Artificial Uterus

[maquiscat]

True...it would have to be substantially more advance. But there are few other issues involved, too.

Some women really don't want their offspring to go to people who they don't know...or they would have zero control over as many women do actually worry about the welfare of the child if given birth to and let it be adopted. And some women see the world as a place that they don't believe is worthy of their offspring. Some see the world as an unfit place.

If the woman wants to give the child up for adoption then the father has to sign off on that too or take custody of the child. Why would it be any different if it were pre-birth under the AU scenario?

 

[Removable Mind]

If the woman wants to give the child up for adoption then the father has to sign off on that too or take custody of the child. Why would it be any different if it were pre-birth under the AU scenario?

Maybe she doesn't think the sperm donor is fit to be a father...and I was clear on the other points.

 

[maquiscat]

Maybe she doesn't think the sperm donor is fit to be a father...and I was clear on the other points.

How would that be any different than him thinking that the egg donor isn't fit to be a mother?

 

[Gathomas88]

I'll be more willing to have this convo when an artificial uterus is created that can support human life in equal measure as a woman's womb. I've seen zero evidence that it can ever be accomplished or that it wouldn't produce an inferior offspring to the natural way.

If it affects the biological integrity of the human species, you bet I'd be against it. The prolife are against aborting people with downe's syndrome or hydroencephalus. It makes no sense. Sometimes destruction is better than half a life. It's not up to you. That choice is the woman's and no one else's.

By this logic, what's to stop people from merely leaving children with such conditions out in the woods to die like the ancients did?

Besides, some rather promising advances in the field of gene therapy have been made in recent years. I'd venture so far as to say that many of the conditions you describe might very well be treatable by the time artificial uteruses safe for human use become available.

Would you still support "on demand" abortion if such a state of affairs were to come into being?

Even if an artificial uterus is available, you can't force a woman to undergo an operation to transplant the fetus.

She should still have the right to abort if she wants to.

To the contrary, the state can "force" its citizens to do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases.

There is absolutely no reason why abortion should even still be an option if a safe and reliable transplantation procedure were to become available. It simply wouldn't be necessary.

Furthermore, any appeal to parental "choice" here is simply indefensible.

The "if I can't have this baby, no one can" approach doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a "pro-choice" viewpoint. It's simply far too emotionally territorial an attitude for someone to adopt towards something they claim to regard as a mere "clump of cells."

I mean... I'm sorry, but how selfishly perverse would a person have to be that they would rather see their own children dead than raised by another when the person in question doesn't even want to have children in the first place?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one point. If there is no further trauma to be added onto the woman by the removal procedure vs the abortion procedure, then they had equal share in the creation and thus have equal say in the destruction, or lack thereof. If she is going to keep it dispite his not wanting to, she has the current custody and thus final say. If neither wants it, no issues at all. But if she doesn't want it, while it is her right to have it removed, he gets a chance to keep it even if she doesn't want it to remain viable. Again the key here is that the removal procedure is of equal or less trauma than the abortion procedure.

No they don't. That's like saying the police have equal cause to enter your home if they have a warrant vs. if they want to repossess some of your belongings to pad their paycheck.

The barrier of the woman's body itself entitles her to decide when and for what reasons that barrier is breached. If she does not agree to the reason, no one has any right to breach it.

 

[maquiscat]

Would you still support "on demand" abortion if such a state of affairs were to come into being?

I know I would at least insofar as it would not be the state's place to determine whether or not the ZEF should come to term. The only interest the state should have in this is that of the rights of the two parents

To the contrary, the state can "force" its citizens to do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases.

Naturally, force is the ultimate decision maker. We are looking at what the law should be.

There is absolutely no reason why abortion should even still be an option if a safe and reliable transplantation procedure were to become available. It simply wouldn't be necessary.

Yes there is. If neither parent wants the ZEF and there is no one that they can agree to give it to then it should be within their right to be rid of it. Not exactly a position I personally agree with, but that is my legal/political stance on it.

No they don't. That's like saying the police have equal cause to enter your home if they have a warrant vs. if they want to repossess some of your belongings to pad their paycheck.

