How New Technology Could Threaten a Woman's Right to Abortion

So change things so that it measures viability without technological intervention for determining the legality of abortions. What's the big deal here?

>Under that logic, though, the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb, giving her back control of her own body but still forcing her into parenthood.

Why not just close their legs and not fuck randomly?

>>163202
Why not put it up for adoption or just legally abandon it the moment its out of her body?

>>163205
Because the types who regularly get abortions are usually sociopathic and don't care that they're killing a baby.

>>163205
Pregnancy sucks

>>163193
You lost me at "women's right to abortion"

>>163193
Just add "cannot survive outside the womb without intervention" and this is a non issue.

>>163229

Childbirth also sucks and has the chance to kill, though thankfully nowadays it's much safer than ages past. However, if this technology works, then both concerns about pregnancy and childbirth could go out the window, increasing the viability of the whole "just put the kid up for adoption" option.

Of course this still depends on a lot of other factors, such as the availability of this tech (both in terms of physical deployment and monetary cost) and the window for which it is viable. For instance, here it was used on mostly developed sheep fetuses, which have different needs from early development embryos. If the fetus has to be removed at such a late stage, this once again brings in the dangers of childbirth (as well as the troubles with pregnancy) since a late term transfer like this would be far more dangerous. Most abortions are preformed in the early stages of pregnancy (which is less of an extraction and more like simulating a miscarriage), where there is minimal risk (especially compared to childbirth), so unless this procedure is considered viable at that early stage abortion will still continue to exist.

>>163202

Rape is still a thing.

>>163205
Because adoption agencies are a real shitshow nowadays and legally abandoning the baby is also basically akin to letting it die.

Women - and really people in general nowadays, I mean men are a good portion of this problem as well, nowhere as big though - just think their actions have no consequences anymore. The US is getting more and more depraved and hypocritical as a whole

>>163193
Looks like scenario from "The Island". Grow a organ donor in a healthy external womb.

>>163193
Scientists develop a way to save infant lives. Feminist first thought, 'how is this going to affect me and what I want?' God dang I hate feminists.

>>163241
But that would drastically increase the number of fetus deletus. Premature babies (and may term babies) are already cared for using highly specialized machines and techniques, which is core to viability predictions.

The law assumes that we aren't animals who shit out a child and start running, and if they kid can't keep up then the lions get them.

>>163276
>legally abandoning the baby is also basically akin to letting it die.
what the fuck are you talking about

>women's right
>to abortion

> It could also complicate—and even jeopardize—the right to an abortion in an America

Good.

Early abortion: no fucks given. Anything under 10 weeks is a splat of cells with some basic form and nothing formed properly other than a small placenta at most.

Central nervous system capable of feeling pain: Nope.

I'd encourage anyone who is strongly pro-choice to watch some abortion procedure videos, particularly ones done after 20 weeks.

They scream, or at least they try to; they can't make any sound because their lungs are full.

>>163292
It'd be more painful for the baby if it had to grow up and endure a life of suffering if the parents couldn't provide for her/him or he/she was born in an unsuitable environment. Same goes for the rape or incest cases.

Second trimester abortions are abominable, I'll agree, and the above scenario happens in so few cases compared to the whole. But that's why there needs to be smarter regulation on these sorts of things, designed by unbiased medical professionals, not politicians who seek to further agendas or idiot civilians that exploit the current system for abortions to fuck as much as they want.

>>163266
>>Rape is still a thing.

Pregnancy from rape is rare and barely counts for the number of abortions.

>inb4 women no longer need to carry a body wrecking 9 month parasite

Seriously focusing on "oh god this might change muh rights!" is why we can't have nice things.

>>163309
>It'd be more painful for the baby

Nice try but no.

What happened to the right thinking humans should only have a negative right to life? Now it's positive right to life when it's a fetus?

To be fair I haven't heard the reaction of most conservatives, so maybe I'll be surprised, but I'm not betting on it.

>>163292
We kill fully grown animals with fully developed central nervous systems without a forethought because it tastes good. Consequentialist ethics are fine there, so why not here?

Is killing an animal with a primitive nervous system, in order to value quality over quantity of life, and relieve a community that will otherwise have to care for the child, and in some cases trauma as bad as having to go full term with a child that may be the product of a girl being raped by her father, less acceptable than killing something because it's delicious?

>>163325
This isn't an artificial womb; it's a step in that direction, but we're not there yet.

>>163193
>Woman's Right to Abortion

Is there a new constitutional amendment that I didn't hear about?

>>163354
>It's a woman's Right to abort her and her lovers offspring without telling her parents or lover, and for the taxpayer to subsidize it

Liberals unironically agree with this

>>163292
>I'd encourage anyone to ignore the right to bodily autonomy for the sake of fee-fees

K.

