Abortion

[evolvedForm]

In another thread, Mindflayer posted this article, which I think has broader implications than the author mentions.

[ QUOTE ]
Which leads me to ..
December 1996 XVIII/4

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS & LIFE SAVING THERAPY

Last month in the Saint Louis area, a 40 year old woman and her son died after the woman refused a blood transfusion. As a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, Bettye Joyce Beal believed that blood transfusions are prohibited by her religion. When she slipped and fell in her home, she was quickly losing blood. After entering a hospital, it was determined that the baby in her womb was not getting the blood and oxygen he needed. According to medical opinion offered in the press, both mother and child might have survived if blood were transfused at the proper time. The rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions for themselves or for their children is often posed in ethics classes as a problem in applying the principle of informed consent. But this actual case provides some controversial aspects and an impetus to look more closely at the fundamental and related issues arising from the refusal to utilize a seemingly innocuous and successful life prolonging therapy.
full discussion here (http://www.op.org/Domcentral/study/kor/96121804.htm)


[/ QUOTE ]

This case brings up an intriguing angle on abortion. If pro-abortionists argue that she was irresponsible for not taking into account the child in her womb, then they are conceding that the child is a human being. However, if they uphold the lady's decision to reject a blood transfusion on religious grounds, at the risk of her baby, then they are forced to concede that religion can play a role in the law (the law that allows religious people to decide upon medical care based upon their religion).

By the same token, if anti-abortionists promote her religious freedoms, then they must concede that she has the right to put her baby in harm.

I think this poses a provacative dilemma.

[vhawk01]

Unless you ascribe value to the womans actual choice, and allow that to play a part in the decision.

[Kimbell175113]

Religion has nothing to do with it. She can choose whether or not she wants medical treatment; there's no follow-up question that asks her to explain why.

[evolvedForm]

In the article it explicitly says "the rights of Jehovas Witnesses to reject treatment," which seems to imply you must have a reason for rejecting it, and that it is probably based in religion.

I'm not familiar with the laws, but that's what the article (1996) implies.

[soon2bepro]

law is anything but fair

morals are based on erratic feelings

...

that's all im going to say

[FortunaMaximus]

There are legislations put into place for specific religions that allow them to reject otherwise mandatory health care, because of the belief systems in those religions.

I think the Constitution trumps the court system on this one, although my knowledge of American law isn't extensive enough to make that a hard confirm.

I've known a Jehovah's Witness back in school, we used to talk about different issues, his parents were devout and he more or less followed the basic principles as far as a rebellious potsmoking teenager goes.

And IIRC, for them, it has more to do with introducing impure body matter from non-JW's.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In the article it explicitly says "the rights of Jehovas Witnesses to reject treatment," which seems to imply you must have a reason for rejecting it, and that it is probably based in religion.

I'm not familiar with the laws, but that's what the article (1996) implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have to have a reason for rejecting it, and that reason has to be both rationally explained and rationally defensible, to a team of physicians, judges, whatever the situation requires.

Now, you bring up an interesting (and in my mind offensive) point. BECAUSE it is religious, it is assumed to be rationally defensible (I don't mean ultimately, but the answer to the 'why reject' question is at least superficially obvious) and so religious beliefs are an easier road to refusing treatment then vague personal beliefs. It is also probably true that people without strong religious beliefs are rarely those who are refusing routine treatments.

[madnak]

Your rhetoric is really skeevy. But sure, that's a valid point. I don't think many people fall into the former category, but maybe I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised. Given that I don't believe anyone should be forced into a medical procedure without their consent, and that I don't much care about the unborn baby, all I can say is "meh."

[FortunaMaximus]

Pregnancy should be licensed and the fee for being allowed to procreate equivalent to 18 years' worth of raising the baby, in a non-cashable trust.

Yeah, more unrealistic solutions.

[Turn Prophet]

I don't see any dilemma. She is allowed to refuse treatment for any reason, including religion. Anyone is allowed to refuse an abortion for any reason, including religion.

This does mean that religion plays a role in the law.
Moral principle != religion.

[vhawk01]

Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, twofer injection for observation room 7. Evens on if you wake up in recovery or psych.

