Comment on Reproductive Ethics is a UK Christian group. I would not expect an unbiased opinion from them. Pro-life arguments are powerful for the masses because they are simplistic (like bumper-stickers). When you look for logic or evidence you find religion and superstition. Why, for example, would it matter if a human life was created in a petri dish or in a womb? Most pro-lifers I have met object to the petri dish because they are locked into a belief that we must roll the dice and let God decide which sperm and which egg should be combined to create our offspring. Meanwhile, God might be watching and wondering why we are not using the gifts he has given us to improve on the job nature has done so far by rolling the dice. What do you actually see as a compelling argument for protecting every fertilized egg when God (or nature) discards about 40% of them (often before the woman even knows she is pregnant)?
I certainly don't see a compelling argument for protecting every fertilized egg. In fact, I don't see a compelling argument for protecting ANY fertilized egg. My original discussion when I began this thread is asking why any Pro-Life people would not approve of hormonal birth control. A mechanism of action for hormonal birth control is to abort a fertilized egg. If life begins at conception, and if abortion is murder, then hormonal birth control is murder. 4 in 5 women in the US use hormonal birth control. The Pro-Life argument is disapproved of by at least 80% of women, likely 90%. I offered a gallup poll earlier about US opinion on the morality of birth control that showed 90% approval rate of birth control. That would most definitely have to include red state anti-abortion people, as well. Pro-Life people are losing the argument on birth control with the population, but Pro-Choice people are failing to persuade them on abortion. Most people who don't approve of abortion don't disapprove of "abortion of a fertilized egg" (or they wouldn't approve of hormonal birth control). So the result is to argue "abortion is murder" or it's a "woman's choice". Most of the people who are arguing that an artificial womb is science fiction can also not use science to decide when personhood begins. I have no interest in defining when personhood begins. Quantum forces, existing in multiple states at one time, consciousness creates reality, nothing exists unless its observed. Who knows really. To me, personhood is more of an ethical/moral argument. Science can't define it. I sincerely appreciate your perspective. I still do not agree that the mind is "activated". Perhaps the difference in my perspective and seemingly most other people that have offered opinions on this thread is that I don't discount a concept simply due to it's origin or bias of its source. I consider the argument itself. So should ethics be considered when doing experimentation on fetuses?
A close friend's daughter just gave birth to a preemie at 24 weeks. It is having heart surgery tomorrow. It is still on the ventilator. It's gained a pound so far since birth about a month ago. It's 3 pounds. It is most certainly a wanted pregnancy. I'm not sure of the ethics of choosing to terminate the pregnancy when she went in to premature labor. I'm sure they would appreciate an artificial womb that could continue fetal development.
I should not have directed attention to the fertilized egg in my question. You have mentioned that you believe some pro-life arguments are powerful, so I was trying to ask which ones you find more compelling? Should ethics be considered when doing experimentation on the fetus? I would say ethical behavior is only a factor when (a) you can prove that the fetus has started experiencing its environment or (b) when your actions might have a negative effect on the fetus after it becomes ethically relevant (i.e. when it does begin experiencing its environment). You might think it is cruel and unethical to pull a fetus from its mother's womb and cut into its chest... but a team of doctors did exactly that a few weeks ago to repair a heart defect (they replaced it in its mother's womb and it had a normal birth a few weeks later). In that case their actions resulted in a positive (instead of a negative) effect on the person whose mind would eventually be activated (at birth). If a woman plans to get an abortion because her fetus has no cerebrum (Zika virus) do you really believe it would be unethical for researchers to perform experiments that might help them understand how to overcome the effects of Zika in future children? I would say ethics only apply if the the woman is going to give birth. Then you could argue that (in a few weeks) a person would be affected by those experiments. If a pregnant woman gets drunk every day before an abortion, why would that matter (in any ethical sense)? If she gets drunk every day but still plans to have a baby, that is when I would be concerned about the ethics of her behavior toward the fetus.
