Interesting you should raise but even if you could develop a artificial womb many of the justifications used by Liberal philosophers would mean one could still kill the foetus even if it could be passed on.
You see one justification that allows abortions says a foetus has no moral value so whether there was an artificial womb would make no difference.
& BTW that same reasoning says there is no moral reason that one is required to pass on babies for others to care either. They aren't persons and have no existential moral value.
"As far as dependency.
Interesting you should raise..."
Interesting, and you still haven't addressed/defended what I see as a flaw in your reasoning. Is there or is there not a way to remove a 3-month fetus from its mother's womb and incubate it elsewhere with zero medical risk or invasiveness to mother or fetus? If there is not, then that particular argument of yours is dead in the water.
"...but even if you could develop a artificial womb many of the justifications used by Liberal philosophers would mean one could still kill the foetus even if it could be passed on."
- In terms of your original post, are you asking us;
A) For our own views?
B) To summarize the views of public figures/groups who have weighed in on the debate?
C) For our understanding of the law as written (which country)?
- On the speculation that Liberal Philosophers (who specifically?) would still advocate terminating the fetus in the super-technology scenario I described, I disagree. Every argument I've heard in favor of choice has at its roots viability of the fetus outside the womb and/or rights of the mother to make her own decisions that affect her medically (and financially).
Develop a Star-Trek style transporter beam which will guarantee to safely and non-invasively beam the fertilized egg from my womb into that of a willing surrogate at no cost to me, and I can't think of anyone who would argue against using that in place of abortion.
& BTW there doens't have to be zero risk, if the foetus is a worthy of equal moral consideration it has been made dependent and as compensation is owed protection until such time others can care for it.
"the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other "
You seem to conveniently forget that internal care is intrinsically a health risk that has deleterious effects on physiology -and can be life-threatening- for the host while external care does not carry that amount of danger.
When I can see that being a caregiver of an infant will permanently screw over your cardiovascular health, or take you from having a propensity of osteoarthritis into a having osteoarthritis then maybe those two might be comparable.
Yes but thats not always the case and would I be guessing that you would force a father paying child support to work in a work envionment that caused his body work related harm if there weren't any other way to pay child support?
Pls try the other do parents have more moral value than babiesthread.
"thats not always the case" You are truly that clueless about the amount health conditions that might be exacerbated permanently be pregnancy? Wow, it must be really nice not to have to think of all the ways you might die by getting pregnant. But plenty of people walk around with conditions that might get permanently worse if they host a fetus. Only the fact that 50% of those people don't necessarily have to think of getting pregnant that prevents this from being common freaking knowledge.
It is a fact that pregnancy is intrinsically life threatening. Only those of us fortunate enough to have access to quality medical care are safer, and even then we might be permanently harmed by some of its effects.
Being an external caregiver is not intrinsically life threatening, and your example has jack-fucking-squat to do with this.
I've no doubt there are health problems but negative consequences don't abrogate moral resposibility for harms that are self inflicted and/or they affect other moral parties. So the health problems have jack-fucking-squat to do with it :)
BTW one could equally say you are in denial that men providing child support can be seriously affected by that requirement or that mother can themselves suffer seriously by being a caregiver.
Maybe you are getting confused about the topics you are arguing about with me.
You state "A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other." I provide reasons as to why these two things are in fact not the same. You proceed to change topics around and give no evidence as to why they are the same.
"BTW that sort of sexism of denial that men providing child support can be seriously affected by that requirement."
Wow, can you actually read what people write instead of making wild assumptions of what is not written? I know how hard it can be to be providers -having a dad that went through hell and then some to be able to provide child support, as I have a mom that went through hell and then some to provide for me too. However, these things are not intrinsic to caregiving for your offspring. They are not a physical/biological consequence of child-rearing, but a product of different societal factors. At the same time you have my dad (who had to go to freaking Iraq to support me and my sisters) you have plenty of other people that can provide child support without qualms. It is a consequence of -among others- class dynamics, age discrimination, and a society which traditionally places the burden of economic support on the male and burden of child-rearing on the female.
Not only are they not equal, but they are completely unrelated. It is a red herring argument. Whether or not men should be forced to pay child support has nothing to do with the abortion question, and Simon should feel ashamed for attempting to derail the conversation with it.