Possible solution?

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?

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...

Do you really think that is a right? Why does it only apply to a woman's vagina and not other things to would seem obvious like medical marijuana or non-FDA approved drugs for terminal patients?

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...

That sounds like a win win to me. What do you mean by 'normal taxation'?

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting concept and I would not oppose a woman choosing to go that route, but I really don't think most women (or men) would choose to do so because an abortion stops so much more than just a beating heart. It stops the evidence that a man had illegal sex with a minor. It stops families from fighting over who should raise a child. It stops evidence that a wife had an affair with someone other than her husband. Abortion stops a lot of things and those things would not stop if a fetus was transferred to a vat and one day DNA testing was performed.

But, we may one day (almost assuredly) have that medical technology, and then it will be very interesting to see what becomes of it.

Kal'Stang said:

take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Sounds absolutely wonderful. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing.





I hope if something like that ever becomes viable, it'll be long past my time on this planet.
Also, I won't be supporting your campaign.

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.

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.

Crovax said:

Do you really think that is a right? Why does it only apply to a woman's vagina and not other things to would seem obvious like medical marijuana or non-FDA approved drugs for terminal patients?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a Right.

The FDA does not need private info in order to determine whether a drug (be it marijuana or not) is harmful or not. As such it is not a privacy issue.

holbritter said:

That sounds like a win win to me. What do you mean by 'normal taxation'?

Click to expand...

State run orphanages are funded via taxes which everyone pays in some form or other. I was essentially taking into account a loophole argument that I felt some that love to be semantical might make.

HowardBThiname said:

It's an interesting concept and I would not oppose a woman choosing to go that route, but I really don't think most women (or men) would choose to do so because an abortion stops so much more than just a beating heart. It stops the evidence that a man had illegal sex with a minor. It stops families from fighting over who should raise a child. It stops evidence that a wife had an affair with someone other than her husband. Abortion stops a lot of things and those things would not stop if a fetus was transferred to a vat and one day DNA testing was performed.

But, we may one day (almost assuredly) have that medical technology, and then it will be very interesting to see what becomes of it.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways to determine if someone was raped other than through the woman or child getting pregnant. So it wouldn't stop those things at all.

The rest would more than likely be something that needs to be figured out. But imo those are minor things that can actually be figured out and it probably won't take 60+ years to do so, unlike the way that the abortion debate is currently.

Dragonfly said:

Sounds absolutely wonderful. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing.

I hope if something like that ever becomes viable, it'll be long past my time on this planet.
Also, I won't be supporting your campaign.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that the Matrix isn't real. But if it is...well...we're all up a creek without a paddle anyways huh?

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...

The fact shown in bold seems to escape so many people.

Kal'Stang said:

Yes, it is a Right.

The FDA does not need private info in order to determine whether a drug (be it marijuana or not) is harmful or not. As such it is not a privacy issue.

Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand. The right to privacy between a person and their doctor, gave the ability for a person to have a medically valid treatment done even though the there was a law against it. How can the right to privacy allow a doctor to prescribe birth control banned by law but not marijuana?

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...

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.

And I see nothing immoral about raising a zef in a vat. It is imo much better than killing it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Where there is a will there is a way.

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...

Because we aren't sure if its a life before its born.

Crovax said:

You seem to misunderstand. The right to privacy between a person and their doctor, gave the ability for a person to have a medically valid treatment done even though the there was a law against it. How can the right to privacy allow a doctor to prescribe birth control banned by law but not marijuana?

Click to expand...

No, I understand. And I understand that the FDA often stops what many consider valid treatments from being used. That still has nothing to do with privacy though. The FDA evaluates drugs and treatments (among other things). Their directive is to make sure that those drugs and treatments are safe and effective. If its not then its not supposed to allow them while allowing those that are safe and effective. The fact that more often than not the FDA dis-allows a drug or treatment that are effective and safe due to various reasons (which we will not get into in this thread) does not change the fact of what its directive is. Which has nothing to do with privacy and can be accomplished without violating privacy.

