• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Ectogenesis change the morality of abortion?

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
Click to expand...

If you could start a kid in a test tube, they'd be viable immediately and abortion forbidden.
 
I don't think it would change much of anything in the abortion debate really. Sure, people would desire laws to force women to use it instead of aborting, but nothing would ever come of their efforts.
 
joG said:
If you could start a kid in a test tube, they'd be viable immediately and abortion forbidden.
Click to expand...

Not true.

People forget that most zygotes are self-aborting, as DNA errors/flaws affect the process.

It would require complete understanding and control over assignment and recombination of genetic material to guarantee success.

Meanwhile, a woman's control over her own body would remain paramount (IMO) for natural birth processing.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
Click to expand...

Nah, aside from the cost of such a program, it's not really the life of the fetus that is the primary concern of anti-choicers. The primary goal of anti-abortion is to control women, to prevent them from choosing to have sex, and to punish them when they have made that choice. Pregnancy/childbirth is just the means of punishment. Please note that most "pro-lifers" are willing to make exceptions in the case of rape, demonstrating that punishment for women is the goal, and obviously a woman who was raped doesn't deserve the same punishment as a woman who chose to sin.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey,
Click to expand...
That interest is only past the point of viability.

it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life.
Click to expand...
Actually technology can not affect the point of viability. That is a strict function of development.

It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
Click to expand...
There is more to it than just not being pregnant. Some people do not wish to become parents.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Not true.

People forget that most zygotes are self-aborting, as DNA errors/flaws affect the process.

It would require complete understanding and control over assignment and recombination of genetic material to guarantee success.

Meanwhile, a woman's control over her own body would remain paramount (IMO) for natural birth processing.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.
 
joG said:
Don't be silly.
Click to expand...

It's the premise of the original post that is being silly.
Even if an artificial womb were made that could grow a pre embryo into fetus that eventually could live outside the arifical womb, that does mean it would be possible to take a previable embryo or fetus from the woman's womb, put it into artificial womb, without critical damage either to the woman or the pre viable embryo/ fetus and then continue to grow it into a viable fetus that could survive outside the artificial womb.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it changes the existing fundamental moral questions, only the practical environment in which they’re asked. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy so if the foetus is in some kind of external, artificial gestation device, terminating that foetus wouldn’t be abortion any more. There would be a new moral question regarding termination of a foetus in these circumstances, though inevitably leading to a different set of answers to the ones for abortion.

The impact on the practicalities of actual abortion would depend on the clinical specifics of the hypothetical technology. Abortion is considers for a whole range of different reasons in a range of different circumstances and, significantly, at different stages of pregnancy. This hypothetical technology may well offer alternative solutions in some circumstances but in others might not help or might help but pose additional risks or complications.
 
minnie616 said:
It's the premise of the original post that is being silly.
Even if an artificial womb were made that could grow a pre embryo into fetus that eventually could live outside the arifical womb, that does mean it would be possible to take a previable embryo or fetus from the woman's womb, put it into artificial womb, without critical damage either to the woman or the pre viable embryo/ fetus and then continue to grow it into a viable fetus that could survive outside the artificial womb.
Click to expand...

If zygote are "viable" in "test tubes" from the beginning, they are theoretically just as "viable" in the woman. "Vialbility" was a stupid excuse from the beginning, of course. The only reason you don't like the idea of it is that it allows killing humans without admitting the fact.
 
Christian kooks want power.

Morality has f all to do with it.
 
joG said:
If zygote are "viable" in "test tubes" from the beginning, they are theoretically just as "viable" in the woman. "Vialbility" was a stupid excuse from the beginning, of course. The only reason you don't like the idea of it is that it allows killing humans without admitting the fact.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The zygote in the test tube cannot survive outside the test tube until it reaches viability.

Therefore it is not yet viable.

Pre embryos survive in test tubes and are transferred to the woman's womb via IVF treatment.
That does make the pre embryo viable.

The pre embryo is not viable and it needs to grow to about 24 weeks gestation give or take a week or two before it becomes viable and can live outside the womb.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
Click to expand...

for me it would just give fathers some say if they want an abortion
 
minnie616 said:
You are mistaken. The zygote in the test tube cannot survive outside the test tube until it reaches viability.

