A Middle Ground to Abortion?
Cronos
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
in Discussions
Abortion is a serious issue to many in the western world.
On the one hand we have the pro-choicers advocating that it is a womans right to control her body and that she can choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
On the other hand, we have the pro-lifers, saying that abortion is akin to murder.
Two diametrically opposed sides of a debate that has raged on for... well... a while at least.
Recently in an IM convo with a friend, I brought up the idea of freezing nascent embryos until the mother is either ready to carry it to full term or give the embryo up for an adoption of sorts and allow another mother to carry it to term.
I find the idea meets the demands of both parties quite splendidly. It preserves the potential life of the embryo and the existing life of the mother.
However, as my friend has pointed out, it raises some further issues of it's own. She found the idea of her own offspring sitting on ice slightly off putting, she also raised the point that a friend of hers raised a kid that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy and is currently immensley happy with her now three year old child.
My questions are, is this kind of thing possible? Is it possible to nip unwanted pregnancy in the bud AND preserve the potential life? And if so, what are the possible ethical issues that could come up? If not, what are the technical and practical limitations that make this impracticable in the current day?
On the one hand we have the pro-choicers advocating that it is a womans right to control her body and that she can choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
On the other hand, we have the pro-lifers, saying that abortion is akin to murder.
Two diametrically opposed sides of a debate that has raged on for... well... a while at least.
Recently in an IM convo with a friend, I brought up the idea of freezing nascent embryos until the mother is either ready to carry it to full term or give the embryo up for an adoption of sorts and allow another mother to carry it to term.
I find the idea meets the demands of both parties quite splendidly. It preserves the potential life of the embryo and the existing life of the mother.
However, as my friend has pointed out, it raises some further issues of it's own. She found the idea of her own offspring sitting on ice slightly off putting, she also raised the point that a friend of hers raised a kid that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy and is currently immensley happy with her now three year old child.
My questions are, is this kind of thing possible? Is it possible to nip unwanted pregnancy in the bud AND preserve the potential life? And if so, what are the possible ethical issues that could come up? If not, what are the technical and practical limitations that make this impracticable in the current day?
Comments
If so, that still leaves us with the problem of what to do if a woman wants an abortion and is still within the first trimester, but outside the timeframe where freezing is possible, essentially putting us back to square one. But this is all speculation anyway. Anyone here an expert on cryostasis?
As for the ethical implications, there are a lot of open questions:
How long is it permissible to store a frozen embryo?
What if there is an excess supply of embryos up for adoption compared to women willing to adopt them and carry them to term? Will the original mother be forced to carry her child to term? Will the excess embryos be thrown in the trash? Will women who apply for fertility treatment have to accept a frozen embryo in order to preserve life? Will they remain in storage until a taker is found, potentially for decades or maybe even centuries? If so, what if the number of frozen embryos just continues to rise with no end in sight? Could this lead to rampant, unsustainable population growth?
Who is financially responsible for the (potentially rather high) costs of this storage operation? The state? The mothers? Frank Zappa?
It'd be hard to poke holes in this idea from an ethical perspective provided there was no risk to the baby and the mother really intended to re-implant the embryo later. However there are always some religious nutjobs that'll take offense at anything. It's like they're looking for something to whinge about.
"So now you know soy is murder too. Now you can feel guilty whatever you eat!" - Marzipan
For the record I think that up to the point that the baby can leave the womb and live on it's own, it's entirely the woman's choice.
--Scythe--
Practical and technical considerations aside, I think you'd end up with an ever increasing supply of frozen eggs that nobody wants. This could also lead to very interesting child-support scenarios.
The reason people get huge murder boners about abortion is because of the belief in the metaphysic. Somewhere in that cluster of a dozen cells right after conception there is a soul. Since pro-lifers can't even tell you what that even MEANS, on anything but some intuitive metaphysical level, its hard to hold rational dialogue.
That's why most arguments against abortion are based on the point where conscious thought begins, which is a lot more tangible. It's hard to pinpoint the exact moment, but apparently it is reasonably early.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That becomes an interesting debate pretty quickly however, because studies have shown that adults of many species of monkeys are more conscious than human infants. In particular, many monkeys are better able to understand the concept of another entity having internal thoughts and motivations than human infants are able to. If I can find some of the studies later I'll post a link.
Honestly my opinion has always been it's her decision, not yours or the governments.
In short, even religious people have their own opinions. Insight++!
In other news, SD(South Dakota, not San Diego) removed the abortion banned attempted by a retarded governor and legislature (no wonder none of them kept their jobs during the election)
Let me add my .02 into the mix.
I am "religious". (I use quotes around "religious" given the nature of the word - it holds many different meanings and in my opinion makes no clear distinction concerning what is really meant when one says they are, "religious".) To clarify and summarize, I am a Christian. I believe in God; the Holy Trinity (God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit) as well as the Bible. (God's inspired word.)
I believe abortion should never be allowed, though this is not the issue at hand. I like the idea of this middle-ground. That is, freezing an embryo / fetus / whatever you would need to crogenically preserve. It sounds good in theory. In practicality, as mentioned before by Underwhelmed, I feel we would end up with more frozen eggs / embryos / etc than we could find homes for, though.
I also don't care for the allowance this could make for more non-committed adults (read: unmarried couples / not a "family" unit) to have sex without using contraceptives. "Have sex today, freeze the unborn child tomorrow." (If a child were produced by such activity.)
All in all, it sounds great in theory but in reality I believe it would fail. (If it were medically possible, even.)
I believe (and this is simply my opinion based on my personal beliefs) that we are applying a band-aid to a snake bite with abortion / this cryogenic preservational middle-ground. The real problem is a lacking of order aligning with God's original design and plan for humanity.
