The Volokh Conspiracy

What an amazingly ignorant column. My guess (because I don't know anything about the writer) is that she is definitely pro-life. Even if any of the premises were true, just compare the cost of a fetus transplant vs. an embryo implantation makes the idea that science will be able to pursue this ridiculous. Or campare the number of abortions performed vs. the number of adoptions. I can't believe Zywicki who is an economist even felt this kind of balthering worthy of note.

A simple google search shows her extensive writings... agree or disagree with them, but it seems pretty clear that she's a pro-choice libertarian.

(I apologize for the blatant attempt to pidgeonhole her after scanning the titles of her articles and skimming a couple of them.)

If we can't even agree on the morning-after pill, something that would clearly reduce the number of abortions by a great deal, how could anyone think that more sophisticated technology which would reduce the number of abortions would meet with greater political approval?

Wendy McElroy is explicitly pro-choice so I'm wrong about that, but the notion that science will trump the debate ignores the basic economics of the situation. Termination of pregnancy either through pharmaceutical means or surgery will always be orders of magnitude cheaper than the solutions she thinks science can develop for transfer of potential pregnancies.

Wendy McElroy is explicitly pro-choice so I'm wrong about that, but the notion that science will trump the debate ignores the basic economics of the situation. Termination of pregnancy either through pharmaceutical means or surgery will always be orders of magnitude cheaper than the solutions she thinks science can develop for transfer of potential pregnancies.


That's true only if the pregnant woman is the one forced to make the payments. Artificial wombs would give the pro-lifers the chance to back their rhetoric with cash.

So what if it costs $100,000 for an articial womb? (I'm completely making up that figure.) If the pro-lifers think a two-month-old fetus is a human being, they can create a fund to pay for the procedure. Also, prospective adoptive parents could pay the freight.

Mr. Chapman: Your second quote is, unfortunately, wrong.

The proper quote, IIRC, is "640K is all the memory anyone should ever need."

I'm sure, somehow, it is a cabal of Jewish bankers who make all the money from Big Abortion. That seems to be the conspiratorial tone at work.

I've always thought that science does hold the key to an eventual compromise on abortion.

What we need to do is have "neutral" definition of when life begins. We should use the same definition for life as we do for death. Someone, for example, can be declared legally dead when there is no detectable brain wave activity. Why not use this same standard and decide that a fetus is not alive until there is detectable brain wave activity?

I don't know exactly at what stage of development this occurs and I suspect there may be some difficult in measuring fetal brain activity but this is a technical problem that shouldn't be too difficult to solve if there were a good reason to do so. I suspect, however, that this rule would have the effect of outlawing late term abortions while protecting early ones.

This won't thrill the pro-lifers. On the other hand, it will eliminate the most troubling abortions. It will also enshrine the protection of life as a legal principle which would blunt much of their philosophical opposition to Roe.

It won't thrill the pro-choicers, either. But it will preserve the right to abortion and put it on a much firmer legal and philosophical basis.

Admittedly, this is a sort of Solomonesque solution. But splitting the baby, you should pardon the expression, is often the only way to solve these kind of societal problems where each side has so much invested.

I think this would satisfy more "pro-lifers" than you think. Probably not the ones waving around pictures of dead babies on the streets, but I don't think there are as many of those as you think.

There are a lot of people who aren't single-issue activists who would like to see a sensible policy on abortion, but unfortunately, that puts them squarely in opposition to the court-imposed "fundamental right" to abortion. Compromise is radical these days.

Science will certainly resolve the abortion debate, just as certainly as science has resolved the evolution debate, the global warming debate, . . .

Steve... WHERE did contraception ever come up in my posts? If I was painting ANYONE as a "radical," it would be the "pro-lifers" who would refuse to compromise on any legalized abortion. Please re-read my post if you would like to comment on that. In the meantime, I'll get to work sweeping up the straw man you've scattered everywhere.

Well that brings up an interesting point... I'm not sure what the current law is, but I think that a few years ago at least, you couldn't get a vasectomy unless you were married or already had a kid or something. If anyone out there knows more details, please share. The point is, they didn't let just any 16 year old who says "I don't want no kids!" making a decision like that on a whim.

I assume that if any such law still exists today, it could easily be challenged under Griswald and Roe, couldn't it? If there are no such laws, then I'm sorry to waste your bandwidth.

