1 vote

What if abortion were no longer necessary?

Hello, I am in College and I am currently taking a couple of Constitutional Law classes, when I ran into Roe V Wade. I am rather conflicted when it comes to the idea of abortion and the rights a woman has in aborting that child. So... I was wondering if Libertarians or even Religious people who consider all forms of abortion wrong, would change their mind if the child was born outside of the womb?

Yes, this may sound like something Doctor Frankenstein may have wanted to do, but what if the child no longer has to be aborted? Let's for a second assume that in the future, where technological advances are rampant and someone finds a way to take an unborn fetus from a womb and supplement the unborn child until fetal viability? Would there be a necessity for abortions anymore?

I know that this doesn't solve the problem of abortion, but realistically what other possibilities are there to stop abortions?

Opinions anybody?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anybody researching this would be demonized real quick

I agree that it would be a solution but the debate on the abortion issue has been for a long long time that it is not a real child until it is born. So an abortion is only terminating a group of cells, or a parasite according to the abortion mill people. Furthermore most of the "pro life" politicians would loose a lot of funding if abortion was ended in this manner.
I suspect any academic that proposed researching this would be immediately drummed out of the academic community.

You raise a very valid and

You raise a very valid and thought provoking question/idea. Personally I think it would be a great solution provided that it was economical (not costing what premies cost today) safe and there would be a welcoming family for the newborn. I'm sure there will be others with objections I can't think of.

Absolutely Not

THe ends do not justify the means. THat is a warped idea in so many ways. It is the principle of human life being good and having sancity that the pro life movement seeks first and most importantly. This would not be an example of human life having sanctity.

But you're not stopping

But you're not stopping abortions which is and will always be the problem...

Children of Men movie comes to mind...

If the sterilization of our species continues, there will be no abortions because there will be no pregnancies.

beephree

Your idea is so way out there to me, it could be possible

I think the biggest problem with the issue of abortion is that people see it in so many personal ways, and people being what they are, imperfect, the issue is imperfect.

Ron Paul and many folks do not agree with the term "women" rights. That is grouping or collectivism. By giving rights to one (women) you are taking rights away from another (HUMAN fetus.. so age discrimination). We do live in an era of agen discrimination, from senior citizen discounts (these were the folks that bought homes 10% of the cost of boomers)

If we livied in a world of HUMAN rights, we wouldn't be having this thread.

I also think the funning thing, weird thing about the abortion issue from a woman's rights, is how men, are not called murders when they want their fetus/ child, aborted. I think if there was a law that help men accountable, we wouldsee far fewer abortions.

Your idea is way out there... I think I've seen it referenced in many movies and TV shows, so people have been working on it, and if they were succeffful, like Ron Paul's presidential campaign, it's not being published in MSM.

Abortion & Convenience vs. Sanctity of Life

Your future scenario assumes that mothers of the future will prefer life for their babies over death. Mothers of the present in many cases do not prefer this. If they did, they would carry to term and opt for adoption. Your future solution allows them to get 9 months of "their" life back by adding convenience to the equation, and makes no mention of what is to happen to the child after it is successfully brought to term in the lab, so to speak.

Abortion is an issue of morality, and there are too many questions concerning it that it will be argued ad infinitum. For example, when does life begin? Your answer to that will reflect on your opinion of abortion.
Most Christians (but probably not all) would state that life begins at conception, the fetus has a soul, abortion=murder, thou shalt not kill. And there is the other side that claims the fetus is just a mass of developing tissue until the time it escapes the womb, it is the mother's tissue, and she alone should have the right to decide what to do with it.

Many will murder each other and harm each other in numerous ways, believing that the only life that should be respected is their own. Only a shift in the morals of our citizens, where sanctity is given to life, will return any sanity to this issue.

The obvious conclusion of a

The obvious conclusion of a child being brought to term would involve adoption?

The idea that everyone has the same morals is fallacious and you cannot impose subjective views of morality upon others.

Personally I am against abortion, but the question is: what is the best way of stopping abortions? The answer, historically has not been to make it illegal. In my opinion, if an individual contemplates an abortion and does not believe the fetus is 'alive' then what differences would it make if she gave the child up to a lab? The end result would still be the same as she no longer would have the child. The difference between the two is that future baby is born while the other dies. EVERYONE does things for their own personal convenience, which is exactly why some women get abortions.

I thought I was pretty clear

I'm not sure about your question regarding adoption. What happens to a newborn in today's world? Most likely, one of the following:
1) Mother and father (or just mother, or just father) raise the child.
2) Grandparents or other family members raise the child.
3) The State raises the child (foster care?).
4) The child is put up for adoption.

Yes, not everyone has the same morals, some people have no morals at all. Nor did I say anywhere that I was wanting to impose my morals or anyone else's morals on anyone. You asked, "What is the best way of stopping abortion?" I gave you my opinion that peoples's morals need to change to include sanctity of life.

You can either accept my opinion or disregard it. Nobody ever wins a debate on abortion, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

I don't think anyone gets an

I don't think anyone gets an abortion for the sole reason of killing their child, there are usually other causative factors involved in the decision; the purpose is to remove a fetus, killing it is just a means to an end right now. Given that, in the future, if presented with the chance to remove their child without killing it, I'm sure most would agree to it because it accomplishes the goal of abortion: removing the fetus.

Regardless, the fact that abortion is the wrong solution to a big problem still stands.

That is my point exactly. I

That is my point exactly. I just want to know where people stand if that was the solution in the future.

welcome to the Matrix lol

Abortion is only stopped when people dont decide to abort. Even ruling it a crime wont stop abortion.

Yes, but like everything in

Yes, but like everything in the world there is no perfect solution, only tradeoffs.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would

ever allow the testing that would prove that technology.

~Your perception becomes your reality~

didn't we say the same thing

didn't we say the same thing about in vitro fertilization?

Why not? There are many cases

Why not? There are many cases where women cannot birth their child due to difficulties that subsequently lead to abortions... I am pretty sure if the possibility were there, any mother would at least attempt such a procedure.