Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!msc From: msc@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Murray Campbell) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Hypothetical situation Message-ID: <382@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Wed, 1-May-85 11:37:56 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.382 Posted: Wed May 1 11:37:56 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 08:20:03 EDT References: <378@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5228@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 74 >> From me >> I would like to get opinions from people (especially those that >> would make abortion illegal) on the following hypothetical >> situation. Apologies if it has been discussed before. >> >> Suppose a woman and a man, unable to conceive by natural means, >> decide to attempt to have a test tube baby (i.e. fertilization >> in a test tube, followed by implantation in the woman). They >> find a doctor, and the fertilization is successful. At this >> point, the woman has second thoughts, and refuses to allow the >> fertilized egg to be implanted in her body. The doctor has not >> prepared for this eventuality, and does not have the necessary >> facilities to sustain the egg for more than a short while. Which >> of the following positions would you take? >> >> (1) The baby's overriding right to life dictates that it be implanted >> in the woman, by force if necessary. >> (2) Every attempt must be made to sustain the newly created life, as >> in the case of a premature baby. If it dies, however, there is >> no fault on anyone's part. >> (3) The fertilized egg is simply discarded, as in an abortion. >> (4) Others? > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > None of the above. > This event would truly be tragic from the pro-life point of view but the > problem I have with discussing hypothetical situations like this is that > it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. The purpose of the above (rather contrived) situation is to examine the consequences of allowing full human rights to a single cell. Such questions will become more and more relevant as medical technology advances the borders of fertilization ouside the body. > Choices 1 - 3 are loaded against the pro-life view. (Note the words > "overriding right" Just borrowing words from a pro-lifer (I can't remember who) in this group. There is no need to read any more into it. > and "by force" in no. 1. No. 2. consigns pro-lifers > to futility since the means do not exist to keep the embryo alive outside > the womb. Also, it is a direct contradiction of the hypothetical setup > since it is specified there that the doctor can only keep it alive for > a "short while". No. 3 is obvious.) > There is no contradiction. The choice is between sustaining the life (if only for a short while), and not bothering to even try. I personally would choose 2. The woman may change her mind again, another women may be found in time, or the zygote may survive long enough to be frozen. I see the original situation as similar to a baby is born prematurely, far too early to survive. Options 2 and 3 exist here, as above. Is this situation "loaded" against pro-lifers? Paul, I can understand your argument for not dealing with the situation I described, but I nonetheless wish to examine these sorts of questions. I believe women who intend to undergo in vitro (sp?) fertilization are typically given fertility drugs, causing the production of multiple ova. If more than one egg is fertilized (by accident or design), the unused zygote(s) could be frozen, for later implantation. Would you find such a course acceptable? Suppose (oh oh, here I go again) that medical technology advances to the point where it was possible to remove an embryo (without damage) from a woman at a stage where it could be safely preserved by freezing. Would you find this acceptable? Murray Campbell (msc@cmu-cs-k)