[revots33]

She basically chose to have an abortion. It was a silly reason to abort a fetus (assuming she wanted to have a child) but hey it's her choice not mine.

[Pauwl]

[ QUOTE ]

And IIRC, for them, it has more to do with introducing impure body matter from non-JW's.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, would it have been ok for her to have a transfusion from another JW?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reason makes just as much sense to me as the Jehovah woman's reason.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And IIRC, for them, it has more to do with introducing impure body matter from non-JW's.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, would it have been ok for her to have a transfusion from another JW?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to check that particular point. I'm not sure yet but should be shortly.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reason makes just as much sense to me as the Jehovah woman's reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was the (not so) subtle point. I got into this with some of my preceptors at school, because I think its introducing a lot of bias in favor of religious tolerance to accept the JW's motivations (albeit grudgingly) while we would almost assuredly patently reject the explanation given by his heighness, Lord Prince Xebulon of Magnavius IV.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And IIRC, for them, it has more to do with introducing impure body matter from non-JW's.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, would it have been ok for her to have a transfusion from another JW?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to check that particular point. I'm not sure yet but should be shortly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm almost positive the answer is no. The only real loophole with regards to this is that some groups of JW's will allow a person to bank some of their own blood if they know they have an upcoming surgery, because receiving their own blood back is (to some) acceptable. The trouble then obviously arises in emergent situations.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
At one time the Watchtower Society taught that it was. Then in the mid-1960's they learned that transfused blood is not digested but retained in the body much like a transplanted organ. Tragically, by then many Jehovah's Witnesses had already died. Since the Governing Body believed that the end was extremely near, 6 and that Science would soon provide an effective alternative to blood, the blood ban was retained, but more and more of the separate blood products were permitted. The current policy has been developed in a careless fashion over the years and there are many similarities to the Watchtower's previous bans on vaccines and organ transplants.

Simply stated, to receive a nutritional benefit from blood, you would have to eat and digest it so that it could be broken down and used as food. No nutritional benefit accrues from a blood transfusion.

The Watchtower has tried to overcome this fact by arguing that a blood transfusion is no different than being fed intravenously with dextrose or alcohol. These comparisons are misleading, however, because sugar and alcohol can in fact be used by the body as food without digestion. Transfused blood cannot be used by your body as food anymore so than can a transplanted heart or kidney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial ban, apparently.

Article here if you want sufficient fire to go whack a literal Christian with a Bible...

http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abstain.shtml

[vhawk01]

Damn, is this going to be some thing like the circumcision thing where all of my cozy preconceived notions about the different factions involved get all twisted around and I end up having to agree with MIDGE?!!?!? Because....well, it just better not.

[mindflayer]

...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Shiks (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Shiks (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. Consider the rational for helmet laws (and seatbelt laws) and you will see why their religious beliefs play no part.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if they uphold the lady's decision to reject a blood transfusion on religious grounds, at the risk of her baby, then they are forced to concede that religion can play a role in the law (the law that allows religious people to decide upon medical care based upon their religion)

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue because it's not a question of religion. People should be allowed to refuse any treatment for any reason. Futhermore, this is the "default" state, so no law is even required. Only if someone decides that they want to force their views on this person does the law become involved, so it's becoming involved because of the force, not because of the belief.

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Sikhs (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the benefits of a multicultural school. Not every Sikh is required to wear their turbans. But IIRC, this came up in B.C. courts, and they got an exemption, and upon doublechecking, yes, they are exempt in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act.

Quoted from said act:

[ QUOTE ]
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:

(a) a person who

(i) practices the Sikh religion, and

(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

[/ QUOTE ]

They assume the responsibilities for not wearing a helmet. If that's the irrationality their religion demands of them, hey, it's not that much riskier than handling poisonous snakes. (On probability.)

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, perhaps I should go with 6 weeks then.

Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.

[revots33]

Related question for those who think life begins at conception...

You walk into a burning medical building, and you find one crying 5-week old infant, and a tray with 20 blastocysts in petri dishes. You can only remove one from the burning building. Which one?

