I disagree, but think we save this debate for our next trip to a museum or whatever.

....Thank you?

Nah. If the genetic parents won, they’d be relieved of their obligation to essentially adopt the baby. So the surrogate would have to repay whatever money she received and would be legally entitled to keep her baby.

Gestational surrogates don’t share DNA with the baby and are never entitled to keep it; they are purely acting as a host. The genetic parents can choose to give it up. This is why there are contracts.

Traditional surrogates are different from gestational surrogates. Traditional surrogates are the biological mothers and have rights to the child- this is why almost nobody does this anymore.

There are different laws that vary by state for traditional vs gestational surrogacy.

Poor choice of words on my part, but at least in practice it appears the end result of the surrogate keeping the baby if she refuses to abort is the same:

https://surrogate.com/surrogates/pre...-this-journey/

By the way, I can think of an argument where religious people should be more OK with abortions than the non religious. It has to do with consciousness or more specifically the "self" or the soul. If a specific embryo was destined to be "you" but no other combinations of sperm or egg had that destiny, than it is quasi homicide to prevent it from coming to fruition. But if instead your "youness" is basically your soul, which is put into an embryo by God, he could also take it out if the embryo is aborted or miscarried before it has reached a state of awareness, and put into a new one.

Thread title should be "framing the abortion rights debate".

How about: Framing the framing of all things abortion related?

Take it to the ban Luckbox for incessant humorless trolling thread.

I was hoping we could talk about marsupials. I think you and I have discussed marsupials in relation to abortion before but last night was the first time that I ever decided to google about the idea--and like most ideas, if it's worth thinking then somebody has already beaten you to a blog post so here is one.
Kangaroo-people abortion ethics

Imagine, if you will, a parallel universe where the human race evolved, due to the vicissitudes of chaos, from marsupials rather than primates...
After a few weeks of gestation, baby Kangaroo-People are born at about the size and shape of a jellybean, with about as much personality. The Kangaroo-People mother guides her offspring by licking a path from her cloaca ( which leads into three vaginas, just like regular kangaroos in this universe) to her pouch. The baby is essentially still a fetus at this point, with incompletely developed eyes, ears, organs and central nervous system. It does have claws, so it can crawl, and an olfactory bulb, the section of its brain devoted to the sense of smell. This allows the baby to follow the scent of mom’s saliva into the pouch. There it latches on to a teat, and holds on as involuntary contractions of muscles in the mother’s stomach wall force milk out of her mammary glands to the growing fetus/baby. 235 days or more later, the baby, now fully developed, emerges from the pouch. Before that, the baby Kangaroo-Person gets strong enough to periodically let go of the teat, and crawl around the pouch.

So when do those jellybean sized joeys count as life and should this question have any relevance in the abortion discussion? Because they are essentially born, crawl out of a vagina, then spend months in a pouch and I do think that poses some interesting questions although no doubt milage will vary.

And because images are fun. The one on the right is a baby kangaroo.

We could argue about the semantics but an assault on a women that causes her to lose a pregnancy is as serious as it gets when it comes to harming the woman. So making it equivalent to manslaughter/murder is correct.

LOL. It doesn't appear you have a very good concept of the reproductive knowledge of women either, especially the majority of women, often teenagers, who are in that spot.

Most of them don't have even the most rudimentary grasp of reproductive knowledge. In many cases the OB has to explain to them the entire procedure step by step, and how they go about it will influence a lot of the patients what decision they make.

For god or bad a lot of OBs just aren't up to that kind of work, for whatever reason. Luckily in California there is enough OBs that are, that it is still fairly straightforward and easy to get a referral to someone. And plus everyone funneling their patients to doctors that do the procedures a lot, there is a level of expertise you probably wouldn't have if every doctor was mandated to do it on request the way Crossnerd seems to envision things should be.

This should be extended to eggs, sperm and discarded fingernails as technology allows.

let make the world nice again.

I promised a write-up of Luckbox's list of the best Japanese dramas in the Japan thread--but I still have a lot to watch. But one of my favorites is 14-sai no haha (14-歳の母) or '14 year old mom'. It's on youtube with English subtitles and there are only 11 episodes (typically a Japanese show just runs for 1 season), and while the later episodes get a bit soap-opery, the early ones I think are great. Synopsis is 14 year old girl gets pregnant and deals with pressure from everyone to get an abortion but she doesn't want to, and much drama ensues. I'd recommend watching the first 6 or so episodes for anybody and this show makes various lists as far as 'Best J-dramas' go.

That works.

I’m not sure how you think what you’ve written here is actually a rebuttal. The metric is not laymen males vs laymen females making laws about the female body; it’s laymen males vs medical experts. Women and their doctors don’t need the help of uninformed men in government to make medical decisions about women’s bodies.

Secondly, your language when it comes to doctors and referrals is seriously problematic. There is no “funneling” of referrals; abortion after 20 weeks is a procedure that requires expertise that not every OB trains for in their residencies. Being sent to a specialist for any sort of procedure with higher complication and morbidity rates is standard for every other form of medicine; only in women’s health can a doctor choose to forego referring you to a specialist because it’s against their personal or religious beliefs. It’s the medical equivalent of a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, except in this instance it can kill you.

I am not just talking about abortion after 20 weeks, which is a very tiny minority. I am talking about the generic vacuum term 1 ones also.

So now abortion is ok due to mob rule.

Right. You have a problem with that?

Maybe you should leave talking about this to women and their doctors.

Don’t you have other threads to fill with your ‘feminism is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians’ sexist rhetoric nonsense?

I misread your post, my apologies.

Yeah I noticed that also. I think the abortion debate is yet another classic example of rights vs responsibility. Curve fit your arguments accordingly but those seem to be the underlying principles.

It seems as though the left skips over the part where the universe (not patriarchy) conspired to make women carry babies. The main consequence of sex is pregnancy. Social norms were created around that. As tech advanced it became easy to have sex and avoid pregnancy (if you even tried a little bit). As tech advanced even further we became able to terminate pregnancy safely. Now miracles of science are some sort of moral right. Social norms turned upside down. A complete removal of responsibility for your actions, because new tech exists. People completely dissociated with sexual consequences and responsibility

Personally I don't see how people convince themselves it's ok to end the heartbeat of something that looks just like a baby and will certainly be a baby just because it's inside the womb. I personally couldn't be in favor of doing that but I think there should be a bit of room between your personal belief and the law. Late term abortion is repugnant. I can accept early abortion legally at this point but that opinion will certainly change over time as new info emerges

Actually, the "rhetoric nonsense" you quoted has a lot of truth to it.

Except for the "witchcraft" part, I suspect I could find "respectable" feminists who would advocate those things in the quote.

I will do that, if you'd like.

so many people tip toe the line ITT talking about liberals at least, seems like some cant make up their mind and have like 7-8 diff clauses and exceptions

Indeed. We're so advanced now that the right to internet access is a serious current issue. Why should we give a toss of what the past was like before we improved things with our human 'miracles'?

I get some people struggle with progress and we should be able to understand why some find it hard to move on from old norms (especially if they're written down) but that's as far as it goes.

Have you ever been pregnant, juan?