[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Hispida]

No. This is just wrong. I invite you to read the available medical research. Vaccine effectiveness has been quite high. I'm not asking you to just believe me, but please, please, please look at the data. One example. I have a literal list with thirty or forty sources for this though. And I will post them all if my hand is forced.

I am going by people I know personally including family. I had covid and so did my Mother, Aunt, Uncle and nephews and none of us were vaccinated. We all recovered with bed rest at home. My brother and his family got vaccinated and all got covid, my brother the worst, and he had a bad reaction to the vaccine. Everyone at my work place got it, vaccinated or not with no differences.

and i got vaccinated for covid. i had nausea for a few days and that was that. i've never had covid.

i guess that means the vaccines are foolproof and prevent people from ever getting covid.

anecdotes are meaningless. back up anything you say with data; but again, this goes to the covid thread, not the abortion thread.

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

[Godular]

I am going by people I know personally including family. I had covid and so did my Mother, Aunt, Uncle and nephews and none of us were vaccinated. We all recovered with bed rest at home. My brother and his family got vaccinated and all got covid, my brother the worst, and he had a bad reaction to the vaccine. Everyone at my work place got it, vaccinated or not with no differences.

and i got vaccinated for covid. i had nausea for a few days and that was that. i've never had covid.

i guess that means the vaccines are foolproof and prevent people from ever getting covid.

anecdotes are meaningless. back up anything you say with data; but again, this goes to the covid thread, not the abortion thread.

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

Too far into the realm of science fiction to be a feasible topic.

[Laasmistan]

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

Yes, thank you. I was trying to get the thread back on track, but it seems it didn't work. I'll copy/paste my post here for those who may have missed it:

Okay, for the sake of discussion, consider the following scenario: artificial wombs exist allowing women to extract the fetuses from their own wombs and implanting them into those instead. They allow the child to develop as it normally would within a natural womb. Once the child is ready to be born the mother is given a choice to keep the child or give it up for adoption. Would you all still be in favour of abortion rights then? Yes or no? Why?

[Hispida]

and i got vaccinated for covid. i had nausea for a few days and that was that. i've never had covid.

i guess that means the vaccines are foolproof and prevent people from ever getting covid.

anecdotes are meaningless. back up anything you say with data; but again, this goes to the covid thread, not the abortion thread.

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

Too far into the realm of science fiction to be a feasible topic.

still an interesting topic, admittedly.

[Reploid Productions]

Reminder: This is not the COVID thread or the Christian discussion thread. This is the one about abortion. Let's stay on topic.

[Tarsonis]

A condom does not address the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, not unless you're buying it from the vending machine inside a TARDIS.

---

I bet that's not true.

Actually, Islam and Judaism are both AOK with abortion.

All of the Abrahamic Religions are, actually. Except for Christianity, but even then, before the 1800's it was fine with it, before the Catholic Church against it, followed a few decades after by Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

So Christianity was ok with abortion between 25 BC-1800/1900 AD, and then Catholicism decided to shit the bed, again.

Won't speak for the other 2, but this is also a gross misrepresentation of fact on NHA's part. The relationship between Christianity and Abortion is a long and complicated one, but there's never been a time where Christianity doctrinally endorsed abortion. Explicit condemnation of abortion can be found in the Didache and several other 1st/2nd century works. How this condemnation was understood over time varied in severity and specificity. Disagreemements over abortion were not over its sinfulness or not, but rather what type of sin it was, and, much like today, when life/ensoulment actually began. It's fair to say that some figures were more permisive at times than others, but at no time was it ever sanctioned. Punishments varied from place to place and time to time, untill in the 16th century it was made excomunicable without restraint in the West.

Indeed the moral debate on abortion as we know it to day, i.e "a right to abortion" was a product of the 20th century.

Reminder: This is not the COVID thread or the Christian discussion thread. This is the one about abortion. Let's stay on topic.

Appoligies didn't see this and wont comment further, but some egregious misinformation on the subject was put out and needed correcting.

[The Pacific Northwest]

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

Yes, thank you. I was trying to get the thread back on track, but it seems it didn't work. I'll copy/paste my post here for those who may have missed it:

Okay, for the sake of discussion, consider the following scenario: artificial wombs exist allowing women to extract the fetuses from their own wombs and implanting them into those instead. They allow the child to develop as it normally would within a natural womb. Once the child is ready to be born the mother is given a choice to keep the child or give it up for adoption. Would you all still be in favour of abortion rights then? Yes or no? Why?

For me, it’s not about life, personhood, or innocence. It’s about bodily autonomy. The fetus didn’t actively choose to exist, so it didn’t do anything wrong in my eyes. There’s no malice. But to me the right to choose what you do or don’t do with your body is most important. I’m sure no one is pro choice for the specific reason of “killing babies”. It’s about bodily autonomy. Both the woman and the zygote/embryo/fetus are comprised of human cells, and those cells are alive. The woman didn’t do anything wrong, and neither did the fetus. So bodily autonomy is the deciding factor.

Artificial wombs would remove any moral dilemma in my opinion. If you put it in a machine instead, then no one’s autonomy is being violated. The fetus gets to do its thing and not negatively affect anyone else. There would be no pregnancy related health risks and discomfort for the mother if she’s not pregnant. If such technology were available (for everyone not just the rich) then having am abortion would be unreasonable in most circumstances. It could also be used to help women who are infertile depending on the cause, and if we’re assuming it would be possible to transfer it at any stage of development, it would actually make ectopic pregnancies viable, as well as pregnancies that need terminated late due to major health problems that have arisen in the mother. Of course with severe deformities like anencephaly or bilateral renal agenesis there wouldn’t really be a point in transferring it to a machine since it won’t survive. So barring that, I wouldn’t see a good reason for an abortion.

Of course the foster care and adoption system would need a major overhaul as well. Otherwise the technology would only be beneficial, unless there’s something I’m not considering. Unfortunately I really don’t think it’s possible.

[Laasmistan]

Yes, thank you. I was trying to get the thread back on track, but it seems it didn't work. I'll copy/paste my post here for those who may have missed it:

Okay, for the sake of discussion, consider the following scenario: artificial wombs exist allowing women to extract the fetuses from their own wombs and implanting them into those instead. They allow the child to develop as it normally would within a natural womb. Once the child is ready to be born the mother is given a choice to keep the child or give it up for adoption. Would you all still be in favour of abortion rights then? Yes or no? Why?

For me, it’s not about life, personhood, or innocence. It’s about bodily autonomy. The fetus didn’t actively choose to exist, so it didn’t do anything wrong in my eyes. There’s no malice. But to me the right to choose what you do or don’t do with your body is most important. I’m sure no one is pro choice for the specific reason of “killing babies”. It’s about bodily autonomy. Both the woman and the zygote/embryo/fetus are comprised of human cells, and those cells are alive. The woman didn’t do anything wrong, and neither did the fetus. So bodily autonomy is the deciding factor.

Artificial wombs would remove any moral dilemma in my opinion. If you put it in a machine instead, then no one’s autonomy is being violated. The fetus gets to do its thing and not negatively affect anyone else. There would be no pregnancy related health risks and discomfort for the mother if she’s not pregnant. If such technology were available (for everyone not just the rich) then having am abortion would be unreasonable in most circumstances. It could also be used to help women who are infertile depending on the cause, and since we’re assuming it would be possible to transfer it at any stage of development, it would actually make ectopic pregnancies viable, as well as pregnancies that need terminated late due to major health problems that have arisen in the mother. Of course with severe deformities like anencephaly or bilateral renal agenesis there wouldn’t really be a point in transferring it to a machine since it won’t survive. So barring that, I wouldn’t see a good reason for an abortion.

Of course the foster care and adoption system would need a major overhaul as well. Otherwise the technology would only be beneficial, unless there’s something I’m not considering. Unfortunately I really don’t think it’s possible.

Alright, thanks for your answer. I pretty much agree with everything you said here. And yes, the scenario is assuming the transfer can happen at any stage of pregnancy and it's readily available technology to those who need it. It's definitely an interesting hypothetical to consider and if science actually did this then I think it would be a wonderful compromise for those on both sides of the abortion debate. The transfer would not even be mandatory either so those who want to be pregnant still could be.

[New Goshen]

I am going by people I know personally including family. I had covid and so did my Mother, Aunt, Uncle and nephews and none of us were vaccinated. We all recovered with bed rest at home. My brother and his family got vaccinated and all got covid, my brother the worst, and he had a bad reaction to the vaccine. Everyone at my work place got it, vaccinated or not with no differences.

and i got vaccinated for covid. i had nausea for a few days and that was that. i've never had covid.

i guess that means the vaccines are foolproof and prevent people from ever getting covid.

anecdotes are meaningless. back up anything you say with data; but again, this goes to the covid thread, not the abortion thread.

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

I would think it would be a game changer. I can't see why anyone would object.

[New haven america]

Reminder: This is not the COVID thread or the Christian discussion thread. This is the one about abortion. Let's stay on topic.

Maybe the religious fundamentalists could stop arguing against it only on religious grounds...

[Spirit of Hope]

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

I'm all for medical advances, though I doubt they will be a viable replacement for abortion anytime in the near term.

[Tarsonis]

and i got vaccinated for covid. i had nausea for a few days and that was that. i've never had covid.

i guess that means the vaccines are foolproof and prevent people from ever getting covid.

anecdotes are meaningless. back up anything you say with data; but again, this goes to the covid thread, not the abortion thread.

back on topic: artifical wombs. yea or nay?

I would think it would be a game changer. I can't see why anyone would object.

1. All of Brave New World. Like,... all of it

2. Too much unknown. Pregnancy isn't just like a stasis chamber in which child is formed free of outside influence. There's integral bonding on a subconscious level that happens during pregnancy, and the relationship between mother and offspring is already forming. This is why people put headphones on their stomach and play classical music.

There's no telling what affect development removed from this natural integration could have on children.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

There's no telling what affect development removed from this natural integration could have on children.

Relevant

[The Black Forrest]

And in preserving the purported right to life and liberty of a fetus which is incapable of feeling any semblance of pain or anguish, you are denying the same to women who are actually capable of appreciating that your self-righteous moralizing has thoroughly fucked them over.

That is absolute nonsense. There is no way you can prove the unborn baby can't feel pain. "Silent Scream proves the baby feels fear. The people claiming that film is misleading are wrong. All anyone on your side can argue is that somehow abortion is a justifiable homicide. To me, abortion is a holocaust and those doing abortions are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Ahh very zealoty statements. Hard core Christian? Muslim? No need to answer; don’t care.

Now. Do you know when the pain receptors activate?

Silent Scream is a pile of garbage. It’s only useful for “preaching to the choir”

Homicde, halocaust, crimes against humanity? Now you are just being silly.

[Laasmistan]

That is absolute nonsense. There is no way you can prove the unborn baby can't feel pain. "Silent Scream proves the baby feels fear. The people claiming that film is misleading are wrong. All anyone on your side can argue is that somehow abortion is a justifiable homicide. To me, abortion is a holocaust and those doing abortions are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Ahh very zealoty statements. Hard core Christian? Muslim? No need to answer; don’t care.

Now. Do you know when the pain receptors activate?

Silent Scream is a pile of garbage. It’s only useful for “preaching to the choir”

Homicde, halocause, crimes against humanity? Now you are just being silly.

Definitely not a Muslim as Islam generally permits abortion.

[The Black Forrest]

this is hardly evidence of anything, and even if it was, the laws of a country overrule the views of a group of people. i say this as a christian --- the bible should have no bearing on the laws of a country.

That is not why am posting this. I was challenged to show how God sees a fetus. I know most really don't care.

What was that Render on to Caesar thing?

Why would a non-Christian care about your views of a fetus?

That was the beauty that was Roe. You don’t want to have an abortion? Don’t do it. Nobody cared.

[The Pacific Northwest]

I would think it would be a game changer. I can't see why anyone would object.

1. All of Brave New World. Like,... all of it

2. Too much unknown. Pregnancy isn't just like a stasis chamber in which child is formed free of outside influence. There's integral bonding on a subconscious level that happens during pregnancy, and the relationship between mother and offspring is already forming. This is why people put headphones on their stomach and play classical music.

There's no telling what affect development removed from this natural integration could have on children.

I admittedly have not read Brave New World, I’ve only heard snippets about it from various literature classes.

My understanding wasn’t that it’s the existence of artificial wombs that are the problem, it’s the government and society going to extreme lengths to control people and keep them complacent. Pregnancy being disgraceful and those artificial wombs being how new babies are made is just a part of that, it’s not the reason for it.

As for bonding, there’s still no guarantee the mother won’t be neglectful or abusive no matter what happens. Someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant isn’t going to do any special bonding activities like playing music for it. And if the child is going into foster care or being adopted by someone else then that doesn’t really matter.

And I suppose there is no way to know realistically considering it’s not really possible anywhere in the near future, but the scenario is assuming it’s perfectly safe. If given the option, I would rather let it develop in an artificial womb than force someone to remain pregnant against their will or have an abortion. And if it’s an ectopic pregnancy or late term abortion due to eclampsia or something then the options in that scenario are abortion, mom dying, or artificial womb. And it would also solve fertility issues for some women.

I feel like a old dystopian novel in which people happen to be grown in machines as a method of control and bonding don’t really negate the positive benefits of being able to salvage a fetus during any stage of development and a women not needing to deal with the negative risks and effects of pregnancy at all if they don’t want to. I highly doubt developing in an artificial womb is going to cause all the babies to be evil or something.

[The Black Forrest]

Ahh very zealoty statements. Hard core Christian? Muslim? No need to answer; don’t care.

Now. Do you know when the pain receptors activate?

Silent Scream is a pile of garbage. It’s only useful for “preaching to the choir”

Homicde, halocause, crimes against humanity? Now you are just being silly.

Definitely not a Muslim as Islam generally permits abortion.

Oh yea that is true. I was thinking of one of the branches of it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Tarsonis]

1. All of Brave New World. Like,... all of it

2. Too much unknown. Pregnancy isn't just like a stasis chamber in which child is formed free of outside influence. There's integral bonding on a subconscious level that happens during pregnancy, and the relationship between mother and offspring is already forming. This is why people put headphones on their stomach and play classical music.

There's no telling what affect development removed from this natural integration could have on children.

I admittedly have not read Brave New World, I’ve only heard snippets about it from various literature classes.

My understanding wasn’t that it’s the existence of artificial wombs that are the problem, it’s the government and society going to extreme lengths to control people and keep them complacent. Pregnancy being disgraceful and those artificial wombs being how new babies are made is just a part of that, it’s not the reason for it.

Yes, and while admittedly this is one of those literary debate questions, this was a chicken egg type issue for Huxley. In Huxley's mind the technology drove the societal changes, not the other way around.

As for bonding, there’s still no guarantee the mother won’t be neglectful or abusive no matter what happens.omeone who doesn’t want to be pregnant isn’t going to do any special bonding activities like playing music for it. And if the child is going into foster care or being adopted by someone else then that doesn’t really matter.

And? this is a whattaboutism that doesn't address the issue, it detracts from it. That some parents are abusive and neglectful, doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Artificial wombs will be a positive force. The point was that there's quite a bit of relational development yjqt happena in utero, and we dont know how removing from them completwly will affect their development. Not that people who dont do the classical music thing are bad parents. Also, as an aside, death being preferable to bad parents isn't really the argument for abortion you think it is.

And I suppose there is no way to know realistically considering it’s not really possible anywhere in the near future, but the scenario is assuming it’s perfectly safe. If given the option, I would rather let it develop in an artificial womb than force someone to remain pregnant against their will or have an abortion. And if it’s an ectopic pregnancy or late term abortion due to eclampsia or something then the options in that scenario are abortion, mom dying, or artificial womb. And it would also solve fertility issues for some women.

I feel like a old dystopian novel in which people happen to be grown in machines as a method of control and bonding don’t really negate the positive benefits of being able to salvage a fetus during any stage of development and a women not needing to deal with the negative risks and effects of pregnancy at all if they don’t want to. I highly doubt developing in an artificial womb is going to cause all the babies to be evil or something.

Indeed. I was more responding to the statement the poster made about no reasons they could think of that people might object. Technology, is and will always be a double edged sword with intended and unintended consequences. Which is ultimately one of the points behind BNW. An artifical womb would be a monumental triumph of science with the potential to do a wondrous amount of good. But, we'd need to know a lot more about it, to curb the unintended consequences.

May not come out evil per se, but I could potentially see developmental personality disorders like sociopathy become much more prevalent. Again granted were all just hypothesizing.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

I highly doubt developing in an artificial womb is going to cause all the babies to be evil or something.

Much like test tube babies, really.

Although realistically, conception and pregnancy is likely such a complex process that copying it artificially for wide-scale use is not going to be a simple endeavor despite all the progress that's been made in the field, fascinating as it is to contemplate the idea of motherless/fatherless babies solely created from the genetic material of one sex, the utility of the technology as a population bomb for space settlement, the hilariously unlikely but interesting possibility of it replacing natural pregnancy entirely, or even the comparatively mundane effect from its potential impact on abortion.

[Laasmistan]

Definitely not a Muslim as Islam generally permits abortion.

Oh yea that is true. I was thinking of one of the branches of it. Thanks for pointing that out.

You're likely thinking of the Maliki school of jurisprudence. They're the outliers in that they do not permit abortion.

[Khardsland]

I just want to know why someone would be against abortion. The woman has to go through the pain of childbirth. Getting raped isn't a choice. And the baby is a clump of cells that won't really live for long without the mother (unless it's the last few hours of pregnancy but that isn't the point here).

[Laasmistan]

I just want to know why someone would be against abortion. The woman has to go through the pain of childbirth. Getting raped isn't a choice. And the baby is a clump of cells that won't really live for long without the mother (unless it's the last few hours of pregnancy but that isn't the point here).

Most of the time it seems to be Christians who believe life begins at conception.

[Khardsland]

I just want to know why someone would be against abortion. The woman has to go through the pain of childbirth. Getting raped isn't a choice. And the baby is a clump of cells that won't really live for long without the mother (unless it's the last few hours of pregnancy but that isn't the point here).

Most of the time it seems to be Christians who believe life begins at conception.

I would have understood those beliefs if they weren't the same folks pushing against contraception, gun control and mask mandates. Almost like, to them, kids only matter when they are not born yet. Hey, that's a song!

[Laasmistan]

Most of the time it seems to be Christians who believe life begins at conception.

I would have understood those beliefs if they weren't the same folks pushing against contraception, gun control and mask mandates. Almost like, to them, kids only matter when they are not born yet. Hey, that's a song!

Right. I have noticed the hypocrisy as well.