Thank you, Mr. Saletan, for your support for the eventual outlawing of abortion--that is to say, lethal abortion--when artificial placentas and other artificial means of growing children outside the womb of the biological mother become available. Also, of course, fetal removal and implantation in the adoptive mother's womb may also become commonplace. The fetus will indeed be separated from the biological mother's womb, that oppressive device that makes the humanity of the unborn impossible.

Now, that is a really interesting challenge. We're still way far off from full-term ectogenesis. But if we get there, it forces the question of whether the right to no longer be pregnant includes the right to kill. For my money, it most certainly does not.

" But if we get there, it forces the question of whether the right to no longer be pregnant includes the right to kill. For my money, it most certainly does not."

Saletan, if the State can remove the fetus and provide full-term ectogenesis, then women would no longer have to kill the fetus to stop a pregnancy. That is the only thing that I can see that would stop the need for on-demand abortion.

What of the millions of children that will be brought to term then? Do you honestly believe that all will be adopted? Who will pay for this? Will the woman be forced to even though she chose to end the pregnancy?

I'm glad that we are still far away from this scientific solution, because the cost to society will not be addressed until after the first ectogenetic pregnancy.

I suspect the end result to this will be a lot of unwanted children in the foster care system. On the other hand, there does seem to be no shortage of people willing to adopt babies born of non-crack addict mothers so perhaps this will simply destroy the adoption chances of born children rather than increase the number of children in the foster system.

It will be interesting if it ever happens. My suspicion is that it will be quite difficult to do, and probably won't remove abortion completely.

But, Saletan, if you think that the right to no longer be pregnant will not include the right to kill in the future (when there are non-lethal abortions), you acknowledge that there is a right to life of the fetus in the first place, and therefore that, right NOW, a woman's right to privacy trumps a fetus's right to life...

Do you see the problem? A fetus either has a right to life, or it has no right to life. In theory, at least, constitutional rights do not change with the advent of new technology. If a fetus has a right to life, then I would argue that only a danger posed to the life of the mother could trump a fetus's right to life. All other rights are less fundamental.

So, you see, your bet that a fetus will be entitled to non-lethal abortions in the future defeats your own position on abortions now. But, I agree, that the suggestion of non-lethal abortions is VERY interesting.

I imagine that some on the pro-choice side would be against non-lethal abortions, since I believe that, for at least some people (men and women) part of the goal of an abortion (as opposed to adoption) is to rid themselves of the feeling of obligation to another living person.

Even if, IF, you assing a "right to life" to a fetus, that "right" can still be separated from a pregnant woman's right to privacy/self-determination. Currenly, even if YOU have a right to life, if I have some vital resource that you MUST have (say a lung for transplant and I am the only possible candidate) there is no mandate based on right that I have to turn it over to you. Currently, the fetus would be taking nutrients, health, etc from the pregnant woman. The woman wishes to stop this... the only means left after removal of the fetus is fetal death. This is why it is still a personal moral choice... .do you wish to sacrifice your health/livelihood/etc for a potential child (still potential because they aren't born living yet... still could sponaneously abort... layterm = "miscarriage").

I am a big fan of the "Iron Womb". I can even see surgical alteration of children at puberty to prevent unintended pregnancies and later harvesting sperm/egg for insemination and artificial implantation... come back in 9mo for your delivery... and check out the 24hr webcam with data feed of the vitals online whenever you want to see how "little Jimmy" is coming along.

Thanks for the comment, Cycleboy. But I must persist that once you recognize a right to life, the most fundamental right, the imposition on the mother (whose actions, lest we forget, are cause of the existence of the fetus in the first place) cannot outweigh the interest of the fetus in continuing to survive. In other words, as far as fundamental rights go, life trumps privacy.

"But I must persist that once you recognize a right to life, the most fundamental right, the imposition on the mother (whose actions, lest we forget, are cause of the existence of the fetus in the first place) cannot outweigh the interest of the fetus in continuing to survive"

The woman's rights are not trumped. We are protected against indentured servitude by the Constitution. This certainly would be the case if you force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes for nine months which could result in her death. Yes, women still die in childbirth. You cannot force me to use my body to host anything, you cannot force me to provide a lung for transplant, for example.

