Sunday, September 9, 2012

The Abortion Debate.. a solution?

One of my friends came up with an interesting solution. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the solution since he's as much an avid reader of science fiction as I am.  His solution?  Make abortion obsolete with artificial wombs.

there are 3 main reasons to get an abortion...
1.  health risk to the mother.
2. quality of life issue for the unborn child as it's going to be born with a truly debilitating and or truly nasty disease.
3. Mother got pregnant and for one reason or another...doesn't want the child.

the solution to the 2nd is genetics research but that leads to it's OWN ethical dilemma and verbal bitch fight.

As for 1 and 3?  That's a matter of engineering.  In the case of allows for parents who WANT children but the mother can't physically carry due to health risks to have a child.
In the case of allows the mothers who don't want their babies to give them up for adoption without having to carry the child to term and give birth.

Now I'm actually quite fine with all this,, with a few provisos.
As pointed out by the guy who suggested this with the 3rd scenario...
1. The biological mother gives up ALL legal rights to the child.  There will be no changing your mind after the fact...because it's not fair to the adoptive parents to take away what is now their child...because you got wishy washy...and might just change your mind again in the future and decide that keeping the child was a bad idea. It's also in the latter case really not fair to the child.
2. If we go this route, than outside of a case of rape or incest, the biological father gets a say.  My main HUGE problem with the whole "abortion debate" has been that for YEARS the father gets the short end of the stick. Or to quote the movie Dune "for the father, nothing."  The cry from the women is "it's MY body!"  Yeah lady it's your body having to do the job of "incubator" but it's also as much the father's child you're carrying as your own and to shut him out of the decision making process is WRONG!
So the mother doesn't want the child but the father does....then not only does  mother give up all rights to the child,  but the biological father gets the child to raise, seeing as how genetically the child IS his as well as the mother. Like I said...takes two to make both get a say. It also means that the father can't go after the mother for child support after the father takes responsibility

but but...what if the father and mother are no more than children themselves? Glad you asked that question...I've looked up the stats...and the age group that wins in percentages of abortions is the  age group of 20-29. Adults between the ages of 20-29 comprise [depending on the state] anywhere between 50-60% of all abortions. In the Up to the age of 19 group, the kids/teenagers...comprise up to [oddly enough and again depending on which state your in] 19% of all abortions.

So if it's a youngster who gets pregnant because the girl got sweet talked/ guilt tripped into having sex by a boy who can't keep his goddamn pants zipped?   Then you've got a slightly different scenario
A. The child gets transferred to the artificial womb and both mother AND father give up all legal rights to the child. Or..
B. and admittedly this is a small possibility. If the grand parents might want the child then they get...first choice.  If both sets of grandparents want the child then,  they can either work it out cordially for themselves or...they can ask for the courts to mediate an agreement between them.  If either one then reneges then they both lose...this is a child we're talking about...not a fucking football.

If neither parent wants the child then...
 if the child is transferred to the artificial womb, they are put up for adoption while still in the artificial womb and the adoptive parents will then take over all fiscal responsibilities as it pertains to expenses for care and maintenance of the child and the incubator...while their adopted child is in the incubator.  Because think about it...feeding the child in an artificial womb is going to be akin to intravenous nutrients into the kids system. IV solutions cost money and so does the power to run the equipment.

Yes I realize this post is probably going to generate some hate and discontent. *shrug* so be it.

Remember, TANSTAAFL and..
I now return you to your regularly scheduled inanity and insanity.


  1. Aaaand for those of us that would rather die than breed? Even by proxy? I have a serious problem with this fucked up idea that sex is something you need to punish someone for. That you have to just "accept the consequences" like you were caught drinking and driving. Sex is not morally wrong. Abortion is not morally wrong. If someone chooses to get an abortion, odds are they're doing the responsible thing.

    And I only think the male DNA donor gets a say AT ALL if the woman decides to, one way or another, allow the baby to be made.

    1. Ahh but the whole point is to take abortion out of it entirely. I know you'd as you say rather die than breed. Even "by proxy" Jess? I'll admit in the case of say...a couple in a committed relationship who have opposing views on the subject it's going to cause "hate and discontent" as I've already said. Probably even break those couples up. Outside of rape or incest, and my contempt for a great deal of the organism called humanity...I think life is a gift. And BTW I's fucked up that sex is something someone needs to be punished for again outside of rape or incest. It's why I wholeheartedly support legalizing prostitution. Which doesn't make me popular in certain circles irregardless of whether those circles lean right or left in the political spectrum.

      My whole idea in taking this thought and running with it, is if it makes abortion obsolete, it also makes the arguments over it obsolete. On the flip side of the coin we'll now get into arguments over artificially incubating kids. Kids that are "decanted" as it were will suffer a stigma attached to it that the kids born naturally will hammer them into the ground with. I haven't thought of all the consequences of this line of thought...just a few. I just got hit with it this morning after all. :)

  2. Sex does have consequences, like it or not. And like it or not the consequences do land mostly on the female of the species. That's biology, and unless/until there is 100% reliable contraception with no side effects, that's how it's staying. Sin and morals don't play a part.

