There is a massive division in this country (and undoubtedly the world) over the issue of women's rights and abortion, with good reason.
One "group" says that a woman should have the right to choose what she does with and what happens to her body. The other "group" says that the murder of unborn humans is unethical, under any circumstances.
Given no novel solutions, this will be a perpetual impasse. No resolution will ever arise.
The problem isn't that one group is correct and the other is incorrect. It's that the world is far more complex and multidimensional than we want it to be, and laws are one dimensional. Making a law one way or the other necessarily infringes on the "rights" of the opposing group. If you make abortion illegal, you necessarily infringe on a woman's right to her own body. If you legalize abortion, you necessarily allow the murder of unborn humans.
The problem is distinguishing between the embryo and the woman's body. During a woman's natural cycle, eggs are discarded regularly. Is an egg a part of a woman's body? At what point is it no longer part of her body? Does the fact that it becomes fertilized make it part of her body? Or, since only about 30% - 60% of fertilized eggs embed on the uterine wall, is that when it becomes part of her body? At what point is it no longer part of her body, and indeed a completely separate human? When it is fertilized? When it is embedded? When it has a heart beat?
What makes you a human? Where does your body end and the rest of the universe begin?
Your body is comprised of about 57% bacteria. Without bacteria, you don't exist. Bacteria enter and leave your body all the time. At what point are the entering bacteria considered part of your body? At what point are the exiting bacteria no longer part of your body? If the answer to the first question is "whenever they enter" and the answer to the second question is "whenever they leave" then why isn't it the same for fetuses? We know intuitively that fetuses are their own humans before they leave the mother's body. Babies born preterm regularly survive with artificial help, and some even without. At what point does a fetus belong to itself?
The deeper problem is this: There is no actual dividing line. The woman's body, the fetus, and the rest of the universe are as much all the same thing as they are all completely separate things.
You can't make a satisfactory law regarding the issue because laws must be based on hard lines. In the physical world, there are no such lines. In order to make a law about abortion, you must create an arbitrary line on which to base your judgements.
Given legislation as the only solution to this problem, there will never be any progress. We will perpetually flip back and forth between infringing women's rights and excusing murder.
There is, however, another option. A non-legislative option: Growing embryos from unwanted pregnancies in artificial uteruses. While many will think this is the stuff of science fiction, it is actually far closer to reality than one might expect. And really, it's our only hope of a resolution to this massive problem. There is already technology that provides the environment (artificial amniotic fluid), nutrients, and necessary vital organ assistance (blood oxygenation, liver-like filtration, dialysis, etc.) that would normally be provided by the mother. Scientific research has pushed back the survivability of preterm birth reliably to about 27 weeks gestation. This will only continue to improve. Ultimately, it will go back all the way to the point of fertilization.
Once the ability to grow an infant completely outside of a human is achieved, we can finally provide a sufficient resolution to the women's rights/abortion issue. A way to relieve the woman of the unwanted, forced, or potentially dangerous pregnancy, while also preventing the murder of unborn humans. In the mean time, we will either be infringing on a woman's right to her own body, or infringing on the right of a fetus to theirs.
-Gabriel Redding
One "group" says that a woman should have the right to choose what she does with and what happens to her body. The other "group" says that the murder of unborn humans is unethical, under any circumstances.
Given no novel solutions, this will be a perpetual impasse. No resolution will ever arise.
The problem isn't that one group is correct and the other is incorrect. It's that the world is far more complex and multidimensional than we want it to be, and laws are one dimensional. Making a law one way or the other necessarily infringes on the "rights" of the opposing group. If you make abortion illegal, you necessarily infringe on a woman's right to her own body. If you legalize abortion, you necessarily allow the murder of unborn humans.
The problem is distinguishing between the embryo and the woman's body. During a woman's natural cycle, eggs are discarded regularly. Is an egg a part of a woman's body? At what point is it no longer part of her body? Does the fact that it becomes fertilized make it part of her body? Or, since only about 30% - 60% of fertilized eggs embed on the uterine wall, is that when it becomes part of her body? At what point is it no longer part of her body, and indeed a completely separate human? When it is fertilized? When it is embedded? When it has a heart beat?
What makes you a human? Where does your body end and the rest of the universe begin?
Your body is comprised of about 57% bacteria. Without bacteria, you don't exist. Bacteria enter and leave your body all the time. At what point are the entering bacteria considered part of your body? At what point are the exiting bacteria no longer part of your body? If the answer to the first question is "whenever they enter" and the answer to the second question is "whenever they leave" then why isn't it the same for fetuses? We know intuitively that fetuses are their own humans before they leave the mother's body. Babies born preterm regularly survive with artificial help, and some even without. At what point does a fetus belong to itself?
The deeper problem is this: There is no actual dividing line. The woman's body, the fetus, and the rest of the universe are as much all the same thing as they are all completely separate things.
You can't make a satisfactory law regarding the issue because laws must be based on hard lines. In the physical world, there are no such lines. In order to make a law about abortion, you must create an arbitrary line on which to base your judgements.
Given legislation as the only solution to this problem, there will never be any progress. We will perpetually flip back and forth between infringing women's rights and excusing murder.
There is, however, another option. A non-legislative option: Growing embryos from unwanted pregnancies in artificial uteruses. While many will think this is the stuff of science fiction, it is actually far closer to reality than one might expect. And really, it's our only hope of a resolution to this massive problem. There is already technology that provides the environment (artificial amniotic fluid), nutrients, and necessary vital organ assistance (blood oxygenation, liver-like filtration, dialysis, etc.) that would normally be provided by the mother. Scientific research has pushed back the survivability of preterm birth reliably to about 27 weeks gestation. This will only continue to improve. Ultimately, it will go back all the way to the point of fertilization.
Once the ability to grow an infant completely outside of a human is achieved, we can finally provide a sufficient resolution to the women's rights/abortion issue. A way to relieve the woman of the unwanted, forced, or potentially dangerous pregnancy, while also preventing the murder of unborn humans. In the mean time, we will either be infringing on a woman's right to her own body, or infringing on the right of a fetus to theirs.
-Gabriel Redding
