I like the idea of cutting men out of the decision entirely, but referendums can get some weird results (see: Brexit), and I don’t like the idea of one group of people getting a say/vote in what a person can do with their own body.
3 Likes
Agreed. The idea of essentially havesting humans from unwilling people strikes me as morally wrong and inhumane, like something out of Brave New World.
I just can’t see it happening in the society that you described above.
4 Likes
Angry children
3 Likes
Like the nine males who decided Roe v Wade?
The reason that abortion is still a hot button issue after half a century is that there is no opportunity to work it out in the political process.
Hmm. Shrinkwrap License Panties.
“Removing these constitutes your agreement to waive all daddy rights…”
I don’t think there is a way to “work it out”. I’m not sure what that would look like. The American political process isn’t in a very good place to work anything out right now.
12 Likes
Just to clear, I’m not arguing it would be legal or right, but;
- If the state has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus and,
- The fetus can survive outside of the body of the mother and,
- The state can impose responsibility on the biological parent regardless of their desire to be a parent and,
- The state can require payment for support of the child from the biological parent regardless of their desire to be a parent,
Then it would see to be at least a strong possibility that, if there were a way to raise the fetus outside the mother at any stage, a court may very well find the state has the authority to do so.
Also potentially life-threatening. And certain to cause short, medium and even lifetime medical and physical changes.
Meanwhile, you can’t legally make a man get a quick and safe test to see whether or not he would be a good blood, bone marrow, or organ donor for his child. If he doesn’t want to do it, tough luck for the kid.
15 Likes
Um, no. Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1995) already shot that down a while ago. It was illegal as soon as it came out of the legislators ass as the noxious fart it was.
3 Likes
“if the state has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus and”
Which it would not since the mother has the compelling interest which overrides the state here, as the fetus is in her body. Otherwise the mother is considered chattel property of the state.
“The fetus can survive outside of the body of the mother”
Its called a child at that point and born. Abortion rights no longer applies.
3 Likes
I think it might actually be book six, I don’t remember, but I remember being shocked imagining a race that had basically subjugated their women to be birthing tanks. Appparently, given these lawmakers, it wasn’t as shocking as I thought. 
5 Likes
That’s the de facto situation in many states. They have done everything possible to get around Roe v. Wade to force women bring unwanted fetuses to term. Especially white women. Those babies are a wanted commodity.
4 Likes
For this item, one has to look at Roe v. Wade’s successor. Casey v. Planned Parenthood. A decision penned by Sandra Day O’Connor.
You’ve missed the thread.
1 Like
Fair enough.
It still seems highly impractical and expensive. I also have to wonder why the state would want so many children and what they would do with them, as it stands to reason that most people who were willing to parent would already be doing so under those conditions.
Perhaps before then contraception will be so effective, mutable, and available, that it wouldn’t even be an issue except in rare cases.
This seems like the best case scenario. But it has been interesting and enjoyable to imagine the future.
To simplify the argument, if we were descended from sentient platypus (platypii?) or birds, and laid eggs outside the body to procreate, abortion would not be an issue. You could just hand the eggs over to someone else to care for them.
1 Like
Yeah, well plenty of conservatives seem to have no problem with the consequences of forced pregnancy so I imagine they wouldn’t (won’t?) have a problem with this scenario.
I don’t know - more frightening than enjoyable. Maybe good material for my next dystopian short story though… 
1 Like
I agree with this, but I do wonder if it would still be the case in a future in which women were no longer neccessary to gestation. If technology like that existed, it seems as though anyone who wanted a baby would be able to get one without using other people’s zygotes. Would there still be a demand?
Yes, sorry - thought you were saying something else.