>>163355
simple; it's not their offspring before it's born. It's not even an autonomous living thing.

>>163365
Neither are you on life support

>>163365
Why is it that libs always feel that the shitty consequences of their bad decisions should be subsidized / paid for by people who make good decisions?

>>163377
Why is it that every dipshit circlejerking blanket statement like this always begins with "why is it that"?

>>163378
Ironic, isn't it

>>163193
whats so confusing about this? this is clearly lifesaving for those parents who really wants their baby born and able to live.. if you don't want your baby, get it aborted with your own full consent..kill it cause no one really cares.

>>163355
It's a woman's right to not go through a process that put her own life at risk and can affect her body for months.

>>163377
I am pretty sure the people who pay also make bad decisions.

>>163365
it's not autonomous until at least 9 months OUT of the womb though, so you're really arguing for post term abortions now?

>>163382
>this is clearly lifesaving for those parents who really wants their baby born and able to live

this. mine were 34 weeks and NICU til 37 but being in the multiples community seeing people with 28 weekers is scary.

but no, god fucking dammit, let's make this about the fucking healthy teen who thinks she's fucking up her life

>Right to an abortion
No.

>>163365
>>163394
No it isnt.
Its her right to not put herself into that position through her own actions and choices regarding sexual activity, partners, and safe sex.
By conceiving a child she has brought a new life into a world of suffering without its consent, and now has the ethical and legal responsibility of caring and nuturing and rearing that child.
They do NOT have the right to kill a child, especially without its consent.
Under your definition you support abortions up until the day of abortion.

Women have no implicit "right" to avoid the consequences of the very serious action of conception.

>>163365
>its not an autonomous living thing
Its a child, its not a "thing".
Nobody is an autonomous living thing in any respect for their whole lives. We are social beings who rely on others.

It could help against abortions but then again feminists and hard lefts could go in and try to ban this technology from progressing.

>>163266
>pregnancy has a chance to kill
Maternal mortality rates are grossly overinflated and miscalculated.

>>163459
>It'd be more painful for the baby if it had to grow up and endure a life of suffering if the parents couldn't provide for her/him or he/she was born in an unsuitable environment.
Who is for that to decide, the child or the state?
While the anti-natalist argument is so easy to rely upon, and has some merit to it (the world is a place full of suffering), it falls flat on its face when you accept that suffering is not inherently bad. Because of the broadness of the definition of "suffering" it occupys the very existence and facet known as life. On the contrary to the "world of suffering" is the possibility for acheivment, success, fullfillment, and living a complete life would be impossible without the struggles, unconfortableness, and suffering those children would experience.
You are not the great arbitor, trying to protect people from the mythical "suffering" by treading on their right to existence.

>>163382
>nobody really cares
You are so wrong.
>>163395
But they pay for it themselves.
They dont steal other peoples money with the full force of the state and redistribute it.

*abort fetus*

>>163345
>What happened to the right thinking humans should only have a negative right to life? Now it's positive right to life when it's a fetus?
Explain.
And feel free to use the terms "fetus", if it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that you are unjustly extinguishing the life of a child.

"The right" isnt a cohesive element anymore, just like "the left" isnt.
>>>163292
>We kill fully grown animals with fully developed central nervous systems without a forethought because it tastes good. Consequentialist ethics are fine there, so why not here?
His argument is flawed is why.
>Is killing an animal with a primitive nervous system, in order to value quality over quantity of life, and relieve a community that will otherwise have to care for the child, and in some cases trauma as bad as having to go full term with a child that may be the product of a girl being raped by her father, less acceptable than killing something because it's delicious?
You've been sent on an ethical goose chase.

If abortion was considered a capital offense (first-degree murder) baby killers everywhere would be up in arms saying "you can't just take a human life!"

>jeopardize the right to abortion

Oh no! I can have a fetus removed from my body without killing it? This is a terrible affront to justice! This infringes womens right to kill their children without being judged for it!

>Trying to stop the advancement of life saving technology
Where will you be when feminists bring forth the next dark ages?

>>163202
>though, the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb, giving her back control of her own body but still forcing her into parenthood.

Evict fetus into external womb.
Abdicate parental rights and give child up for adoption when viable human.
???????
Profit.

>>163193
I have always been an advocate of sterilizing all humans around the time they are able to propagate, only having couples conceive via IVF. Due to technological advances, it is now possible for human eggs and sperm to be created from human skin cells. or soon will be. If abortion, unwanted pregnancies, or unexpected offspring are such an issue, sterilization is the only viable solution that can guarantee these problems will no longer plague humanity.

>>163766
We are still quite a ways away from making viable human gametes from skin cells. We currently can make a progenitor-like cell which is believed to be analogous to the real thing just prior to sex specification in the developing fetus, but so far maturing those into viable sperm and egg progenitors has remained challenging. Currently the biggest roadblocks is that it is technically (and legally) not feasible to study the mechanisms of a developing egg/sperm progenitor within a human system, so we have to make do with monkeys and mice.