The barrier of the woman's body itself entitles her to decide when and for what reasons that barrier is breached. If she does not agree to the reason, no one has any right to breach it.

That so does not parallel. I would daresay that it would be very hard to find a parallel due to the unique nature of the situation. IF the procedures are equal in risk/danger/consequence to the woman and the woman has already agreed to the barrier breach to remove the ZEF, then the final disposition of the ZEF needs to be up to the father. No one would be forcing the breech in this situation, and to claim so is disingenuous. You are, IMHO, injecting too much of the current situation onto this potential situation. For that matter, I would daresay that the father at least has the rights to the remains of an abortion in today's situation should he wish to bury his offspring, although why one would want to is beyond me.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

That so does not parallel. I would daresay that it would be very hard to find a parallel due to the unique nature of the situation. IF the procedures are equal in risk/danger/consequence to the woman and the woman has already agreed to the barrier breach to remove the ZEF, then the final disposition of the ZEF needs to be up to the father. No one would be forcing the breech in this situation, and to claim so is disingenuous. You are, IMHO, injecting too much of the current situation onto this potential situation. For that matter, I would daresay that the father at least has the rights to the remains of an abortion in today's situation should he wish to bury his offspring, although why one would want to is beyond me.

But there is no way to make abortion and live removal equal in terms of risk, danger, and consequence. Without artificial support, a ZEF will die before it's even been fully removed. A live removal procedure is, by absolute necessity, far more complicated. Abortion would pale in comparison to live removal in terms to expense, risk to the woman, invasiveness, and time spent on the table.

Talking about it as if that isn't an absolute necessity is a bit like talking about what life might be life if unicorns existed. The nature of a ZEF prohibits these situations from being equal, so there's no point in even addressing it.

Even excluding the pure physical reality of it, the consequence on an ethical level can never be equal either. Some women abort for ethical reasons.

Furthermore, I don't see why the man gets all decision-making power unless the woman gave up all of her rights upon removal. At the point of removal, the man and the woman are now equal.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Dit...it might start out with good intentions but when folks find out the regular way feels too good, that they might want to do it more...but without conceiving....but then the realization hits them that ...what they are doing is really for the purpose to conceive and birth a child.

It gets too complicated...too many people involve somehow...you get the gist...

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

and again, and again, and again.....

 

[Gathomas88]

I know I would at least insofar as it would not be the state's place to determine whether or not the ZEF should come to term. The only interest the state should have in this is that of the rights of the two parents

Naturally, force is the ultimate decision maker. We are looking at what the law should be.

Yes there is. If neither parent wants the ZEF and there is no one that they can agree to give it to then it should be within their right to be rid of it. Not exactly a position I personally agree with, but that is my legal/political stance on it.

Again, however; by this same logic, why should it considered to be illegal or immoral when distraught parents decide to murder their children rather than give them up during custody battles or when threatened by Child Protective Services? The state certainly seems to have the right to decide that the arbitrary ending of human life is unjustifiable under those circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that Children simply are not property. Human life in general cannot be be property.

Any law which stated otherwise would be opening the door for untold barbarism and abuse.

 

[maquiscat]

But there is no way to make abortion and live removal equal in terms of risk, danger, and consequence. Without artificial support, a ZEF will die before it's even been fully removed. A live removal procedure is, by absolute necessity, far more complicated. Abortion would pale in comparison to live removal in terms to expense, risk to the woman, invasiveness, and time spent on the table.

At one point in our medical history, we would have said that it was impossible to remove a heart and replace it with another, or even to access the heart for any kind of surgery without opening up the chest. Now not only can we do complete heart replacement, but many heart surgeries can be done with by a small slit in the abdomen. Please do not try to tell me what we can't do. The best that you can hope for is what we can't do currently.

Now I am not going to even try to guess at how this might be done. I am far from a medical anything shy of first aid. But I can look back and see all the leaps and bounds we've made in medical history and wonder what might we be capable of?

Even excluding the pure physical reality of it, the consequence on an ethical level can never be equal either. Some women abort for ethical reasons.

But a man citing those same ethical reasons, whatever they maybe, has no say. Amazing.

