Article: Fetuses in Artificial Wombs: Medical Marvel or Misogynist Malpractice?

[bigfield]

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

But what if the woman has already extracted the baby (for whatever reason)? Can she still abort when the bodily autonomy is not an issue, but the baby in question still has brains the size of a walnut?

I'm not following you: under what circumstances would a woman have a living embryo/fetus removed from her body? I thought the evacuation methods used for abortion were lethal. I imagine that more extensive surgery would be required to ensure the embryo/fetus can be kept alive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But what if the woman has already extracted the baby (for whatever reason)? Can she still abort when the bodily autonomy is not an issue, but the baby in question still has brains the size of a walnut?

I'm not following you: under what circumstances would a woman have a living embryo/fetus removed from her body? I thought the evacuation methods used for abortion were lethal. I imagine that more extensive surgery would be required to ensure the embryo/fetus can be kept alive.

There's an article about and a whole thread discussing those circumstances right in this thread.

 

[bigfield]

I'm not following you: under what circumstances would a woman have a living embryo/fetus removed from her body? I thought the evacuation methods used for abortion were lethal. I imagine that more extensive surgery would be required to ensure the embryo/fetus can be kept alive.

There's an article about and a whole thread discussing those circumstances right in this thread.

What I mean is that the procedure for extracting a live embryo or fetus is different than the procedure required for abortion. Just because a woman consents to the procedure required to extract the embryo/fetus, does not mean that she consents to the more complex procedure of extracting it alive. A court cannot force her to submit to the latter just because someone else wants the embryo/fetus to stay alive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What I mean is that the procedure for extracting a live embryo or fetus is different than the procedure required for abortion. Just because a woman consents to the procedure required to extract the embryo/fetus, does not mean that she consents to the more complex procedure of extracting it alive. A court cannot force her to submit to the latter just because someone else wants the embryo/fetus to stay alive.

Which gets back to the question of viability. If a woman who's 38 weeks pregnant decides she wants an abortion (not for any medical reason but just because she decided she didn't want a baby), it's a more complex procedure to extract the fetus alive than it is to extract it dead. The same holds true for fetuses who are 30 weeks along. In neither case could the woman find a doctor who'd do the procedure for her and I would say those doctors would be correct since it would be an act of murder to abort a viable fetus, even if it's a premature baby who needs to spend a few weeks in an incubator at the hospital in order to survive.

As the term gets earlier than that and the fetus can't survive on its own, the non-viable fetus becomes a non-issue and it's all about the woman's choice. It can't survive without her body and it has no right to her body so she can trash it as she sees fit.

An artificial womb is just a high tech incubator. If a fetus is viable when taken out and placed in one, then what's the essential difference between putting a viable fetus in an incubator at 10 weeks or putting a viable fetus in an incubator at 30 weeks? Both need medical intervention to survive without the mother, but both can survive quite well if she has Procedure A instead of Procedure B. In each case, in the choice between the rights of the woman to do what she wants with her body and the rights of the fetus to live, I'd give more weight to the rights of the fetus.

Viability of the fetus (without serious medical issues which result) is the dividing line for me for when abortion becomes murder. If the fetus needs her body to survive, then fuck it because it has to die. If it doesn't, then fuck her because she's getting a child she doesn't want. It's not about her choosing which medical procedure she wants, it's about her not being able to have a doctor commit an act of murder.

 

[dx713]

I understand your point, but where do you draw the line?
If the technology progresses enough that you can put a fertilized egg into the incubator and have it develop and survive, does that mean that a contraception failure automatically means you have to be a parent, no recourse?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I understand your point, but where do you draw the line?
If the technology progresses enough that you can put a fertilized egg into the incubator and have it develop and survive, does that mean that a contraception failure automatically means you have to be a parent, no recourse?

I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents. For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

 

[PyramidHead]

I understand your point, but where do you draw the line?
If the technology progresses enough that you can put a fertilized egg into the incubator and have it develop and survive, does that mean that a contraception failure automatically means you have to be a parent, no recourse?

I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents. For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

But we're not talking about a child, we're talking about a fertilized egg. Does the fertilized egg have any greater or lesser right to its survival (assuming the technology exists to let it survive outside a biological womb), in your opinion, as it develops into an embryo and fetus?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents. For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

But we're not talking about a child, we're talking about a fertilized egg. Does the fertilized egg have any greater or lesser right to its survival (assuming the technology exists to let it survive outside a biological womb), in your opinion, as it develops into an embryo and fetus?

At the point it becomes viable outside the mother, I think that the term "child" becomes appropriate.

On the other end of the spectrum, a fetus at 22 weeks has a brain, body, feels pain and all the rest. If it gets born at that age, however, it's only got about a 10% chance of survival and the majority of those that do make it face major health risks for their entire lives. That's not really viable. I have no problem with a woman aborting a fetus at that stage of development since it still needs her body to survive and it's her choice as whether or not to allow it the use of her body and can dispose of it if she wants to.

