[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I've seen some posts in here comparing fetuses to toenails and deeming the fetus-preserving machine to be some kind of a supermachine that can magically turn any skin cell to a human being. As I don't believe that such leaps in logic were intended by the OP, I'd like to narrow down the terms of this hypothetical a bit more if I may:

The technology mentioned by the OP above isn't some magical box that can create human beings out of toenails or skin cells. The technology involves a sophisticated incubator that can successfully emulate a mother's womb such that a fetus, regardless of its age, may be placed inside it and be kept alive until it develops into a newborn baby.

Further assume that this new technology is so effective, that many pregnant to-be-mothers have started taking advantage of it. At no cost to them, these mothers can have their fetuses removed from their body and have them placed in this incubator. This would save them many months of inconvenience, having to miss work, etc.

Finally, assume that one of these to-be-mothers had her fetus removed from her body at the very beginning of her pregnancy and placed it in the incubator, fully intending that the fetus develop into a newborn. About a month later, she has a change of heart and now wants to terminate the fetus (which is now living outside of her body). The question is: does she have the right to terminate the fetus?

If so, upon what rationale does the woman have that right? Does the father have that right based upon that same rationale? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the father and the mother paying for the incubator?

In any case, this formulation of the question does seem to make things more interesting. I'm leaning toward saying that the mother no longer has the right to terminate the pregnancy if it isn't a burden on her body or her life any longer. She has the option of putting it up for adoption, so I don't see why termination would be a preferred route to take.