But, I digress. My .02 *ca-ching*
Cheers & Happy Holidays,
~ DarkATi
[...]In practicality, as mentioned before by Underwhelmed, I feel we would end up with more frozen eggs / embryos / etc than we could find homes for, though.
I also don't care for the allowance this could make for more non-committed adults (read: unmarried couples / not a "family" unit) to have sex without using contraceptives. "Have sex today, freeze the unborn child tomorrow." (If a child were produced by such activity.)[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same concerns I mentioned, if for different reasons. What stands in the way of this is that an abortion, and possibly a "cryo-abortion" too, is not exactly a massage and a spa, if you get my drift. It's not the most pleasant procedure. On the other hand, we have shortsightedness, the "I'll deal with the problems as they come" mentality. It's an ever-present problem associated with abortion and any derivative thereof.
There. Problem solved.
Seriously though, the only reason I'm for abortion is because it gives me something interesting to watch between clients at work.
/yes
//uncalled for
Your statement is the "pro-choice" argument in its most basic form. If it would satisfy everyone, there wouldn't even be a debate to begin with.
The problem with that argument is that the "pro-lifers," out of conscience, cannot tolerate what they see as the murder of a small child. That it isn't their own is irrelevant, it is the fact that a child is being murdered that upsets them.
Basically, every "pro-life vs. pro-choice" argument goes like this:
Pro-choice: "Get the hell off my back and mind your own business like I do!"
Pro-life: "I will, as soon as you stop murdering children!"
... and then the two sides sit and snarl at each other for a while.
It may be more elaborate than that, it may be more polite than that, it may be <i>less</i> polite than that, but ultimately, fundamentally, that's how every "pro-life vs. pro-choice" argument goes.
Pro-choice: "Get the hell off my back and mind your own business like I do!"
Pro-life: "I will, as soon as you stop murdering children!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true. I think people need to stop equating potential for life (Eg. Fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever) for a sentient life.
So we define sentience as the measure of how many rights a life is afforded. But this is where we hit a snag: We're not even sure what sentience is. We have yet to find the exact cause of sentience. Some maintain that it is the "soul," and that this soul is intricately connected to an unborn child from the moment of conception. Though intangible, sentience is present.
And this is the core of the whole dispute. Neither side wishes to kill children, the disagreement concerns the point where a cluster of cells turns into a human being. And if you are capable of finding a conclusive answer to that question, one that both sides will accept, you are wasting your time here. Get out there and spread your message, millions will benefit.
I have not seen these plans. Given, I haven't been to a planning commission meeting in a while, but still.
<!--quoteo(post=1589884:date=Dec 18 2006, 12:42 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 18 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]1589884[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That depends on how we define "life" though. Currently, we define life as a chemical pattern capable of self-replication. This applies to fertilized egg cells, ergo fertilized egg cells are alive. But it also applies to amoebas, and amoebas are, too, alive, as I doubt anyone will deny.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to point out that this also applies to cancer cells. I know I'm going to get yelled at for this, but it's worth noting.
You are quite correct, Renegade - cancer cells are alive too. In fact, considering their rampant growth and their refusal to undergo apoptosis it COULD be argued that cancer cells are even more alive than normal cells. However, ethically, I believe we can agree that cancer cells can be placed in the same category as, say, Yersinia Pestis, the bacterium that causes the bubonic plague - they may be alive, but nobody is ever going to shed a tear on their behalf once they're dead.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given, but have brought up the point that fetuses are basically parasitic organisms? I think that's a point that warrants statement, if it hasn't been mentioned already.
I am not sure if they actually qualify as parasitic, given that they are of the same species as the host. There is a certain comedic value about it though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think a parasitic organism has to be a different species from its host to qualify for the status. According to the last definition I looked at, at least.
That said, I still don't believe reproduction can be defined as parasitic growth in a host, but that's more of a hunch. Even if it IS parasitic growth, it undeniably ensures the continued survival of the race, and is thus beneficial to our survival.
AND we're massively derailing the thread. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-Merriam-Webster dictionary 2005+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merriam-Webster dictionary 2005)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'per-&-"sIt, 'pa-r&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
(Parasitism)
Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures
3 : PARASITOSIS
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both definitions are needed. The first one of a parasite is quite funny.
you know the risks involved, you should be willing to pay the price. if you want to ###### like bunnies and not worry about kids, get clipped.
i propose that all abortions that are not the direct cause of rape or any form of nonconsentual sex should be followed by invasive contraceptive measures for both parties.
you know the risks involved, you should be willing to pay the price. if you want to ###### like bunnies and not worry about kids, get clipped.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You... you <i>do</i> realize that the number one reason abortions are sought is because of contraceptive failure, right (the number two being that the mother already has children and doesn't want any more, can't afford any more, or isn't in a good position to care for them)?
invasive contraception is effective. you can't have a leak if there's no plumbing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not debating whether it's effective or not, just that it's extreme and unnecessary.
You... you <i>do</i> realize that the number one reason abortions are sought is because of contraceptive failure, right (the number two being that the mother already has children and doesn't want any more, can't afford any more, or isn't in a good position to care for them)?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it solves both of the problems with some measure of permanence. if anything, it's almost <i>too</i> effective.
it solves both of the problems with some measure of permanence. if anything, it's almost <i>too</i> effective.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if they <i>want</i> to have kids somewhere down the line? These surgeries are guaranteably reversable, y'know.
i propose that all abortions that are not the direct cause of rape or any form of nonconsentual sex should be followed by invasive contraceptive measures for both parties.
you know the risks involved, you should be willing to pay the price. if you want to ###### like bunnies and not worry about kids, get clipped.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some, the risk is solely that you might have to get an abortion. Why impose an artificial "price" of cuting up someone's reproductive organs?