Do you feel that we're talking about a child with an independent right to life at that point of development or a fetus that she can trash?

 

[doubtingt]

What I mean is that the procedure for extracting a live embryo or fetus is different than the procedure required for abortion. Just because a woman consents to the procedure required to extract the embryo/fetus, does not mean that she consents to the more complex procedure of extracting it alive. A court cannot force her to submit to the latter just because someone else wants the embryo/fetus to stay alive.

Which gets back to the question of viability. If a woman who's 38 weeks pregnant decides she wants an abortion (not for any medical reason but just because she decided she didn't want a baby), it's a more complex procedure to extract the fetus alive than it is to extract it dead. The same holds true for fetuses who are 30 weeks along. In neither case could the woman find a doctor who'd do the procedure for her and I would say those doctors would be correct since it would be an act of murder to abort a viable fetus, even if it's a premature baby who needs to spend a few weeks in an incubator at the hospital in order to survive.

As the term gets earlier than that and the fetus can't survive on its own, the non-viable fetus becomes a non-issue and it's all about the woman's choice. It can't survive without her body and it has no right to her body so she can trash it as she sees fit.

An artificial womb is just a high tech incubator. If a fetus is viable when taken out and placed in one, then what's the essential difference between putting a viable fetus in an incubator at 10 weeks or putting a viable fetus in an incubator at 30 weeks? Both need medical intervention to survive without the mother, but both can survive quite well if she has Procedure A instead of Procedure B. In each case, in the choice between the rights of the woman to do what she wants with her body and the rights of the fetus to live, I'd give more weight to the rights of the fetus.

Viability of the fetus (without serious medical issues which result) is the dividing line for me for when abortion becomes murder. If the fetus needs her body to survive, then fuck it because it has to die. If it doesn't, then fuck her because she's getting a child she doesn't want. It's not about her choosing which medical procedure she wants, it's about her not being able to have a doctor commit an act of murder.

A "viable" fetus still needs the mothers body to survive right up until the moment that it is no longer inside her body. The fact that it has the potential to live without her body at some point in the future is no different than the fact that a 12 week old fetus has such future potential. Until after something is done that has causal impact on the mother, the fetus only has the potential to be a individual person, just like the newly fertilized egg.

[Quote = dx713]
I understand your point, but where do you draw the line?
If the technology progresses enough that you can put a fertilized egg into the incubator and have it develop and survive, does that mean that a contraception failure automatically means you have to be a parent, no recourse?
I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents.

The major difference is that taking the decision out of the father's hands does not require violating his right to determine what happens to his own body. It does for the mother, and no less so when the fetus is "viable" than at 12 weeks. Until after the fetus is no longer inside her, any removal of choice is a removal of rights over her own body.

For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

The child has no rights whatsoever, until it is a individual to which the concept of legal rights apply. That doesn't happen until it is physically an individual distinct from the mothers body. All rights given to it prior to that moment are inherently a violation and undermining of the mother's individual rights since rights cannot be given to 2 persons occupying the same body. And again, the viable fetus does needs the mother's body and needs certain things done to her body right up until the moment it is no long inside it.


The difference is that the


For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A "viable" fetus still needs the mothers body to survive right up until the moment that it is no longer inside her body. The fact that it has the potential to live without her body at some point in the future is no different than the fact that a 12 week old fetus has such future potential. Until after something is done that has causal impact on the mother, the fetus only has the potential to be a individual person, just like the newly fertilized egg.

But nobody's talking about the "potential" to live outside of her body "at some point in the future". We're talking about the ability to live outside it right at this exact moment. A doctor can go in and extract the fetus and have it survive right now and it will either be a healthy baby or have the ability to develop into one with the help of an incubator. The amount of time that the fetus has use of the woman's body is exactly equal to the amount of time it takes to book an OR and perform the procedure. There no future potential being taken into account at all. It becomes physically distinct from the mother's body without delay.

 

[PyramidHead]

But we're not talking about a child, we're talking about a fertilized egg. Does the fertilized egg have any greater or lesser right to its survival (assuming the technology exists to let it survive outside a biological womb), in your opinion, as it develops into an embryo and fetus?

At the point it becomes viable outside the mother, I think that the term "child" becomes appropriate.

Even if "outside the mother" includes "inside a machine that does the job of a womb?" If technology continues to advance as it has been, a blastocyst may qualify. Is a blastocyst a child in that case?

