Once artificial wombs are made will abortion still be legal?

[gbagcn2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb

Also I wonder if traditional pregnancies will disappear once artificial wombs are made.

[scarecrovv]

I highly doubt it. To me, an artificial womb seems so impersonal (Brave New World anyone?), and impersonal is exactly the attitude I wouldn't want associated with my hypothetical future children. Perhaps my hypothetical future wife would feel differently though, since she'd be the one carrying the baby for 9 months, and enduring childbirth at the end of it.

[Princess Marzipan]

...

PERHAPS.

[Website Maker]

I hope that instead of making artificial wombs, people who have unwanted pregnancy and would prefer to have abortion would opt to give their child to couples who wanted children but could not produce one. This way, instead of killing innocent lives, they will be given a decent life instead.

[Sourire]

I'm slightly confused. I'd think a pregnancy involving an artificial womb would be so so planned and contrived an abortion just wouldn't make sense.

[Fossa]

The only thing that will completely stop abortion is a planet-wide extinction event sufficient enough to wipe out man kind (along with any other primates clever enough to untwist a wire coat hanger).

Also, this thread makes no sense.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

What makes you think it will still be legal at any point in particular before then?

[tastelikecoke]

*an image of a sex toy with pregnancy capabilities convulses my mind*

[Midnight]

What makes you think it will still be legal at any point in particular before then?

don't you mean "won't"?
cause it's definitely currently legal.

to the op: yeah abortions will still be legal? by what train of thought WOULDN'T they be?
to the op('s second question): fuck yeah people will still get pregnant! fucking is fun! which means there will always be people getting accidentally pregnant. and (according to my mother) giving birth is goddamn ridiculously profound, so I don't think any ladies will choose artificial wombs if they can do it themselves.

[gmalivuk]

giving birth is goddamn ridiculously profound, so I don't think any ladies will choose artificial wombs if they can do it themselves.

It's also goddamn ridiculously painful. And you probably need to talk to more women if you don't think *any* of them would choose to get the little buggers out of their bodies and into artificial wombs as early in the process as possible.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

What makes you think it will still be legal at any point in particular before then?

don't you mean "won't"?

No, I mean "will." It's entirely possible that abortion would be outlawed without any technical change, so it's difficult to speculate on what would happen after that change.

Suppose Roe had been overturned in Casey. Would this question make any sense today?

[mmmcannibalism]

to the op: yeah abortions will still be legal? by what train of thought WOULDN'T they be?

I believe he's working along the lines that fetal viability is an important factor in most abortion law.

[Cloud Walker]

giving birth is goddamn ridiculously profound, so I don't think any ladies will choose artificial wombs if they can do it themselves.

It's also goddamn ridiculously painful. And you probably need to talk to more women if you don't think *any* of them would choose to get the little buggers out of their bodies and into artificial wombs as early in the process as possible.

Indeed. Around the 9th month (and after the second child) the general mindset of most women is summed up by, "Fuck this."

Also, this thread makes no sense.

to the op: yeah abortions will still be legal? by what train of thought WOULDN'T they be?

I think the mindset is that abortion is justified because of the negative effects it has on the baby carrier. The "parasite" argument and all that. While that is one avenue of justifying abortion (effective or sensible, I will not judge here), there are certainly many others. So, while, in answer to the question posed by the thread title, I would hope so, it's conceivable that artificial wombs may turn the tide of opinion enough to make abortion illegal.

[Plasma Man]

Suppose Roe had been overturned in Casey. Would this question make any sense today?

Yes, because the US isn't the entire world. I think that as long as there is significant demand for abortions they will remain legal somewhere. I think the economic factor will come into play as well; those that don't want a baby because they cannot afford to care for it are unlikely to be able to pay for 9 months artificial womb rental. I think an abortion would always be relatively cheap by comparison.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Yes, because the US isn't the entire world. I think that as long as there is significant demand for abortions they will remain legal somewhere.

Well, I doubt the question was meant to be about whether abortion will be legal anywhere.

