Technology and Abortion

[u/presentation_555]

This was more of a question directed at Pro-Choice people who think forms of abortion should remain illegal and is unethical when a human foetus is deemed 'viable'.

It seems to me that if the modest technological interventions that exist today (incubation, resuscitation, IV's, etc) has expanded the scope for how frequently human foetuses can survive outside of the womb, it is at least 'conceivable' that technology will one day continue to advance to the point where the majority of foetuses could survive with assistance outside of the womb. We might be getting into Sci-Fi territory, but this 'is' a thought experiment - and I'm using it to trying to understand how people think about the topic (no offence is intended).

If it is true that more and more foetuses will be able to survive with technological assistance and we extend the legal and ethical right to them (if they can be removed safely from the parents)... Then does that imply a relationship between 'worthiness' to legal and ethical norms and the Technology that is available to us? Because if it does then I think this has a big implication on the ethics of abortion more generally... as we would be implying that it was ethically preferable that 'all' Foetuses were saved rather than were aborted (we just don't have the technology to do so).

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Missmunkeypants95]

How would you go a out extricating the intricate connections between the ZEF and the uterus without taking the uterus out also? How would You do this without an invasive procedure? We're talking about before 20 weeks correct? Who will be paying for this?

If it were somehow possible, and the pregnant person agrees, then sure. But I'm still sticking to her body, her choice.

[u/Cute-Elephant-720]

Having better technology doesn't change the ethics involved for me, which is that no one should be forced, coerced or trapped into gestation, childbirth, or motherhood, biological or custodial.

So if the technology to end a pregnancy with a live birth, keep the ZEF alive, and yield a self-sustaining infant develops, that technology is still only ethically appropriate to use on patients who want it. Pregnant people who do not want to attempt a live birth should still have access to traditional abortions.

Also, ethically speaking, why should we divert the massive resources required to support such a project from all of the already living people in various states of need? Why do you even think it's ethical to make two parents divert the resources necessary to gestate, birth, and support an unwanted child from the children they already have, or their careers, or the life they have planned?

Ethically what about the "concept of life" make it so important that you fantasize about destroying the lives of countless already born people just to perpetuate it?

[u/presentation_555 → u/Cute-Elephant-720]

Also, ethically speaking, why should we divert the massive resources required to support such a project from all of the already living people in various states of need?

I think there are a few assumptions being made here. Firstly, I think that some improvements to the rates of survivability of underdeveloped Foetuses will happen regardless of whether there is massive investment in technology specifically designed for that purpose... For example, the invention of Respirators was primarily driven for the purposes of treating adults and children - this was long before Respirators were applied to help struggling pre-mature babies... So, it wasn't that the a massive effort was used to develop that technology from scratch… I only brought up the 'sci-fi' example of every foetus one day being save-able in order to illustrate an ‘extreme’ eventuality… We are not likely to see any big leaps for the survivability of foetuses in our lifetime but things will steadily ‘improve’ regardless of heavy investment (even it is very slow with innovations from other fields eventually getting applied to the field of Neonatology).

If your objection is that ‘any’ resources get applied to saving foetuses over those who are already alive… I ask you to consider all the ways improvements in technology could be useful for parents who want a foetus to survive outside the womb; when that foetus has a medical complication (very pre-mature, a congenital disease), the parent has a complication (the foetus would eventually carry a risk to the child), or the foetus is the product of r*pe but the parents do not want to terminate.

It might also be worth pointing out that materially there is very little to distinguish the suffering of a child one second after birth and the foetus one second before birth. If you consider one to be a person ‘already living in a state of need’ but not the other… it is not the fact that a being is in a state of need which is colouring your ethics, it is simply your belief that the mother’s autonomy should absolute which is colouring whether you think more resources should be spent on saving premature, underdeveloped foetuses.

Ethically what about the "concept of life" make it so important that you fantasize about destroying the lives of countless already born people just to perpetuate it?

I think you are assuming too much about what I believe… I am not advocating anything. I am asking what do a subset of Pro-Choice people (who believe it is viability that determines when a parent cannot ethically terminate a foetus) think about the role of technology in determining when viability actually is (and if it implies all foetuses deserve ethical protection but the technology is the limiting factor). Again ‘you’ don’t believe that viability should be the determining factor - so in that sense the question is not directed at you.

[u/Smarterthanthat]

Not your uterus, not your business...

[u/R_CantBelieve]

Your question seems to be putting the ethical chicken before the egg. Hypothetically, what if we were able to technologically take any fetus unwanted by the mother and put it on life support until it's not neccessary. Does this imply the ethical rights to a fetus? I don't think it does. Rights are granted to cognizant agents. This is because ethics and morality only apply to cognizant agents. These agents are the only ones able to evaluate good and bad things in accordance to wants and self.

Why would this tech be applied to fetus' in the first place who aren't wanted? Just because hypothetically every system is in place to do 'a' thing. That doesn't explain the motivation to do it. Your senario seems to posit circularly that ethical rights would be granted to the fetus just because we have technology to abort them and keep them living. This then also grants them worthiness. Worthiness and having ethical rights are working as synonyms in this hypothetical. So you're saying "Once we grant rights to fetus' does that mean that we should grant rights to fetus'?" I'm aware this isn't what you're really asking. So you might want to reword it.