On the other end of the spectrum, a fetus at 22 weeks has a brain, body, feels pain and all the rest. If it gets born at that age, however, it's only got about a 10% chance of survival and the majority of those that do make it face major health risks for their entire lives. That's not really viable. I have no problem with a woman aborting a fetus at that stage of development since it still needs her body to survive and it's her choice as whether or not to allow it the use of her body and can dispose of it if she wants to.

Same here, as long as anesthesia is used to minimize pain to the fetus if possible.

Do you feel that we're talking about a child with an independent right to life at that point of development or a fetus that she can trash?

My point is merely this: just because a clump of cells may survive and develop into a full-grown person outside of the mother (with the aid of this new technology), it doesn't mean we have an obligation to ensure that it develops accordingly.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

At the point it becomes viable outside the mother, I think that the term "child" becomes appropriate.

Even if "outside the mother" includes "inside a machine that does the job of a womb?" If technology continues to advance as it has been, a blastocyst may qualify. Is a blastocyst a child in that case?

Yes, that's kind of been ... the entire point of everything that I've been saying in this thread.

Right now, if a baby is born at 30 weeks and put into an incubator, there is little or no difference in survivability or development between them and a baby born at full term. That means that a 30 week old fetus is a viable fetus. I would view aborting it at that point as opposed to removing it and putting in in an incubator to be an act of murder, absent any medical reason for the abortion. Do you disagree with me on this point and, if so, why?

As you get earlier and earlier in fetal development, the viability goes down substantially. This is due to a current limitation of our technology which can be improved upon using things such as these artificial wombs. If technology advances to a point where removing a 22 week old fetus and putting it in an incubator works as effectively as it currently does with 30 week old fetuses, I would view a 22 week old fetus the same way. Would you view it differently and, if so, why?

As technology progresses and viability comes earlier and earlier, my view about viability being the cutoff point remains the same, even to the clump of cells stage. The fetus has no right to the woman's body, but as soon as it doesn't need the body anymore, it's a viable life in and of itself and should be treated as one.

 

[PyramidHead]

Even if "outside the mother" includes "inside a machine that does the job of a womb?" If technology continues to advance as it has been, a blastocyst may qualify. Is a blastocyst a child in that case?

Yes, that's kind of been ... the entire point of everything that I've been saying in this thread.

Right now, if a baby is born at 30 weeks and put into an incubator, there is little or no difference in survivability or development between them and a baby born at full term. That means that a 30 week old fetus is a viable fetus. I would view aborting it at that point as opposed to removing it and putting in in an incubator to be an act of murder, absent any medical reason for the abortion. Do you disagree with me on this point and, if so, why?

As you get earlier and earlier in fetal development, the viability goes down substantially. This is due to a current limitation of our technology which can be improved upon using things such as these artificial wombs. If technology advances to a point where removing a 22 week old fetus and putting it in an incubator works as effectively as it currently does with 30 week old fetuses, I would view a 22 week old fetus the same way. Would you view it differently and, if so, why?

Yes, I would, because eventually as you dial the development backwards, you will be talking about something with no brain and no subjectivity, as shown below.

As technology progresses and viability comes earlier and earlier, my view about viability being the cutoff point remains the same, even to the clump of cells stage. The fetus has no right to the woman's body, but as soon as it doesn't need the body anymore, it's a viable life in and of itself and should be treated as one.

Being a viable life does not necessarily grant something moral consideration. If morality has anything to do with consequences and preferences, then terminating a clump of cells causes no harmful consequences for the clump of cells, since a brain is required to suffer harmful consequences. At least, it cannot suffer more harmful consequences than a colony of bacteria does when exposed to bleach (which I assume you consider morally permissible). Nor does termination violate the preferences of the clump of cells, since it cannot possibly have any preferences without a brain. On the contrary, bringing the clump of cells further along the developmental pathway to become a full human being is arguably more harmful, since at that stage it will have a brain and some measure of subjectivity, and will certainly suffer harmful consequences at some point in its life.

 

[doubtingt]

A "viable" fetus still needs the mothers body to survive right up until the moment that it is no longer inside her body. The fact that it has the potential to live without her body at some point in the future is no different than the fact that a 12 week old fetus has such future potential. Until after something is done that has causal impact on the mother, the fetus only has the potential to be a individual person, just like the newly fertilized egg.

But nobody's talking about the "potential" to live outside of her body "at some point in the future". We're talking about the ability to live outside it right at this exact moment. A doctor can go in and extract the fetus and have it survive right now and it will either be a healthy baby or have the ability to develop into one with the help of an incubator. The amount of time that the fetus has use of the woman's body is exactly equal to the amount of time it takes to book an OR and perform the procedure. There no future potential being taken into account at all. It becomes physically distinct from the mother's body without delay.