    That said, abortion is nothing more than a clinical refinement of the age-old practice of infanticide. I'd rather not see abortions happening, but I'll take abortions over babies abandoned in back alleys and trash cans. Right now both are happening, so something is way off.

    It takes two to tango, so if there was sex, then both parties have a say in whether or not to keep the result. In the artificial womb scenario, that's feasible - the male dna donor can pay for the transfer and subsequent costs, and the female dna donor signs a release that says she will never seek to have anything to do with the child. That release is fully legally enforceable and she has no further rights over the child. No-one's rights trump anyone else's in that setup. The one caveat I'd suggest is taking a full medical history, with ailments affecting the female DNA donor's family, so that any potential inheritable nasties can be checked for. That can be kept anonymous.

    Good luck getting a sensible discussion out of this. It's a hot button issue, and people tend to throw their brains out the window with those.

    1. "Good luck getting a sensible discussion out of this. It's a hot button issue, and people tend to throw their brains out the window with those."

      You noticed that hmmm. So did I. It's why I try to get into very few arguments that involve it. I just happened to find the proposed scenario VERY interesting, and took it a bit further than the original barfly author.

  3. I have a pretty simple solution to men who are concerned about any possible children they might have being aborted.

    Stop having sex with pro-choice women.

    Check that first. It's pretty simple. You can do it on the first date. As soon as a woman say's she's pro-choice, you can wrap that date up, take her home, and boot her out of the car door for being a potential murderess.

    Don't follow her up to her room and have sex with her.

    Viola! Now you know it's not your genetic material being flushed out of her incubator! That's how the man gets a say. He refuses to have sex with pro-choice women.

    Just the way any self-respecting pro-choice woman refuses to have sex with pro-life men. It's absolutely one of my criteria.

    Yes, that was just a little tiny bit snarky, but the point still stands.

    What I can't understand is why people who are vehemently anti-abortion are also anti-birth control. I would think that a consistent stance for someone who thought abortion was the murder of a living person would have free birth control available to anyone who wanted it, without question. Or does the man's right to impregnate a woman also trump her right to choose to not be impregnated?

  4. FREE birth control? Like it or not sex isn't just's a responsibility. Hell if I'd spent all my life giving into my own urges and not worrying about the consequences, a significant chunk of my home city here, would be populated with my bastards.

    As for finding out pre date whether people are pro choice or pro life...hmmm it's a thought.

    1. Not necessarily pre-date. Absolutely pre-sex.

      I don't care how "hot" a guy is, how charismatic, how appealing, how powerful, or how rich, if he's pro-life he doesn't meet my standards for having sex with, and I think everyone should apply that basic criteria to a potential sexual partner. Because, frankly, if your views on that topic aren't compatible, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

    2. do have a point. Especially if one is wanting children to come of the relationship and the other doesn't...

  5. Now that I've got that off my chest...

    I still don't think artificial uteri are going to work. And it still leaves people in a position of having their genetic material used against their will.

    When we get fingerstick genetic screening for recessive traits and possible genetic disorders, AND the ability to transfer the zygote safely to an artificial uterus within 21 days of conception, THEN it might be possible.

    1. we're not there technically...and medically speaking yet anyway. Well...technically we probably's the medical side that needs to catch up..

  6. Hi, I'm the one who tossed up the original idea. This wolfie guy mentioned that he has posted it and that a small discussion had started. So I thought I would stop by and see what trouble I could case. :)

    In going through the thread, I think I'm seeing some misunderstandings. Of course I also haven't had my morning coffee yet. (Brewing now)

    The goal here is not to ban abortion. It is to assist a woman who is in "the family way" solve a problem.
    (Health or unwanted motherhood)

    I came up with a few ideas, knowing that we are a long way technically for being able to do them. I am NOT a biologist or in any way in the medical field.

    My goal was to see if there was a way to resolve an issue that everyone could agree with.

    The pro-lifers would be happy because no one would be getting abortions. The Pro-choicers would be happy because they wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

    Couples who want children and can't for whatever reason, would be able to adopt more easily.

    In my thinking, the only ones who would have a serious issue with this would be the extreme militants on both sides. I think they could be safely ignored if this "system" came into being and worked.

    In my original post on I purposely left out things like rape and incest. I also didn't bring up "Rights of the father" either.

    Of course, if "dad wants baby and "Mom" doesn't, you still solve the problem since she doesn't have to go to term and give birth. At that point it's a legal issue and when/if we come close to perfecting a system like this, then we can start looking at the laws and what needs to be adjusted.

    Of course we can't do any of this now, but consider where we might be if all the resources that had been thrown at lawyers had instead been thrown at scientists?

    So, my idea. Send Abortion the way of the ocean going dug out canoe for travel between the continents. You can do it but why would you want to?

    Ahh, coffee is ready now. :)

    1. Ned...I did say I took it and RAN with it. :)
      I threw in some of the other stuff because they kinda hit me in the head as I was reading the original post.

    2. Wolf....
      I think you and ned were cogent.

      And get back to work!!!!!!


Feel free to drop a line but try and keep it civil if it breaks into a heated discussion.