Furthermore, I don't see why the man gets all decision-making power unless the woman gave up all of her rights upon removal. At the point of removal, the man and the woman are now equal.

THIS is a statement that makes me believe that you are too far gone into the rhetoric of the woman's rights. Please show me at what point the man gets all the decision making power in anything I've said. I have held that first and foremost, since it starts in her body, she gets to make the decision on whether to keep it in her body (and consequently allow it to develop) or have it removed. Currently, with the current medical technology, that latter decision automatically equates to an abortion, resulting in the termination of the ZEF. Under the hoped for conditions previously noted, once she's decided to have it removed then the decision goes to the man. (Note there would be an exception for the medical necessity for the ZEF to be transferred to an AU if her body couldn't bring the child to term and she wanted to keep it.) Since the ZEF is as much his creation and it is hers, then he must have the chance to decide to bring it to term and raise it if she's not going to. If neither one wants it then carry on, abortion as normal.

This comes down to an issue of equal rights. Currently, we can't have them because of the medical impossibility the current technology and medical knowledge. But once our technology and science has advanced enough to allow it, then the barrier that would make that lack of equal rights hypocrisy is removed. She will still get first choice in the rights, but they will still be equal rights, with either one able to override the desire of the other to destroy it.

Of course it may all be a moot point because by the time technology and medical science reach a viable AU stage we might also have advance enough that no woman will ever get pregnant unless she intentionally does so. In which case there will be no need to make abortion illegal, because there will be no need for it.

 

[maquiscat]

Again, however; by this same logic, why should it considered to be illegal or immoral when distraught parents decide to murder their children rather than give them up during custody battles or when threatened by Child Protective Services? The state certainly seems to have the right to decide that the arbitrary ending of human life is unjustifiable under those circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that Children simply are not property. Human life in general cannot be be property.

Any law which stated otherwise would be opening the door for untold barbarism and abuse.

In many ways, human life is property. My life is mine to do with as I wish or at least should be. That includes my potential desire to end it at a time of my choosing. And of course in many ways it is not as I can not transfer it to anyone else, or at least not that we are aware of.

The argument can be made that until the ZEF/child has been physically separated from her then it is still part of her. Once separated it is a fully separate entity and falls under a separate set of principles.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

At one point in our medical history, we would have said that it was impossible to remove a heart and replace it with another, or even to access the heart for any kind of surgery without opening up the chest. Now not only can we do complete heart replacement, but many heart surgeries can be done with by a small slit in the abdomen. Please do not try to tell me what we can't do. The best that you can hope for is what we can't do currently.

Now I am not going to even try to guess at how this might be done. I am far from a medical anything shy of first aid. But I can look back and see all the leaps and bounds we've made in medical history and wonder what might we be capable of?

You don't get it.

What you are trying to argue here is the equivalent of saying that not only can we replace a heart, but we can do it without keeping the patient on any kind of life support, and the transplant heart can be left sitting in the sun for 6 hours prior to being transplanted. Yeah, good luck with that.

The ZEF cannot survive even a moment without support. This necessitates something in the uterus to provide support before the removal even begins. There is no way around this. This is just biology 101.

But a man citing those same ethical reasons, whatever they maybe, has no say. Amazing.

If it is not in his body, no, he doesn't, because the person whose body it is in has an overwhelming right due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly impacted, and the only person at risk.

If the ZEF is removed, then he has equal say to the woman.

THIS is a statement that makes me believe that you are too far gone into the rhetoric of the woman's rights. Please show me at what point the man gets all the decision making power in anything I've said. I have held that first and foremost, since it starts in her body, she gets to make the decision on whether to keep it in her body (and consequently allow it to develop) or have it removed. Currently, with the current medical technology, that latter decision automatically equates to an abortion, resulting in the termination of the ZEF. Under the hoped for conditions previously noted, once she's decided to have it removed then the decision goes to the man. (Note there would be an exception for the medical necessity for the ZEF to be transferred to an AU if her body couldn't bring the child to term and she wanted to keep it.) Since the ZEF is as much his creation and it is hers, then he must have the chance to decide to bring it to term and raise it if she's not going to. If neither one wants it then carry on, abortion as normal.

