Erick89

Abortion/Rights of the Unborn

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

Unborn: no rights. Born: rights. There is, therefore, no "supercede." The issue of abortion sans Obectivism, but in rights' land, is another, very difficult matter depending on depth of pregnancy, in the great, but now for me, very boring debate.

--Brant

hey!--where did the "life-to-righters" go to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

Erick:

Welcome to OL - nice starting post. I would refer you to the following thread where there was a rather heated discussion...

Abortion

I am of the opinion that the Objectivist position on abortion is not defensible and as technology exponentially develops, there will be no justification for killing a human being that could survive outside the womb even in the first trimester.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

Erick:

Welcome to OL - nice starting post. I would refer you to the following thread where there was a rather heated discussion...

Abortion

I am of the opinion that the Objectivist position on abortion is not defensible and as technology exponentially develops, there will be no justification for killing a human being that could survive outside the womb even in the first trimester.

Adam

"Will be" ain't now. There will always be the psychological justification respecting the woman's right to her own body and life. Sperm meets the egg--right to life (of who, what?), Mom gets screwed once again. The first in the active voice, the second in the passive, assuming she had wanted to be fucked to begin with. Screw her? Screw you! Get a life! Rape? Oops! Women get raped, by psychiatry, by philosophers, by culture, by men folks--fuck 'em all! Get 'em coming and get 'em going! Just remember! Fuck 'em! Fuck 'em! and Fuck 'em some more! In the rear, in the front, in the culture and in the cunt--any damn way you want!

--Brant

FUCK!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

All justifications of "rights", without exception, are based on value decisions which then find their way into formuated law.

One can see at once that this is a dynamic process subject to permanent transformation. If it weren't, rights would never have been changed.

But this is exactly what occurs all the time, the abortion issue being an illustrative example.

So the discusion is really about one's reasons for either attributing enough value (or not enough value) to a developing embryo or fetus, which implies either protecting it from destruction (or which, in the opposite case, does not imply this protection).

Since we humans naturally feel bad about 'destroying' (albeit not yet fully developed) human life, a lot of effort has been put into establishing a 'reference point' that determines since when a developing embryo/fetus it to be regarded as a "human being".

For It makes big psychological difference to us if we regard an embryo merely as a "mass of cells", or see in it a lving being with an already beating heart, etc.

What further complicates matters is the social context in which the abortion issue is being discussed. For it can be a very slippery slope to base ethical questions on nature and biology alone. Just think of e. g. pregnancies that are the result of rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then given the very real possibility that our country is on the verge, with the upcoming election for president, of becoming, in the extreme, a totalitarian dictatorship if BHO is re elected, whilst we have the possibility of instead electing either a businessman who might be well intentioned but oblivious to the dangers which await, so he might not take the actions a more knowledgeable person would take to avert catastrophe, leaving us in a still severe financial downturn perhaps in the extreme a hyperinflationary depression.

However there is the potential for there to be on stage a man who would guide us through the coming hard times using his wisdom of Austrian economics to a much softer landing with brief periods of unemployment and shortages. Even Nassim Taleb has said that only one candidate has the right policies to deal with the challenges facing us regardless of his chances of becoming our next president.

However this savior considers that a fertilized ovum is a very real person with a right to life from the moment of conception! He contends that the right to life of the single microscopic ovum takes precedence over the rights of the mother including her right to freedom of action to abort.

Given that the future of mankind is at stake in the near future in our country would you vote to elect a man to the presidency who holds such a medieval view of the status of a pregnant woman?

It turns out to be an emergency situation, the proverbial lifeboat case. Someone has to be thrown overboard in order for the rest to survive.

In a situation where everyone in the world faces hardships it might be wiser to forbid abortions so that there is a future generation rather than have everyone abort on their own sealing the fate of mankind.

Watch the Crash Course at www.chrismartenson.com

And whatever you do support Ron Paul's efforts to become the nominee within the despicable Republican Party which is being infiltrated by a growing, youthful, energetic, knowledgeable, pro individual freedom loving, movement which will never give up until the vision of Alexander Hamilton, which we have now, is replaced by the vision of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Join us!

www.ronpaul2012.com

www.ronpaul.com

www.dailypaul.com

google Ron Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Erick,

The Objectivist position is not so solid that it does not make for on-going argument on abortion.

I think this is a good thing.

Where it is rock solid is on individual rights vs. government intervention.

Under objective law, abortion is the business of the mother. Period.

Rand: "Abortion is a moral right - which should be left to the sole discretion of the mother involved."

And: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. ...The living takes precedence over the not-yet-living. ..to equate a potential with an actual, is vicious."

That's the standing as far as rights are concerned. A change of government, for instance, cannot review or modify anything. Morality is not the State's business.

