Hypothetical Question for Pro-choicers

[Anonymous]

If technology developed to a point where a fetus could survive outside the womb (or presumably in some kind of artificial womb) essentially from conception would that impact your position on abortion?

Just curious how the issue/debate could evolve down the road.

[Anonymous]

Removed from a women's uterus or 100% lab grown?

Women could have the option to put baby up for adoption. If there were no takers and/or she didn't want to go that route (genetic concerns), then abortion should still be an option.

[Anonymous]

You are completly disregarding the issues many children have when they do not bond with their biological mother. Adoption is not a choice without issues.

[Anonymous]

No. I believe that a woman shouldn't be obligated to continue a pregnancy. That wouldn't change with evolving technology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If technology developed to a point where a fetus could survive outside the womb (or presumably in some kind of artificial womb) essentially from conception would that impact your position on abortion?

Just curious how the issue/debate could evolve down the road.

Nope, still pro-choice.

[Anonymous]

Nope. I am a member of a conservative religion and if I ever found myself pregnant with a child woth disabilities etc., I truly hope that I would have the courage to bring that child into the world and spend the rest of my life caring for him or her.

BUT

I believe that God made all of His children free to choose their own path and that it is counter to His will for us to impose the choice to become a parent on anyone. The ability to grow a child in your own body is not required to be a parent, but I think the vast majority of women would be haunted knowing that their child was born and fiven up for adoption, and it is not for us to decide for any woman that that is something she has to live with.

[Anonymous]

Could that be used as a way to terminate a pregnancy? Could the woman remove the fetus from her womb, adopt it out at that point and the adoptive family lets it grow in the lab?

No one should be forced to continue an unwanted and/or unhealthy pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

No. Still pro choice. I just watched a documentary on a kid with a very rare genetic disorder where his skin falls off. He's in constant pain. He says the pain is there even in his dreams. I could not stand the idea of a child suffering so much.

[Anonymous]

OP, if such a technology were developed, would you be willing to fund it with tax dollars so that those babies could be saved, and then, if the babies were not adopted, pay for them to be raised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if such a technology were developed, would you be willing to fund it with tax dollars so that those babies could be saved, and then, if the babies were not adopted, pay for them to be raised?

OP here and yes, absolutely I would personally be willing to see my tax dollars go to funding their care.

In answer to a previous question, the technology would allow a pregnant woman to remove the fetus from her womb and adopt it out to another family who would let it grow in a lab.

For those who have raised genetic issues as a factor, under these circumstances would you advocate differences in legislation /policy for genetically health babies and those with genetic disorders?

One additional question for those who have said their position would not change: what if under this scenario the biological father was opposed to aborting the baby?

[Anonymous]

We adopted. After our experiences, not a chance I would support my child or family member placing a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if such a technology were developed, would you be willing to fund it with tax dollars so that those babies could be saved, and then, if the babies were not adopted, pay for them to be raised?

OP here and yes, absolutely I would personally be willing to see my tax dollars go to funding their care.

In answer to a previous question, the technology would allow a pregnant woman to remove the fetus from her womb and adopt it out to another family who would let it grow in a lab.

For those who have raised genetic issues as a factor, under these circumstances would you advocate differences in legislation /policy for genetically health babies and those with genetic disorders?

One additional question for those who have said their position would not change: what if under this scenario the biological father was opposed to aborting the baby?

Ok, well then at least you are consistent. But I don't think the current pro-life movement is even thinking along those lines. Right now, it costs many thousands of dollars to adopt a child, not to mention the actual cost of raising a child, and there are not enough babies for parents who want to adopt. There is no funding to help poor parents who want to adopt. Conservatives generally oppose measures that will fund public health care and education for poor children. I don't see this inconsistency changing any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if such a technology were developed, would you be willing to fund it with tax dollars so that those babies could be saved, and then, if the babies were not adopted, pay for them to be raised?

We already pay for many babies that are born and should be adopted but the mothers keep them. If this type of technology were available I think the women who wanted an abortion would more likely want the child adopted if they did not have to continue the pregnancy. I believe many people would want these children and it would be easier to adopt them because parental rights would be terminated when the baby was removed from the uterus and placed in an artificial uterus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are completly disregarding the issues many children have when they do not bond with their biological mother. Adoption is not a choice without issues.

Most babies are suffering from the broken parent bond when they get sent to daycare for 10 hours a day five days a week.

You're threadjacking and you are a horrible perso . You do realize that research does not bear this out, right? You seem like a bitter SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Why would that change my beliefs? Still very pro-choice. Also, a lab-grown baby would cost about $10 million. Traditionally, anti-choices have not been great about wanting to pay for anything related to children, unless you're talking vouchers for religious school. You'd see anti-choicers continue their current dogmatic and not too intelligent focus, as well as protesting this new technology as another challenge distancing women from their pregnancies and Eve's Curse.