This comes down to an issue of equal rights. Currently, we can't have them because of the medical impossibility the current technology and medical knowledge. But once our technology and science has advanced enough to allow it, then the barrier that would make that lack of equal rights hypocrisy is removed. She will still get first choice in the rights, but they will still be equal rights, with either one able to override the desire of the other to destroy it.

Of course it may all be a moot point because by the time technology and medical science reach a viable AU stage we might also have advance enough that no woman will ever get pregnant unless she intentionally does so. In which case there will be no need to make abortion illegal, because there will be no need for it.

But you aren't arguing for equal rights. You're arguing for "tag, you're it" rights that have nothing to do with the factors in play.

If a ZEF is removed, the man and woman have equal contribution and interest in the ZEF, and should have equal say. If that is what you're saying, which I now can't quite tell, I think you're not saying it clearly.

 

[maquiscat]

But you aren't arguing for equal rights. You're arguing for "tag, you're it" rights that have nothing to do with the factors in play.

If a ZEF is removed, the man and woman have equal contribution and interest in the ZEF, and should have equal say. If that is what you're saying, which I now can't quite tell, I think you're not saying it clearly.

I'm going to start here. In some ways we may well be along the same lines. My argument, if we can assume for the moment that there is a viable, equally or less invasive/trauma-inducing method of getting a ZEF into an AU, is that the woman's option is first removal. At that point then the equal right of both individuals come into play as to the final disposition of the ZEF. If the woman declines removal, then her decision trumps all.

You don't get it.

What you are trying to argue here is the equivalent of saying that not only can we replace a heart, but we can do it without keeping the patient on any kind of life support, and the transplant heart can be left sitting in the sun for 6 hours prior to being transplanted. Yeah, good luck with that.

The ZEF cannot survive even a moment without support. This necessitates something in the uterus to provide support before the removal even begins. There is no way around this. This is just biology 101.

IF I am at any point implying that the ZEF can survive with out some kind of support then I apologize, but that is not what I am saying and I think you may just be reading that point in, with, I admit, a lack of proper explanation on my part. I do not supposed that it's like cut the cord from the mom, pull it out, put it in the AU, attach the cord and all is well. Actually I have no suppositions at all. I can't image what advances we might be able to make. Well I can, and we'll probably go even beyond that eventually. Since we're talking about science-fiction that might become science fact, what if we managed to develop transporter technology? That can certainly fit the bill. I'm not saying that's the only possibility, just the one that comes off the top of my head. Or something could end up being developed that would allow the ZEF to have temporary support between mother and AU.

I think you may be caught up in the here and now of the technology and not thinking of the possibility of the future and if X then what are the new ethics and rights that X brings about. If someone thought that we might actually start sending people into space and to planets in the mid to late 19th century, even if they could not imagine how the mechanics of that would work, could they not have discussed the ethics and right of colonizing the moon and/or other planets? That's where I am at. I realize that even at the most optimal of advances I will most likely never see AU come about. So I am not exactly pushing on the how. I am looking at the potential results. Have you noticed that I've argued with Gathomas that abortion would still be a viable and needed option even if the AU came about?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm going to start here. In some ways we may well be along the same lines. My argument, if we can assume for the moment that there is a viable, equally or less invasive/trauma-inducing method of getting a ZEF into an AU, is that the woman's option is first removal. At that point then the equal right of both individuals come into play as to the final disposition of the ZEF. If the woman declines removal, then her decision trumps all.

Alright, that's clearer.

IF I am at any point implying that the ZEF can survive with out some kind of support then I apologize, but that is not what I am saying and I think you may just be reading that point in, with, I admit, a lack of proper explanation on my part. I do not supposed that it's like cut the cord from the mom, pull it out, put it in the AU, attach the cord and all is well. Actually I have no suppositions at all. I can't image what advances we might be able to make. Well I can, and we'll probably go even beyond that eventually. Since we're talking about science-fiction that might become science fact, what if we managed to develop transporter technology? That can certainly fit the bill. I'm not saying that's the only possibility, just the one that comes off the top of my head. Or something could end up being developed that would allow the ZEF to have temporary support between mother and AU.

