I'm an adoptee and still very, very pro choice.

Ethically and morally, I'd gave a bigger problem with growing babies in a lab to term than with abortion

If a woman is raped or the victim of incest, I think she alone should get to determine what happens to any fetus that is created as a result. IF a fetus is created as the result of such a brutal act, I don't think the woman should have to live her life wondering what happened to it if she would prefer that it never was born.

The existence of this texhnology would also not make me likely to require other women to bring their fetuses to term rather than abort them. Wouldn't this technology be incredibly invasive to women's bodies? If a woman is choosing an abortion, she knows it's an invasive procedure and she has chosen it. But I don't think the state should be able to REQUIRE any woman to have instruments stuck up in her reproductive organs so that the state can retrieve a fetus. It is HER body, not the government's.

So, no.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Indeed. People have long shared the care of their children with others. Nannies, nursemaids, slaves and such, as well as the working class/enslaved women who did those jobs having to go take care of other's kids while their children were at home being cared for by someone else. People act like daycares are some newfangled invention, it's just the current day version of what has been going on since time began.

Pretty sure I've seen a couple of movies where they gestate babies in a massive high-tech farm. It doesn't end well.

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know this is a devisive topic, but can we please try to keep this thread civil and not paint the entire pro-life movement w/a single brush?

Speaking for myself I am strongly pro-life because I truly believe that the baby is a human being and entitled to equal protection as one of the most vulnerable members of society. That being said, having gone through difficult (very wanted) pregnancies myself I do increasingly struggle with the idea of requiring women to take on this burden unwillingly and think that such a technology would be a huge step forward in being able to fully respect the rights of both the fetus and the (biological) mother.

Sorry, no. I am being very civil. Legitimately, to grow a fetus to term in the lab would be insanely, prohibitively expensive. When you have a movement that interferes in the personal medical decisions of women - and goes to court in order to do so ever more intrusively, and then, as a movement, argues that all government assistance is inappropriate-to-immoral and that, again, as a movement, works to make birth control harder to get, I just don't think this is a hypothetical situation that is terribly worthy of discussion.

Anonymous wrote:You seem like a bitter SAHM.

[Report Post]

Serious question, pp why attack every SAHM? Why the assumption that only SAHM;s are pro-life or that this particular poster is a SAHM ? I know plenty of WOHM who are pro-life and also who live in DC proper. Did that blow your mind?

And do these WOHMs also believe that daycare causes attachment disorders, as the post that PP was responding to stated?

If RAD actually exists, it is not caused by daycare.

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?

No. I don't think any woman should be compelled to produce a child, healthy or not, gestated by her or not, raised by her or not.

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?

If the biological father is opposed to aborting the baby and the mother is willing to undergo the surgery required to remove the fetus and is otherwise a willing participant in the scenario, she should do as she wishes. Just like now.

You seem like a bitter SAHM.

[Report Post]

Serious question, pp why attack every SAHM? Why the assumption that only SAHM;s are pro-life or that this particular poster is a SAHM ? I know plenty of WOHM who are pro-life and also who live in DC proper. Did that blow your mind?

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

Agreed.

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?

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.

I believe that this technology would be invaluable for women who can't carry a pregnancy to term. I don't think you would see a lot of people champing at the bit to use it as an alternative to abortion.

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?

That's an interesting question because it would remove the "woman's body, woman's choice" framework that we use today, and leave only the question of the fetus itself. The thing is some women would find it difficult to have someone else raise their baby, and would rather abort than have that happen. But your scenario does make abortion much harder to support as an ethical matter. And I say that as someone who is very pro-choice.

Since it's all hypothetical, I would posit that if technology were as advanced, cheap, and available as you envision, hopefully contraceptive science would have advanced also, and girls could be fitted with a completely safe and free contraceptive device at puberty that would be removed only when they intentionally decided to become pregnant. That would at least weed out unwanted pregnancies. Of course it would not change the problem of wanted pregnancies with genetic issues which the parents might reasonably wish to abort.

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.

OP, share the number of kids you have adopted out of the system to support those who chose not to have an abortion.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know this is a devisive topic, but can we please try to keep this thread civil and not paint the entire pro-life movement w/a single brush?

Speaking for myself I am strongly pro-life because I truly believe that the baby is a human being and entitled to equal protection as one of the most vulnerable members of society. That being said, having gone through difficult (very wanted) pregnancies myself I do increasingly struggle with the idea of requiring women to take on this burden unwillingly and think that such a technology would be a huge step forward in being able to fully respect the rights of both the fetus and the (biological) mother.