• 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!

Possible solution?

Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Kal, this sounds like the old artificial womb debate.

Here are the issues.

The technology of the artificial womb would be amazingly costly as a substitute for abortion.

The"transferring" of the embryo (or fetus) without harm would be more invasive than you think. If you went the cervical route, you would have to dilate the cervix wide enough to get instruments in to safely remove the embryo or fetus. The other option would a procedure akin to a c-section.

While a women desperate to be a mother would endure such things....there is little chance it would catch on as a viable replacement for abortion. The cost alone would be enormous.

I think time (and most certainly money) is better spent developing more surefire and safer ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I would especially include long term methods of contraception for men as well.

I also am prochoice , but as an individual, I am against abortion. The most pragmatic way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
 
Kal'Stang said:
When it comes to underage girls, DNA should be taken regardless of anything else. Rape should never be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be -- but it's not.

Mandatory once the technology becomes available. The reason that abortion is allowed currently is based on viability of the ZEF to survive outside of the womans body. Since the viability of the ZEF surviving outside of the womans body is changed with this technology then the abortion of it should change as well. Which is what I believe Roe vs Wade was about. That is why they tied it to the viability. Due to that decision I believe that they were trying to compromise between the rights of what every scientific study shows as to be human vs that rights of another human, IE: the woman.
Click to expand...

Actually, Roe V Wade was tied to "privacy," and with current DNA technology, the privacy of the pregnancy could never be assured from that point on.

And with this technology what Right would be interfered with? The woman would still have the Right to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy and as such they would still have their Right to do what they want with their own body. Privacy would no longer be a valid reason because the Right of the ZEF to live would over ride that Right, just like the Right to free speech is over ridden by a persons right to live (IE: can't incite violence against another person that would take away their life). IE: Every Right has limits. Even the Right to privacy. But there has to be a valid reason to limit a Right. Currently that limit in regards to abortion and privacy is set at the viability mark.

Will there be people against this? Of course. But I believe that the division that we currently have in regards to abortion will be greatly reduced with this technology. Not to mention there would be people that say that a ZEF has no Rights. But I view such an argument as invalid once that ZEF can survive outside of the womans womb. It is imo akin to how people once considered blacks in this country as not having Rights. I consider it much along the same lines as I considered the arguments against homosexual marriage. Fallacious. ZEF's do have Rights, just not until the point of viability as the womans Rights over ride them. Just like a persons Right to live over rides my Right to keep and bear arms. (IE: I kill them, my right is no longer valid)

As for your question regarding my wife. That is a possibility. But once she gives up her Rights to that child her concerns regarding that child are immaterial.
Click to expand...

Well, it's an interesting concept, but I don't think it would ever be mandatory. Perhaps as another option for a woman who might be on the fence about abortion.

One thing worth considering is that fully one-third of pregnancies end in natural miscarriage. This usually occurs in the first trimester, and most of the time, it's for fetal damage. Attempting to gestate these damaged fetuses circumvents nature and the effect of badly deformed infants could be catastrophic. If the stats hold true, fully a third of those early trimester abortions switched to artificial wombs would be damaged, but now, nature can no longer fulfill it's purpose, since an artificial womb cannot miscarry. I think the societal results could be horrific. That's a lot of deformed infants.

But, I think your idea will offer women an additional choice, should they choose to consider it.

For the many reasons I listed, however, I could not support it being mandatory.
 
calamity said:
I still do not understand why the same people who would move mountains to save an unborn human constantly vote to cut funding aimed at helping those humans who are already born.
Click to expand...

That is what is killing me. Many of our (pro-life) representatives would move mountains to make sure that medical coverage is less accessible to the born, and magically billions will be spent on artificial wombs ? I am not sure I get that leap.:doh
 
calamity said:
I still do not understand why the same people who would move mountains to save an unborn human constantly vote to cut funding aimed at helping those humans who are already born.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this might increase the number of "abortions". To me it's another sign of laziness/irresponsibility ... the same laziness/irresponsibility that leads to most welfare/poverty.
 
HonestJoe said:
That’s not really a solution. The technology to do what you describe safely and routinely would be a long way off even if there was significant investment in research now. Even if it were achieved, there’d still be controversies over things like funding, morality, parental rights (particularly fathers rights), the child’s rights to know who their genetic parents are. You’d also be introducing a significant increase in the number of children requiring adoption in to a system that is already struggling.
Click to expand...

Safely for the fetus......a major procedure or even surgery for the pregnancy woman.

When I brought the fact that it would be a major procedure or surgery for the woman a few years back, a poster actually told me teleportation could be a possibility.:lamo
 
Dragonfly said:
Nothing will.

Even your nutty sci-fi plan wouldn't stop it.