I am sure they would appreciate better odds for their baby - now let us think of the worst case scenario because that is what you might have to help your friend through, the baby does not die but survives with massive global brain damage - will never live an independent life and will be tied to that ventilator for whatever period it survives. The parents now have a choice - watching that poor wee thing struggle to live or remove life support and let it pass peacefully Death happens and nothing can stop it when it is inevitable. I have seen a patient so surrounded by equipment and life support that we could barely reach her and still we lost them And mate - anyone who tells you that there is nothing worse than death has never worked in an ICU
Ethics are always considered when experimenting on pregnant women - that is why we have sod all and almost no information about effects of drugs on pregnant women - it is considered unethical to include them in drug trials. So, if a pregnant woman needs medication we have to fall back on what we know is "safe" by using older drugs that have been used before without too many complications
I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy at all for any medical reason doctors see reasonable and law allows. I personally don't know the ethical/moral answer to 24 weeks and surgeries and struggling for life. Doctors work toward advances in preemie medicine so decisions are more clear and have better outcomes. Did the decision to have the baby at 24 weeks cause human suffering? Is not choosing abortion at 24 weeks unethical? When does "potential" come in to the equation?
I personally do not think it is cruel or unethical to "pull" a fetus from it's mother. Choice does in fact mean that a woman has a choice to not terminate a pregnancy. If a woman chooses to have a baby, should the state intervene if her behavior is negligent? Should "potential" be considered? Does the state have an interest?
What ARE you on about? 24 weeks is considered viable.... Your anecdote while it may be true , says nothing really...so what if it was a wanted pregnancy (??) Terminating the pregnancy would be based on the life/health of the woman and the life/health of the fetus just like any other pregnancy.....what other "ethics" or reasons would there be?
"""anyone who tells you that there is nothing worse than death has never worked in an ICU""" I agree...... have to be pretty young and /or naive to think death is the worst that could happen to you....
Since you didn't consider that I was responding to Bowerbird comment, there is no wonder you are confused. Bowerbird made the distinction between wanted and unwanted. If you wish to contribute something of any substance, I would definitely encourage it. So far the substance you have tried to offer has been embarrassing to you...like when you tried to explain that a fetus is property. I was so confused about how you thought that might work, I inquired but you decided to not explain the concept of fetal property rights. I can tell you that a fetus is never property, it is either a part of the mother or it is a unique person. It is a part of the mother when it is in the mother. It is it's own individual person when it is outside the mother.
You:"" It is a part of the mother when it is in the mother. It is it's own individual person when it is outside the mother." You are LEARNING! Yeahhhh!!! I am not embarrassed by anything I posted but you appear to be since you don't address the contents of a post but the poster.
Well, you should be embarrassed. The fact that law defines a fetus as either a part of the mother or a unique individual is simply as it is defined today. And because you agree, you might be giving Pro-Life people an argument to insist that an aborted fetus should be given burial rights. You might be giving Pro-Life people an argument that a woman needs to be counseled to understand that when the fetus is aborted, that she is in fact causing pre mature labor that will cause a unique individual to die because there is zero chance for its survival outside the womb. I sure wish you would have continued with your discussion that a fetus was property and when it does change to become not property. It was more interesting.
Simply put.....It is absolutely none of anyone's business what a perfect stranger does in their own sex lives or with their own body. Those who oddly think it is need to stop for a minute and think about how they would like me to tell them what THEY should do with their bodies. YOU can only ejaculate under my supervision and I am now in charge of your vagina...so all you womenses drop yer panties and guys you get none unless I say so.
By law the fetus is part of the woman it's in. Nope, no logic there either. Horsepuckey.... Not with you....
So may I assume you'll consider it a Great Leap Forward when Apple or Google or whoever finally comes out with an Orgasmatron? Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
You do know I'm talking about young married couples, right? They would presumably need access to birth control. Would you disapprove of a married couple's private sexual behavior and their private use of hormonal contraception?