I think you may be caught up in the here and now of the technology and not thinking of the possibility of the future and if X then what are the new ethics and rights that X brings about. If someone thought that we might actually start sending people into space and to planets in the mid to late 19th century, even if they could not imagine how the mechanics of that would work, could they not have discussed the ethics and right of colonizing the moon and/or other planets? That's where I am at. I realize that even at the most optimal of advances I will most likely never see AU come about. So I am not exactly pushing on the how. I am looking at the potential results. Have you noticed that I've argued with Gathomas that abortion would still be a viable and needed option even if the AU came about?

Medicine is actually very crude, even now. Even our "amazing" surgeries amount to inserting things into tubes, and burning stuff rather than cutting it. This certainly makes a huge difference for the patient, but let's not kid ourselves about where we are medically. Even our space technology amounts to little more than a gigantic bottle rocket. It looks impressive, but mechanically, it's very simplistic and wasteful, actually.

Short of simply teleporting tissue from one place to another, there is no possible way to make live removal equal to abortion in terms of cost, risk, and severity of the procedure. Let's keep in mind, we can abort using nothing but the woman's natural abilities. We don't have to insert anything at all, and if it weren't for the "disapproval tax" we put on abortion medications and procedures, it would be quite inexpensive.

AU will never, ever compare to that, short of teleportation. Teleporting pieces of organisms is probably not possible, seeing as how teleporting organisms may not even be possible (we don't know for sure because, frankly, our science is still very crude, and this is hundreds if not thousands of years off at the least).

Again, it's a bit like arguing about if unicorns existed. There's no point in talking about it if it can never happen due to the constraints of reality.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Haven't you actually talked to a Conservative lately ?..... They really believe that 99 % of abortions are sought out by women in their 38th week of pregnancy as an alternative to getting their nails done..........................

Some conservatives - I am conservative and pro-choice.

 

[Scrabaholic]

At the moment I can't really prove it, other than to say that I watched the episode. Will look for more sources.

I have no reason to doubt you. I was just wondering how you know. I take you at your word that you watched the episode and it was stated that that is how it was done.

I know they can transplant embryos from cows and horses into other cows and horses - it's done all the time to get more offspring of high quality animals. However, I believe the embryos are flushed before implantation in the uterus.

 

[Scrabaholic]

There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion. Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.

It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.

Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction? You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.

Not everyone believes it's a better alternative. I do not believe in adoption and would never, ever place a child. So, with that in mind, why would I want to allow my embryo to be transferred to the artificial uterus and then the child placed for adoption?

 

[Removable Mind]

How would that be any different than him thinking that the egg donor isn't fit to be a mother?

That's exactly why some of women choose to abort.

A woman can give birth without a father being included on the birth certificate. Happens all the time.

 

[choiceone]

There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion. Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.

It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.

Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction? You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.

If I were impregnated by rape, that pregnancy would end and that embryo would not grow into a viable fetus or be born. I would do anything to avoid that. You'd be surprised how many young women feel that way. It's a violation of your own egg and of your genetic code to combine it with anything from someone who facilitated the combination by force.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not equating this with a pro-life/pro-choice issue. I'm looking at this from the perspective of the rights of each of the biological parents. If a woman finds out her child is to be born with Down's Syndrome and still decides to keep it are you going to say that she shouldn't? So why should not the man get a chance to keep it, under the assumed conditions? If the woman is going to undergo an operation to begin with for an abortion and the removal procedure is such that it holds the same or less risk then what difference does it actually make? You are not forcing a procedure on her. She is getting what she wants, removal of the ZEF. I will always agree that she should have the right to have the ZEF removed, but not, under the given conditions, have the ZEF terminated.

Let me rephrase this.

I would LOVE to see artificial wombs available, for all the women out there that have healthy ova but their uterus can't support a pregnancy. I would love to see it for same-sex couples, along with some kind of recombinant therapy that lets sperm-sperm or egg-egg procreation happen (unlikely, but would still be nifty). I would also love to see them for pregnant women who get in accidents, and rather than lose their precious child they can transfer the fetus to an artificial womb.