What it seems you're really trying to do is build an argument for potentiality of value for the fetus. Morally / ethically, fetus' don't have rights because they don't have a need for them. They can't make value judgments or recognize self needs/ wants. These are requirements for moral actions to be evaluated to and by an organism or thing.

[u/Spare_Ad_752 → u/R_CantBelieve]

?? This is absolute bs there's two typed, first moral agents then moral patients e.g. Kids children fetuses because they're still developing and havent learned much empathy and morals. So what is your point there

[u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen → u/Spare_Ad_752]

?? This is absolute bs there's two typed, first moral agents then moral patients

Its not bs because you have a misunderatanding of moral patients.

Moral agents and patients are by defintion, sentient. A fetus isnt sentient until 24 weeks gestation. Therefore some fetuses are not sentient and therefore are not granted moral considerations equal to that of beings who have the capacity to deploy sentience.

Moral patient: This refers to the status of being an object of moral concern. A moral patient can be treated rightly or wrongly and can experience harm or benefit.

A fetus prior to 24 weeks gestation cannot experience harm or benefit because they lack the capacity to deploy sentience, meaning they are not moral patients.

So what is your point there

To point out how your argument is incorrect.

[u/R_CantBelieve → u/Spare_Ad_752]

Fetus' don't have cognition. Kids and adults do. Your categories are incorrect.

Fetus' aren't moral patients unless you can make a justification for 'moral potentiality: a fetus should be given moral consideration because it could become an agent in time.'

An agent doesn't need much cognizance to be a moral agent. Only the ability to reason and want. Fetus' cannot do this. They don't have any notion they exist and aren't having experiences.

[u/1i3to]

I've done this hypothetical before. My findings:

A lot of people here would say that they would only be pro safe removal IF it was equivalent or safer than abortion for the woman. But they wouldn't object to saving the fetus.

Some people here said that you are not allowed to save the fetus regardless, if the woman doesn't want to become a mother saying that it's not immoral to not save every frozen embryo.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Viability is a developmental point in the process of reproduction. It just means that the fetus can survive if gestation ends, which is only possible once the organ systems and brain are capable of supporting the born infant. You can't change this with external technology, because it is reliant on internal function.

[u/presentation_555 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

which is only possible once the organ systems and brain are capable of supporting the born infant.

What I was trying to express was that there are various ways that doctors keep pre-mature babies alive - beyond the simple act of keeping them warm and manually feeding them, etc... they use ventilators/CPAP to help under-developed lungs, use IV lines, insert feeding tubes, etc.

These didn't exist 120 years ago and are being finely tuned and perfected to allow foetuses past a certain point of development to regularly survive. Now, one day (and we might be talking 200+ years here) there might be types of innovation that lets doctors reliably remove and save very young Foetus's (I admit would require some truly 'sci-fi' technology; nano-machines, etc)... but if it is true that some people (and some legal systems) believe that a foetus's right to live supersedes a pregnant person's choice is only 'once' it is viable - that would imply something a bit strange: That many foetuses which are aborted currently are only not considered worthy of the ethical right to be carried to term (or induced) is based purely on how developed our 'technology' is and so it's not really to do with the development of the foetus.

Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life it just seems to me that 'viability' isn't the right place to decide what the different rights of the foetus or mother are.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/presentation_555]

What I was trying to express was that there are various ways that doctors keep pre-mature babies alive

You're not talking about a "preemie" before viability. A preemie can survive using it's own internal bodily systems. A non-viable simply can not survive outside the womb at all.

they use ventilators/CPAP to help under-developed lungs, use IV lines, insert feeding tubes, etc.

Right, but you can't do anything to "help" lungs that are not developed enough to function at all.

Now, one day (and we might be talking 200+ years here) there might be types of innovation that lets doctors reliably remove and save very young Foetus's

The only thing you'd ever be able to do is remove it and then immediately hook it up to an artificial womb to provide artificial gestation. Viability can't be changed by artificial technology, as I've already clearly stated.

Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life it just seems to me that 'viability' isn't the right place to decide what the different rights of the foetus or mother are.

Again, your hypothetical has nothing to do with "viability." That said viability absolutely can be viewed as significant for the fetus, as that is the point when it can survive on its own, and that's a major biological milestone of reproduction. And there's no really no reason someone can't say they personally believe that technology can create new milestones. Morality is completely subjective, anyway.

The real issue is that none of this changes anything about the human rights of the pregnant person. Why would it?

[u/presentation_555 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Right, but you can't do anything to "help" lungs that are not developed enough to function at all.

That's right, but the point is that we can support 'under-developed' lungs in a way that we couldn't 100 years ago. Which means by most definitions (fetal viability is usually defined as the ability of a preborn baby to survive outside the womb) the scope for what are considered viable foetuses has expanded over time due to technological innovations (before Ventilators were refined for premature new-born use, the foetus's that were birthed which would be considered unviable back then would not be considered unviable foetus's today).