From what I can tell the only time a doctor would get into trouble for violating the FDA regulations is when they do use such a treatment or drug and someone narcs on them for doing so. No ones privacy in this context is violated. The government does not go out perusing medical files just to find out if a doctor is violating an FDA regulation.

Kal'Stang said:

I would imagine that a huge funding increase

Click to expand...

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
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

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
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...

All of those (except #3) are pretty good alternatives. We SHOULD be doing that now.

holbritter said:

All of those (except #3) are pretty good alternatives. We SHOULD be doing that now.

Click to expand...

Should, but we're not.

And #3 should not be an exception.

Kal'Stang said:

There are plenty of ways to determine if someone was raped other than through the woman or child getting pregnant. So it wouldn't stop those things at all.

Click to expand...

Currently, DNA is not collected from aborted fetus material of underage girls, so abortion (today) really does remove the physical evidence of statutory rape. Of course there are other ways to determine rape -- but I wasn't talking about that. I was just mentioning the reasons why women abort, and why I feel many are unlikely to go the route you suggest, although it will likely be possible someday.

The rest would more than likely be something that needs to be figured out. But imo those are minor things that can actually be figured out and it probably won't take 60+ years to do so, unlike the way that the abortion debate is currently.

Click to expand...

In the OP, you mention that while you hope your wife would not abort an accidental pregnancy, that you would support her. So, I have to pose the hypothetical question of whether your wife would want her child "out there" somewhere, even if she didn't have to gestate the child. Would she be peering into baby carriers in the supermarket, trying to see if a particular baby had features similar to her other children? When I've heard women give reasons for not carrying a child to term and putting it up for adoption, many say they can't stand the idea of a child of theirs being out there but not knowing about that child.

But, your solution would offer women one more choice - so in that aspect - it could be beneficial.

Were you thinking of your solution in that way? As one more choice? Or, were you thinking that it would be mandatory for women who wanted to abort?

I think your answer will determine whether the public, in general, would accept such a solution.

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
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...

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.

Kal'Stang said:

None of that would stop abortion.

Click to expand...

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.

Dragonfly said:

Should, but we're not.

And #3 should not be an exception.

Click to expand...

We disagree on that, but that's ok.

HowardBThiname said:

Currently, DNA is not collected from aborted fetus material of underage girls, so abortion (today) really does remove the physical evidence of statutory rape. Of course there are other ways to determine rape -- but I wasn't talking about that. I was just mentioning the reasons why women abort, and why I feel many are unlikely to go the route you suggest, although it will likely be possible someday.

Click to expand...

When it comes to underage girls, DNA should be taken regardless of anything else. Rape should never be tolerated.

HowardBThiname said:

In the OP, you mention that while you hope your wife would not abort an accidental pregnancy, that you would support her. So, I have to pose the hypothetical question of whether your wife would want her child "out there" somewhere, even if she didn't have to gestate the child. Would she be peering into baby carriers in the supermarket, trying to see if a particular baby had features similar to her other children? When I've heard women give reasons for not carrying a child to term and putting it up for adoption, many say they can't stand the idea of a child of theirs being out there but not knowing about that child.

But, your solution would offer women one more choice - so in that aspect - it could be beneficial.

Were you thinking of your solution in that way? As one more choice? Or, were you thinking that it would be mandatory for women who wanted to abort?

I think your answer will determine whether the public, in general, would accept such a solution.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

I think that my "nutty sci-fi" plan, along with preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies would end abortion. In a way which the majority of people would find acceptable, and eventually would become the norm. So much so that the division that we currently have would be reduced to 0. (At least in regards to abortion. ) Abortion has been argued about for hundreds of years across many civilizations. Even before Roe v Wade some states allowed abortion while others states it was illegal. This would give an alternative to abortion. One which I think would be acceptable to even the most radical of liberals or the most radical of conservative. About the only people that I can imagine being against it in the long run is those that are technophobes. But that goes from being for/against abortion and into a phobia. Which is irrelevant.

Perhaps I'm ideological/dreamer. But I think this would work.