What I don't want to see is the creation of artificial wombs so that right-wing idealogues can continue to slut-shame women and force them into pregnancies or transplanting procedures they don't want. We'd still have to come to terms with the social and economic outcomes of creating children that aren't wanted, all because some religious people think that God wants it that way. People who are not ready to be parents should not be forced to have children. I don't if adoption is available... the foster system is hell for most children in it. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants that kind of a life for her unborn or not.

I would hope that such a technology exists in an era where either these anti-abortionists are a relic of the past or unwanted pregnancy prevention is so foolproof that the argument is no longer relevant.

 

[choiceone]

In many ways, human life is property. My life is mine to do with as I wish or at least should be. That includes my potential desire to end it at a time of my choosing. And of course in many ways it is not as I can not transfer it to anyone else, or at least not that we are aware of.

The argument can be made that until the ZEF/child has been physically separated from her then it is still part of her. Once separated it is a fully separate entity and falls under a separate set of principles.

I pretty much like your view, but whether or not you can transfer your life to anyone else, it seems pretty clear to me that in pregnancy a woman is transferring part of her own life to the embryo/fetus.

 

[choiceone]

I'm going to start here. In some ways we may well be along the same lines. My argument, if we can assume for the moment that there is a viable, equally or less invasive/trauma-inducing method of getting a ZEF into an AU, is that the woman's option is first removal. At that point then the equal right of both individuals come into play as to the final disposition of the ZEF. If the woman declines removal, then her decision trumps all.



IF I am at any point implying that the ZEF can survive with out some kind of support then I apologize, but that is not what I am saying and I think you may just be reading that point in, with, I admit, a lack of proper explanation on my part. I do not supposed that it's like cut the cord from the mom, pull it out, put it in the AU, attach the cord and all is well. Actually I have no suppositions at all. I can't image what advances we might be able to make. Well I can, and we'll probably go even beyond that eventually. Since we're talking about science-fiction that might become science fact, what if we managed to develop transporter technology? That can certainly fit the bill. I'm not saying that's the only possibility, just the one that comes off the top of my head. Or something could end up being developed that would allow the ZEF to have temporary support between mother and AU.

I think you may be caught up in the here and now of the technology and not thinking of the possibility of the future and if X then what are the new ethics and rights that X brings about. If someone thought that we might actually start sending people into space and to planets in the mid to late 19th century, even if they could not imagine how the mechanics of that would work, could they not have discussed the ethics and right of colonizing the moon and/or other planets? That's where I am at. I realize that even at the most optimal of advances I will most likely never see AU come about. So I am not exactly pushing on the how. I am looking at the potential results. Have you noticed that I've argued with Gathomas that abortion would still be a viable and needed option even if the AU came about?

Your problem is that there can't be an equally or less invasive way of removing the embryo without aborting it. Right now, medical, i.e., chemical, abortion is highly favored by women. You take a pill and wait, then you take another pill and wait, complications are rare and minor, and as this occurs early in pregnancy, the risks are the lowest. No surgical abortion has the same advantages, so removal of the ZEF by any surgical means for reimplantation elsewhere is not going to be equally or less invasive.

 

[maquiscat]

That's exactly why some of women choose to abort.

Hold on, she thinks he's not fit to be a father and as such can abort because she doesn't want either of them to have the child, yet he can't make an opposite decision? Can you not see how this flies in the face of father rights? I'm not trying to say that father rights trump the woman's right to her body. And under current conditions, there is no alternative. But with an AU that can change. That's my point here is now there is a viable alternative to allowing the father rights to be equal to the mother's rights.

A woman can give birth without a father being included on the birth certificate. Happens all the time.

Doesn't make it right and he can still later sue for custody/visitation should he find out. Why should this be limited to post birth? Why have we shifted from the father having all the rights (which was wrong) to the mother having all the rights. They both made the child and short of signing away these rights prior to, his rights are not simply gone.

If I were impregnated by rape, that pregnancy would end and that embryo would not grow into a viable fetus or be born. I would do anything to avoid that. You'd be surprised how many young women feel that way. It's a violation of your own egg and of your genetic code to combine it with anything from someone who facilitated the combination by force.

Impregnation by force should be an automatic abrogation of any parental rights of the person doing the forcing. That includes under the conditions of the AU's existence.

