- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is also a switch that could be installed in the tube leading from the testicles that could block sperm from being added to the semen. Great idea, but both are non sequitur to the issue.
The logical answer to that is the parents supported by any insurance that wished to. However again a non-sequitur, especially given the premises. The issue at hand is the rights of the parents? For example is the right of the mother to have an abortion, or only to end her pregnancy? In the current world they end up being one in the same, but the premises given change that. Additionally I don't see the cost issues as ethical ones per se, but more logistical ones, no different from any other tech being currently developed. Sure there can be other ethical issues when it comes to the use of medical technology, but cost isn't one.
(A heads up to all that reads my reply - my points aren’t related (in any respect) to men being forced to pay child support.)
In the context of a woman experiencing an unwanted conception, who chooses not to endure all that’s related to prenatal, giving birth, and postnatal care...
Given your premise regardlng the existence of an artificial womb, if circumstances existed that woman decides that she wants an abortion - the following would have to occur:
a) A law that doesn’t violate a woman’s current constitutional rights, which allows her to control her reproductive role, would have to be enacted to force her to disclose that she’s conceived (if she’s willing to disclose who the bio-dad is). From a Constitutional stance, I don’t think enacting such a law would get approval by the SC.
b) If a law was allowed, it could potentially force a woman to undergo the transfer the embryo/ early stage fetus into an artificial womb because she didn’t want to gestate and give birth - “based solely on the legal demand of the bio-dad”. For this intended purpose - a woman could well consider this as a form of sexual assault if the transfer procedure is against her will.
c) Just because, in your world, transferring an embryo/early stage fetus isn’t anymore medically complicated than an abortion. A woman who is forced into the transfer - it still violates her liberty to control her reproductive DNA. What possible “legal argument” could be made that the reproductive DNA of the bio-dad is more important or has greater value than the woman’s - especially since it has merged with the woman’s reproductive DNA and is now inside of a woman body?
d) And even if women could be legally obligated to submit to the above demands by the bio-dad, and an agreement was made that she wouldn’t be asked to pay support, the state wouldn’t automatically terminate the woman’s parental rights despite his or her request to do so. If the man sought public assistance - the woman would be pursued by the state to pay child support despite any agreements the woman had with the man. This forces the state to maintain agencies to enforce support issues. This impacts the liabilities of taxpayers.
e) As CA brought to the discussion, the woman may not want the man to have custody of an unwanted child. The reasons could be many, and valid. Would a woman maintain the right to Due Process as a means to argue her objections to the bio-dad’s demands to transfer an embryo/early stage fetus? If the answer is yes, that becomes a burden on the State and Taxpayers.
In most cases, both men and women can reproduce multiple times. What would make a specific conception worth all of the monetary resources, the psychological and physical infringement women would be subjected to, along with reframing of the Constitution to alter human reproduction rights - which enhances the power of government have a greater role over how many children will or won’t be born.
The above isn’t going to happen without significantly degrading or dismantling various Constitutional rights of women. The availability of an artificial womb, in this case, wouldn’t be relevant.
BTW, The tube transfer technology for men, as you described it, is virtually a vasectomy. Regardless, it’s still requires a surgical procedure. The microchip technology that I envision would be virtually non-invasion and would interrupt the biological process that leads to the production of viable sperm.
The above nightmarish scenario would be totally unnecessary if there was a “near” 100% effective, long-term high tech birth control (like microchips that I mentioned), which would be easily accessible worldwide AND FREE to women and men alike (even if it pissed off the Pope).