6 ms·

So, we’re gonna make abortion illegal and expect women to undergo a substantially higher risk procedure? Still raises question of who is raising that child...

So, we’re gonna make abortion illegal and expect women to undergo a substantially higher risk procedure? Still raises question of who is raising that child... and the societal implications of true orphans.

purjolok 6y ago
Whether it be by international adoption, IVF or surrogacy, couples are willing to pay $10,000s to become parents. Finding families for those kids would not be an issue, rather the contrary.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  > Finding families for those kids would not be an issue Having known a few people who have tried to adopt children in the US, I can say that the process seems like its full of issues.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    What issues? If the issue is lack of newborns, then that issue would be lessened or eliminated by banning abortion.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      It’s seems to be a process a bureaucracy issue mostly. There a loads of infants going into the foster care system and loads of parents trying to adopt and waiting year only to find out they been denied for non-specific reasons. From what I’ve heard it’s far easier to adopt a child from abroad.
      - Thorrez 6y ago
        This could be caused by a shortage of kids. If there are a ton of parents who want to adopt but only a few kids available, then a ton of parents need to be rejected. If the government is forced to reject good parents, the government may give vague reasons. Foreign countries might not have the same shortage of kids. Many kids who go into foster care are not up for adoption because their biological parents want them back, and may get the chance in the future. But yes it could be mostly unnecessary bureaucracy. If abortion is banned, there will need to be very significant changes to the adoption process to streamline it and encourage more people to adopt.
- btilly 6y ago
  Per https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-unite... we do over 800k abortions per year in the USA. Per https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us... we adopt around 135k babies per year in the USA. If we introduce this technology and don't make other changes, the supply of fetuses for adoption will substantially exceed the supply of adoptive homes.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    >exceed the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptions happening per year doesn't actually tell you the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptive homes might be much much larger than the number of adoptions that happens. Especially if potentially adoptive parents are no longer scared away by multi-year waiting lists. If we add in government subsidization of adoption expenses, or even pay adoptive parents, the number of adoptive parents could grow a lot. Some countries are already paying parents to have biological kids[1]; paying parents to adopt seems even more likely. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus
drak0n1c 6y ago
Imagine a likely future of technological ease (but not post-scarcity) led by a gerontocracy imperiled by rapid depopulation and austerity. There will be immense pressure both from secular and religious sides to develop new childcare assistance and replacement systems if it means encouraging more souls to be born and to carry on society/progress. It will probably be a combination of plush parent/foster benefits, collectivization of care into academies, and robotics. They may even develop new embryos in vitro from random (or designed) combinations, completely besides the abortion question. The looming birth rate deficit is far larger than the amount of abortions.
gfodor 6y ago
No, the assumption in this scenario is the risk to the mother between the two procedures is the same.
Stupulous 6y ago
It's a little presumptive to say substantially higher risk, there's no way to know what technology will look like in 100+ years. I think it's a fairly reasonable guess to say that 100 years from now, there will be negligible to no risk in undergoing any medical procedures that are common today. I think a technical solution to abortion is more likely in that time than a cultural one. I'm making that prediction based on current development. Factor in the likelihood of AGI, and you're potentially looking at an entirely alien reality. Alternately, we've peaked or nearly peaked and we'll stall out in a few decades. I think this is highly unlikely but not impossible. You can imagine a farmer in 1000AD hearing that we'll ban slavery in the future and thinking, "Awful, only the rich will be able to afford food."
- schreiaj 6y ago
  Surgical procedure vs non surgical procedure always seems like a higher risk to me. Sure we will build systems to lower those risks but removing it entirely is currently well beyond our capabilities. Sure I can make up miracle solutions but given the data we have today removing abortion and saying “just have it surgically removed and implanted in this tube” seems less than great. I still ignored the obvious questions of who pays for that given it likely ends up more expensive than abortion (ongoing costs) and that it really doesn’t solve the moral issues given there’s still be the shaming that happens around abortions, the usual crap about “irresponsible women”. I think this is all a great option but I don’t see it replacing abortion for multiple reasons.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  Can't edit from here, but wanted to add: Birth control developments will probably be the dominant factor in this area going forward. Someone will develop a way to control your fertility on the fly, and the issue will nearly evaporate (deliberate but regretted pregnancies and whatever the failure rate of the tech is will remain). External wombs will have a place as a voluntary procedure for women who want children without going through pregnancy and for gay male couples.
  - arkh 6y ago
    What about single men who want children? I think that's the scenario which will get a lot of pushback from usually progressive people.
belorn 6y ago
If the technology can be made identical to the risk of an abortion, its questionable if a choice will be given. What would the moral argument be? Currently the moral argument is that since women bear the risk of pregnancy, they should also have the exclusive right to decide to continue or abort. Once the child is born however the right to parents is given to the child, and thus neither the mother or father can refuse responsibility. At minimum they would both be paying child support. If the technology would remove the risk aspect, it would give the father an equal stand in the matter, and one could imagine a future where a child would be brought forth as long as one of the parents wanted the child.