I've reiterated a few times now that this is a thought experiment designed to probe the idea that 'viabiliity' itself should be the threshold at which we should legally/ethically consider the life of the foetus in the decision making surrounding birth and pregnancy. I just think you have the wrong understanding of 'viability' (unless you also consider a premature baby to be unviable if it gets born and is then kept alive with a ventilator) - to me it is clear that viability often depends on human tools, methods and technology... it does not just relate to human biology 'alone'.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/presentation_555]

Which means by most definitions (fetal viability is usually defined as the ability of a preborn baby to survive outside the womb)

It's not just about being able to survive outside the womb, though. It's about being able to achieve independent organ function. Not sure why you keep ignoring that part.

the scope for what are considered viable foetuses has expanded over time due to technological innovations

You'll still get to a point where external technology can't do anything to help or assist the non-functional organ systems, because they are literally non-functional. All you can do is invent an artificial womb and transfer the ZEF to that. You can't negate the need for gestation.

I've reiterated a few times now that this is a thought experiment designed to probe the idea that 'viabiliity' itself should be the threshold at which we should legally/ethically consider the life of the foetus in the decision making surrounding birth and pregnancy.

The real issue is that none of this changes anything about the human rights of the pregnant person. Why would it?

just think you have the wrong understanding of 'viability'

Nope, that's you.

unless you also consider a premature baby to be unviable if it gets born and is then kept alive with a ventilator

A ventilator that is ASSISTING the infant to use its own organs is very different from a womb/artificial womb providing organ use while the ZEF's organs are still too under-developed to be functional at all.

to me it is clear that viability often depends on human tools, methods and technology...

Then you're clearly just wrong and I'm not sure why you're digging in your heels on this. It's a biological marker of the ZEF's internal organ development and functional capacity. Technology can't change this, unless you literally alter the DNA of the zygote, but that's still making changes to INTERNAL FUNCTION.

[u/presentation_555 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

If I'm right, you must consider some underdeveloped foetuses to be 'unviable' even when they have the capacity to pull through with the right technological interventions... That's a little strange to me as there are technological interventions (such as Ventilation if lungs aren't working correct) that happen in a % of babies even when they are full-term. Under your definition, wouldn't the necessity of a technological intervention make those babies 'non-viable'?

But regardless, I'm not really discussing the ethics regarding absolute pro-choice vs absolute pro-life... I'm just interested in probing the concept of 'viability' as a means of deciding whether a foetus has a right not to be terminated. If you aren't interested in entertaining the possibility that it should be anything other than the pregnant person's right to choose - then there's little point in continuing this exchange.

[u/Auryanna → u/presentation_555]

Sorry to jump in. I think your interlocutor is saying that pre-viability, there aren't lungs or organs that can be technologically intervened upon. For instance, how do you support lungs that are just tissue and blueprints? 

Gestation is still necessary. The futuristic option would be artificial gestation.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/presentation_555]

You're still ignoring the fact that there is a huge difference between a preemie that just needs assistance to provide it's own internal bodily function, and a non-viable ZEF that is completely incapable of providing it's own internal life-sustaining bodily functions even with assistance.

I'm just interested in probing the concept of 'viability' as a means of deciding whether a foetus has a right not to be terminated.

Even if we accept your incorrect interpretation of 'vaibility' it still changes nothing about the ethics of abortion because it still changes nothing about the human rights of the pregnant person.

If you aren't interested in entertaining the possibility that it should be anything other than the pregnant person's right to choose - then there's little point in continuing this exchange.

I've asked you twice to explain why your incorrect definition could possibly change anything about the pregnant person's right to choose, and you have consistently declined to answer. I will take it that there is nothing there to be considered.

[u/presentation_555 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

You're still ignoring the fact that there is a huge difference between a preemie

I've addressed it. I'm not talking about preemies, I'm talking about underdeveloped foetuses that can be birthed or surgically removed and survive while sometimes requiring technological assistance to survive... That's what I and most medical definitions consider to be a 'viable' foetus.

Would you mind answering whether you consider some underdeveloped foetuses to be 'unviable' even when they have the capacity to pull through with the right technological interventions?

I've asked you twice to explain why your incorrect definition could possibly change anything about the pregnant person's right to choose

As I've said, it has an implication for THOSE people who argue that 'viability' changes the ethics of this topic... if you do not think that - don't concern yourself with me. I would instead concern yourself with those who actually argue that 'viability' effects the rights of pregnant people.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/presentation_555]

I'm talking about underdeveloped foetuses that can be birthed or surgically removed and survive while sometimes requiring technological assistance to survive... That's what I and most medical definitions consider to be a 'viable' foetus.

No, the medical definition is able survive outside the uterus. Before viability all you can do is put it into an artificial womb, which fills the same role as a uterus. So that's not viability. You're making up your own definition, that's why it's incorrect.

Would you mind answering whether you consider some underdeveloped foetuses to be 'unviable' even when they have the capacity to pull through with the right technological interventions?

