Barbara writes:
> This is true, but it's not a satisfying distinction at a time when 3
> month fetuses can be removed from the mother's womb and grown on in an
> incubator. And there are other circumstances where it may be desirable
> to have a clearer definition of human life, or a clearer concept of how
> it's to be dealt with. How about when the time comes that a microscopic
> embryo can be grown to term in an artificial womb?
In our present legal (and moral) system, a newborn baby cannot be killed
even though as Barbara accurately point out it represents a far greater
long-term drain on the mother's resources than the fetus. However the
reason is that there is an escape clause: anyone can give up a baby.
No one is forced to keep a child.
Biologically, this has not been an option in the past for the fetus.
But as Barbara suggests, with improving technology this will eventually
change. It will be possible to extract an unwanted fetus and raise it
outside the mother's body.
Once that becomes possible, it might be that society will change the
laws to treat fetuses the same as babies. You can have an abortion any
time you want, but you must do it non-destructively. The unwanted fetus
will be transfered to another womb, perhaps artificial. In effect you
are giving it up for adoption. Doing abortions in the present way would
be considered murder, and a pregnant woman failing to guard the health
of her fetus would be child abuse.
Could this be a compromise on the abortion issue acceptable to many
parties?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:04 MDT