I might have just chosen a side

[ClakarEQ]

I don't consider any debate win or lose, but an experience and opportunity to gain knowledge. Now some of them do turn into win or lose, however in this case, I'm really just trying to get someone to see beyond, what I perceive as, tunnel vision.

As for:

I'd also like to re-pose the hypothetical about technological advances affecting pro-choice views based on viability outside the womb; only one person answered earlier in the thread.

(I don't recall if I was the one that responded, don't feel like checking)
I personally don't agree with, just as I do not agree with designer babies, however I will never push my opinion of this onto them outside of telling them what I think. I would never ask or attempt to make it "law" or something like that.

This is one of those areas where science and technology cross the line IMO. You get dangerously close to the creation of man completely void of woman and for me, that's just too much.

At the end of the day, I'm of the opinion that you should not be able to legally force someone to do something that is against their will, so technology will never have a bearing on my pro-choice selection.

I can see my argument being a bit hypocritical along with someone attempting to use it against me (e.g. science has made abortion possible, science can make designer babies or "keep alive" a zygote to the point of "birth"), and this is why the issue will be forever grey.

[Tossica]

It's rare that I read an entire Lueyen post. He's often using a lot of words to say very little. ZzzZZz

[Eziekial]

Here's an interesting hypothetical; what if technology was developed that allowed for a woman to "abort" but the process was less destructive and the fetus was simply moved to an incubator to continue growing? Would that be a viable alternative? What laws would need to be developed to make this work?

[leah]

It's rare that I read an entire Lueyen post.

me too :\ it's not because i don't think he has a lot of really interesting, well-thought-out things to say, it's just that i have the attention span of a gnat.

however, i think he should keep posting his posts because it's important for people to share their opinions in an articulate and intelligent matter. maybe he could just throw in cliff's notes at the end for the gnats among us? :D

example: "i like lueyen. he's smart. but maybe he should condense his thoughts."

[Harrison]

That would almost be worse.

Imagine growing up and finding out your mother ditched you to a fucking test tube? That isn't going to psychologically destroy the kid at all lol

[Arlos]

Heh, why do I get the impression that every time over these last couple pages that every time someone says "Lueyen", they could also be saying "Arlos"? rofl.

I don't know about Lueyen, but me, when I argue something, I try and make my point and then support it with data, examples and argument. Sometimes that takes a while, unfortunately.

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

Here's an interesting hypothetical; what if technology was developed that allowed for a woman to "abort" but the process was less destructive and the fetus was simply moved to an incubator to continue growing? Would that be a viable alternative? What laws would need to be developed to make this work?

Now THAT is an idea I've never heard. I would be a-ok with this because it is still pro-choice. However I think in some cases, rape, incest, etc the choice to destructively abort should still be there.

I can't believe I've never heard that idea before

I suppose a downside is it would take surgery similiar to a tumor removal or something like that, I'd have to assume it would be more complex then what a typical abortion would be.

[Harrison]

Yeah, I rarely do it, as I said, because I lose interest of trying to let people see my point of view past a few minutes.

I'm much better at expressing my views in person and not jumping all over the place in a post. My mind moves far too fast to type it out slow-like and intermittently in numerous responses. I lose my direction.

[numatu]

That's similar the hypothetical I was referring to from earlier in the thread:

In the case of pro-choice, I've noticed many proponents claim that a fetus is "not a person" as long as it cannot survive outside the womb.

What about technological advances? Currently, babies can survive a much shorter gestation period than at any point in human history thanks to medical advances. Most likely the gestation period required to survive outside the womb will continue to shrink. If there's anything that science has shown, it's that given enough time, anything is possible.


How would an ever-decreasing required gestation period affect your views? Would you adjust your view accordingly, or do you think there's an arbitrary cutoff point regardless of survival outside the womb?