[SecondTalon]

Suppose Roe had been overturned in Casey. Would this question make any sense today?

Yes, because the US isn't the entire world. I think that as long as there is significant demand for abortions they will remain legal somewhere. I think the economic factor will come into play as well; those that don't want a baby because they cannot afford to care for it are unlikely to be able to pay for 9 months artificial womb rental. I think an abortion would always be relatively cheap by comparison.

Why would you pay for the artificial womb rental on a kid you don't want? If some adoption agency wants to front the cost, they can go right ahead.

[icanus]

The only thing that will completely stop abortion is a planet-wide extinction event sufficient enough to wipe out man kind (along with any other primates clever enough to untwist a wire coat hanger).

Even that wouldn't be enough. There's plenty of other mammals that can spontaneously abort if they're short of food, injured or pursued.

[Midnight]

What makes you think it will still be legal at any point in particular before then?

don't you mean "won't"?

No, I mean "will." It's entirely possible that abortion would be outlawed without any technical change, so it's difficult to speculate on what would happen after that change.

Suppose Roe had been overturned in Casey. Would this question make any sense today?

No, but that's fine, because we're not talking about hypothetical worlds where Roe was overturned, nor hypothetical futures in which Roe is reversed before artificial wombs affect the legality of abortion. These were never brought up. The only hypothetical future we're talking about is one where artificial wombs exist.
Which means the question is: "How will artificial wombs affect the legality of abortion?"

To which I say, not at all. Mostly cause of the whole women's right to choose thing being MY argument of choice, not 'burn the parasites'. And with that, I've been playing too much Alien Swarm.

It's also goddamn ridiculously painful. And you probably need to talk to more women if you don't think *any* of them would choose to get the little buggers out of their bodies and into artificial wombs as early in the process as possible.

The overwhelming majority of those that want the little buggers out of their bodies ASAP... haven't had kids. All the women who've had kids (that i've discussed this with--and I will say it's not a clinical sample or anything) say that it's pretty goddamn awesome--with an epidural at least. None of those want a Brave-New-World-child, and none of them have said that the experience wasn't worth the pain.

I spoke with hyperbole in my earlier sentiment; I'm sure some ladies will choose the path, but it probably won't be a majority, and it definitely won't make abortion illegal.

I worry that this will turn into a bigger debate about abortion, so I'll leave it at this: I think artificial wombs will have no bearing on abortion, which will remain legal in America and many other countries.

[SecondTalon]

The overwhelming majority of those that want the little buggers out of their bodies ASAP... haven't had kids. All the women who've had kids (that i've discussed this with--and I will say it's not a clinical sample or anything) say that it's pretty goddamn awesome--with an epidural at least. None of those want a Brave-New-World-child, and none of them have said that the experience wasn't worth the pain.

There's a strong cultural vibe that childbirth is lovely and wonderful and if you thought it was horrible then you're obviously a terrible mother and an even worse person and quite possibly the worst woman ever.... so that may somewhat shift anecdotal evidence. Along with the human mind's tendency to.. you know.. block out horrible and traumatic memories and such.

There's also gobs of women who, after dealing with a 30+ hour labor, never want to go through that shit again because that was 30+ goddamn hours.

There's also this. Deal with all that bullshit or... don't.

You're right, not everyone would choose El Artificial Wombo. But once it became affordable enough for the average middle class family to do, a lot of people probably would. Assuming it's PerfectTech (that is, it's as good as being in a person), odds are insurance companies would start only covering that instead of "natural" birth due to the complications that can and do arise during pregnancy and labor, as with ArtiWomb those don't exist or are mitigated..... assuming PerfectTech, mind you.

[icanus]

The overwhelming majority of those that want the little buggers out of their bodies ASAP... haven't had kids. All the women who've had kids (that i've discussed this with--and I will say it's not a clinical sample or anything) say that it's pretty goddamn awesome--with an epidural at least. None of those want a Brave-New-World-child, and none of them have said that the experience wasn't worth the pain.