So beneath the rights of the mother, and over-lapping, comes the morality issue. It's important to make clear that an action which is within one's rights to take, can and may be objectively immoral. (NOT religiously so.)

Rand very rightly (my opinion) did not specify how late or how early abortion should take place, and didn't directly mention viability of the foetus. She did say "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."

This exhibits to me a certain amount of discomfort, by her, at post-first trimester abortion.

However, she left up to the individual woman to choose how soon, or late - morally.

As a doctor friend of mine says, it is a choice not between the good and the bad, but between the bad and the worse.

I tend to agree.

My opinion is an abortion should only take place well before the foetus can be viable. (Obviously, we're ignoring the question of a mother's safety, and emergency abortions). Further I would consider irrational/immoral a woman who often and regularly had abortions as a casual 'birth-control device'. (And the man too - if it were always the same man.)

Long after embryo-viability, if she's left the decision this late, the woman should take self-responsibility for the baby - or opt and plan for adoption.

To repeat, these last are my own opinions, and other O'ists might argue otherwise: But to have rights, doesn't necessarily make it right. Also, a "potential" is still a potential - while it cannot ever be compared with the "actual".

Welcome!

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

Erick I am right there with you. This is the one area where Ayn Rand does not apply her own principles. As far as I am concerned abortion is the same as drugging someone, bringing them into your home, then shooting them because you think they are a nuisance. Actions have consequences.

Is the Fetus a human? Yes.

Has the Fetus initiated the use of force? No.

The fact that the fetus is unconscious does not negate its rights, if that were the case than we could shoot someone as long as they were sleeping, and not in REM.

Rand and other objectivists say that the fetus is initiating force. This however I have never been able to understand, an egg is not human it is a human egg, a sperm is not human it is a human sperm, separate they have no rights because they are not a human. They follow their nature, and a human is conceived. This being the case, the human fetus has no choice but to come into existence. because the man and woman did not take proper precaution is no reason to punish a third party.

This subject is one reason I am so interested in the artificial womb that was created last year. It exposes both sides (the pro-life and pro-choice), the pro-lifers do not care about the unborn child they only care that the mother be forced to have the child and take care of it, the "pro-choice" crowd don't care about a woman's right to choose, but only about perpetuation of lack of consequences for ones actions.

I do make an exception in my opposition to abortion. My exception is not rape and incest as the third party should not be injured, it is instead in the case of defective children (yes I acknowledge it as a child), and ectopic pregnancies, though with the artificial womb my position on the latter will change when they can safely move the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand and other objectivists say that the fetus is initiating force.

Can you provide any quotes by Rand and other Objectivists where they say that?

I do make an exception in my opposition to abortion. My exception is not rape and incest as the third party should not be injured, it is instead in the case of defective children (yes I acknowledge it as a child), and ectopic pregnancies, though with the artificial womb my position on the latter will change when they can safely move the fetus.

"Defective" children have no right to life then in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think a mother should have more rights before she is born than after she is born? Think of that and its consequences, and the issue becomes clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why state your suppositions without supporting them?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why state your suppositions without supporting them?

--Brant

New born brains are deficient in neural interconnections. And for good reason. Brain large enough to function would make the skull of the newborn too large to pass though the vaginal opening of the mother. Humans are born half-baked. It takes a few months before a newborn has enough physical equipment in its skull to start becoming a person.

You might find the following of interest.

http://servizi.psice.unibo.it/uploads/luci_pmvnyqvywclswwbnkzaqudhcspqprk.pdf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why state your suppositions without supporting them?

--Brant

New born brains are deficient in neural interconnections. And for good reason. Brain large enough to function would make the skull of the newborn too large to pass though the vaginal opening of the mother. Humans are born half-baked. It takes a few months before a newborn has enough physical equipment in its skull to start becoming a person.

You might find the following of interest.

http://servizi.psice...qudhcspqprk.pdf

Ba'al Chatzaf

And old people with dementia lose their personhoods and right to rights?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why state your suppositions without supporting them?

--Brant

New born brains are deficient in neural interconnections. And for good reason. Brain large enough to function would make the skull of the newborn too large to pass though the vaginal opening of the mother. Humans are born half-baked. It takes a few months before a newborn has enough physical equipment in its skull to start becoming a person.

You might find the following of interest.

http://servizi.psice...qudhcspqprk.pdf

Ba'al Chatzaf

And old people with dementia lose their personhoods and right to rights?

--Brant

Their rights are guaranteed by law, if not by nature.