[Eziekial]

Lots of kids grow up in foster homes without being all fucked up psychologically. Maybe some of the rules in adoption could be relaxed to help cover the increase in birth rates. I'm wondering what kind of confidentiality laws would have to be put in place though I'd imagine it would probably look a lot like the ones for sperm donation we have today. Also, wouldn't this alternative completely stop the entire debate on this subject or would it move to something else

And I took your concept, repackaged it and called it my own, Numatu. That is what America is all about! LOL

[Trielelvan]

Here's an interesting hypothetical; what if technology was developed that allowed for a woman to "abort" but the process was less destructive and the fetus was simply moved to an incubator to continue growing? Would that be a viable alternative? What laws would need to be developed to make this work?

That is indeed a very interesting prospect, one which I am almost certain will have some group of people in an uproar over "playing God" (not meaning you Clakar). That would make for an excellent additional "choice."
Aside from special cases (e.g. the mother is pregnant but absolutely can not carry to term due to uterine detachment, severe previa, etc), I don't think too many additional laws would have to be put into place: the child would still be a ward of the state and put up for adoption/fostercare, just as in cases of abandonment. The exception would be ensuring that the child does not end up "belonging" to the government or a corporation, etc... I keep getting flashbacks of things like "The Truman Show" and "Judge Dredd" *shiver*

That would almost be worse.

Imagine growing up and finding out your mother ditched you to a fucking test tube? That isn't going to psychologically destroy the kid at all lol

Nah, I don't think that's necessarily true. It wouldn't be all that different from being abandoned at the hospital or, worse, left in a dumpster or a failed abortion. At least in this case, if they allowed the information to be given, the kid would know that the bio-mom wanted it to have life and not kill it, right? Not saying that these types of kids don't have issues - most of them do to some extent - but if given a choice between life and death, which would one choose?

[Arlos]

The one large problem with that concept is this: who pays for it? How much will it cost to keep that fetus alive in its artificial womb all the way through the time of delivery? Especially when the technology is new, I can't imagine it will be anything other than hideously expensive. Would the taxpayers have to pay for this? The mother certainly wouldn't be willing to if she'd be aborting it anyway, and given demographics of this sort of thing, almost certainly wouldn't be able to either.

While I know taxpayers do help pay for non-adopted kids' raising, but wouldn't this cause a massive influx in the numbers of this? Sure, lots might get adopted, but lots won't. Indeed, what about all the extra kids with (sometimes severe) developmental issues? Many parents choose to abort a fetus who if born will go through life never getting to, say, a mental age greater than 3. If all abortions are banned and instead are "tubed", we will have MANY more of the developmentally disabled being born, etc. Can be fairly sure that almost none of them will get adopted, and so they will be forced to be wards of the state, at a vastly higher cost in care than even normally developed infants. Again, who pays?

While in theory this kind of technology would be a great option, there's huge hurdles involved that no one has even discussed. I've barely scratched the surface...

-Arlos

[numatu]

To qualify, I'm more interested in how this would view pro-choice viewpoint based on the idea (as stated much earlier in this thread) that abortions should be legal as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

Assuming advances in technology both improve the state of artificial incubation, and like any technology, a major drop in price after the initial release and subsequent competition/revisions, how would this affect the above statement about survivability outside the womb?

If the mandatory time a fertilized egg must remain inside the womb decreases, does the notion of "abortions should be legal as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb" remain? This is the idea I'm getting at.

[Martrae]

I could be totally off-base here, but IMO the majority of people who have abortions do so because it they're selfish. They could just as easily carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption but that might ruin their looks or mess up their planned trip to Cabo or something.

What this has to do with test tube babies....I'm not really sure aside from the feeling that selfish people wouldn't want a mini-me running around somewhere in the world either.

As a curiosity.....I'd love to see statistics on black vs white abortion ratios.

