Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A woman who has chosen to abort might not want her fetus to be inserted into an artificial host to carry it to full term.
My guess is that if a woman do not want the baby, she morally/ethically lost her right to what happens to the baby, which means the state will enter the equation and save the baby via that artificial womb.
Think about that for a minute.
Aside from not wanting to undergo the procedure, which I imagine would be invasive to extract an attached fetus from the uterus unharmed, perhaps many women just don't want to have a living biological child out there. Thats why they choose to abort instead of adoption. I imagine it can be more difficult to know you have a child out there somewhere then for it to never have come to fruition.
Think about that for a minute.
Aside from not wanting to undergo the procedure, which I imagine would be invasive to extract an attached fetus from the uterus unharmed, perhaps many women just don't want to have a living biological child out there. Thats why they choose to abort instead of adoption. I imagine it can be more difficult to know you have a child out there somewhere then for it to never have come to fruition.
That is just sick. It's too painful for the mother to know that her child is out there somewhere as opposed to dead? And by not come to "fruition", you mean that it was purposefully killed in an inhumane manner.
Sorry - as a person who had three children, I just don't get that logic.
That is just sick. It's too painful for the mother to know that her child is out there somewhere as opposed to dead? And by not come to "fruition", you mean that it was purposefully killed in an inhumane manner.
Sorry - as a person who had three children, I just don't get that logic.
Me neither. Because it's not logical.
That it is less painful to kill a baby than to give the baby a chance for a good life?
Heck, the biological mother can CHOOSE the parents.
If the technology comes through (big IF), do you think they should force women seeking to terminate pregnancy to transfer the embryo to a state-run incubator for gestation?
My guess is that if a woman do not want the baby, she morally/ethically lost her right to what happens to the baby, which means the state will enter the equation and save the baby via that artificial womb.
There are a lot of women (and men) who do not want their actual babies. They do not lose any moral or ethical right to them. Its difficult for them to even lose their legal right to them. How many children do you think the state has actually saved?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