I was talking about the ability to be a person. Newborns do not yet have it. Unborns do not have it. Old folks afflicted with senility still have some of their abilities. Their overall performance is degraded by age and degeneration. Old folks can still be persons unless they are in a permanent coma.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

First let's have a definition. From Ayn Rand Lexicon:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

Rights, as defined by Ayn Rand, don't make sense when we are talking about things that don't have an ability to act. Does a fetus have an ability to act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

I had some questions regarding the Objectivist positions on abortion and the rights of the fetus/child that I was hoping someone could clarify. At what point, from conception to adulthood, does a person attain their rights (or, at least the most basic right to life)? I do see how a fetus is not afforded rights within the first trimester, since it is at that point little more than matter and, therefore, afforded no more rights than an animal; however, at some point during prenatal development, is it not afforded the right to life? (I don't mean to diminish the woman's right, and could certainly see how, if her life were in jeopardy from pregnancy, an abortion would be entirely morally permissable.) I have read all the Objectivist non-fiction and agree with it, but have not heard any convincing argument by Rand that the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. Thanks for your replies.

First let's have a definition. From Ayn Rand Lexicon:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

Rights, as defined by Ayn Rand, don't make sense when we are talking about things that don't have an ability to act. Does a fetus have an ability to act?

Yes. It's called "the quickening."

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BaalChatzafl

Please define person.

This is a word game which I have seen used, acknowledging a fetus is a human but not a person. It breaks down however once you really start to examine the question of Person. If someone who is unconscious are they a person? can I kill them? that seems to be your argument. Your argument is taken from the wrong end. You take a position and then attempt to invent definitions to fit.

as for your argument that someone is old but have degraded facilities does not stand water. The circumstances are the same. It goes to the objection over my allowance for defective children. The rational question is "Define defective", at some level all mutations are defective. I am defining a Defective child not just as someone with a cleft foot or the like, but someone that has no productive value, and has no chance of living on their own. Why productive value? Because if the person has productive value like say they are born paralyzed for some reason they can hire someone to take care of them in the ways they need assistance. There is a difference between a child which has untrained sentient faculties, and a sub-sentient being. These severely retarded "people" are kind and gentle, they however are not human, nor are they or can they become people. I classify them as a sub-species of Homo on par with homo-neanderthalensis. Does this mean that I condemn people who choose to have these defective children? Not at all, as long as they don't expect me to take care of it. I do however view children which can pass such defective genes on as a threat, and believe they should be sterilized. This is as opposed to those who's defect is not genetic. As Heinlein put it in one of his books "Everybody wants to see the gene pool cleaned up in everyone else's family."

I can Hear it now "HITLER!". not quite. For the most part I believe in voluntary eugenics(based on genes not race which is an idiotic concept). The exception are those who are not sentient and those who have diseases contactable by children, for me parents of AIDS babies should be thrashed at least, and allowed to make a very short drop at best.

If a woman or a man wants to be sexually irresponsible let them get sterilized, after all it can be undone if they decide to change their mind later.

The point? My definitions are rationally consistent.

Jts

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

And according to Objectivist Philosophy this means that every man has the right to their own life, and that no one may initiate force against that individual. The fetus does NOT initiate force, it cannot, it can only act in accordance with its nature.

The Fetus can and does act, and like any human it acts i within its environment. The fact that the environment is a womb does not change it being human, nor does it change the fact that in the primitive manner of a child its choices are limited. Your definition if followed to its logical ends leads to infanticide. If you support that fine but let us know so we at least know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BaalChatzafl

Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend.

There is a self-reflexive loop in human consciousness that is a necessary condition for being a person.

It is a recursion which machines are not capable of.

Humans can stand between two mental mirrors and see large number (or perhaps) an infinity of relfections.

I know. I know that I know. I know that I know that I know.... The fact that we can recognize any sentence in this implied series is a reason to think we can do the recursion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not sure if this was directed at me. If so...

Unborn are "un-persons" as you put it. That was the point of my post, I was showing the consequences of treating something as a human life with rights since as a result of giving them legal protection. In this case if an unborn non-person has rights, a women has more rights before she is born than after she is born. Slippery slope indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Unborn are "un-persons" as you put it. That was the point of my post, I was showing the consequences of treating something as a human life with rights since as a result of giving them legal protection. In this case if an unborn non-person has rights, a women has more rights before she is born than after she is born. Slippery slope indeed.

Dan/Bob,

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act might interest you [bolded part in italics mine]:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BaalChatzafl

Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend.

There is a self-reflexive loop in human consciousness that is a necessary condition for being a person.

It is a recursion which machines are not capable of.

Humans can stand between two mental mirrors and see large number (or perhaps) an infinity of relfections.

I know. I know that I know. I know that I know that I know.... The fact that we can recognize any sentence in this implied series is a reason to think we can do the recursion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So again I ask. Is it legal to kill a sleeping person? They are not self aware. Also again as stated before children especially young ones are not self aware, are you saying it should be legal to kill 3 month olds? If yes at least you are being consistent, if not what is the difference? According to your own definition children are not persons.

As far as your comment about computers they are not currently self aware, but that has a lot to do with how many of the AI programs are designed. Consciousness requires a number of things to come into existence, if they attempted to model their programs on the development of children they would discover that we currently have the technology to develop self aware computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common fallacies of abortion supporters

The beating heart fallacy "Its a child when it has a beating heart". So if someone has their heart replaced with an artificial heart they no longer have a right to life?

The "Brain function" fallacy. "When it has brain activity it is a child." There are a number of problems with this argument. here are two; 1) we know very little about the brain. 2) Is the brain of a fetus dispersed in the beginning? (ie is there a distinction between the body of the fetus and its brain).

The "It doesn't yet look human" fallacy. So if someone is born that doesn't "look" human then they are not human? If we create another sentient species do we have the right to kill it simply because it does not look like us?

The "person" Fallacy. This is my personal favorite, namely because its a logic trap waiting to happen. What is a person? there are hundreds of answers and all have their own little delicious twist. I will here however use an example given here.

"Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend." According to this definitions it should be legal to kill a child so long as they are not self aware. After all a one day old baby is not self aware. (Side question Is a blind, def, mute self aware? if so when?)

People that usually use this argument do not intend to include babies already born in their definition however any definition they give can always be used to justify infanticide.

The "Its a parasite dependent on the mother" fallacy. Again so is an infant or even a small child. The definition of parasite does not require the being be on the inside, that is just most often where parasites are often found. Anyone who accepts this definition must also allow that it is perfectly legal for a mother to abandoned her child any time and any where she sees fit. Further no one may interfere with the child if the mother so chooses as it is HER parasite. (this argument I sometimes call the child as property fallacy)

The real reason why people support abortion.

These are just a few of the more common fallacies that are used by people who support abortion. It is interesting when you examine their arguments logically however and follow them to their natural conclusion. It is however even more interesting when one examines peoples motives for supporting abortion. I usually find that there are two reasons. The first is that it is inherited. The second is that it is a justification. Like genes people inherit idea's and while we have many unique thoughts most of them are inherited by previous generations. The "my body my choice" was never a rational argument but a rationalizing argument from a group of women who hoped to exterminate certain "races" by making it more readily available to them. As for the men... well you never have to worry that your mistress is going to come home to your wife with your baby.

The justification

It is extremely difficult to use reason in an argument with a woman who has had an abortion, which means she fights all the harder to deny reason. The perpetuation of abortion is a way of validating having had an abortion. No? or How? If she ever recognizes abortion as wrong that then means she is guilty of a horrible crime. Forget the fact that she was misled, or that she was deliberately made blind to what she was doing. Forget that she was under emotional distress at the time, and even forget that millions of people like me do not blame her or hold her guilty of any crime. She MUST blame herself for murder.

The distinction.

How can you not consider what she did murder? It is simple, murder is a deliberate, malicious, act of killing. Most women who have abortions have never really thought about the question of is the fetus human. This is why groups like planned parenthood try to get young girls in their doors, get them before they are able to really examine the question of what they are doing, they will be customers for life.

Something to notice

Isnt it interesting that no one ever recommend to these women that they have their tubes tied? With today's technology it is a reversible procedure so why is that never an option? Men i'm not absolving you either, if you don't want kids why don't you have a vasectomy? Such things are much more cost effective than having an abortion, especially when it comes to women who use abortion as birth control. So why not? Because the cultural psychology some how views men and women who cant have babies as being less. It is better to be able to have a baby and abort it than it is to not be able to have a baby even if the process is reversible.

The Artificial Womb

Last year an Artificial Womb was successfully created. When having a conversation about abortion regardless of which side you are on and see how irrational the other persons response is. The common opposite responses are;

1) God is against artificial wombs

2) My body my choice

starting in reverse order. We have removed the question of my body my choice. For the sake of argument assume for a minute that the cost of transfer is equal too or less than the cost of an abortion, would you support outlawing abortion? No? why not? because its psychological. In the vast majority of cases the fact that the child is out their changes the mothers view on wanting to give it up. This is why there are so many last minute changes in cases of after birth adoptions. Now the god is against argument. Does the bible say he is against artificial wombs? Does it even hint to it? If you reject it because its artificial then you must also reject heart bypasses, air planes, dental work, artificial hands, etc. When you add in artificial wombs the same irrationalities become much more clear. But especially for the pro abortion people. After all you are simply talking about moving a parasite from a woman's body to outside her body so why is it a problem? psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Artificial Womb

Last year an Artificial Womb was successfully created.

Has a real live functional human infant ever been born from an "artificial womb"? If not, please do write us when it happens. If so, please provide documentation supporting the assertion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...