[numatu]

Martrae: Here's an article in today's Washington Post that deals with demographics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines

[ClakarEQ]

To qualify, I'm more interested in how this would view pro-choice viewpoint based on the idea (as stated much earlier in this thread) that abortions should be legal as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

Assuming advances in technology both improve the state of artificial incubation, and like any technology, a major drop in price after the initial release and subsequent competition/revisions, how would this affect the above statement about survivability outside the womb?

If the mandatory time a fertilized egg must remain inside the womb decreases, does the notion of "abortions should be legal as long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb" remain? This is the idea I'm getting at.

Whether or not science can keep the zygote alive to the point of completion makes no difference to me. I'm pro-choice because I don't feel it is the GOV's right to tell a person what they can or can't do to their body. I already said that if push came to shove, I'd go so far to say late term abortions are "ok" (NO I am NOT ok with that but if it was all or nothing, I'd say "all" before I'd say "nothing").


I don't think many pro-choice folks are pro-choice based on your statement. I've heard folks use it in discussion before, I even could have, however that is not the basis of why I am pro-choice and I don't think that is the basis of many pro-choice folks.

EDIT
O and Mart, it isn't a black and white thing, frankly the way you worded that is a bit racist, sorry. It is a "money" thing.

[numatu]

The opinions I was looking for had to do specifically with someone who is pro-choice up until a certain point, which I believe is the vast majority of pro-choice people.

In this case "up until a certain point" means once the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb. With that as a base, then I got into my hypothetical idea about technological advancement.

[ClakarEQ]

The opinions I was looking for had to do specifically with someone who is pro-choice up until a certain point, which I believe is the vast majority of pro-choice people.

In this case "up until a certain point" means once the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the womb. With that as a base, then I got into my hypothetical idea about technological advancement.

While I'm not trying to be picky, I don't think that is exactly the case. While folks are pro-choice up to a point, what you're suggesting is only 1 reason. I'm not aware of anyone that is pro-choice AND the primary reason being, "i'm ok with it up to a poitn", it is almost always, "don't tell me what I can or can't do with MY body". If science finds a way to make a 3 week old zygote survive outside a woman, then you seem to assume this will change the pro-choice stance, IMO you are mistaken.

[numatu]

It has nothing to do with it being a reason for pro-choice.

It's simply what the majority of pro-choice people believe. They believe in choice, up until a certain point in the development of a fetus. This in no way mentions why a person is pro-choice at all.

Also, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for feedback on a specific hypothetical situation regarding pro-choice position with the previous exception and how it might conflict, or might not depending on reasoning.

[Trielelvan]

Well, my opinion is this: were they able to do such a thing, it still would not sway how I feel about the situation. In a perfect world, I would be happy that such a choice was made available because of the women I know who have made the choice to abort, I'd say most, if not all, of them would rather this route if it were possible to do so.
Two I know would not (could not) have chosen this alternative because of health related reasons (both done by 5wks if I remember correctly) and one definitely would not have because it was a rape pregnancy by her father and uncle.

I would still be pro-choice and adamantly anti-2nd,3rd trimester abortions.
One of the main distinctions to me is the difference between a mostly-formed fetus as opposed to a barely-there zygote. There are a number of things that play into where the cutoff point is really.
Personally, I think there are way too many people that should have their shit cut, burned, and removed so that they never have the option to reproduce at all which would solve a lot of the problems this issue brings up, but that's just me...

[Lueyen]

Here's an interesting hypothetical; what if technology was developed that allowed for a woman to "abort" but the process was less destructive and the fetus was simply moved to an incubator to continue growing? Would that be a viable alternative? What laws would need to be developed to make this work?

I would think that the majority of the cost elements already present in current abortion procedures would still be present in this type of theoretical one, and I suspect the technology to do this would significantly increase the expense of the extraction procedures alone to the point it would become relatively cost prohibitive at least in respect to a large percentage of those who seek abortion due at least in part to financial concerns.

