Dan, and others, base their arguments in favor of unrestricted abortion on the following premise.
"It's wrong to force a woman to give birth to a child."
It's not their only argument, but it's a regular. Leaving aside the multitude of problems with this statement, I want to focus on a hypothetical.
Recently, I've seen various sources reporting on the possibility of some sort of artificial womb. Some incubation container that would allow us to grow children is "greenhouses". I know it sounds horrific, and the potential for harm seems huge. But, consider this.
What if these women who can't be inconvenienced by allowing the child in their womb to fully gestate, let alone be bothered to care for it, were able to transplant the child into one of these artificial wombs? Wouldn't that completely eliminate this line of argument? What if, the millions of families who would adopt these children if their lives weren't being ended so cavalierly were able to fund these artificial womb centers?
I suspect that the pro abortion folx would find other excuses to end the lives of their children, even if they had this option. Because it's their property to dispose of as they wish with no restrictions.
4 comments:
An intriguing proposition, and one I find far less disagreeable than to pretend women have any right to murder their own children for illegitimate reasons they promote as valid. If the tech can be perfected so as to insure...as well as anyone can...the children will be safely cared for as they grow, I can't see any downside, except for the ongoing, and likely increased, immoral behavior which results in children being conceived in the first place. That is to say, the real issue would continue to go on unaddressed as if sex is for pleasure first and conception maybe. That's how we got into this cultural mess. But it does assume the incurable fallen nature of mankind and seeks to protect the innocent most at risk by immoral behavior, so I'm good with it.
I've made a similar argument in the past. I'm not opposed to terminating a pregnancy; I'm opposed to terminating human life. If science came up with a way to terminate the pregnancy while retaining the life, I wouldn't protest. But, thinking about it further, I suspect that pregnant women, given that option, would refuse. I find that disturbing, but in a random, unofficial survey, several women told me the same thing.
Art,
I can see several potential downsides, starting with the possible harm to children who go through gestation without any of the benefits of being connected to an actual human parent, and moving to the liklihood of this being used as an excuse to grown children for "spare parts" or stem cells, or as a form of eugenics/selective breeding.
But, I agree that this would likely increase the underlying causes of abortion. I also agree that it protects the most vulnerable who are victimized by abortion.
It would seemingly allow for an easier adoption process as the mother would have given up all parental rights very early in the pregnancy.
Stan,
I agree with your first point. The second is interesting, and kind of gets at the point I'm making. That even if given the alternative of ending the pregnancy without ending the life of the child, that some percentage of women would still choose to end the life of their child. What's worse is that folx like Dan would vehemently support their right to do so at their whim.
Post a Comment