Greg:

Yes – I agree. Why take on the burden of pregnancy when technology can do it for you. That promise of future technology gives us hope that the abortion debate will someday end.

If a totally functional and reliable artificial womb is developed, and is accessible (in terms of cost), I would imagine pregnancy would become rare. Many women report that they never feel better than when they are pregnant, it is like a great drug. The few women I know who claim that have a lot of kids. For them, maybe pregnancy will still be desired, though I’m pretty sure the feeling of euphoria from pregnancy can be mimicked by the same advanced technology that creates actual full-blown “test tube” people.

and as expected, the magat’s response doesn’t address the issue of the right wing pro-lifers (a lie of a term if there ever was one) saying a woman should have no control over her body. Nothing but pure BS (artificial womb, crap about viability moving earlier). Just what we’ve come to expect from people who don’t think women should have rights. Very sad.

The Supreme Court says that abortion is the business of each State. Even under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the state had the right to restrict abortion post-viability.

Of course, viability is constantly moving to earlier in the pregnancy, so the States rights are growing and the mothers are shrinking as technology improves. Eventually an artificial womb will be developed and if the mother wants an abortion, the state will have the right to transplant the fetus into the artificial womb and save the life of the unborn child.

It will be interesting to see what arguments the mothers come up with to argue that the fetus should be killed rather than transplanted to an artificial womb. Some will argue they would rather kill their unborn child rather than have it grow up abandoned by its mother, as a ward of the state. Or they would feel guilty. Or the child might find out who their mother is later in life and want a relationship. It all will come down to guilt. I am not sure that these arguments will fly – but we will see.

It is interesting that some only focus on the rights of the mother, and forget about the rights of the other person involved (the unborn baby).

My body, my choice – said the unborn baby.

A decent person would say there shouldn’t be any laws restricting this or any other abortion since it’s nobody’s business but the woman’s (and anyone else she chooses to include).

That’s what a decent person would say. but your question was asked of a magat republican, so…

They should change the law to fix that. That should take care of this issue going forward. It seems they only need to add this particular medical issue to the list and problem solved.

Nancy Davis suffered ‘unspeakable pain’ due to the poorly worded law that meant a hospital in her home state refused to terminate the pregnancy

Louisiana woman carrying skull-less fetus forced to travel to New York for an abortion

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/missouri-lawmaker-says-most-rapes-that-he-s-investigated-are-consensual-rapes-BqJHfIgyeEOiTVzY6c-oAA/?utm_source=SP&utm_medium=SP&utm_campaign=SP&utm_term=SP&utm_content=SP&fbclid=IwAR3BfNAL4YF6EMj50MUOUpGMLJzTqoDSnLM80L4P6MeU6Tcv8Fcb8zHk7Rk

Scum like this have been around for years — it just took trump and the republican leadership to make acceptance of rape and punishment of women seem acceptable.

You omit this

If this suggestion of personhood is established,

but then opponents of Roe V Wade have never been, and are not know, known for either intelligence nor integrity.