There are some ethical questions regards whether or not the artificial womb should be developed, but from the perspective of “the best interests of the child”, then there would be a very good case for it to be developed.

If the parents are not in a very stable relationship, then the child’s future is very grim indeed. Either the child will be killed within the mother’s womb, or it will likely face a future without a father, and looking at a whole range of studies and statistics, then that future without a father is very grim also.

At present, the child’s life is almost completely dictated by the mother, and the results have been generally disastrous, so perhaps the artificial womb should be developed, in “the best interests of the child”.

Andyman, you - and I quote - mentioned " a theft of genetic materials". Is anyone genetically compromised by abortion? Some certainly are by birth! Hundreds of thousands of dollars my ex boyfriend saved? This is so not abortion debate. But you guys are just enjoying it it bigtime. By the way, you are the one that mentioned going through yor ex wife's drawers. The main thing is, you guys have taken this debate down more back alleys than a Melways. And I don't wan't to know the real TIMKINS. unless he writes a much promised article. He could always use a pseduonem. (That's not a contraceptive by the way).

Andyman, apologies for my last post - did not digest your question before I shot of my previous riposte. About whether it was a question? of abortion or the dollars? Dollars didn' t enter into it. Nobody gets rich from having a baby unless one gives birth to a future stockbroker (and who want's to bet on that?) This was the eighties and i was 19. IT's not who wants to be a millionaire. My boyfriend (and he was my best man at my later wedding, but that's another story) never knew I'd been pregnant! It wasn't that sort of relationship, after all, we were just friends and having SEX. He and I were hardly Mike and carol Brady. You talk about women having children to get squillions of dollars out of the "donor". I haven't met any single mothers that are raking in the moolah. And I haven't met too many ex- husbands that have been keen to throw in their share of child support either. The shoe is on two feet. But it's hardly an abortion debate is it.

Di,

When child support is greater than the amount directly spent on the child, when the mother has all the choices, but no accountability, and the father has no say in how it is spent, then regardless of whether she is “raking” it in or simply collecting her “entitlement” – it is just not fair on the child, or the father.

I don’t agree with the assertion that somehow the mother is less financially responsible, because she is providing “emotional care” (especially after being granted so many prior choices). After all, the father has no choice in having minimal contact and playing insignificant role in his child’s development. The notion that mothers are the only parent capable of providing emotional care to their children, is fraudulent.

If the state legislates away father’s rights, adjudicates on family matters and insists it is always acting “in the best interest of the child”, then perhaps it should also desist from avoiding a more significant financial responsibility for its own “choices” in policy-making.

Why should fathers have a greater financial responsibility than the state, or the mother, while the mother is encouraged to discard the foetus or the father whenever she so wishes (with society and state so eager to assist)?

Andyman: We pretty much agree, but I don't think marriage should require a woman give up her choice; it's still her body.


Tracy A:
Could you please provide me with a reference to some information on "legal foetal viability"? I'm curious as to the context.

"Human being" is a vague term. If it means a human life "in being" - then legally a human being is one that is born alive and I would agree, for the reason that the life has never before been an individual surviving on it's own. Defined that way, human being is not a particularly useful term when it comes to abortion, I prefer to use "person". I also draw distinctions between a human life (an individual human organism) and something that is human (has human DNA).

I reject viability as a point from which to determine personhood, mainly because if the issue is separate survivability, then the birth (premature or not) is when that occurs anyway. Regardless of when personhood attaches I still think that attempts should be made to deliver most viable foetuses, as I do consider a potential person to have some value.

Here are eight points in human development at which I believe it is reasonable to believe a person is created; most are untestable and the order may not be correct.
1. at conception
2. upon the implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall
3. when brain activity begins
4. when the brain can handle sensory input
5. upon perception
6. at birth
7. at the formation of abstract thought
8. at self-awareness

My ordering would be 7,8,5,6,3,2,4,1. Only conscious beings have thoughts or complex emotions, and those two things are what I think deserve protection. The biological viability of the foetus is not directly related to that.


R0bert:
I'm also in agreement with you, but I'm certain many pro-choice women choose not to abort. #4 does ignore the wishes of a father who wants the child, but as has been discussed, I think it is necessarily that way.

Deuc
The work you put into your posts is appreciated, but they raise an important issue, which I tend to harp on probably too much. You listed a whole lot of criteria that could be used to determine the legitimate beginnings of a 'human' child. What this shows, is that depending on who was doing the assessing, EACH one of those could be used just as effectively by 'n' different people. I've called this 'make it up as u go-ism' in other posts. i.e. moral relativism.

While this reasoning does nothing to 'prove God', it abundantly illustrates the problem of a society which has no unchanging reference point for its decisions about human life.

I heard on the news 2nite about some 'scam in human eggs' and without even knowing the background, it occurred to me that it may well be the harvesting of eggs from people with 'desirable genetic traits' and marketing them to others. This is just one of many possibilities that the 'no God' social foundation (or non-foundation) could lead to.

Our buddy Neitzche was not far off the mark when he waxed eloquent about the catastrophic consequences for society now that we have 'disposed of God'.

In terms of the topic, and abortion, womens choices etc. I would simply emphasise that from the moment of conception, a child is the product not of one, but 2 people. The father and the mum. How this can be relegated to something as cold and unloving as 'womens choice' is beyond my comprehension.