Social burdens are not the same as physical burdens.
It's just about sharing the body, for me. All the rest is a different situation.
Fair enough, I guess.
But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".
Anyway, if your criteria is "sharing the body", does that mean you would allow abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth?
I'm presuming a society advanced enough to have teleporters would also have pretty good social services.
Technological advance and social safety net don't seem to be well correlated in fact or fiction. The Soviet Union was plenty advanced, with nuclear power plants, probes to other planets, supersonic aircraft, space stations, computers, etc. But their social services were pretty bad even by the standards of the day.
The Klingons have warp drives, teleporters,
and cloaking devices. But are their social services up to your humanitarian standards?
Opt-in fertility (i.e., everyone's sterilized at birth and the procedure is temporarily reversed when people want to breed) would be as close to infallible as to make no difference.
Well. If you don't make it mandatory, you'll have conscientious objectors who opt-out. Hell, even if you do make it mandatory, you'll still have people opting out. Look how well that works with vaccination and home schooling.
Then there's all the idiots who think they want to breed, and then change their mind halfway through. Or who kept meaning to reverse the reversal but never get around to it, and go on having sex anyway. Even in a world of condoms, easy-access birth control, and the old standby of abstinence, we
still seem to need abortions of convenience on the regular. I don't think foolproof technology is going to be the right answer for solving human problems.