The BEST option is to work towards preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Such as not having sex until the child is wanted/planned? You know...being responsible for ones actions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would imagine that a huge funding increase would actually bring it about faster. The most restrictive thing when it comes to advancing science is lack of funding. Yeah, it still might take awhile to achieve the technology, but I would rather help it along than leave it in the realm of only the outer edges.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming people would be willing to pour a vast amount of money (especially public money) in to this research rather than the countless other areas calling out for investment. It just doesn’t seem politically viable.

I also don’t think you’re being realistic about the science. All the money in the world might not make what you’re talking about viable as a routine procedure. There are lots of things which have been the subject of decades of research and development which are still far from flawless and without complication. Organ transplantation comes to mind as a similar area.

Kal'Stang said:
And I see nothing immoral about raising a zef in a vat. It is imo much better than killing it.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter whether you or I will find it immoral, some people still would so there would still be controversy. After all, plenty of people don’t consider abortion immoral either.

Kal'Stang said:
And the advantage of the vat idea is that it would actually allow fathers who want the child but currently have no voice in the matter to actually have a voice.
Click to expand...
A voice or an implicit legal obligation? This would be another aspect where your idea wouldn’t solve the issues, just shift them about.

Kal'Stang said:
And afaik the child currently does not have a right to know who their genetic parents are. That would be a discussion worth having though.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you are and isn’t just a question for the law today but the law in decades to come. It’s an existing issue for adoptees but would also become one for this new “class” of vat-born children.

Kal'Stang said:
As for the adoption system struggling, shore it up. It needs it anyways. So do it and take into account the new influx and shore it up again when the vat idea becomes a reality.
Click to expand...
It’s not about money, it’s about basic maths. We as a society make more children than there are people willing and able to bring them up. This idea would add to that imbalance.

Kal'Stang said:
As for funding, well, how about instead of spending 10 times more on our military than any other country how about we take some of that and direct it towards this? I mean, would it really hurt us if we were funding our military at 9 times the amount of those other countries instead of 10 times?
Click to expand...
Even if you could find the political will to defund the US military, there’d be a long, long queue of fields for the money made available before tightly focused speculative proposals like yours. It just isn’t politically or socially realistic to pour so much money in to something that might generate some questionable benefit way in the future when you have, for example, actual children living on the streets today.
 
WCH said:
Such as not having sex until the child is wanted/planned? You know...being responsible for ones actions.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...."abstinence only" works so well.... :roll:
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
A noble thought I am sure, but one I can not support. It is the adoption part. The system is already messed up and adding more to it would do more harm than good. Also, no matter where or how a fetus is gestated, it still carries the DNA of two persons and human nature being what it is, eventually the grown up will want to know who's progeny (s)he is and that too brings more hurt than good.
 
prometeus said:
Still can't get any and think that others shouldn't either?

As defined by someone like you?
Click to expand...

It's knowledge accumulated from being on this planet for 60 years.

FWIW, I've had more [and better] sex than you'll ever have.
 
prometeus said:
A noble thought I am sure, but one I can not support. It is the adoption part. The system is already messed up and adding more to it would do more harm than good. Also, no matter where or how a fetus is gestated, it still carries the DNA of two persons and human nature being what it is, eventually the grown up will want to know who's progeny (s)he is and that too brings more hurt than good.
Click to expand...

Not just the adoption part, but think about medically what it would take to remove the embryo or fetus from the womb. I can envision a woman desperate to have a child of her own to go through the major procedure or surgery needed to safely remove the embryo/fetus intact without any harm....but a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy? Making her go through major medical procedures or even surgery?

Aside from the risks of a major procedure/surgery for the woman....can you imagine the cost of the procedure and artificial womb maintenance? We have born individuals begging to have their curable cancers treated....and we want to spend billions on this? Never gonna happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
None of that would stop abortion. The goal here is to allow abortion up until this technology becomes available. In any case, all of that can be done regardless of this technology. Should some or all of it be done? Debatable. But that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about stopping abortion in the long term in a way which does not violate a woman's right to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy or not. It's about a compromise.
Click to expand...

I read your OP. That, in my opinion, would take considerable costs to develop (artificial wombs have been raised in this forum many times) along with the cost to maintain what might be several hundred thousand artificial wombs. Then there would come a host of problems associated with the adoption program that would have to be implemented. Actually I can think of a number of negative issues, but I don’t see your solution being a cost effective answer that would end abortion. It would also be an invasion of privacy because it would “force women” into allowing government appointed providers to harvest the embryos.

The path of least resistance, in my opinion, would be the following:

Advanced Technology in contraceptives - like one now being developed for women - which is an implantable microchip that’s programmable, and will last up to 15 years. I believe similar types of birth control could be developed if we can create a scientific community devoted to developing such devices.

Note: When I say “programmable”, these devices that are being developed can be turned off when women (and men) want to have a child. Then the devices can be reset to prevent pregnancies.

