Abortion and Paternity Rights

[bladevalant546]

((Here, I'll quibble. I prefer to think of it as a potential baby. You're right in that fairly early on various organ systems develop (neurological and circulatory systems amongst others). This is some form of seperation from the mother, but a fetus does not become viable until somewhere around 24 weeks gestation, and only then with a lot of medical assistance.
You're correct in your dates of rough fetal development, however, I think your context is a bit off. A woman ovulates around 8-10 days after the first day of her last menstural cycle. The first week of pregnancy takes place before the woman can know she is pregnant. Home pregnancy tests detect levels of HGC in the woman's urine and generally can't pick them up until around the time of her first missed period. So she's already in her 3rd to 5th week of pregnancy at that point. Blood tests can detect HGC earlier, but we're talking unplanned pregnancies, not women who are actively trying to conceive.
So most pregnancies that end in abortion do so by 12 weeks. However, fetal development is somewhat further along than you are saying.))

I had to quickly fact check so my fact might be off a little. So more pinpoint facts will be welcomed. I will admit I might have taken the context slightly far off, here is my reasoning. Main reason why I think there should be some heavily scrutiny in regards to this area. While I might have had a factual error, I think there should be a cut off once the baby is actively responding to stimuli and having some sort of neural data being maintained. Now that is sci fi right now so currently since we do not have instruments to measure this. MY point is merely conjecture. Now I am not fully knowledgeable on 12 week fetus development. However, I am almost against after 5 months, as you stated 6 month baby can survive with immense medical care.

((I'd be all for a transplanting of the fetus to an artificial womb, but, alas, modern medicine is not there yet. I think it is also necessary to consider the very real risks to a woman's health in carrying a pregnancy to term. America has one of the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the developed world. Carrying a pregnancy to term, even an "easy" pregnancy poses serious threats (not only to the mother and child's life, but also to the woman's future fertility), especially around the time of birth. I don't believe a woman should face the prospect of birthing a child solely for the man to take full responsibility of said child.
There's also emotional issues to wrestle with. A woman will typically feel the first fetal movements somewhere around 16-20 weeks. This produces, in many cases though certainly not all, a sense of bonding between mother and fetus. Labor is caused by the hormone oxytocin (synthetic form being pitocin). Oxytocin is also the hormone that causes orgasm and feelings of love. The largest dose of oxytocin a man will ever recieve in his life is diring his birth (assuming it is an oxytocin birth, as pitocin doesn't have the same effect on the brain). This is why I view adoption as problematic as a solution to unwanted pregnancy, also. Because a woman can not want or be able to care for and support a child and then find herself bonded with and loving a child, which can lead to problems in the mother-child relationship (resentment). This isn't healthy for either mother or child.))

I understand the risks involved the choice, however usually before a baby even close to term threat level can be tested. In my time listen to my dad (also a former maternity ward in the air force) and watching plenty of baby shows with my mother...i know it is weird.....dont judge me! They can usually tell if there will be major complications with birth ahead of time, such size of utero walls and what. I have also seen plenty of c-sections because of other unforeseen things. I believe you bringing up those chemical and those attractions give more justification and is a valid side I have not thought of. I however think you bring up medical risks rather than the flawed "but she feels pain" argument is way more convincing. Now I would like to pose a question on the lines of the information you provided. Would you considering limiting abortions to after the said "bonding" chemicals are added. This seems to me like a biological clock stating it is too late now or something. Thanks for the response, offered some different perspectives I have not considered, need more none propaganda fueled emotional arguments!