In a few decades, it might be possible that technological progress would develop an "artificial womb" that can nurture a fetus almost from day one until birth. How would that change the abortion debate?

There would then be a third alternative for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, transferring the fetus to such an "artificial womb" would be an alternative to abortion. In this way, it would no longer be an issue of a woman's body being forcibly used to carry a fetus. Should the abortion alternative be taken away in that situation? Who would have responsibility over the fetus growing in that artificial womb? Anyway, something to think about that, in a few decades, could become a reality.

That would most likely (imo) reduce the number of abortions performed. It would depend, I think, on how viable it is to transfer the embryo into the artificial womb. Forced surgery would not be an option if I had anything to do about it.

__________________
My opinions may have changed but not the fact that I am right

Responsibility would be easy - whoever was adopting it, its not hard I've been told to find adoptive parents for babies and if you have up to 9 months to do so then its even easier.

However I think the cost of the units means they would still only be used where abortion was not possible - say the fetus had developed past the allowed abortable age (so for me that means a functioning brain). Its not going to be possible to transfer every potential abortion to the womb unit, at least not or a very long time.

What if the surgery for transferring the embryo/fetus would be equal in difficulty, risk, etc. to having an abortion? There would then be no extra physical cost incurred in keeping the embryo/fetus alive. What would be the reasons, in such a case, to keep abortion as an option?
Cost would certainly be an issue. If the adoptive parents were willing to take on that cost, that would be best. I wonder, though, how much demand there really is out there for adopted babies. As I understand the situation, currently there are far more parents looking to adopt than there are new babies up for adoption. However, if such an artificial womb would exist, then that may not be the case any longer. Would the mother then have to be responsible? Not that easy a case to ponder since that would be a case of performing abortion not purely out of a sense of a woman's right over her own body (since transfer would be an option) but out of purely financial, practical reasons.

No, if abortion were no easier on the woman there would be no reason to keep abortion around. In fact, if transfering the fetus were easier (say, teleportation), I would be against allowing abortion.

__________________
My opinions may have changed but not the fact that I am right

Would an adoptive couple be willing to spend in the region of 10s of thousands of pounds on the womb themeselves - not to mention the running costs (i.e nutrients, waste disposal etc) especially on something that they will only use for less than 9 months.

The machines themselves are also going to require constant trained supervision as well as any problems require immediate assistance from highly skilled engineers and doctors.

The cost is going to be in the region of supporting a smallish, very up to date hospital if you want them in meaningful numbers but more likely they would be found as one or two sets in a hospital supporting the current incubators. Its going to be early premature babies that will use them, not those who would have been aborted.

Everything sadly has to be tempered with purely practical and finicial reasons, given the choice I think any doctor would use the artificial womb for a preamture baby or even keep it free in a lot of cases if there was a serious risk for a patient rather than to rescue a to be aborted one (seeing as there is going to be a constant demand from them)

If artificial wombs are possible, I expect that either the gov't will raise taxes to provide them or the pro-life crowd will put their money where their mouths are and fund them.

I suspect that you are right about the costs. Such a technically complicated system is bound to cost at least tens of thousands of dollars per nine month's of use. Unfortunately, that would mean that it would be prohibitively expensive to use as a substitute for the great majority of abortions.

In the future case of artificial wombs, there could hypothetically be an alternative that could keep both pro-choice and pro-life people happy but the financial reality of the situation would really only leave the current two options (abortions or forced continuation of pregnancies) as choices for the great majority of women.
I suppose the arguements of cost would be the only reason for allowing abortion in a future where artificial wombs exist. The costs of artificial wombs would still leave the great majority of women with the current two choices - abortion or forced continued pregnancy.
Given the high costs, I doubt that either tax payers or pro-lifers would be able to afford the quantity needed.

this would be interesting to say the least. If it would be a sucessful alternitave to abortion, then go ahead. However i think the only instance in which it should be used is .

__________________
Only God can forgive osama, its our job to arrange the meeting.

All those endangered animals would make a good steak.

God bless the USA!