My mum tells me at least once a month that I wasn't worth her 28 hour labour. She's only joking most of the time.

I spoke with hyperbole in my earlier sentiment; I'm sure some ladies will choose the path, but it probably won't be a majority, and it definitely won't make abortion illegal.

I worry that this will turn into a bigger debate about abortion, so I'll leave it at this: I think artificial wombs will have no bearing on abortion, which will remain legal in America and many other countries.

I can see a pretty strong push from the pro-life crowd to legislate that all abortions would have to be transferred to the ArtiWomb instead of flushed. Whether it would actually get enough traction to be made law, I don't know, but I suspect in additon to pro-lifers there's plenty of pro-choicers who support the right to have an abortion because the woman's rights are paramount but are still uncomfortable enough about it to prefer to deal with the situation without having to kill the fetus if that were possible.

So I don't see it as out of the question that, if the technology allowed either to be done as safely and reliably as the other, abortions could end up being outlawed in favour of "transfers" followed by adoption. Not something I'd remotely support, but not outside the realm of possibility.

[Midnight]

I can see a pretty strong push from the pro-life crowd to legislate that all abortions would have to be transferred to the ArtiWomb instead of flushed. Whether it would actually get enough traction to be made law, I don't know, but I suspect in additon to pro-lifers there's plenty of pro-choicers who support the right to have an abortion because the woman's rights are paramount but are still uncomfortable enough about it to prefer to deal with the situation without having to kill the fetus if that were possible.

So I don't see it as out of the question that, if the technology allowed either to be done as safely and reliably as the other, abortions could end up being outlawed in favour of "transfers" followed by adoption. Not something I'd remotely support, but not outside the realm of possibility.

I dunno dude. Cause then whoever's born out of artiwomb--who's child is that? there's a ton of kids up for adoption, do we really wanna increase that number by having every single pseudo-abortion go to term?

There's a strong cultural vibe that childbirth is lovely and wonderful and if you thought it was horrible then you're obviously a terrible mother and an even worse person and quite possibly the worst woman ever...

I'm feeling that that is a whole 'nother can of worms that is more broadly applied to the woman thread. I agree with you, definitely, but this topic ain't exactly about that particular kind of de facto misogyny, eh?

And maybe (probably) I am quite biased--my mother had a 36 hour birth without painkillers for her first kid. I gave her diabetes whilst in the womb. She hasn't complained, and is the biggest (to the point of silly) proponent of the spirituality of bringing a life into the harmony of the universe. Or whatever. I stopped listening to that drivel a while ago, heh.


I'm tempted to quote the website's first words "Your baby's finally here, and you're thrilled..." but that's taken hilariously out of context.
Really, that site just makes me think of it this way: yeah. Birth sucks. but it's been sucking for what, two million years (and that's just for humans)? We've gotten through it before, and we--as a species--will keep on birthin' till the cows come home. By which I mean, when the sun explodes.
Two million years of birth sucking has done little to erase it from our genetic code, in the sense that we're evolutionarily hardwired to Want To Have Babby. And we shall keep doing so. ArtiWomb won't change it.

[SecondTalon]

Two million? Depends on how broadly you're applying that "human" title, I suppose.

[icanus]

So I don't see it as out of the question that, if the technology allowed either to be done as safely and reliably as the other, abortions could end up being outlawed in favour of "transfers" followed by adoption. Not something I'd remotely support, but not outside the realm of possibility.

I dunno dude. Cause then whoever's born out of artiwomb--who's child is that? there's a ton of kids up for adoption, do we really wanna increase that number by having every single pseudo-abortion go to term?

I don't want to, and would oppose it, but I could easily see there being enough people who did to force the issue (mostly the same folks who want all abortions to be carried to term and put up for adoption now, despite the huge surplus of unwanted children we already have. But I'm pretty sure that there's also a significant percentage of pro-choice people who would wobble were a non-lethal alternative available.)

[Mike_Bson]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

[_infina_]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

You are killing a defenseless human. Of course it is bad. As it is now, there is no need for a majority of abortions. Most of the abortions are people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions. Of course it will still be legal, because there will always be enough idiots who have power wanting it to be legal. Most of the women I know also feel the same way about this. Having an artificial womb won't change much of anything.

[Mike_Bson]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

You are killing a defenseless human. Of course it is bad.

Human? Hardly. And by ''hardly,'' I mean ''not at all, by any logical definition.'' It is only a potential human, and you can't exactly give a clear definition of when getting rid of a potential human is bad or not.

[Telchar]

I think the idea behind the question is whether the bodily autonomy and privacy rights outlined in Roe would hold true if the baby were in an artificial womb. It's an interesting arguement, however I think abortion should still be legal because bodily autonomy becomes self determination and the right to decide whether or not you want a child.

[gmalivuk]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

You are killing a defenseless human. Of course it is bad.

Human? Hardly. And by ''hardly,'' I mean ''not at all, by any logical definition.'' It is only a potential human, and you can't exactly give a clear definition of when getting rid of a potential human is bad or not.

Are you certain of that? You're still depriving that fetus of a future of potential value to it, which some can (and have) argued is a bad thing. It's not so bad as to outweigh bodily autonomy, but that doesn't mean it's not a misfortune at all.

[Mike_Bson]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

You are killing a defenseless human. Of course it is bad.

Human? Hardly. And by ''hardly,'' I mean ''not at all, by any logical definition.'' It is only a potential human, and you can't exactly give a clear definition of when getting rid of a potential human is bad or not.

Are you certain of that? You're still depriving that fetus of a future of potential value to it, which some can (and have) argued is a bad thing. It's not so bad as to outweigh bodily autonomy, but that doesn't mean it's not a misfortune at all.

That's the thing; all one can define it as is a potential life, and where do you draw the line to when a potential life should not be deprived or not? If I do not impregnate a woman at every chance I get, I am denying a potential life, but any sane person does not think it is wrong to deny such. I do not see why it is okay to deny that potential life, but a fetus is wrong to kill.

[PhoenixEnigma]

That's the thing; all one can define it as is a potential life, and where do you draw the line to when a potential life should not be deprived or not? If I do not impregnate a woman at every chance I get, I am denying a potential life, but any sane person does not think it is wrong to deny such. I do not see why it is okay to deny that potential life, but a fetus is wrong to kill.

The Roman Catholic Church would like to have a word with you- and regardless of your opinions of said church, I'd hardly call them insane. Granted, they're not advocating "Make As Many Babies As You Can" but the message is that same as what you're critizing - taking positive action to deny a potential life at any point is wrong.

[Mike_Bson]

That's the thing; all one can define it as is a potential life, and where do you draw the line to when a potential life should not be deprived or not? If I do not impregnate a woman at every chance I get, I am denying a potential life, but any sane person does not think it is wrong to deny such. I do not see why it is okay to deny that potential life, but a fetus is wrong to kill.

The Roman Catholic Church would like to have a word with you- and regardless of your opinions of said church, I'd hardly call them insane. Granted, they're not advocating "Make As Many Babies As You Can" but the message is that same as what you're critizing - taking positive action to deny a potential life at any point is wrong.

Well, based on that (for the sake of this thread, just that), I think they are insane. I could name so many reasons why it would be stupid to try to make as many kids as you can (not literally, but based on this context); it's absolutely ridiculous. And I do not want to sound like a prick saying this, that is not my intention, but I don't really have a desire to hear what the catholic church has to say, for reasons I will not say right now, but what some normal (uninfluenced) person has to say, right here.

[Fantastic Idea]

There's a strong cultural vibe that childbirth is lovely and wonderful and if you thought it was horrible then you're obviously a terrible mother and an even worse person and quite possibly the worst woman ever...

I'm feeling that that is a whole 'nother can of worms that is more broadly applied to the woman thread. I agree with you, definitely, but this topic ain't exactly about that particular kind of de facto misogyny, eh?

