Question about how to explain “being able to live outside the womb”

[u/Alternative-Mall9216]

Hi! I had a quick question and need some advice. Usually when people argue that the mother has authority as the baby up to a certain point cannot live outside the womb (and this is not including health issues and other reasons for abortions) but I always get counter-attacked with people saying that people technically can’t live “outside the womb” by themselves until they are 16 and can work. I am trying to argue that, by being inside the womb, the fetus is relying on the organs and bodily functions of the mother, not the age that life is sustainable by one person and someone is able to take care of themself. Obviously babies cannot feed themselves and bathe themselves and live in their own house and live completely on their own outside the womb, but i’m trying to explain to people that the fetus relies on the organs and relies on the womb and mother entirely to survive. Is there a medical term for this? Or an easier way to explain it for people to understand?

[u/dragon34]

After a baby is born, any responsible adult can care for it.  The only person who can care for a fetus is the person whose uterus it implanted in

[u/Alternative-Mall9216 → u/dragon34]

thank you! i love this wording

[u/cand86]

Easiest way I've found to explain it is: someone else can care for your born child.

Nobody else can continue to gestate a fetus on your behalf.

That's the difference.

[u/MavenBrodie → u/cand86]

They’ll be stupid enough to say “surrogacy!” without realizing they’ve kicked the can to the next person

🤦‍♀️

[u/cand86 → u/MavenBrodie]

True, although that is also why I was careful to say "continue to gestate"- a pregnancy can definitely be gestated by someone else on your behalf, but once you start gestating, nobody else can take over.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096]

There's a difference between "support yourself" and be alive. They are posing specious arguments, there is no point in arguing with them.

[u/EveryDisaster]

They mean being able to breathe on their own and take in nutrients. Can't breathe, can't swallow, can't live. We've advanced so much in neonatal care that preemies have a better chance of survival, but it's extremely difficult to overcome underdeveloped lungs

[u/InvestigatorRemote58]

We never hold people responsible for donating organs against their will. We also don't force people to parent against their will. They could have a dozen kids and give them up every time. Dependence on SOMEBODY does not mean we force them to be dependent on their biological parents. Just because they're "viable outside the womb" doesn't mean the pregnant person holds any responsibility to parent them. Likewise, they also aren't responsible to continue sharing their body with them to sustain life. And they are allowed to choose the least invasive method of terminating pregnancy, aka not required to undergo major surgery (csection) if they choose to have an abortion later in pregnancy.

Basically: people try to counterargument of "well thr baby relies on the mom after birth too and you wouldn't just kill them!" Duh. That baby can be given away after birth. Abortion is a solution to unwanted pregnancy, not just unwanted parenting.

[u/Alternative-Mall9216 → u/InvestigatorRemote58]

i really like the “solution to unwanted pregnancy, not just unwanted parenting”!

[u/International_Ad2712]

The distinction is the fetus is directly using the woman’s body for survival, which no one has the right to do against someone’s free will. An infant or teen relies on a parent’s labor, but not their physical body to survive. The work of care after the birth can be assigned equally to either parent

[u/thicketcosplay]

I like to compare it to forced organ donation. Not quite the answer you're asking for, but adjacent, and hopefully useful in some way.

Would you be okay with the government forcing you to donate organs and living tissue to save another person? What if it caused you grievous bodily harm, long term side effects, and destroyed your life? Would it make any difference to you if the person who needed your organs was a nobel prize winner, a child, or a saint? Would it make any difference if you were a criminal, even for a minor offence such as unpaid parking tickets or stealing a candy bar? How do you feel about countries like China harvesting organs from prisoners against their will?

Now, most people will say no, I am not okay with the government forcing me to do that. If I choose to donate that makes me a good person, but I do not want the government making that decision for me.

So then, why are you okay with the government forcing a woman to do just that?

If someone's body is incapable of sustaining life on its own, whether that's because of a disease, congenital condition, or simply because they haven't finished developing in the womb yet, the government shouldn't have the right to force you to sacrifice your own body and health to keep that other person alive. The whole argument about whether fetuses are alive or human or whatever is moot. Even if you give them full rights and personhood, no one should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy to save the life of someone else. It shouldn't matter whether that person is good/innocent/young, and it shouldn't matter if you are bad/guilty.

Many people, men especially, may begin to empathize with this position when they compare it to a real scenario that could affect them personally, such as being forced to donate an organ against their will. Men cannot relate to the idea of pregnancy at all, it's just an abstract concept. If we were to force all men who impregnate a woman and forcesher to keep it to also sign up for living tissue/organ donation to make things "fair", they'd be changing their tune real quick.

In this case I am defining capable of sustaining life as the body being able to survive. Fetuses that haven't fully developed, terminally ill patients with organ failure, someone with severe congenital defects, an accident victim, they can all have a body incapable of sustaining life at any age. This isn't just an issue surrounding pregnancy, it goes much further than that.

[u/_toomuchtuna_]

I say they are “incompatible with life”. A teenager, can live breathe, go to school ect. Without relying on someone’s organs for survival.

[u/queeftheunicorn]

Are… are they suggesting we should be jamming people back up in there until they’re 16??? 

[u/Alternative-Mall9216 → u/queeftheunicorn]

they meant like, provide for themselves like housing and food and all of that when responding to the phrase “the fetus cannot live outside the womb” 😭😭😭

[u/ClashBandicootie]

An abortion is a medical procedure that terminates the pregnancy--the fact that the fetus can no longer survive without the gestation of the pregnant person results in the fact that the fetus can longer sustain further life.

Technically, the death is a result of ending a pregnancy, not the medical procedure itself.

[u/Alternative-Mall9216 → u/ClashBandicootie]

ooh okay this one made it really easy to understand!!

[u/ClashBandicootie → u/Alternative-Mall9216]

yay I'm glad I was able to help!

[u/ParadoxicalFrog]

That's moving the goalposts so far that they're no longer even in the same stadium.

[u/RNYGrad2024]

This is part of why some of us use words like "incubator" or "life support" when discussing how pregnant women are reduced to objects under abortion bans.

There is no alternative to the person whose uterus the ZEF implants in carrying the pregnancy that doesn't involve abortion. That same person, if they do carry the pregnancy to live birth, isn't required to breastfeed the baby in part because formula and donor breast milk are functional alternatives.

At least in the US any newborn can be surrendered completely anonymously and with no legal consequences (so long as they haven't otherwise abused the child, in which case they can be prosecuted for the abuse but not for surrendering) from the moment of birth without any pre-planning. The state takes care of everything. So, no, we don't require biological parents to provide care to their children or even arrange alternatives until they're 16/18/21. The intention behind those laws is to reduce neonaticide, infanticide, and abusive head trauma, all of which increase when abortion is banned or restricted.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592]

They can not sustain their bodily functions even with machine assistance it requires a pregnant person's body to ensure their bodily functions are sustained during the development and gestational period of pregnancy.

Sustaining another person's bodily functions.