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: Re: Frozen Embryos - a questionto pro-lifiers Message-ID: <138@spp1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 11:59:19 EST Article-I.D.: spp1.138 Posted: Wed Dec 12 11:59:19 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 02:52:07 EST References: <893@ihuxn.UUCP> <130@spp1.UUCP> <899@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 92 > 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. > An analogy is defined as a resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. What you presented was both a scenario and an analogy, the analogy, I assumed to be between your scenario and abortion since that was the net group it was posted in. The difference I found was that, in the case of abortion, one and only one person holds the thread between life and death. In your scenario, the ones keeping the freezer are included and (Is it ever possible that only one woman on the entire planet would qualify for a recipient) there could be other qualified recipients. A bigger difference was already stated. It is dependent on the individual case, whether an act of omission makes a person responsible for someone's death. But a positive act, with the intent to cease a life, is different. Let me state another analogy. If ten people were stuck on a railroad track with a diesel barrelling down on them, and try as I might, I could only get five off before the train hit them, would I be responsible for the deaths of the others. Before you claim, I'm not keeping with your analogy, let's expand it to include ten frozen embryos, only one qualified woman X on the planet, and the impossibility of being implanted with all (make it a 100) to be sure. Is the only qualified woman responsible for the embryos that couldn't be implanted. > 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 I will grant that every step possible should be taken to preserve a life and I hope people everywhere attempt to do so. Its unfortunate when steps like this are not taken, yet it doesn't compare to steps whose result (regardless of the intent) is to end a life. Points like this are interesting as are incest and rape (and don't get me wrong, a life is involved in each case). But in terms, of sheer numbers they don't compare to the numbers of abortions performed under different situations. Mike Johnston