How all of this would be paid for has already been raised, but another question: If a woman wanted this type of theoretical procedure instead, would a doctor be liable if something went wrong, and the baby was destroyed? With current views no, but what of a woman who went through this procedure expecting the baby to live and would not have done so otherwise. I don't see something like this completely replacing all other forms of abortion in a practical manner, which means that the written word of laws regarding this would come under intense scrutiny with respect to their effect on current abortion practices.

Without a framework to ensure a high degree of success in a procedure of this nature you run the risk of creating an even higher degree and rate of emotional issues for women who undergo it.

[Tikker]

I could be totally off-base here, but IMO the majority of people who have abortions do so because it they're selfish. They could just as easily carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption but that might ruin their looks or mess up their planned trip to Cabo or something

I know 2 women who've had abortions (super tiny sample, I know) but I wouldn't put either of them in that category

I think it's much more responsible to terminate a pregnancy, rather than bring a kid into the world to give away, or into what might a really unsuccessful relationship (ie, split up parents, bad mother/father, etc)

[Eziekial]

Lue, even routine abortions carry risks to the mother:

# Heavy Bleeding - Some bleeding after abortion is normal. However, if the cervix is torn or the uterus is punctured, there is a risk of severe bleeding known as hemorrhaging. When this happens, a blood transfusion may be required. Severe bleeding is also a risk with the use of RU486. One in 100 women who use RU486 require surgery to stop the bleeding.

# Infection – Infection can develop from the insertion of medical instruments into the uterus, or from fetal parts that are mistakenly left inside (known as an incomplete abortion). A pelvic infection may lead to persistent fever over several days and extended hospitalization. It can also cause scarring of the pelvic organs.

# Incomplete Abortion - Some fetal parts may be mistakenly left inside after the abortion. Bleeding and infection may result.

# Sepsis – A number of RU486 or mifepristone users have died as a result of sepsis (total body infection).

# Anesthesia – Complications from general anesthesia used during abortion surgery may result in convulsions, heart attack, and in extreme cases, death. It also increases the risk of other serious complications by two and a half times.

# Damage to the Cervix - The cervix may be cut, torn, or damaged by abortion instruments. This can cause excessive bleeding that requires surgical repair.

# Scarring of the Uterine Lining – Suction tubing, curettes, and other abortion instruments may cause permanent scarring of the uterine lining.

# Perforation of the Uterus - The uterus may be punctured or torn by abortion instruments. The risk of this complication increases with the length of the pregnancy. If this occurs, major surgery may be required, including removal of the uterus (known as a hysterectomy).

# Damage to Internal Organs - When the uterus is punctured or torn, there is also a risk that damage will occur to nearby organs such as the bowel and bladder.

# Death - In extreme cases, other physical complications from abortion including excessive bleeding, infection, organ damage from a perforated uterus, and adverse reactions to anesthesia may lead to death. This complication is rare, but is real.

Costs are an issue and I would be curious to see how pro-lifers would feel about footing the bill for a transfer over a traditional abortion. Anyone with strong religious views want to comment? I would really like to hear their position on such a procedure.

[Martrae]

I could be totally off-base here, but IMO the majority of people who have abortions do so because it they're selfish. They could just as easily carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption but that might ruin their looks or mess up their planned trip to Cabo or something

I know 2 women who've had abortions (super tiny sample, I know) but I wouldn't put either of them in that category

I think it's much more responsible to terminate a pregnancy, rather than bring a kid into the world to give away, or into what might a really unsuccessful relationship (ie, split up parents, bad mother/father, etc)

Those still qualify under selfishness to me. They just try and put a 'responsible' spin on it when what they really mean is they can't face the thought of raising a kid alone. Which, IMO, they should have thought about before they took off their pants. But, there again, they selfishly wanted to have sex so took the risk anyway.

Honestly, lack of forethought is our country's worst problem. Why save up money for something you want when you can just toss it on a credit card? Why worry about pregnancy when you can just abort? Me Me Me should be our national motto.

[Harrison]

I'm with Martrae here, as I've said before.