Let me rephrase this.

I would LOVE to see artificial wombs available, for all the women out there that have healthy ova but their uterus can't support a pregnancy. I would love to see it for same-sex couples, along with some kind of recombinant therapy that lets sperm-sperm or egg-egg procreation happen (unlikely, but would still be nifty). I would also love to see them for pregnant women who get in accidents, and rather than lose their precious child they can transfer the fetus to an artificial womb.

Agreed, this should be the main reason and focus for the creation of AU's. I actually have an idea on the bolded part but that would be for another thread and another section altogether.

What I don't want to see is the creation of artificial wombs so that right-wing idealogues can continue to slut-shame women and force them into pregnancies or transplanting procedures they don't want. We'd still have to come to terms with the social and economic outcomes of creating children that aren't wanted, all because some religious people think that God wants it that way. People who are not ready to be parents should not be forced to have children. I don't if adoption is available... the foster system is hell for most children in it. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants that kind of a life for her unborn or not.

I agree with you, save maybe in the forcing of the transplant assuming that it is no more or less invasive/traumatic than the abortion process. I do not see how someone who ends up fathering a child through a consensual relationship wanting to keep said child is slut-shaming to women. She certainly wasn't forced to get pregnant and I'm not seeking, under the AU assumption, to keep her pregnant. I'm not talking about, on this thread, the use of the AU to simply stop abortion from occurring at all. I am talking about its use to prevent abortion in the case where the father wants the child even if the mother doesn't, and yet still allow the mother to be rid of the ZEF from her body. Hell this isn't even a religious argument. It's strictly looking at the father's rights which cannot under current circumstances be rightfully enforced.

I pretty much like your view, but whether or not you can transfer your life to anyone else, it seems pretty clear to me that in pregnancy a woman is transferring part of her own life to the embryo/fetus.

You might be able to make that argument for blood transfer as well. But in a pregnancy is she really? Or is merely the conduit for the transfer of energy/life/whatever that comes from her eating and breathing and all that? But let's not delve too far along that lines. However, I'd be up to discussing it on another thread.

Your problem is that there can't be an equally or less invasive way of removing the embryo without aborting it. Right now, medical, i.e., chemical, abortion is highly favored by women. You take a pill and wait, then you take another pill and wait, complications are rare and minor, and as this occurs early in pregnancy, the risks are the lowest. No surgical abortion has the same advantages, so removal of the ZEF by any surgical means for reimplantation elsewhere is not going to be equally or less invasive.

You are looking at it by the current level of knowledge and technology. As I have noted before, I cannot even begin to guess at what kind of advances we will make in the future. We may find out that the pill method actually has long term side effect that we've not detected yet (no I am not arguing against the pill method). For that matter we may develop a method that will prevent any female from getting pregnant unless she makes a conscious effort to do so, thus rendering abortion moot. Logan's Law #3: Don't ever say never. You can think that we will never come up with a procedure that will make transplanting less or equally invasive than abortion, and I agree that current medical knowledge and technology would indicate that, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Like I said earlier in the thread, we at one point in our medical history said it was impossible to perform heart surgery without fully opening up the chest. Look where we are now. Imagine where we might be and what wonders we might have by say the 23rd century.

 

[Removable Mind]

Hold on, she thinks he's not fit to be a father and as such can abort because she doesn't want either of them to have the child, yet he can't make an opposite decision? Can you not see how this flies in the face of father rights? I'm not trying to say that father rights trump the woman's right to her body. And under current conditions, there is no alternative. But with an AU that can change. That's my point here is now there is a viable alternative to allowing the father rights to be equal to the mother's rights.

You're the only one of the two of us who believes that a sperm donor has automatic rights. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't unless she wants to invite him in on the conception. How would he know otherwise?

 

[maquiscat]

You're the only one of the two of us who believes that a sperm donor has automatic rights. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't unless she wants to invite him in on the conception. How would he know otherwise?

Of the two of us, but not the only one. Knowledge is irrelevant to one's rights. If you don't realize that you have a right to free speech, does that mean that someone allowed to deprive you of it? No. It may be relative to whether or not he can take action based upon those rights, but it does not abridge those right.