Therefore it is not yet viable.

Pre embryos survive in test tubes and are transferred to the woman's womb via IVF treatment.
That does make the pre embryo viable.

The pre embryo is not viable and it needs to grow to about 24 weeks gestation give or take a week or two before it becomes viable and can live outside the womb.
Click to expand...

These things are purely technological. Hitherto, it has not been possible to grow children in test tubes. When we can, that will have been a jump in out capabilities. That will indicate that it is much more probable that the transfer of the child will become possible. But that is all eyewash, when a child can survive outside the woman. So why is the non-transferablity important? Why should they not have equal rights to life? If we were talking in extremis regarding the women, okay. But, where the woman's life is not endangered?
 
joG said:
These things are purely technological. Hitherto, it has not been possible to grow children in test tubes. When we can, that will have been a jump in out capabilities. That will indicate that it is much more probable that the transfer of the child will become possible. But that is all eyewash, when a child can survive outside the woman. So why is the non-transferablity important? Why should they not have equal rights to life? If we were talking in extremis regarding the women, okay. But, where the woman's life is not endangered?
Click to expand...

Because a previable embryo/previable fetus cannot live outside a womb be it a natural womb or an artificial one.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.
Click to expand...

The State's interests can go to hell. What part of "unwanted" is so difficult to understand?

Who is going to be the zygote police? How will conceptions be detected?

Artificial means of sustaining/growing zygotes to full maturity isn't near as simple it sounds. The technology serving as a pseudo-womb is but one part of many, in the end, bring millions of conceptions to full term and then raise it until adulthood.

Who's paying for all of these factory made babies? Not me!

And "right to life" is a fantasy. Recognition of right to life isn't going to change - because there isn't a right to life, not in the US, and for any country that claims otherwise is - it's not telling the truth. It doesn't exist anywhere.
 
joG said:
These things are purely technological. Hitherto, it has not been possible to grow children in test tubes. When we can, that will have been a jump in out capabilities. That will indicate that it is much more probable that the transfer of the child will become possible. But that is all eyewash, when a child can survive outside the woman. So why is the non-transferablity important? Why should they not have equal rights to life? If we were talking in extremis regarding the women, okay. But, where the woman's life is not endangered?
Click to expand...

What is the impetus for you believing that a conception takes precedence over all other life...for any reason?
 
Good Lord, the artificial womb thing again.

Seriously people?

Who is going to raise and pay for all of these artificial womb zygotes, embryos or fetuses?

Can you imagine the cost?

Who will absorb the immense cost in maintaining the artificial wombs?

Let alone the fact is that a first trimester abortion is a minor medical procedure....what kind of MAJOR procedure would be needed to remove the fetus safely? How do you envision this procedure happening?

I asked this question on a thread awhile back and someone seriously answered "teleportation" would eventually be a likelihood.:lamo
 
joG said:
If you could start a kid in a test tube, they'd be viable immediately and abortion forbidden.
Click to expand...

viability in a test tube does not turn a single human cell (or a few cells) into a human.
 
joG said:
If you could start a kid in a test tube, they'd be viable immediately and abortion forbidden.
Click to expand...

You can start a kid in a test tube, it's called in vitro fertilization when the resulting embryo is injected into the woman. The only thing is the kid won't just continue to grow in a test tube. It must be injected or frozen in order to survive. They're not considered viable because they cannot survive without an attachment to a woman. Funny thing is, they're not considered very valuable either, hundreds or thousands of them are just discarded.
 
The morality might change for people who base personhood on location. For those who base personhood on degree of dependency on something/someone else, not much at all.
 
OKgrannie said:
You can start a kid in a test tube, it's called in vitro fertilization when the resulting embryo is injected into the woman. The only thing is the kid won't just continue to grow in a test tube. It must be injected or frozen in order to survive. They're not considered viable because they cannot survive without an attachment to a woman. Funny thing is, they're not considered very valuable either, hundreds or thousands of them are just discarded.
Click to expand...

Funny how the anti choicers don't scream bloody murder about that.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Funny how the anti choicers don't scream bloody murder about that.
Click to expand...

Nobody is threatening in-vitro clinics, are they. No protesters lining the walkways......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom