Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Frozen Embryos - a questionto pro-lifiers
Message-ID: <893@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 13:53:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.893
Posted: Mon Dec  3 13:53:06 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 19:38:08 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 64


I would like to explore some problems associated with frozen embryos.
These problems can be extended to include other embryos and fetuses
that do not have the support of a woman's womb.

As you recall, the mother and father of the Australian embryos
died in a plane crash.  The original intention was to implant
the embryos, at some later time, in their mother's womb. The death
of the mother raised the following question: What should be done
with the orphaned embryos?

There could be other instances where we may encounter similar 
situations.  Say, for some medical reason a woman cannot continue
her pregnancy, as she spontaneously aborts the fetus or the embryo.

Since technology allows us now to transplant embryos in a surrogate 
mothers, we are faced with the question: What should we do with
the embryos?

For the sake of the discussion, I will assume a pro-life stance.
I shall make the following assumptions:

    1. There is no willing surrogate mother for the embryo implant. 

    2. We don't have an artificial womb to support the life of the
    embryo.

    3. We know that woman X is the only available and suitable 
    candidate for an embryo transplant.
    
    4. Unfortunately, X is a heartless person, who refuses to offer
    her body for the transplant.

The simple question is: Should we force her to accept the embryo in her
body?  If she does not, the embryo dies.  Can that woman's inconvenience
- carrying the fetus for nine month in her body - supersede the
fetus's right to life?  Is the inconvenience of one individual more
important than another individual's right to life?  

Some may say that X is not responsible for the existence of the embryo,
since other individuals (natural parents) are responsible for its 
conception.  Why then should X carry the moral burden of our society,
and be the provider of a womb for that embryo? Yet, on the other hand,
we cannot blame the embryo for its existence.  It had no say in this matter. 
Why should it die, when we know it can grow to a full human baby in
X's body.

My questions to pro-lifers are:

a. Does the embryo have the right to life?
b. Is woman X's inconvenience more important than the embryo's life?
c. Should woman X be forced by society to carry the fetus in her 
   body against her will?

This sounds like an hypothetical case.  The Australian embryos 
and improving technology suggest that this case may not be so
hypothetical after all.
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho