Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!spp1!johnston From: johnston@spp1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Frozen Embryos - a questionto pro-lifiers Message-ID: <130@spp1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 12:39:29 EST Article-I.D.: spp1.130 Posted: Tue Dec 4 12:39:29 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 00:41:08 EST References: <893@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 74 > > 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 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. Mike Johnston