Will deal with this later, but thought I'd quick log it before I forgot. (If I log it, my anti-choice associates will "remind" me that I haven't responded to it :-)
If one presumes that a fetus starts as a fertilized egg and eventually becomes a "pre-born" baby in the womb (as I do) and if one presumes (as I do) that a fetus has no "right to life" whereas a baby - in the womb or out of the womb - is entitled to have its interests represented regarding a decision to abort, what is one to make of medical technology that is pushing back "viability" to earlier and earlier weeks?
A protester told me fetus' have survived out of the womb as early as (if I remember correctly) three or four months - which I find very early and plan to confirm via some research.
Nonetheless, even as a thought experiment, what if doctors were technically capable of extracting a fertilized egg from a womb and basically continue to "grow" it in some type of artificial womb?
Does that change the ethical issue at all?
I suspect not (as I don't believe "viability outside of the womb" is the key test), but it is worth giving a decent think.
Bill Bekkenhuis
Bethlehem, PA
2 comments:
Another good post from my man, Bill! Scientists will very shortly be able, if they are not already able, to extract a fertilized egg and allow it to grow in an artificial womb.
And Bill, you say that "...a baby - in the womb or out of the womb - is entitled to have its interests represented regarding a decision to abort..." Do you mean that the baby whom you are cradling in your arms is entitled to have her interests represented, but that someone who finds her inconvenient and would like her gone is also entitled? Or do you think that little baby's force to keep living overwhelms the other's interest.
Post a Comment