Um, except that was kinda what you were doing. Like, my mother had two cesareans. I'm not even remotely interested in getting pregnant, the thought makes me nauseous. So when you dance out the gross generalizations of how women enjoy childbirth- which I will admit a lot of them do, the whole being pregnant thing is awesome for some- it is rather annoying. I'm a lady. This artificial womb thing, were it to have an actual affect on the world of abortion law, would therefore affect me. (Am I using the wrong word? Fuck you, affect/effect.) So being written off as too small of an outlier to matter, if I even exist at all, is in a way rather bullshit.
THough really I'm wondering if we'll build an artificial womb large enough to put full grown adults into and have them heal from terrible wounds or grow younger. Dear old people: would you like to live in a womb for 9 months before you die? It could be cool!

[Zarq]

Catholic church says masturbation is wrong because the sperm you waste on that could be used to create a life.

I say procreation in the natural way is therefore wrong too, because: One ejaculation contains millions of sperm cells and only one is used, the rest is wasted. Women also waste a fair amount of egg cells when they're not pregnant. Therefore I state all men should do regular sperm donations and not waste semen on women and sex. Women on their part should be artificially inseminated at regular times (say once every year and a half from ages 16 to 45). That way we optimise the "life created"/"possibility of life creation" ratio.

(this is my way of saying that using "potential life" as argument is ridiculous)

[SecondTalon]

You are killing a defenseless human.

Human? Hardly. And by ''hardly,'' I mean ''not at all, by any logical definition.'' It is only a potential human, and you can't exactly give a clear definition of when getting rid of a potential human is bad or not.

The Roman Catholic Church would like to have a word with you

A whole bunch of stupid shit that doesn't belong in this thread

Hey, the whole "An egg and sperm are just a person waiting to be! / You don't count until you start paying taxes" argument - let's not have it, okay? There's probably a thread or two in SB for it, and probably another thread in general. So find somewhere else.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

No, but that's fine, because we're not talking about hypothetical worlds where Roe was overturned, nor hypothetical futures in which Roe is reversed before artificial wombs affect the legality of abortion. These were never brought up. The only hypothetical future we're talking about is one where artificial wombs exist.

When this future comes about, will Roe have been overturned or not? We simply do not know, and thus this question is not the same as "What would happen to abortion rights if artificial wombs were invented tomorrow?" We can't just say "Abortion will remain legal" if we don't know that it will be legal in the first place.

Which means the question is: "How will artificial wombs affect the legality of abortion?"

To which I say, not at all. Mostly cause of the whole women's right to choose thing being MY argument of choice, not 'burn the parasites'.

The question about what will happen in the future is different from the question about what you would do if you held political power in the future. While I agree with you from an ethical perspective, as an armchair political scientist I think it's quite likely that advances in technology would affect states' constitutional authority to regulate abortion. Indeed, they already have.

[gmalivuk]

That's the thing; all one can define it as is a potential life, and where do you draw the line to when a potential life should not be deprived or not?

I don't care where you draw the line. The particular location of the line doesn't matter to my point, which was simply that *something* at least a *little* negative happens when you deprive a fetus of its potential future of value. Just like something at least a little negative happens when you kill an animal. Sure, if you kill it because you need to eat or because it was causing you problems or, for most people and some animals, simply because its incessant buzzing was annoying you, then perhaps the benefit outweighs the cost. But that still doesn't mean there's nothing that's at all remotely bad in the least about killing things.

The relative weights you put on these things is a totally different question, and one which per ST's suggestion doesn't need to be discussed in this thread. But I wasn't saying anything about how much weight the misfortune of killing a fetus should have. Only that it could reasonably be seen as a negative thing, even if only a little bit negative.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Oh, and:

This artificial womb thing, were it to have an actual affect on the world of abortion law, would therefore affect me. (Am I using the wrong word? Fuck you, affect/effect.)

That was the right word.

[smw543]

There's a strong cultural vibe that childbirth is lovely and wonderful and if you thought it was horrible then you're obviously a terrible mother and an even worse person and quite possibly the worst woman ever...