It would also require people everywhere to be willing to invest via taxes, most likely, to ensure that EVERY woman and man be able to get such devices for free if necessary. And the Catholic Church (and other religions who are against birth control) need to stop enslaving it’s members with antiquated, nonsensical dogma regarding birth control and encourage all of their members to go to the nearest providers and get their BC devices.
 
Removable Mind said:
Advanced Technology in contraceptives - like one now being developed for women - which is an implantable microchip that’s programmable, and will last up to 15 years. I believe similar types of birth control could be developed if we can create a scientific community devoted to developing such devices.

Note: When I say “programmable”, these devices that are being developed can be turned off when women (and men) want to have a child. Then the devices can be reset to prevent pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Need the male version of this "chip" too.

Both parties need implantable, long term, safe, and highly affordable (free through health care coverage) birth control. If it's implantable chips that's great.

Just sayin, there needs to be the male version too. :mrgreen:
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well im very much like you on your views of abortion and the fact that theres no way to give equal rights on this issue has always been the main thing. Whether people admit it or not its always about where, who and what we value more and at what time frame. Like you said forcing the women is very much like slavery/rape and logically i couldn't agree more .

For me technology has never really swayed my views on abortion because there would still be force. The technology would have to be SO VAST AND FUTURISTIC for me to support as more than an option.

For instance, whats the risk of the procedure(transfer) vs risk of other abortions methods vs risk of birth etc.
For me to move to make abortion illegal it would have to be along the lines of some star trek stuff lol if the baby could just be "beamed" out or teleported and there was zero risk to the woman sure. But if its still a risk/surgery i couldn't support forcing that on the woman. But I would totally support it for an option and totally support funding for it.

oh yeah and the other almost equal concern is that our adoption/child welfare service are already a mess. They are horrible so this would increase the burden on them like 10 fold so that would need addressed too.
 
Dragonfly said:
Need the male version of this "chip" too.

Both parties need implantable, long term, safe, and highly affordable (free through health care coverage) birth control. If it's implantable chips that's great.

Just sayin, there needs to be the male version too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Uhmmmm, I think you missed my including men in my post. So I completely agree. (Read back the segment of my post that you used to raise the inclusion of men. The (and men) part. ;)
 
Dragonfly said:
A much better use of the "huge funding increase" would be:


1) a much better, more comprehensive, and totally honest sex education program for kids starting years prior to the onset of puberty (optional at 6th grade, MANDATORY in 9th grade as part of health class)
2) an actual long term, highly effective prescription/implantable birth control for men
3) health insurance coverage for all birth control
4) ease of access and easily affordable "morning after" protections
5) safer and more effective long term prescription/implantable birth control for women
Click to expand...

6.) vast improvement in adoption/child welfare
7.) improvement on social services for expecting mothers and new families
8.) like just about every other country nationally protected family leave time for expecting mothers/fathers
 
Dragonfly said:
Need the male version of this "chip" too.

Both parties need implantable, long term, safe, and highly affordable (free through health care coverage) birth control. If it's implantable chips that's great.

Just sayin, there needs to be the male version too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I just reread my post and I didn’t show men as needing the same type technology as much as I focused on women, I thought I was more inclusive in my post. But meant to.

Thanks for making the point about the necessarily for a similar type of long-term birth control for men. It would be equally important component in ending the need for abortions.
 
WCH said:
It's knowledge accumulated from being on this planet for 60 years.
Click to expand...
It amounts to little if anything above ignorance. You would have done yourself a better service by reading some books.

FWIW, I've had more [and better] sex than you'll ever have.
Click to expand...
You know, when you have to brag about something you have absolutely no way of knowing, it is a lie. Thanks for proving my point.
 
year2late said:
Not just the adoption part, but think about medically what it would take to remove the embryo or fetus from the womb. I can envision a woman desperate to have a child of her own to go through the major procedure or surgery needed to safely remove the embryo/fetus intact without any harm....but a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy? Making her go through major medical procedures or even surgery?

Aside from the risks of a major procedure/surgery for the woman....can you imagine the cost of the procedure and artificial womb maintenance? We have born individuals begging to have their curable cancers treated....and we want to spend billions on this? Never gonna happen.
Click to expand...
Good points, however this being just an "I wish" discussion, I set those criteria aside as "solved by the advances that make the whole thing possible."
 
calamity said:
I still do not understand why the same people who would move mountains to save an unborn human constantly vote to cut funding aimed at helping those humans who are already born.
Click to expand...

They care so much about life! Duh!
 
WCH said:
It's knowledge accumulated from being on this planet for 60 years.

FWIW, I've had more [and better] sex than you'll ever have.
Click to expand...

Do you feel abstinence is only required for females but not you?

Please can you honestly tell me you never had had sex before marriage and never had sex with anyone other than your wife ?

I think there are very few of us who can honestly say we never had sex before marriage and that our spouse is our one and only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom