Pro-Choice/Pro-Life arguments are both very convincing if you genuinely consider them. Most people dismiss the points of the other side, or are hung up on the wording the other side uses. Sniffing glue isn't illegal so the woman couldn't be compelled to go to a drug rehab clinic. That was an actual case brought to the Canadian Supreme Court trying to figure out a way to stop another disabled child from being born. The case was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that a fetus has no legal protections under the law.
I'll clarify. A woman addicted to glue sniffing who has had two permanently disabled children due to her addiction is pregnant with her third, can she be ordered to go to a rehab facility? Sniffing solvents isn't illegal. Her fetus isn't protected. How should her negligence be dealt with?
Then why did you post ""Pro-Choice/Pro-Life arguments are both very convincing if you genuinely consider them.""
Reference: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/woman-in-fetus-rights-case-speaks-out-1.943242 "Canada's highest court ultimately refused to recognize an unborn child as a person with legal rights and struck down the government's challenge to force Ms. G to get clean." I agree that the fetus has no legal protection under the law. It would be reasonable (in my opinion) to offer options that would prevent the creation of another disabled child, but I think you have to make those options attractive instead of forcing them, and the options should really include abortion in case it is already too late to avoid serious disability. The woman in this case (referred to as "Ms G") voluntarily sought treatment and had an epiphany while all the pro-life/pro-choice legal wrangling was going on. These situations become more difficult to resolve when people get involved with another agenda besides preventing the creation of a disabled child (e.g. abortion is wrong so the state has no right to offer a free abortion, or birth control is wrong so the state cannot offer free birth control, or drugs are wrong so the state has no right to let her go free and keep using drugs).
Here in Canada, they can't. It was tried and the Supreme Court said they can't do that. http://www.leaf.ca/wp-content/uploads/1997/1997-winnipeg-child-family.pdf
I'm Liberal on the issue but not Libertarian. I think it's reasonable to consider under which circumstance it might be morally wrong to cause or allow harm to a fetus. If the sole focus is on whether it is simply a "woman's right" or "abortion is murder", then it's an easy choice.
Never as easy as it is made out to be. It is indeed a woman's choice. Choices do indeed have consequences. How does a society reduce burdensome outcomes? Always very complicated dilemmas.
It may not be today but medical advancements will occur. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/06/artificial-uterus-close-reality/
For me the issue is "Who has the right to determine what is an acceptable risk for the woman"? If you look at world wide abortion laws this is the central issue. Where the laws have what I refer to as a "health and safety' clause then abortion rapidly becomes "on demand" But i personally can see no difference between the woman who is facing abortion due to a diagnosis of cancer or the one who is facing abortion because she is homeless and at risk of being unable to feed and protect herself No one but the woman herself is adequately able to determine risk
Science fiction from someone who has little understanding of the processes involvedA artificial womb would have to be hooked to a real life person as it would require support from an active liver, kidneys, immune system, to name just three of a complex system that we are no where near replacing yet
Bioartificial is real. An artificial womb may not be possible today but it is most definitely be envisioned as possible.
I see no difference either. Although, one could argue that the father might have some amount of right since the original act involved required consent. He will, afterall, have to fulfill a lifelong obligation. But that opens a whole new can of worms doesn't it?
I ask again , how will science speed up gestation? Will science create a fully formed fetus at 3 months? How much will it cost per fetus to take it and grow it in an artificial womb until it's viable? Are you saying that women would HAVE to give their fetus to this multi-billion dollar lab to raise instead of having an abortion? W H O pays for it?
My favourite response to the males who get on this forum insisting that all women carry all foetuses to full term because it is their duty to the male that impregnated them is to make a counter suggestion That all males are forced to donate sperm at an early age and then are sterilised. Once they have earned enough money to support a child they can apply for access to the sperm and petition a willing woman to be impregnated Abortion issue solved as every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy
I cannot see it happening - as it is if one aspect of a woman's physiology is out of kilter then she will abort. The sheer mind boggling number of teratogens ensure that unless we were extremely careful the foetus would be affected
That actually isn't a bad idea. I hadn't thought of that one. Actually, the more I think of it, I would probably support that 100% as a new cultural custom. - - - Updated - - - Awww...I'm detecting cynicism... I have no idea if it will happen. I do know that people seem to be willing to pay an awful lot of money to have babies artificially at the moment.
True but take it from me - there is an awful lot that can adversely affect the developing foetus - even vitamin deficiency has been linke to what is called a "neural tube deficit". When the brain and spine are developing they do so in an open channel that closes over during the first month. If the woman is obese, diabetic lacking in folic acid or just plain unlucky that canal will not close leading to parts of the spinal chord being open and incomplete (spina bifida) or the brain not forming at all (anencephaly) So you see why I am sceptical
Science doesn't speed up gestation. Scientific discoveries help people better solve the quandaries they perceive themselves to be in. I am not saying women give up their womb. Bio artificial is real. There are indeed implantable artificial organs currently. Whether or not there is enough incentive to create an artificial womb or not, I don't know. People currently pay lots of money to have a baby artificially. There is incentive for research in all sorts of areas that would contribute to an artificial womb. The market will pay for it just as it is paying for all bio artificial medical devices.
I do indeed. You very well may be right. Currently, an artificial womb would be developed more for premature birth to help with lung development.