I'm feeling that that is a whole 'nother can of worms that is more broadly applied to the woman thread. I agree with you, definitely, but this topic ain't exactly about that particular kind of de facto misogyny, eh?

Um, except that was kinda what you were doing. Like, my mother had two cesareans. I'm not even remotely interested in getting pregnant, the thought makes me nauseous. So when you dance out the gross generalizations of how women enjoy childbirth- which I will admit a lot of them do, the whole being pregnant thing is awesome for some- it is rather annoying. I'm a lady. This artificial womb thing, were it to have an actual affect on the world of abortion law, would therefore affect me. (Am I using the wrong word? Fuck you, affect/effect.) So being written off as too small of an outlier to matter, if I even exist at all, is in a way rather bullshit.

On that note (because it bugged me):

Birth sucks. but it's been sucking for what, two million years (and that's just for humanswomen)? We'veWomen have gotten through it before, and wewomen--as a speciessex--will keep on birthin' till the cows come home. By which I mean, when the sun explodes.

I think this fix helps illustrate the cause of the disagreement.

[markop2003]

I don't see why it would effect abortion. If the baby needs to be put in an artificial uterus then that's not true viability that's like calling someone who's brain dead but on a respirator and circulatory machine alive. Fact is this has no effect on who's going to take care of the kid, the level of abortions and adoptions are far too much out of step to consider giving them up for adoption. This will only effect abortions if we create mothering androids to take care of the resulting babies.

[Midnight]

Hopefully not; there is not a single reason that abortions are ''bad'' and should be illegal.

You are killing a defenseless human.

Remember one time I said "I don't want this to turn into a big abortion discussion; that's not what this is about"? You're treading on thin ice.

and regardless of your opinions of said church, I'd hardly call them insane.

I totally would. If some loony in Hyde Park was spewing the things they take as fact, he'd be regarded as a nut.

Um, except that was kinda what you were doing. Like, my mother had two cesareans. I'm not even remotely interested in getting pregnant, the thought makes me nauseous. So when you dance out the gross generalizations of how women enjoy childbirth- which I will admit a lot of them do, the whole being pregnant thing is awesome for some- it is rather annoying. I'm a lady. This artificial womb thing, were it to have an actual affect on the world of abortion law, would therefore affect me.

Then I worded my thoughts poorly. I meant no offense, and I don't lose respect for any woman who had a C-section (or, I suppose, any woman who's child came from an artificial womb, when/if that happens)
I understand that it directly affects half the world's population, and indirectly the other half--in the sense of childbirth options. But does it affect your opinions on abortion? Would you demand that all fetuses that would otherwise be aborted be put into artificial wombs? I don't think the populace in general (or the supreme court in America, at least) would demand that.

No, but that's fine, because we're not talking about hypothetical worlds where Roe was overturned, nor hypothetical futures in which Roe is reversed before artificial wombs affect the legality of abortion. These were never brought up. The only hypothetical future we're talking about is one where artificial wombs exist.

When this future comes about, will Roe have been overturned or not? We simply do not know, and thus this question is not the same as "What would happen to abortion rights if artificial wombs were invented tomorrow?" We can't just say "Abortion will remain legal" if we don't know that it will be legal in the first place.

You're still saying that Roe might be overturned before artificial wombs become available for the masses. The question IS "What would happen to abortion rights if artificial wombs were invented tomorrow?"
We're not talking about banning abortion and then having artificial wombs come out. That never came into play. So I dunno why you quoted me, cause that implies that you read what I was saying, but I'm feeling like you didn't, cause I mentioned not being vague or talking about any hypothetical besides this one "What would happen to abortion rights if ArtiWomb was released?"

We weren't talking about what I (or anyone) would do if I (or anyone) had political power in the future. We're talking about this:


At all times, more people have favored the decision reached in Roe v. Wade than opposed it. I don't think ArtiWomb will alter people's opinions of the decision, so I think that the decision will stay, and abortion will not be criminalized.