent babies even though they are able to without infringing on women's rights.

Who cares what 60 -70% of Americans think? It's not like many of that number would ever have to make this kind of choice anyways.

[k-onmmunist]

Your Huxleyian fantasy has no relevance to the issue of abortion, which is about privacy. 

Yes, but if liberals' main support towards abortion comes from the fact that women are allegedly entitled to kick babies out of their bodies, and if it is possible to place the baby into an artifical womb (immediately) after it has been removed from the woman's body, I don't see how that is a matter of privacy since the woman got what she wanted with her body and now the baby would either die or be placed in an artificial womb. Women would still be able to remove babies from their bodies if this scenario ever became true, it's just that the babies won't be able to be allowed to die since there would be a way to save their lives.

The abortion movement already supports partial-birth abortion legalization, where the baby might be able to survive outside the womb but is killed anyway. This would hardly make any difference in the debate...

Aren't most Americans against partial birth abortion, though? I think I saw some polls that stated that between 60 and 70% of Americans oppose abortions in the third trimester (I'm assuming this is the definition of partial-birth abortion), so I think even many pro-choicers are opposed to partial-birth abortion (and I think the country is split roughly 50-50 on the abortion issue). Besides, if an artificial womb is created, liberals are going to look like hypocrites if they say that they are protecting those who cannot protect themselves (the middle class, minorities, etc.) if they're going to say that they will not protect innocent babies even though they are able to without infringing on women's rights.

Partial-birth abortions are a certain type of extraction. Only 0.17% of abortions are done that way, but the pro-life movement made a big deal about it and got it banned in 1995. I support a ban on partial-birth abortion though and I'm pro-choice.

[opebo]

Your Huxleyian fantasy has no relevance to the issue of abortion, which is about privacy. 

Yes, but if liberals' main support towards abortion comes from the fact that women are allegedly entitled to kick babies out of their bodies, and if it is possible to place the baby into an artifical womb (immediately) after it has been removed from the woman's body, I don't see how that is a matter of privacy since the woman got what she wanted with her body and now the baby would either die or be placed in an artificial womb. Women would still be able to remove babies from their bodies if this scenario ever became true, it's just that the babies won't be able to be allowed to die since there would be a way to save their lives.

The fetus is a part of her body, Roch, and any one else having any input or action upon it is just patently absurd.  Let her do what she likes and why the hell is anyone interested anyway?