Note the underlined word "can" designating the future of something that has not yet occurred. Surgery takes time, so if the surgery is not yet completed, then it is in the future, as the currently mere potential of the fetus being a separate individual with rights. Anything beyond the current moment is the future. And it is not just the passing of time but acts upon the mother's body against her will that is required before a "viable" fetus "can" become an actual person, after and only after is (not just "can be") fully physically distinct from the mother's body. IF you are going to allow the state to take away the mother's right to her body until after the surgery, then why not take those rights away at 12 weeks until the surgery can performed successfully? In both cases you are robbing the mother of control of her body, doing things to it against her will in favor of the rights of a thing that is not yet an individual person and only "can be" a person with the passage of time and impact on the mother's body. The only difference, is how much time is involved. On what unscientific and unprincipled basis will you arbitrarily decree that it is okay to rob a women of control of her body for X amount of time, but not Y amount?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Being a viable life does not necessarily grant something moral consideration. If morality has anything to do with consequences and preferences, then terminating a clump of cells causes no harmful consequences for the clump of cells, since a brain is required to suffer harmful consequences. At least, it cannot suffer more harmful consequences than a colony of bacteria does when exposed to bleach (which I assume you consider morally permissible). Nor does termination violate the preferences of the clump of cells, since it cannot possibly have any preferences without a brain. On the contrary, bringing the clump of cells further along the developmental pathway to become a full human being is arguably more harmful, since at that stage it will have a brain and some measure of subjectivity, and will certainly suffer harmful consequences at some point in its life.

And that's the point on which we disagree. I see something as being viable life as soon as it's able to survive on its own, it's a life of its own and requiring medical assistance to survive counts as being able to survive on its own. I don't find it particularly relevant that it's a clump of cells since all humans go through a clump of cells stage and if that clump of cells can survive and develop on its own, then it merits consideration as a life on its own.

I'm cool with aborting a non-viable fetus after brain development and not cool with aborting a viable fetus before brain development.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Note the underlined word "can" designating the future of something that has not yet occurred. Surgery takes time, so if the surgery is not yet completed, then it is in the future, as the currently mere potential of the fetus being a separate individual with rights. Anything beyond the current moment is the future. And it is not just the passing of time but acts upon the mother's body against her will that is required before a "viable" fetus "can" become an actual person, after and only after is (not just "can be") fully physically distinct from the mother's body. IF you are going to allow the state to take away the mother's right to her body until after the surgery, then why not take those rights away at 12 weeks until the surgery can performed successfully? In both cases you are robbing the mother of control of her body, doing things to it against her will in favor of the rights of a thing that is not yet an individual person and only "can be" a person with the passage of time and impact on the mother's body. The only difference, is how much time is involved. On what unscientific and unprincipled basis will you arbitrarily decree that it is okay to rob a women of control of her body for X amount of time, but not Y amount?

Wait ... what?

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if a woman goes into an abortion clinic and asks for an abortion and the receptionist tells her to have a seat for a few minutes while she pages the doctor, the woman should have a legal case against the clinic for violating her bodily integrity and robbing her of control of her body for those few minutes?

That's what I'm getting from your post. If it's incorrect, please explain why my situation would be different from yours.

 

[credoconsolans]

The viability also matters. If there's a woman who decides at 35 weeks to get an ahortion, is there a doctor who'd give her one? The kid can live fine outside of her, so it is killing a child to abort it at that point.

If viability is pushed back due to things like artificial wombs, then that same type of consideration applies earlier and earlier as well.

I'm assuming you mean a 'healthy 35 week old'.

There are plenty of fetuses that come to term only to die shortly after birth. Sometimes dying very painfully and slowly. So what was the point of letting them come to term even at 35 weeks?

 

[credoconsolans]

I understand your point, but where do you draw the line?
If the technology progresses enough that you can put a fertilized egg into the incubator and have it develop and survive, does that mean that a contraception failure automatically means you have to be a parent, no recourse?

I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents. For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

Oh no, no freaking way.

A person tries hard NOT to be a parent, but through rape or failure of birth control method becomes pregnant, no way should that mean you HAVE to become a parent. No way.

 

[J842P]

Sorry. I don't read through the whole thread carefully sometimes and say stupid things.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd say yes. Right now, that's often the case for one of the parents, so I see no particular issues with it being the case for both parents. For me, the central issue in the abortion debate is that the child has no right to use the mother's body, so if she doesn't want it there, then tough shit for it. Once it no longer needs her body, it's right to survive overrides her choice to get Procedure A or Procedure B.

Oh no, no freaking way.

A person tries hard NOT to be a parent, but through rape or failure of birth control method becomes pregnant, no way should that mean you HAVE to become a parent. No way.

Look, you can argue all you want about the invalidity of the jack-booted government thugs forcing child support payments on men who accidentally became fathers when their birth control methods failed, but there is a child involved and that's more important than your concern about their desire not to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Rape would be a valid exception to all of this, though.