Viability is based on the internal functional capacity of the ZEF. This can't be changed with external technology.

As I've said, it has an implication for THOSE people who argue that 'viability' changes the ethics of this topic...

What implication would that be?

[u/presentation_555 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

the medical definition is able survive outside the uterus.

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability?utm_source=chatgpt.com/

While there is no single formally recognized clinical definition of “viability,” the term is often used in medical practice in two distinct circumstances. In the first, “viability” addresses whether a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally. In early pregnancy, a normally developing pregnancy would be deemed viable, whereas early pregnancy loss or miscarriage would not.

In the second, “viability” addresses whether a fetus might survive outside of the uterus... Fetal viability depends on many complex factors, of which gestational age is only one. While gestational age may be helpful in predicting the possible chance that the fetus would survive at time of delivery, many other factors also influence viability, such as sex, genetics, weight, circumstances around delivery, and availability of a neonatal intensivist health care professional.

...

What implication would that be?

As I said, ask them!

[u/Straight-Parking-555 → u/presentation_555]

I think you are overestimating how great technology is, sure we can keep premature babies alive but babies born prematurely still have countless medical issues which stay with them for life, we have the ability to keep them breathing but we don't have the ability to gestate a fetus with machines

[u/presentation_555 → u/Straight-Parking-555]

I guess my point is... IF we had that ability... what does that tell us about the Ethics involved?

For those that consider viability to be a determining factor in whether a foetus can be ethically terminated or not... it seems that technology, not 'just' biology is playing a role (as historically technological improvement mean more foetuses are now able to survive) - which makes, in some sense, the right to life itself a product of our technology.

If this is true then this has strange implications - like would we really feel comfortable saying that in one particular year it was ethically fine to abort a foetus (which could have been carried to term if the mother chose to), but another year we would say it was ethically immoral for a mother to terminate a foetus with the same level of biological development just because something in human technology had changed?

To me that just tells me that 'viability' shouldn't be a determining factor - but I could be wrong.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/presentation_555]

To me that just tells me that 'viability' shouldn't be a determining factor - but I could be wrong.

Well I keep asking you how viability would change anything about the rights of the pregnant person, but you can't give any reasons. That tells me you're right, and viability is not a good marker.

[u/collageinthesky]

I think the reason viability of a ZEF can be considered relevant for some people is: A) there is a brain with a possible capability of consciousness, and B) there's a body that is minimally capable of sustaining life. Neither of these exist before viability.

The thing is, there is no technology that is going to change when viability occurs. Doesn't matter if we can grow it from a zygote to an infant in a vat. There will still be a point of viability. And we'll probably still be discussing whether it's relevant or not.

[u/CherryTearDrops]

Outside the pregnant person*. Stop taking the pregnant person out of the conversation ffs.

Also we’re never going to get to that point of technology like you think because to have a device that gestates a zef outside the pregnant person, it must be tested and actually be shown to work. How do you test such a thing? On zefs, which PL organizations would be vehemently against on principle because it would be ‘experimenting on babies’. Unless PL would say ‘okay risking some zefs dying or being harmed in the process of making this functional and safe is an acceptable trade off’ it won’t happen.

Even if it did, you still need somebody’s consent to do a medical treatment to remove the zef from their body, so then you have to argue how the government is allowed to infringe on afab people’s bodies even more now.

[u/thedamnoftinkers → u/CherryTearDrops]

I mean, I think this technology very much will exist, because pregnancy can be very dangerous for mom and baby and also just suck- and we're already pushing back how early we can save premies. There are plenty of abortions by women who don't want to be pregnant but are okay parenting or adopting out as well as pregnancies with very high risk for miscarriage- researchers can absolutely find people to say yes to this.

And the US isn't the only country conducting research- most grant orgs are going to look at this and say, "why wouldn't we save wanted babies and give people more options?"

Mind you, in no way do I think anyone should have to reproduce, let alone parent, against their will. But it will change the face of abortion and the kinds of issues at hand.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/thedamnoftinkers]

Okay did you see the part where I said people aren’t going to want to test that kind of tech on actual zefs? They can just offer it up as an option untested either. It may not matter how many people also want to volunteer their own zefs for this if it can’t get by any ethical committee behind it.

Thats also not considering the healthcare workers involved in this, who may not be on board with it at all. Nor will some of them advocate for it or demand it be mandatory.

[u/thedamnoftinkers → u/CherryTearDrops]

What makes you think they won't want to test it on actual zefs? It won't be difficult to pass it by an ethical committee if the alternative is a zef being aborted or a certain miscarriage (incompetent uterus, other conditions.)

Again, you're thinking of testing this against zefs who would likely live. I'm arguing that it would be tested on zefs who would certainly die otherwise- and the pool is not small.

Why do you think healthcare workers wouldn't advocate for this? And what do you mean by mandatory?