The point about artificial wombs or the like is that in the absence of any way of ending a pregnancy without destroying the fetus, we haven't had to sort out whether the abortion right is a right not to be pregnant, or a right not to become a biological parent. The moment it's possible to achieve the former without the latter following as a matter of course, things become much more complicated. (We have to notice, for one thing, that at present not only do men not have the right not to become biological parents — except, obviously, by forgoing heterosexual sex — but they cannot renounce all parental responsibilities at the birth of a child, as women can.)

Shannon Love:

Artificial wombs will make abortion on demand indefensible, if they can be made viable.

The strength of the pro-choice argument largely, if not entirely, rests with the health complications and 9 month inconvenience which pregnancy demands upon a woman. If both of these are reduced drastically, then the justification for abortion is also diminished.

There will always be arguments for pretty much anything. I have no doubt that if an artificial womb were created that many ardent pro-choicers would continue with the fight. But if an embryo can be removed in a procedure which poses no more risk or inconvenience than abortion, and then the state or third party assumes the costs of placing that embryo in an artificial womb, the American people WILL rightly reject legal abortion.

The other way in which science is radically changing the debate is in the way it has changed the meaning of "viability." Premies can now be saved at very young ages. Roe's dismissal of small fetuses as "non-viable" and hence disposable like toilet paper is becoming scientifically less and less justifiable.

Science cuts both ways, doesn't it?

There is no scientific basis for claiming that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient. But I like how one poster characterized making the morning-after pill illegal as "the state abstaining from ethical issues." Generally, outlawing something is an odd method of abstention.

Well, she's certainly right an artificial womb would change the debate, but probably in horrifying ways, a la Terri Schiavo. You're going to have a situation where a child that is not wanted can be rescued and grown to term in an artificial womb -- at, no doubt, enormous expense, which of course the parents would do nearly anything to avoid (since they were willing to kill the grub to avoid the expense and trouble originally).

Now what? Who is going to pay the cost for exo-incubation? Or, contrariwise, who is going to easily stand by and accept the killing of an infant -- or fetus, whatever you want to call him -- when the technology to save his life is standying by, and it's "merely" a matter of someone paying for it? We already look askance at someone who turns off granny's respirator, even when granny is terminal and only has weeks to live, because he wants his share of granny's estate to be a bit larger. What happens when wanting to keep a bit more of your money (or wanting to keep your taxes down) necessarily results in the death of a cute pink baby? We are going to see images of tiny darling babies (cf. Lennart Nilsson) growing to term in artificial wombs, and have to know that simultaneously very similar creatures are being killed "to save money." Who could easily stand that?

But it's still worse. Most of us die fairly quickly and definitively -- gasp, gurgle, and that's all she wrote. Relatively few linger in an insanely expensive technologically-supported limbo, so we are faced with end-o'-life dilemmas relatively (if not, alas, absolutely) rarely.

But there is at present 1 abortion for every 3 births in the US, each one of which, in this scenario, becomes one of these painful decisions, and a place where our primordial instincts will strongly suggest an investment of big bucks instead of death. So in this case we can't just, as a society, cope with those painful cases by throwing money at them (e.g. having insurance or tax money pay for the artificial wombs when mom won't or can't).

There really will be only two ways out of the dilemma: go back to the ancient Greek standard that a child lives at the pleasure of his parents (or really the pleasure of his mother, since fathers these days have no say at all in whether a pregnancy is brought to term). Or accept a huge new expense at the beginning of life, which will no doubt sharply increase the rate of contraception use, but which will as surely also decrease overall fertility.

One additional reflection: Ms. McElroy may imagine in a fuzzy warm way that the world would be pleasant if children occured only when they were truly wanted, and parents were committed to the expense of having and raising them. A very long-term view of the species suggests otherwise, for the simple reason that sex is fun. Why is sex fun? And very fun, at that. This is not an accident, but something evolution has designed into us (and not, incidentally, into all species). There is an excellent chance that the reason we have been designed to pursue sexual pleasure avidly is because the pleasures of child-rearing are by themselves too scant to ensure sufficient fertility to sustain the species.

Now, of course the fertility necessary to sustain the species is higher under primitive conditions than modern, so it's possible that the pleasures of child-rearing by themselves -- once complete "freedom to choose," both pre- and post-conception, utterly severs the connection between sex and parenting -- will be enough to sustain the species. But, then again, they may not be. The experience of First World countries (e.g. Japan, Italy) where contraception is cheap and widespread, and where the later advantages to parents of children have been largely replaced by pensions, are not especially encouraging: fertility rates are way below replacement in such countries, and native population is set to precipitously decline in the next century.

How amazingly ironic it would be, if, in the end, after conquering all the forces of death arrayed against us -- defeating predators, natural catastrophes, disease and decay -- and having arrived at the exceptional position of having complete freedom to choose our future as a species, we choose a future of gradual but inexorable extinction.

"There is no scientific basis for claiming that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient. But I like how one poster characterized making the morning-after pill illegal as "the state abstaining from ethical issues." Generally, outlawing something is an odd method of abstention."

Please cite any state law which outlaws the morning after pill. Thanks.

We already do have situations bordering on the artificial womb, like that awful story about the woman whose body was kept artificially alive for three months while she was being consumed by melanoma, in order that the fetus arrive at viability. Predictably, the baby was delivered early term (with a 25% of contracting melanoma) and died after a few months of suffering.

"There is no scientific basis for claiming that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient."

It depends on the definition of pregnancy, which is defined at implanatation, which is a rather arbitrary line. Still, I do not conflate morning after pills with abortion. But neither is it the same as contraception (especially barrier methods), which by DEFINITION prevent conception. Oral contraception principally prevents conception, but may act in secondary ways similar to the morning after pill, act to prevent implantation of zygotes.

Challenge:
I see no reason why adoptive parents would known whether or not the child was a product of consentual sex or rape. Nice try, though.

Feel free to reasearch open adoption law. Of course you'll just propose changing those too and offer another smug quip. Then you can sleep well knowing that all the little differently-pigmented babies you've adopted will soon have little brothers and sisters. Or is someone working on improving orphanage technology too?

Aultimer,

Are you suggesting orpans should have never been born? That would appear to be the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from your hateful rants about unwanted children.

Nice back-tracking, Aultimer.

If orphans are better off living, even if unwanted, then why what was your point? Your point was clear: Abortion is good because it keeps the population of undesirables and "differently-pigmented" babies down. We need abortion, you think, for this reason. Can I read your comments any differently? I don't think so.

I fear we're drifting to a Levitt "More abortions, less crime" smackdown. Or perhaps the ethics of foie gras production. Resist!

My suspicion is that concern for the well-being of embryos and 1st trimester fetuses correlates strongly with belief in an immortal soul. Of course this is not the only reason one might have for opposing all abortion--but am I right?

Challenge -

Don't put words in my mouth. Read closely.

You advocate for abortion laws that create MORE orphans and other unwanted live babies. I have no moral problems with current abortion law. You want others (mothers and unwanted babies) to bear the burdens you would create, and you belittle them in making your case. I don't belittle them, and have actually helped some in a category you would expand.

If you think it's preferable to have more orphans, please explain your proposal to correct the problems we already have in caring for unwanted babies and how it will scale to help the increase.

Contraception cannot lead to the extinction of a diverse population. Instead, religious and cultural groups that value children will proliferate and become the majority.

Contraception cannot lead to the extinction of a diverse population. Instead, religious and cultural groups that value children will proliferate and become the majority.

This is true. The abortion movement is its own worst enemy.

I do see artificial wombs and the like changing the debate. Currently, it is ostensibly about a woman's control over her own body, but in reality, it is almost always about the decision not to raise this kid at this time. So, by providing an option to the former, the fact that the later is really the reason for most abortions will become obvious.

The reason that I think this might be positive is that currently the entire decision is left to the woman. If she wants to carry to term, nothing the guy can do (except pay the child support for 18 years). Ditto, if she wants to abort. I think that it would be hard to maintain this double standard if the excuse of a woman's right to her own body is removed.

Columbienne

I see your argument as indistinguishable from reimplementing the failed welfare system that we partially dismembered with Welfare Reform under Clinton. The basic problem is that without the financial incentive of having a male involved, there will be many fewer of such. So, you end up like we found ourselves, esp. in the lower income communities, esp. African-American ones, with generations of female parent only families, and the guys running in male bonding packs until they ended up either dead or in prison.

LisaMarie

While I agree with your moral take on this, I do believe that the better argument is that supporting women to raise kids out of wedlock has significant detrimental effects on society, as we discovered over the last 40 years. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of guys now in prison were raised in precisely this sort of households.

A previous poster argued for a symmetric definition of the beginning and ending of life based on "brain wave" activity. I will argue that this is a false symmetry.

To put things crudely, we don't define a certain loss of function as death based on philosophical study. We create such definitions so we know when to bury a deteriorating patient. We need a definition that we believe will result in very few burials of people who could have otherwise recovered, while avoiding spending too much money on and giving too much false hope to relatives of patients whose decline is inevitible.

We used to define heart death as legal death, not for philosophical reasons, but because empirically once the heart stopped the patient never recovered. Then medical technology advanced, and we learned how to "ressurect" some patients whose heart had stopped, so we needed a substitute definition. Nobody believes an adult can ever recover from loss of brain waves.

This has nothing to do with any attempt to decide when to assign humanity to a fetus. Most fetuses will "recover" from the lack of heart and brain activity they have in the first few days after conception. If it were now impossible for patients to recover from heart stoppage we never would have developed this second definition of death. In that case would you have wanted to define human life to begin at three weeks?

-dk

To further expound upon Dick King's point regarding changing standards for declaration of death, if there was a minute chance of resurrection of brain dead people, many individuals or their families would not accept the brain death definition. Or if technology were developed to restore brain activity, the standard for declaring death would have to be altered. The point is that brain death is the standard for declaring death because of its current irreversibility. This is obviously not the case of a zygote, because unless support is removed and it is destroyed, it will survive.

The number of abortions per year in the US is about 1.3 million, not 4 million. I'm just nitpicking though, carry on.

Nice. So I see it really is true that it's pro-life until birth, then you're on your own, kid. Look, I respect people who really, truly believe that life is sacred at all moments, but I have a very, very hard time respecting people who would then abandon that life to poverty once it's been born.

What would Jesus do...

Sigh

Therut and others who've taken such exception to my suggestion about a symetric definition of life: I realize that my compromise would make no one completely happy. That's what makes it a compromise. But ultimately, there's a choice to be made. Do you want to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, philosphically pure but completely ineffective or do you want solid, practical change that achieves many if not all of your goals?

If you can establish that all life is sacred by accepting a neutral, scientific definition of when life begins and ends you've scored a major philosophical and practical victory. If you insist on everyone in America admitting that your position is 100% correct, you'll get nowhere. When you get down to writing laws, it's not religion or philosophy, it's politics -- and politics is the art of the possible.

Posters like ATM and therut are factually incorrect, by the way, about what "will happen" to an undisturbed conception.

Science tells us that about 50% of all zygotes do not survive to the point where they are detected. That's a fact. Sometimes the zygote hiccups in its cellular division. Sometimes implantation goes askew. Sometimes the body rejects the zygote.

The fact is that most stats on babies refer to pregnancies known by the mothers.

If one's argument against abortion is faith-based or philosophically-based, you should ask yourself what the implications are for conceived zygotes who never make it far enough to be noticed.

Most orphans prefer not to have been aborted. I'm not an orphan, but I share that preference.

Most Iraqis prefer not to be killed by my ordinance. Most convicted murderers prefer not to be put to death by the state. Most cows prefer not to be slaughtered for food. I am not an Iraqi, convicted murderer or cow, but I share that preference.

Grey-------------you are stating exactly what I have except in a very inhumaine way. Kinda like "it is just a blob of cells" chant. You just stated something goes wrong in the deveopment"a hiccup" as you say or something in the environment cause development to cease ie. death of an organism.

ectogenesis

Lots of potential issues.

The rights of the biological father...and therefore responsibilities...
There is a natural current imbalance between the accepted ‘choice’ currently afforded women to be the sole determinates for birthing decisions, while an equally accepted joint responsibility to provide for children.

Won’t ectogenesis turn this on its head?

Walk through the terminate decision tree in an ‘ecto’ world.

Woman decides to terminate. Biological father sues for ‘embrionic rights’, and subsequently, for financial support …from the biological mother.

Woman wants to continue pregnancy, but using ecto-technology.
Biological father sues to terminate, then subsequently has no support burden.

Would the decision to ‘move forward’ with childbirth therefore be a joint decision to choose to support regardless of the maternal/paternal role?