One of my parents is an OB-GYN.

Secondly, OB-GYN practices are always either pro-choice or pro-life; women know to inquire about this before choosing your doctor. There is only one pro-choice OB-GYN practice in my entire (major, Southern) city.

If I went to a pro-life OB-GYN practice and my genetic tests showed a lethal congenital abnormality in my fetus, such as anencephaly, and I needed an abortion, not only would they not help me, they would also not refer me to someone willing to help me. Anti-abortion laws have made that situation possible where doctors can refuse me medical care based on their beliefs similar to how a pro-life pharmacist can in certain instances refuse to administer a Plan B pill, even though federal law entitles me to said medical care. In my opinion, these people shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine.

The simple answer is leaving women’s health to women and their doctors. We don’t need your help.

Even though you seem to be contradicting some news stories, I don't mind assuming you are correct. But that still doesn't dispense with the cases where one or both parents not only don't want the mother to carry or take care of the baby, but also don't want that healthy baby to exist. That's why I ask if you transplant a fertilized egg in a surrogate who agrees to give you the baby, should you or the father have the legal right to insist on an abortion if you change your mind, even if the baby is healthy, and there is no doubt it will be well taken care of?

so is this the thread where we talk about situations that don't actually exist as if they are every day occurrences?


so what if the fetus is being aborted and it breaks free and runs around the room? is the doctor legally allowed to fight it? what if the fetus knows karate?

A transplanted fertilized egg is not a baby, an unviable fetus is not a baby, and a surrogate is a gestational host, not a parent. Of course the genetic parents can choose to abort a pregnancy before it becomes a healthy viable fetus; this is why surrogates have to sign legal contracts. Disputes of this nature only ever arise from shitty contracts that didn’t cover all possible outcomes.

Again, abortions of healthy viable fetuses are not a thing.

I assume whatever news stories you think I’m disputing have to do with induction abortions, which is when a fetus with a lethal abnormality is born via induced labor with a DNR. There are medical reasons to choose between D&E vs induction abortions for non-viable fetuses that are dictated by mortality and complication rates for the mother.

What if, and I know this is a crazy idea for a lot of you, we just assume women can be trusted with their own bodies and medical decisions.

And then we just leave women’s health to women and their doctors.

You don't think that some parents who opt not to give the baby up for adoption choose abortion mainly because they prefer the baby not to exist?

This was originally meant as a reply to Slighted but it can be asked of Crossnerd as well. And to her I should point out that "viable fetus" depends on scientific advancements. One day all fetuses will be viable. What then?

Not wanting a baby is the typical reason for abortion, so not sure what your point is. Aborting a pregnancy before it becomes viable is a medical procedure, not a moral conundrum.

No court is going to force a surrogate to have an abortion, if that’s what you mean by “the genetic parents can choose to abort” or DS by “you could insist a surrogate mother have an abortion.” That’s nuts, if that's what either of you are implying.

I have no problem with that. I only have a problem with the concept of stopping the progression toward personhood if it no longer involves your body.

When babies can be grown in labs? I imagine those will be planned pregnancies...

Then your issue is with the legalities of surrogacy, not abortion.

Surrogates sign legal contracts and almost always those contracts cover instances of abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure, and yes, you can legally oblige yourself to having one, or you can be sued.

One simple final question.

The year is 2525. Medical science can extract an embryo of any age and put it into an incubator that keeps it alive and healthy. Parents have no obligation if they choose that to happen, and walk away. But they are also given the right to choose to destroy the embryo. If the world is a nice place would it be right to give them that choice?

An embryo is not a person, no matter what year it is. Just THIS year viable embryos will be destroyed by the thousands via fertility clinics. Couples harvest their eggs, fertilize them in a lab, and then choose to never have them implanted. Those embryos get tossed out!

But should you be allowed to end that pregnancy if the embryo is in a test tube and there are great parents ready to take it if you decided belatedly that you didn't want to?

I think some of you are fighting me because you think I am heading to a conclusion that I am not.

If the questions posed in this thread are indicative of the general reproductive knowledge of the average man, it’s frightening as **** that reproductive legislation is overwhelmingly decided by men...

I agree a surrogate can be sued and would probably lose if she didn't have an abortion; just not forced into having one.

“Great parents” are not entitled to the genetic material of other people.

She wouldn’t be held down, sedated, and forced to have an abortion, no. But she’d be legally impelled very strongly to submit to the terms of the contract she signed.

There are ~750 gestational surrogate births in this country per year. The woman you’re describing, who is progressive enough to agree to surrogacy, sign a legal document that agrees to abortion, and then decides to for some unknown reason financially destroy herself for a baby she will not even be legally entitled to keep afterward doesn’t actually exist. You sweet summer child.

The question is whether you should be allowed to stop me if I rummaged through the trash and put it into my magic incubator.

So now that we’ve covered the 1% of abortions that occur after 20 weeks, and also the far less than 1% of births via surrogate, and also the distant theoretical future of test tube babies, do we want to discuss actual abortion, or is this thread going to be complete whataboutism for infinite pages...

I answered this- you are not entitled to someone else’s genetic material.

I think we finally zeroed in on the question. And I think I can refute your answer if I had to. But for now just realize that I will always be glad to give you saliva, plus a lot more, if it will ever help your baby