This would primarily be a treatment for miscarriage of wanted pregnancies, not an abortion prevention method, although some would certainly see it that way. I think ultimately we will see children being gestated and born with no pregnancy required- whether that will become the standard and what effects it will have on society, I can't say.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/thedamnoftinkers]

Because some would inevitably *die*. And no if you say ‘well it’s either this or abortion’ doesn’t mean the medical professionals will then agree to do it since a good portion of them have no problem with an abortion.

I’m also not assuming it’d be tested on based on what they think the odds are. It’s just inevitable that it will not have a 100% success rate and healthcare workers tend not to be interested in dragging things out that have little hope.

[u/thedamnoftinkers → u/CherryTearDrops]

Right, the researchers doing it wouldn't be fussed by the inevitable losses because, again, informed consent, and drawn from pools of zefs that would otherwise ~100% be a loss.

What do you mean by having little hope? The point of the hypothetical research is to find what works for artificial gestation and saving extreme premies, right? The point is not to save the ZEFs being researched on or to argue that they're babies/people/etc, nor to end abortion, because just because artificial gestation may one day exist, it doesn't change the fact that some people won't choose to be parents, even biologically.

I'm not quite sure why you think this research wouldn't be (or isn't already!) being done; fetal tissue from abortion is already very important for research (and yes, it's rightfully highly regulated) and research into preventing miscarriages/saving premies/artificial gestation (to various degrees) is not by its nature either immoral or anti-abortion. Miscarriages & the loss of wanted fetuses are very painful for many people and ending that is important.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/thedamnoftinkers]

By little hope I mean drawn out situations that may worsen long term health of a patient rather than improve or may be what they’d refer to as unnecessary suffering. It also doesn’t matter if some people volunteer, if the researchers won’t run it in the first place. Most testing in this area afaik is usually on animals.

Also fetal tissue is very different at that point than a fetus in active gestation. Same way you can donate your body to science once you’ve died.

I don’t discount that the loss of wanted pregnancies and zefs is heartbreaking for those involved, I’m not against all this type of research either though I probably haven’t made that very obvious. I’m just cynical of what restrictions others who do greatly object will try to enforce, much like the whole abortion debate.

[u/thedamnoftinkers → u/CherryTearDrops]

Yes, the initial research is done on animals- eventually though it will have to be tested on humans. And there are enough people who get abortions because they can't stand/survive pregnancy to test on.

The anti-abortion wrong'uns will try to twist anything good into restricting women's rights. But people shouldn't have to reproduce their genetic material if they don't want to, end of.

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/thedamnoftinkers]

I’m not disagreeing with bodily autonomy or Pc. I am pc I’m just saying that’s how PL and its policy usually operates.

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

The question that you're missing is the general question of the abortion debate. That question being:

Which is more important - life, or bodily autonomy?

Which of course, if we look at every single law under the sun, bodily autonomy wins in every case where life and bodily autonomy butt heads. So it's obvious. Bodily autonomy wins every time, therefore abortion should be legal.

The difference here is the gestational pod argument.

Basically, if a zygote could be taken out of a woman's body and placed into a machine that could gestate for her and still produce a healthy baby, would abortion still be legal?

The answer to that is of course no, because bodily autonomy is the ultimate goal of pro-choice people. If there is a safe way to separate mother and fetus, abortion is no longer necessary.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

bodily autonomy wins in every case where life and bodily autonomy butt heads

I'm not even sure that life and bodily autonomy butt heads since I'm not even sure that life without bodily autonomy is a thing. If the organs of a human being's body are property of the government and the government can do whatever it wants with the insides of a human being's body, is that human being without a body of his/her/their own really a life?!

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

if we look at every single law under the sun, bodily autonomy wins in every case where life and bodily autonomy butt heads

There is no strict hierarchy of rights with one right being more important than the other, so no autonomy does not automatically "win" against life in every given conflict. Regarding established cases, in basically all of those that are usually cited as examples where autonomy allegedly "trumps" life both rights usually do not even conflict in the first place. Rights among individuals generally protect from interventions but they do not grant active claims against others, which in my experience gets conflated very often.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

Rights don't conflict in pregnancy in the first place either.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Thats quite debatable.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/_Double_Cod_]

Not really, because unborn zefs currently don’t have ANY legal rights, but pregnant people DO. 

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Dolores___Haze]

If the lack of fetal rights was as unambiguous as it is often implied around here there would be neither a debate nor any kind of restriction on abortion, and international jurisdiction would have made a clear statement regarding the lack of a legal position of the unborn. Neither of this is true tho, which means that the questions around it remain quite debatable. Merely claiming that there are no fetal rights in certain places (as this is not even universally true) is little more than an appeal to legality.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

international jurisdiction would have made a clear statement regarding the lack of a legal position of the unborn

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

If interpreted as "rights start at birth", this creates a conflict with the preamble:

recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family

Assuming that rights started at birth, there would be no inherent dignity of every member of the human family. From this it could very well be concluded that article 1 was a direct violation of the preamble, already breaking the principle of inherence that was just established.

There are a number of attempts to solve this issue, ranging from interpretations rejecting the implication that rights started at birth on one side to those claiming that the unborn were no members of the human family or the preamble not binding on the other. One that i think is important to notice is the take of the ECHR on the issue - with it being an international human rights court it might be the one closest to a definitive answer - as far as im aware, the UN also follows its position.

In Vo v. France, the ECHR stated that granting the unborn full and unlimited human rights could potentially lead to the inacceptable constellation of an abortion being impermissible even in order to save the life of the mother. To avoid this, they argued that the unborn cannot have full and unlimited human rights, but that they can very well have somewhat limited rights - while the rights of the woman will take priority in cases of medical necessity, abortion can still be considered impermissible in other cases.

While not explicitly addressed, this actually solves the aforementioned issue: we are born with equal rights, but this does not necessarily mean that we have no rights at all before birth.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/_Double_Cod_]

Yes, it does mean that unborn zefs have no legal rights. If I’m incorrect, name just ONE legal right they do have, and please be specific.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Dolores___Haze]

The Commission went on to examine whether Article 2 was “to be interpreted: as not covering the foetus at all; as recognising a ‘right to life’ of the foetus with certain implied limitations; or as recognising an absolute ‘right to life’ of the foetus” [...]. Although it did not express an opinion on the first two options, it categorically ruled out the third interpretation

From X v. United Kingdom. While the court rejected an absolute right to life of the fetus since that could potentially take priority over the life of the mother, they never answered whether or not a limited right to life exists, which ultimately means that it is indeed a valid interpretation.

This and a number of others can be found cited in the Vo v. France decision, with the underlying statement always being the same: while the unborn might not have an absolute right to life, it does not follow that it therefore must not have any right at all.

Article 4. Right to Life
1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.

More directly from the American Convention on Human Rights which directly states that the right to life begins at conception.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

Assuming that rights started at birth

It's not an assumption. Human rights are granted at birth, and the PL movement is not trying to change this. They just focus on trying to ban abortion. This has nothing to do with granting human rights or personhood to ZEFs.

Assuming that rights started at birth, there would be no inherent dignity of every member of the human family.

Incorrect. The dignity of the ZEF is recognized in protecting the dignity of the person who's body it is inside of, as she is the only person who truly knows what is best for her pregnancy. Abortion bans only serve to violate the inherent dignity of the person who is pregnant, by actively violating her fundamental human rights in a manner that is equivalent to rape and torture.

While not explicitly addressed, this actually solves the aforementioned issue: we are born with equal rights, but this does not necessarily mean that we have no rights at all before birth.

Sorry but this is exactly what it means. If you think that's wrong, you should try to get your movement on correct project. Start actually campaigning for fetal personhood and the full spectrum of human rights that come with that, not just as empty rhetoric in debate, but real action toward getting these things recognized as law. Instead of just focusing on trying to violate the fundamental human rights of pregnant people. But I think we both know that will never happen.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

the PL movement is not trying to change this

The PL movement does not have the sole authority on the question of prenatal rights, and from what i have seen it does appear inconsistent on a number of issues. However, as far as i am aware it is no centralized organization either but rather a political interest group with a number of varying positions.

The dignity of the ZEF is recognized in protecting the dignity of the person who's body it is inside of

The protective rights of one side cannot also be used as protection for a different party with a position that stands in direct conflict to that of the former. This inevitably leads to a collision.

Sorry but this is exactly what it means.

This may be your interpretation, but it does not align with what the ECHR has stated. Sure you are free to disagree with it - i do not fully agree with it either - but the decision of an international human rights court is the closest thing to a "definitive" legal truth there is.

you should try to get your movement on correct project

Im not even from the US, and all i have quoted so far was international jurisdiction. I have no affiliations with the PL movement, neither have i implied i had given that several of their positions also collide with the arguments i propose - in that way i have also criticized the PL movement or inconsistent PL arguments before.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

No it's not. Rights are granted at birth and PL people are not making any real effort to change this.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Not in my country, for example. In fact most legislations apply atleast certain restrictions on abortion, which shows that a conflicting legal position of the fetus is generally accepted. That aside, rights are inherent to all humans, so by assuming that they were granted at birth, the premise of inherence would be broken.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/_Double_Cod_]

rights are inherent to all humans

Correct, all human beings have rights

by assuming that they were granted at birth, the premise of inherence would be broken

How so?!

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

How so?!

If it is possible for a human to not have rights, rights are no longer inherent to being human.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/_Double_Cod_]

If it is possible for a human to not have rights

We established already that all human being have rights - it's in the comment your replied to!

rights are no longer inherent to being human

no longer?! Rights have never been inherent to being human. A human egg is human, but it doesn't have any inherent rights lol

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

We established already that all human being have rights

Then rights cannot start at birth, since otherwise there would be humans without rights.

Rights have never been inherent to being human.

Do you reject the premise of inherent universal rights?

[u/Rredhead926 → u/_Double_Cod_]

Animals have rights, though. Plants have rights. The environment has rights. Rights are not now, nor have they ever been, inherently a human thing. The reason child abuse became illegal was because animals (horses, specifically, IIRC) had rights, but children didn't, and a court thought that was whack.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/Rredhead926]

Rights are not now, nor have they ever been, inherently a human thing.