purjolok 6y ago

Whether it be by international adoption, IVF or surrogacy, couples are willing to pay $10,000s to become parents. Finding families for those kids would not be an issue, rather the contrary.

ch4s3 6y ago
> Finding families for those kids would not be an issue Having known a few people who have tried to adopt children in the US, I can say that the process seems like its full of issues.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  What issues? If the issue is lack of newborns, then that issue would be lessened or eliminated by banning abortion.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    It’s seems to be a process a bureaucracy issue mostly. There a loads of infants going into the foster care system and loads of parents trying to adopt and waiting year only to find out they been denied for non-specific reasons. From what I’ve heard it’s far easier to adopt a child from abroad.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      This could be caused by a shortage of kids. If there are a ton of parents who want to adopt but only a few kids available, then a ton of parents need to be rejected. If the government is forced to reject good parents, the government may give vague reasons. Foreign countries might not have the same shortage of kids. Many kids who go into foster care are not up for adoption because their biological parents want them back, and may get the chance in the future. But yes it could be mostly unnecessary bureaucracy. If abortion is banned, there will need to be very significant changes to the adoption process to streamline it and encourage more people to adopt.
btilly 6y ago
Per https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-unite... we do over 800k abortions per year in the USA. Per https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us... we adopt around 135k babies per year in the USA. If we introduce this technology and don't make other changes, the supply of fetuses for adoption will substantially exceed the supply of adoptive homes.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  >exceed the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptions happening per year doesn't actually tell you the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptive homes might be much much larger than the number of adoptions that happens. Especially if potentially adoptive parents are no longer scared away by multi-year waiting lists. If we add in government subsidization of adoption expenses, or even pay adoptive parents, the number of adoptive parents could grow a lot. Some countries are already paying parents to have biological kids[1]; paying parents to adopt seems even more likely. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus

drak0n1c 6y ago

Imagine a likely future of technological ease (but not post-scarcity) led by a gerontocracy imperiled by rapid depopulation and austerity. There will be immense pressure both from secular and religious sides to develop new childcare assistance and replacement systems if it means encouraging more souls to be born and to carry on society/progress. It will probably be a combination of plush parent/foster benefits, collectivization of care into academies, and robotics. They may even develop new embryos in vitro from random (or designed) combinations, completely besides the abortion question. The looming birth rate deficit is far larger than the amount of abortions.

gfodor 6y ago

No, the assumption in this scenario is the risk to the mother between the two procedures is the same.

Stupulous 6y ago

It's a little presumptive to say substantially higher risk, there's no way to know what technology will look like in 100+ years. I think it's a fairly reasonable guess to say that 100 years from now, there will be negligible to no risk in undergoing any medical procedures that are common today. I think a technical solution to abortion is more likely in that time than a cultural one. I'm making that prediction based on current development. Factor in the likelihood of AGI, and you're potentially looking at an entirely alien reality. Alternately, we've peaked or nearly peaked and we'll stall out in a few decades. I think this is highly unlikely but not impossible. You can imagine a farmer in 1000AD hearing that we'll ban slavery in the future and thinking, "Awful, only the rich will be able to afford food."

schreiaj 6y ago
Surgical procedure vs non surgical procedure always seems like a higher risk to me. Sure we will build systems to lower those risks but removing it entirely is currently well beyond our capabilities. Sure I can make up miracle solutions but given the data we have today removing abortion and saying “just have it surgically removed and implanted in this tube” seems less than great. I still ignored the obvious questions of who pays for that given it likely ends up more expensive than abortion (ongoing costs) and that it really doesn’t solve the moral issues given there’s still be the shaming that happens around abortions, the usual crap about “irresponsible women”. I think this is all a great option but I don’t see it replacing abortion for multiple reasons.
Stupulous 6y ago
Can't edit from here, but wanted to add: Birth control developments will probably be the dominant factor in this area going forward. Someone will develop a way to control your fertility on the fly, and the issue will nearly evaporate (deliberate but regretted pregnancies and whatever the failure rate of the tech is will remain). External wombs will have a place as a voluntary procedure for women who want children without going through pregnancy and for gay male couples.
- arkh 6y ago
  What about single men who want children? I think that's the scenario which will get a lot of pushback from usually progressive people.

belorn 6y ago

If the technology can be made identical to the risk of an abortion, its questionable if a choice will be given. What would the moral argument be? Currently the moral argument is that since women bear the risk of pregnancy, they should also have the exclusive right to decide to continue or abort. Once the child is born however the right to parents is given to the child, and thus neither the mother or father can refuse responsibility. At minimum they would both be paying child support. If the technology would remove the risk aspect, it would give the father an equal stand in the matter, and one could imagine a future where a child would be brought forth as long as one of the parents wanted the child.