There have been some exciting developments with mouse cells where a Japanese group was able to successfully mature viable egg cells in vitro, though this was conducted using the ovaries of fetal mice and maturing them in culture to produce eggs making it still a far shot from what you are proposing. It is a rapidly growing field though so I imagine there will be new breakthroughs coming within the next decade or so.

>>163193
i like this, it gives both parents a say over the life of their child

if the mother doesn't want it but the father does, then they can remove it from her body and the baby can still be born

roasties btfo

>>163276
Jesus dude take a breather you're going off the rails. Also life isn't that important relax.

>>163229
>Woman doesn't want to give birth to child
>Gets pregnant (on purpose)
>Has the child removed and placed into a artificial womb (on the ground that the mother does not wish to risk her life)
>The child is grown in a ziplock
>No childbirth needs to occur (Far less painful alternative)
>Timer dings
>Unzip ziplock
>Pull out fresh baby to solve Irish starvation

>>163376
People pull their loved ones off life support frequently, hospitals are not required to indefinitely support these people. Your argument holds no water.

>>163453
Should men also be forced to live with this?

People in this thread are bona fide crazy, and totally unwilling to accept the idea that a life lived in a home where your parents resent your existence or have not the means to provide for you is a life doomed to hideous unnecessary suffering. If the goal of human progress is to eliminate suffering, until we have an apparatus with which to adequately provide for the scores of unwanted children, abortion should remain legal. Simple as that.

And if you think that the goal of technological progress is not to reduce suffering, go fuck yourself.

>>163857
Suffering defines life itself. If you don't want to eat pizza, you don't put it in your fucking mouth.

>>163888
>emo proverb AND a food analogy
Nice

>>163292
who cares honestly, these fetuses are less intelligent and less userful than animals, its obvious choice to dispose of them.

>>163889
Thanks, I figured you were shallow so I made it easy.

>>163453
So just to be clear, you would also agree that if a woman wanted to keep a child and the man didn't, that the man should have to pay child support correct? Even in case of broken condom or failed protection.

>>163991
Why should the man pay child support when he can just get married and raise his child? I hope you aren't implying a child's life has a price, anon. I'm happy to support any and all bastards I create. If for some oddball reason I have bastards with multiple women and they just want to siphon my money, so be it. Can't do the time don't do the wonderful act of procreation with another human, sweetie.

>>164006
Human life does have a price. We see it every day in politics when we talk about foreigners, entitlements, etc.

Glad you don't have a double standard. Or chance of spreading your genes to anything you didn't pay for first.

>>164013
I'd value you at about a dollar.

>>164023
I'd value them to be, say, a two thousand polish citizens worth.

>>163266
Rape is less than 1% of abortions bud settle down

Humans are putting a stop to human evolution.

The hard truth is when ancient civilizations left misformed infant for the wolves it was the right thing to do.

Why do people think human life is so precious? What makes us so damn special?

>>163991
Indeed. Having sex comes with the responsibility of caring for any children that said sex produces, even if you tried to prevent pregnancy. If this is a problem to you, have the vet take your balls too when you bring the dog in or just don't have sex.

Wait a second, y'all are actually anti-abortion over here?

>>165726
Of course. except for Niggers, Spics and Muslims. they can have all the abortions they want.

>>165726
Because it is unethical, immoral, and criminal.

>>165729
Except in these cases.

I'm super conservative, but I've always wondered why we even pretend babies are people

There are tons of arguments against abortion, but fuck, I've never seen a single <1 year infant appear in any way not like a wild animal

>>165748
I'm here wondering why should we consider you a person.

>>165752

I just don't understand why its 'murder' when its a non being.

Abortion is murder! Plain & Simple. Part of the depopulation Global Agenda. Obama and Clinton where using USA tax payer dollars to fuel abortion clinics in Europe and abroad. Just call it the way it is!

It amazes me how many people have been brainwashed into believing that an unborn baby in its early stages of development is not a being. There's no argument here. It's a fact! The USA is guilty of murdering millions of babies. The USA better hope that there is no God, because if there is you are SOL. Judgement is coming...

>>163193
Murdering a baby should never have been a "right".

>>163266
Rape is no excuse to murder an innocent child.

>>165757
How is it a non-being? Did you know babies can differentiate between languages up to 3 months before birth?

>>166204
Who's murdering babies?

>>166206
Yes it is.

>>166214
A fetus isn't a baby.

I wonder how much of your time in the womb you remember. There's nothing wrong with a woman deciding she doesn't want a child.

Your archaic views are so anti-progressive it's painful. Cavemen and women like you are holding the human race back.