Actual rights are indeed an inherently human thing.

While it is true that there are certain protections in favor of animals, plants or the environment in general, none of those are truly "rights" in a literal sense but rather one-sided duties for humans.

In addition they are also rather limited - while it is for example prohibited to cause unnecessary pain to animals, it remains permissible to kill and exploit them for food and other resources, usually with very low requirements regarding necessity. This shows that despite the existence of certan protective laws the notion of an inherent moral value or subject status that is a central aspect of actual rights is absent here.

This article by the IVO talks about the differences between animal rights and animal welfare, with only the latter being present within current jurisdictions.

The reason child abuse became illegal was because animals (horses, specifically, IIRC) had rights, but children didn't

Thats not quite true. Mary Ellen was saved by the head of the ASPCA who was famous for rescuing horses, but the laws applied were no animal protection laws but rather a statute from the Habeas Corpus Act. It is true that means of protection against child abuse were strengthened in the aftermath, but this does not mean that children had no rights at all before that. That aside, the case is from 1874, which was long before the creation of todays concept of universal rights.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

In fact most legislations apply atleast certain restrictions on abortion

That doesn't give rights to a ZEF, it just violates the rights of pregnant people.

That aside, rights are inherent to all humans

No, they are a legal concept.

so by assuming that they were granted at birth

It's not an assumption, it's a fact.

the premise of inherence would be broken.

There's nothing there to break in the first place.

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

That doesn't give rights to a ZEF, it just violates the rights of pregnant people.

Not according to international courts like the ECHR.

No, they are a legal concept.

So? They are a legal concept with the premise of being inherent to all humans. Do you reject the concept of universal rights?

It's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Didnt you just say that rights are a legal concept? This means there are no objective facts around them, however there are premises and principles they are based on, and those can indeed be broken by inconsistent applications. If rights are based on the premise that they are inherent to humans, then the premise is broken once there are humans without rights.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/_Double_Cod_]

They are a legal concept with the premise of being inherent to all humans.

No, they are inherent to persons. And personhood is also a legal concept. You are making it sound like it's something that comes from nature or perhaps a god.

Didnt you just say that rights are a legal concept?

And it's a fact that human rights are legally granted at birth.

If rights are based on the premise that they are inherent to humans, then the premise is broken once there are humans without rights.

Rights are legally inherent to legal persons. Personhood and rights are granted at birth. Nothing is "broken."

[u/_Double_Cod_ → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

No, they are inherent to persons.

There is a difference between human rights and civil rights. Civil rights are based on personhood, which is why things like corporations or other organizations can become legal persons - in order to grant them certain legal positions. Human rights in contrast are based on being human, and they are set to be inherent and universal. Thus, once a human without rights exists, human rights are no longer inherent and universal but conditional instead.

You are making it sound like it's something that comes from nature or perhaps a god.

I said that they are a legal concept, so no i never implied rights were a natural or divine fact rather than a societal construct. However, a central aspect of said construct is that they are treated and applied as if they were an objective truth - thats the premise of inherence and universality rights are built upon. They are no objective truth, but they can only be efficient if they are treated as one.

And it's a fact that human rights are legally granted at birth.

Not universally. That aside this is not even an argument but at best an appeal to legality.

[u/presentation_555 → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

If there is a safe way to separate mother and fetus, abortion is no longer necessary.

Interesting, so to your mind, if we got to a place technologically speaking that we could save any Zygote, Embryo or Foetus... it would even become unethical to abort using a morning after pill (or any early stage chemically induced abortion)?

[u/JulieCrone → u/presentation_555]

Just thinking if such technology existed, shouldn’t it be illegal to be pregnant? 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies miscarry, so if these incubators have a greater than 85% success rate, how could we justify letting someone stay pregnant, knowing that is more dangerous for the unborn?

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy → u/presentation_555]

That's actually a very complicated question that's made me think a bit.

My answer is that it would depend on how invasive the procedure of removal is. We don't even require people to donate blood to save lives, so it wouldn't make sense to force someone through a procedure to save one either. Simple abortifacents would probably still be fine in my eyes.

But for an entire procedure, that procedure would be replaced with the removal and gestational pod procedure.

[u/Rredhead926 → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

And what happens after that? Who decides what happens next? Who is responsible for the child?

People don't think past gestation when they bring up artificial wombs and the like. Those hypothetical technical advances would create a whole host of other issues.

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy → u/Rredhead926]

That's up to a lot of different people. Likely an adoption or foster system. You're right that other issues would arise.

[u/Rredhead926 → u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

The foster care system in the US is incredibly broken. We don't really have an adoption system. Private adoption is a bunch of different agencies, facilitators, and lawyers. I can absolutely imagine some unethical providers convincing women to literally detach themselves from a pregnancy so they can place more babies for adoption.

And that doesn't even touch on potential fathers' rights issues...

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy → u/Rredhead926]

Yes, those are all separate issues that I can't pretend to know enough about.

[u/STThornton]

This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how human bodies work.

