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!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Frozen Embryos - a questionto pro-lifiers
Message-ID: <899@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 12:41:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.899
Posted: Mon Dec 10 12:41:57 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 03:49:46 EST
References: <893@ihuxn.UUCP> <130@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 63

In a recent article, I posed some questions to pro-lifers.  As
yet I received only one "pro-life" response. And that
response did not address the questions.

I presented the following scenario: we have a frozen embryo which
needs an immediate implant in a woman's womb, otherwise
it will die. (The case of the Australian embryos suggests that my
scenario is not a science fiction possibility).

For the sake of the discussion, I assumed a pro-life stance.
I made 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.
 
 I asked the pro-lifers the following questions:
 
 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?
 

Mike Johnston replied: =}

}The analogy fails. If nothing is done, then the two cases have different
}results. A positive, overt act must be performed to abort a fetus, but a
}positive act would not be necessary for the orphaned embryo to die. A
}better analogy might be the case of someone being murdered with the
}possibility of another stopping it. It would be nice if they did and in
}fact there are "good samaritan" laws, but its a highly debatable point as
}to whether the reluctant observer is morally responsible for the life.

If you notice, I did not present an analogy.  I presented a scenario and
questions. 

The difference between pregnancy introduced by sexual intercourse
and an embryo transplant is only in the method the embryo is placed in the
womb. Both methods require outside intervention (except possibly for the
rather rare event of an immaculate conception) yet lead to the same
result. Compared to the pregnancy and birth, both methods of placing the
embryo in the womb can only be viewed as a minor inconvenience.

I am rather surprised that you so casually approach the issue of 
the preservation of life.  I had thought that the "pro-life" 
philosophy maintains that life is sacred and should be
preserved. Remember, we are talking about inconvenience to a woman
versus the certain death of the embryo. You seem to draw a line on the
extent to which we should go to preserve life.  If you start drawing
a line, why shouldn't that line be drawn at a different point in the
human life cycle (e.g. birth)?
-- 

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