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of sentient is that it indicates something that can "feel," for instance, something that is able to suffer. It could be argued that an embryo or fetus with brain activity might be able to do just that. So by your example, being alive and able to feel or suffer, should preclude us from killing without regard. You specifically mention that otherwise we would be vegetarians, but are you aware that cattle and pigs seem to suffer if they are not killed quickly? (Nobody can know for sure, but it's hard to argue when they squeal with abandon when you stick them with the big knife.) By your logic, we should all be vegetarian. Care to rethink your position?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Related question for those who think life begins at conception...

You walk into a burning medical building, and you find one crying 5-week old infant, and a tray with 20 blastocysts in petri dishes. You can only remove one from the burning building. Which one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful. You step too far backward in the timeline, condoms become murder weapons. I mean, there are millions of viable lives in each tossed rubber.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
Related question for those who think life begins at conception...

You walk into a burning medical building, and you find one crying 5-week old infant, and a tray with 20 blastocysts in petri dishes. You can only remove one from the burning building. Which one?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fairly absurd, but I will try to play along. Logically, you would want to save 20 lives instead of just one. If you knew, for example, that each of the 20 was about to be implanted in a uterus in the next week, you would want to save those potential 20 lives. Emotionally, the cries of the infant could override logic, and you might go for the known entity. Or, you might know that the 20 blastocysts are from the same couple who are hoping for just one viable child, and realize that since 19 of the blastocysts are not to be allowed to live, you are flipping a coin anyway. Or you could know that the couple has been trying for years to conceive, has no more eggs to come, and the 20 would make the most sense.

As for me, assuming I have no prior knowledge, I would save the infant. I would let my emotions take over. My personal belief is that man should not manipulate embryos, and instead we should let God decide who lives and who dies.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As for me, assuming I have no prior knowledge, I would save the infant. I would let my emotions take over. My personal belief is that man should not manipulate embryos, and instead we should let God decide who lives and who dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would save the baby on those grounds? You're not er, hem.. g-g-god, are you?

luckyme

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for me, assuming I have no prior knowledge, I would save the infant. I would let my emotions take over. My personal belief is that man should not manipulate embryos, and instead we should let God decide who lives and who dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would save the baby on those grounds? You're not er, hem.. g-g-god, are you?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you silly goose, you were being sarcastic weren't you? How droll.

Moving on, past the scenario. Lucky, when do YOU decide that abortion is not OK, and why?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh you silly goose, you were being sarcastic weren't you? How droll.

Moving on, past the scenario. Lucky, when do YOU decide that abortion is not OK, and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying some poor humor to question how a person who leaves such decisions to god, then goes on to make that decision themselves. but it was rather rhetorical, in the sense that I'm quite sure I wouldn't understand the answer.

I make the decision on the same basis as everyone else, when I think it is right by what I believe is right. We never have any other option.

luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Related question for those who think life begins at conception...

You walk into a burning medical building, and you find one crying 5-week old infant, and a tray with 20 blastocysts in petri dishes. You can only remove one from the burning building. Which one?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fairly absurd, but I will try to play along. Logically, you would want to save 20 lives instead of just one. If you knew, for example, that each of the 20 was about to be implanted in a uterus in the next week, you would want to save those potential 20 lives. Emotionally, the cries of the infant could override logic, and you might go for the known entity. Or, you might know that the 20 blastocysts are from the same couple who are hoping for just one viable child, and realize that since 19 of the blastocysts are not to be allowed to live, you are flipping a coin anyway. Or you could know that the couple has been trying for years to conceive, has no more eggs to come, and the 20 would make the most sense.

As for me, assuming I have no prior knowledge, I would save the infant. I would let my emotions take over. My personal belief is that man should not manipulate embryos, and instead we should let God decide who lives and who dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, the assumption is that all 20 blastocysts in the petri dishes will eventually develop into a healthy human being if removed from the burning building. Assuming you know this, do you take the 20 petri dishes or the crying infant?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for me, assuming I have no prior knowledge, I would save the infant. I would let my emotions take over. My personal belief is that man should not manipulate embryos, and instead we should let God decide who lives and who dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would save the baby on those grounds? You're not er, hem.. g-g-god, are you?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you silly goose, you were being sarcastic weren't you? How droll.

Moving on, past the scenario. Lucky, when do YOU decide that abortion is not OK, and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say removal of the fetus is ok at any time. I would think it was immoral (but still probably more moral than denying the abortion) for a woman to make a decision NOT to have an abortion and then decide to have an abortion at like 8.5 months, simply because the procedure is now going to cause all sorts of additional and wholly unnecessary suffering. It was obviously a better outcome if she had had the abortion when the fetus was less developed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of sentient is that it indicates something that can "feel," for instance, something that is able to suffer. It could be argued that an embryo or fetus with brain activity might be able to do just that. So by your example, being alive and able to feel or suffer, should preclude us from killing without regard. You specifically mention that otherwise we would be vegetarians, but are you aware that cattle and pigs seem to suffer if they are not killed quickly? (Nobody can know for sure, but it's hard to argue when they squeal with abandon when you stick them with the big knife.) By your logic, we should all be vegetarian. Care to rethink your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually dont think whether the fetus is sentient or not matters. I mean, to some people I guess it does, but it doesnt need to. If a 35-year old man found his way into my uterus against my will, I would have no qualms about removing him, irrespective of the risk to his health.

[FortunaMaximus]

I should hope not.

[siegfriedandroy]

partial birth (killing a partly born human) is right or wrong? if you are an atheist, then at what point is this 'human' fully 'born' and unworthy of being killed? and why, at a certain point, is it wrong to kill the child?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
partial birth (killing a partly born human) is right or wrong? if you are an atheist, then at what point is this 'human' fully 'born' and unworthy of being killed? and why, at a certain point, is it wrong to kill the child?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know what you mean by partial birth, its a loaded term with lots of different definitions. But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using "birth" to define a moment in time after which a baby cannot legally be killed.
1. What constitutes a "birth" to you?
2. Why does this make a difference to you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But as I mentioned earlier, I think its fine to remove the fetus at any point. If its possible to remove the fetus in a way that saves the fetus' life, all the better, but if it isn't, well thats too bad. Killing the child after birth is an entirely different matter, and I don't see any reason for you to compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using "birth" to define a moment in time after which a baby cannot legally be killed.
1. What constitutes a "birth" to you?
2. Why does this make a difference to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using birth to define a moment in time after which the rights of the baby no longer need infringe upon the rights of the mother.

1. I might be wrong but I think the mommy poops the baby out, something like that, its really messy.

2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it from this position you wouldn't be necessarily against artificial, viable wombs if it was cost-efficient and it served the mother's health not to carry the baby to term, yet allowing her to still have the baby?

There are disturbing drawbacks to such a scenario, especially in an unregulated system, but, well... I know mothers and women who want to be mothers that are unable to carry at low risk to their own health or that of the baby.

Timeframe: Probably a decade or two.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Removal of the fetus doesn't HAVE to equal the death of the fetus, and in cases where the death can be prevented it is probably wrong not to do so, as long as the mother consents. After parturition the mother need no longer be compromised by decisions that effect the baby's health.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it from this position you wouldn't be necessarily against artificial, viable wombs if it was cost-efficient and it served the mother's health not to carry the baby to term, yet allowing her to still have the baby?

There are disturbing drawbacks to such a scenario, especially in an unregulated system, but, well... I know mothers and women who want to be mothers that are unable to carry at low risk to their own health or that of the baby.

Timeframe: Probably a decade or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would most certainly not be against such an innovation, for the same reason that I would be in favor of artificial kidneys, lungs, etc. Wombs, like organs, are somewhat scarce and the owners of all the natural ones dont necessarily feel like giving them away or renting them out.

EDIT: Ok, the womb is an organ I guess, didn't mean to make myself sound stupid, although as an excuse, the uterus is an organ whereas the womb could be understood as the collection of organs and tissues that nurture the baby. There, weaseled my way out of that one.

[madnak]

Bring on the clone vats! Cha-cha-cha!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Bring on the clone vats! Cha-cha-cha!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and accelerate genetic entropy. Naw. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

Entropy is potential.