A clump of cells, wether they will grow into a baby or not, doesn't trump the rights of the woman.

Why is this "(whose actions, lest we forget, are cause of the existence of the fetus in the first place)" so central to your argument? Could this be about punishing the woman for having sex? And what of the father? They make contraception for men, too. It takes two to tango. Hmmm.. I'm not so sure you are simply worried about the fetus.

"It will be interesting if it ever happens. My suspicion is that it will be quite difficult to do, and probably won't remove abortion completely."

I agree, especially knowing how difficult it is now to keep a preemie of 25 weeks alive.

So the battle over who gets to control a woman's reproductive organs will rage on.

Apropos, thank you for your comment. First, I don't think that anyone who is familiar with the legal aspect of this issue, would say that pregnancy is involuntary servitude such that it violates the 13th amendment. That amendment is simply not on point with this discussion.

Also, if you had read my earlier comment, you might note my suggestion that in a situation where the life of the mother is in danger, the fetus's interest in survival must yeild to the mother's interest in survival.

And last, you ask why I point out that the fetus was created by the voluntary actions of the woman? In legal terms, it's called consent. In lay terms, it's called assuming responsibility for your own actions. Those who willingly engage in sexual activity with the knowledge that it may produce offspring should not be allowed to rely on their right to "privacy" to terminate the life of that offspring, that is, if you believe that the offspring has a right to life. It would be murder, essentially.

That's the key to this whole thing, and the most critical point to Roe. Roe does not extend the right to life to the unborn. If it had, Roe would have, by necessity, been a very different opinion.

...so by your definition, women are essentially alone in the room when they get pregnant. Men are merely machines that cannot control themselves and should therefore never be held responsible for a life that could not have been created without their presence.

Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

MessyONE,

We're having a discussion about 1) whether there is a right to life of a fetus; and 2) if so, whether that right is more fundamental than a pregnant woman's right to privacy (which is where the right to receive an abortion is grounded, consitutionally speaking).

If you can't follow along with it, I would appreciate simply not hearing from you. Insults are not necessary or appreciated. Furthermore, if you read it, the discussion never addresses men, their rights or their responsibilities. Thus, your comments stem from assumptions made solely by you, and not from any of my personal feelings. You demonstrate your own ignorance in this regard.

If you have something close to an intelligent point to make with regard to the discussion, I'd be happy to read and respond. But, based on your previous post, I doubt that's the case.

You are wrong on a couple of points:

1. Your assertions about Am 13 not applying are wrong. They have been raised and confirmed at the appellate level at least in part. So they are very valid approaches
2. Your arguement about it being the woman's decisions that lead to her pregnancy essentially argue Strict Liability. And Strict Liability is not a permissible end run to Am 13.

The Government's right to act on behalf of defending the lives of its citizens is in no way absolute or even automatic. The motivation to do so is purely political. There is no Constitutional delegation of authority to explicitly protect the lives of its citizens. Thus all such motivation is politically driven and must be accomplished within the delegated authority within the US Constitution. Furthermore it is additionally limited by the explicit prohibitions on government action that are also in the US Constitution.

So the mere fact of conveying "fetal personhood" upon the embryo conveys no extra authority or power to the Government.

Thus the prohibitions against compelling a woman to donate her reproductive organs in the involuntary service of The State no matter what the cause, still hold.

I suggest that it depends as to whether the battle will rage onwards. If Roe is overturned, and Am 13 remains the sole basis for abortion rights (ie RU486 only) then you still have the issue that forcing a woman to undergo the medical procedure that is required to transfer the fetus to the artificial environment is servitude.

Degsme, I'm not sure how other posters feel, but your willingness to argue using points that are so far off the mark are actually somewhat endearing to me. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. You speak about the constitution, and other legal buzz words, in ways that make no sense and demonstrate an serious disconnect between your ideas and the actual bases for the law. I hope you don't take this offensively, because it's really not meant that way. I would love to meet you in person. I imagine we could fill an afternoon discussing the contours of the idea of "involuntary servitude" and whether or not a state's law that one cannot urinate in public violates the Thirteenth Amendment.