>>166202
>It amazes me how many people have been brainwashed into believing that an unborn baby in its early stages of development is not a being. There's no argument here. It's a fact!
>>166206
This has never been the point. The point is that the live of the mother is more important than the live of the foetus.

She is the one whose body will go through terrible strains to give birth and therefore the one who should make the call.

>>166206
Why should she raise the offspring of a fucking degenerate?

I’m not a person that is vegan. And I think veganism is primarily uptight, faggots putting themselves on a moral high horse. It’s the exact same fucking thing with these “pro-life” faggots. I don’t fucking care about what people’s morals are on killing an animal, or killing an fetus. I think that shit is great. If any of these anti-abort faggots disagree, they can go join PETA and suck a horse cock, if they value life that much.

>>166470
I don't remember anything from before I was 4 either, should we allow abortion until someone is 4?

>>163345
I don't eat mammals anyway so your argument is nill.

>>166543
Give me one good reason you shouldn't be eaten.

Because what we need is more people on this planet. We are already have an overpopulation problem

>>166782
Where in the west do they an overpopulation problem? Last time i check it was my nation niger being the driving force of overpopulation.

>>166784
do they have an * ?

>>166750

That's fuckin stupid. At 4 you aren't a fetus.

>>166470
A fetus will become a human life and is a life.

>>166470
>There's nothing wrong with a woman deciding she doesn't want a child.
You are right but one the child is coming killing it is murder.

>>163193
Roasties should have zero rights, I'm tired of hearing about what they want

>>163193
I'm glad this article about an amazing new technology becomes a fucking slog because it's extremely tenuously related to a rarely-used reasoning to justify hypothetical laws that are at the heart of one of today's most inconsequential political issues.

>>163193
Years ago I asked people on both sides of the abortion debate that if hypothetically children that the mothers didn't want could be transferred to artificial wombs, would they be okay with that as a compromise since the child does not die but the mother does not have to go through pregnancy nor does she have to raise the kid.

I guess I finally have my answer.

>>163283
The funny thing is this would also make birth safer and less life altering for women that do want kids.
Women wouldn't need to take time off from work for maternity leave nor would they have to face the health complications and risk that giving birth presents.

>>164538
Bias

How could they keep up with the demand? I am sure they can't make enough of these for every premee and abortion baby

>>163193
>Woman's Right to Abortion
Women don't have a right to murder.

Funny how when science disagrees with the left wing ideology it's a threat. Like basic biology.

>>167080
Maternity leave is to take time off to care for the newborn. Only a fraction of the time is necessary to be able to function for most women. Also you have to safely extract the child from the mother and place it into the apparatus, which would likely require a C-section and bring its own problems.

>>163276

I love how you can't recognize the irony in your post.

Delicious.

>all of these people arguing that killing a fetus is murder
>still eats animals

Are you all retarded or just hypocrites?

if abortion is a ""right"" for women, shouldn't men have a right for parenty abortion too? like if women can choose to not be a mother after getting pregnant, shouldn't men have the same right to step out of it? aka my wallet my rules
i realize the latter would leave a born child without all the financial support he deserves, but to not do is sexist and goes against equality, then again we live in the feminist era

>>167190
I wish we had reaction images because no amount of words can possibly describe how absolutely stupid your post was.

>>167197
nice argument

>>167198
>herp derp even dough aborrtioon isnt a rite in itself,,, les jus giv rite to men to leve woman wen she pregnant :D :D herp derp
>I meen it nut liek men alredy do that lol
Bitch please

>>167200
>if
k man

>>167201
It was still a pretty dumb post dude

>>167202
i know of course, from a sane pov, but we no longer live in society of logic>feels, my post should be fair play in the current year

>>167200
You must be underage, dude.

>>167137
>Maternity leave is to take time off to care for the newborn
Nowadays kids are raised by daycares,babysitters and grandparents.
> Also you have to safely extract the child from the mother and place it into the apparatus
You don't, the mother never experiences pregnancy with this method, they just take an egg sample fertilize it and then gestate it in the artificial womb.

>>167197
Not an argument

>>167339
>The human version of the external lamb womb that researchers eventually envision creating would be designed for premature babies born as early as 23 weeks.
This technology is not able to do what you think it can. If you want to argue about hypothetical future tech which will allow for IVF directly into an artificial womb, then that is fine, but at least let people know ahead of time.
>Nowadays kids are raised by older family members and paid strangers
Now you're just generalizing. Not all parents choose to go this route and forcing them is kind of shitty. Some people actually do enjoy spending time with their children.

>>163193
Wont happen, as long as women have rights then they will riot, beaucause "MUH BODY MUH CHOICE"

>women's rights to an abortion

My "right" to beat someone with a baseball bat when they cut me off in traffic, when?