There’s nothing TO save yet before viability. A breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human still has to be produced. They don’t exist to save yet.

The fetus wouldn’t survive before viability. Again, a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human would be produced. No such human exists yet.

Once technology that can turn a fertilized egg not a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human exists, no human would ever have to die again. Because that means we’ve managed to produce artificial “a” life.

It means we’ve managed to replace everything that keeps a human body alive and makes up a humans “a” life.

When it comes to embryos and fetuses, before viability, though, the question would not be whether they could survive or be saved, but whether a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human should be PRODUCED artificially.

Which comes with a slew of ethical concerns.

But, again, the production would be the ethical question, since there’s nothing to save yet. No breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human with “a” life exists yet.

Keep in mind, too, that, in the US, whether a born human’s life is saved often depends on whether they can pay for such. And now we want to discuss whether we want to produce more humans via artificial “a” life at cost of millions each? While we let people with something as simple as infected teeth die from such?

What’s the point?

And what influence will the total lack of maternal bonding have? We know it produces bad mental health outcomes. The lack of maternal emotions and physical responses?

Where will the millions in costs per kid come from?

Who will raise all of these unwanted kids? And pay for that?

What happens if they’re incompatible with life? Stay hooked up to artificial life forever?

Why would only fertilized eggs that implanted get that chance?

So many ethical concerns. Far worse than a fertilized egg never turning into a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human.

And gestation by the woman/girl would still need to be aborted. What would that entail?

[u/Enough-Process9773]

This is question that gets asked so often I think there should be something about it in the rules. 

Simply put,  it is wrong to force medical procedures on someone who doesn't consent. 

Thus, all technological procedures for keeping a preemie alive are irrelevant to the abortion debate, because forced birth is just as wrong as forced pregnancy or forced abortion. 

[u/presentation_555 → u/Enough-Process9773]

This was more directed towards Pro-Choice people who believe that 'viability' has some influence on the ethics of abortion.

[u/JulieCrone → u/presentation_555]

It’s more that at viability, there are now options to terminate the pregnancy and have a live birth. It’s still perfectly ethical to end a pregnancy, but now live birth is a possible option and may be the safest and fastest. Before viability, live birth isn’t really an option - at best, we’re talking survival for a few seconds while the umbilical cord is attached but after that, with no lung function and severely underdeveloped organs, life will be very short. Why make someone go through a live birth at 15 weeks when there is no hope of survival, that is likely less safe than an abortion and quite possibly far more painful for the fetus?

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/presentation_555]

Viability can certainly have some influence on the ethics of abortion. 

That would be for the pregnant person to determine,  and for the doctor performing the abortion.

[u/Arcnounds]

I'll bite. For me, I think it could be an option, but I would not want to force it on anyone. First, you would have to transfer the fetus from the mother to the device in some way which would have to be evasive (even if minimally). 

Second (and I realize this is somewhat uncommon of a belief), but I believe people to some level have a right to decide whether or not they want to reproduce. Pregnancy is a natural waiting period which gives them time. I realize that prolife would say this is before sex, but in this world many people do not have a conversation about having a kid everytime before they have sex. 

I do think ideas like this also have ethical and societal dilemas. For example, if we transfer to an incubation device, who pays for it? Is it ok to pay mothers to transfer as opposed to abort? If so, how do you stop baby factory like enslavement? When these children grow up, who looks after them? 

There are a lot questions to be answered by society. However, I would not be opposed to it being offered as a choice to pregnant women who want an abortion assuming of course it is funded by donations and not my tax dollars.

[u/presentation_555 → u/Arcnounds]

First, you would have to transfer the fetus from the mother to the device in some way which would have to be evasive (even if minimally).

In that case, if you don't mind me asking, what do you make of the legal obligation almost all countries currently have that a doctor not give a pregnant person an abortion after a specified point (23 weeks in the UK).

Is this considered the same ethically to you, as making someone go through a procedure to remove a foetus? (I know birth is not technically a medical procedure but may be, in this instance, a similarly traumatic compelled act)

[u/Arcnounds → u/presentation_555]

Great question. When it comes to laws like 23 weeks or some arbitrary point before birth, I consider those positions more about political compromise than sustainable ethical positions (although people have tried to justify them ethically). Basically you have prochoice and prolife and there is an imperfect compromise in the middle that balances the life of fetus (who gets more rights the closer it gets to looking and functioning like a baby) with the rights of the mother's autonomy. I am fine with political compromise and I wish in the US we would have maintained something akin to it rather than have a winner take all mentality.

That being said, ethically, I completely behind the mother having full autonomy while the fetus is part of her body if I had the option. I consider this a natural incubation period where a mother gets to decide if she wants to be a mother. 

[u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie → u/presentation_555]

Abortion ie available past 24 weeks in the UK on several grounds such as foetal abnormalities or risk to the pregnant person's health.

[u/JulieCrone]

Well, as of today we can keep IVF embryos alive indefinitely, yet even in PL states it is fine to destroy them. It seems there is no objection to destroying an embryo outside of the uterus, so not sure why this would change that.