I have a little more time so I'll answer you more thoroughly. Perhaps I shouldn't say "Pro-Life arguments are powerful". I'll clarify what I mean since that term seems to be so politically charged. What I mean is that some of the arguments can seem to be reasonable ethical arguments. They just come from Pro-Life perspective. To me, it doesn't matter which perspective it came from. You offered the example of a woman who gets drunk and risks fetal alcohol syndrome. I gave an example a few posts ago of a woman sniffing glue. This is behavior that could easily be viewed as negligent because we know what will happen to a fetus. Disabilities and mental problems, endangering the welfare of a child (potential child). Things that would cause Child Protective Services to become involved if it were a child (child with the status of personhood). If a fetus is born 22 weeks due to the mother's drug use earlier in pregnancy, the fetus struggles to live then dies, should anyone be punished? Current law doesn't seem to really define anything, therefore it seems less than satisfying. For example, it doesn't exactly tell anyone what status in society a fetus has. A fetus is something important, it's something with potential, it can even inherit if it ends up being more than what it is, it just isn't something more yet because it isn't more than what it is currently. I do understand that there is a "potential" problem. There is difficulty in advancing the status of something before it gains that status. It seems a mess to me. No clear answers in some of the more nuanced sections of thought on it. Hopefully some of this makes sense. LOL OH, and on the topic of research. I personally have no problem with research. I think more knowledge is better and informs decisions and improves outcomes, therefore the same ole decisions we have been making can be improved so we have fewer bad outcomes and more satisfying results. Ultimately the goal is a better quality of life for the human species. If elective abortion is legal until 23 weeks, I say grow a fetus in a petri dish until 22 weeks 6 days and do all the testing ya want. Why should it be illegal or unethical to grow a fetus artificially if one can be electively aborted from a woman at 22 weeks 6 days?
It is even more complex than you know. There is no consensus for the timing of the start of life. Does it start at conception or implantation? A good case can be made for either. But bear in mind later term abortions are RARE and the longer the pregnancy the more rare it is. Up to 20 weeks it is a mix of usability to obtain an earlier abortion and early detection of foetal abnormality. After 20 weeks it increasingly becomes for foetal abnormality For me there is no ethical dilemma - I am fine with palliative care for an infant that has no quality of life Abortion simply circumvents that process
I'm glad to hear you know what I know. There is concensus for the start of a human life form. It begins a conception. If science tells us anything, it is that a human life form begins at conception. I'm not religious so I don't consider anything as having a soul or spirit that grants a value to a conceptus, or even that a conceptus should be considered any kind of person at all. There definitely is not concensus on the value of a fetus. I do bare in mind late term abortions are rare. The discussion I engaged in with RandomObserver didn't have much consideration on the rarity or cause of late term abortion. The dilemma I posed had to do with the responsibility of the person who created a human life form that society then has to concern itself with, the costs associated, the suffering it might create, etc.
Do you also feel "society" should concern itself with the fully grown and integrated human life form that the unformed and dependent lifeform lives within?
I am not libertarian. I am liberal. I am on a slide scale somewhere between Liberty and Justice/Equality. There are plenty of times when society has decided it should intervene for Justice. Although, society would have to agree that its solution is Just and not infringing on a person's Liberty. One could also possibly argue that sliding away from Liberty any amount at all towards Justice/Equality is how this mess has been created. There might be an argument from a grandma that has no recourse to control her fully grown alcoholic pregnant daughter or legal power to compel the daughter to get treatment for her alcoholism that is in fact harming a "potential" person. Grandma also knows it will be grandma who ultimately fulfills the responsibilities to raise the baby that her daughter will fail to provide for. When the baby is born at 24 weeks, medical doctors know it would be unethical for them to not treat the preemie, offering it surgeries and costly life support for weeks. I personally feel that if society feels these things cause a "big enough" problem for its citizens as a whole, I think it would be reasonable for it to consider finding some solution for it.
I see...so if we think hard enough we can imagine a scenario that allows us to create an excuse for the removal or limitations on both liberty and justice of an individual based on handing both over to someone else by societal decree. Thus can we designate a ZEF to be of more value than the woman it dwells within. I can easily imagine the nightmare of legislation such a thing would entail and the disgusting actions required in a "free" society to do so.
I can understand the power of an argument that can be reduced to a bumper-sticker. I was pro-life in the 70s and part of the 80s. When I started to research these issues myself, I found that the simplistic answers rested on very shaky foundation. The pro-life agenda cares more about the DNA of the flesh than it does about the confirmed and verified minds (or souls or spirits if you prefer). When you get to know many of the pro-life advocates you will find that some view abortion as a way to make sure people are afraid to have sex outside the "approved" arrangements. There are even a few who just get a personal ego boost every time they are able to interfere with an abortion (and they don't really care what happens to the mother or the child as long as they get bragging rights for "saving a baby"). It is easy to say "choose life" but there are many counter-examples when you pause to think about it. If Uncle Joe's cerebrum is non-functional but his brain stem is unaffected, he can live on for years on a feeding tube. Should his wife have to raise his children in poverty because her church tells her she must "choose life"? Should his kids skip college because all that money went into keeping Joe's body alive? Real life is much more complicated than a bumper sticker. The Constitution does not directly address the fetus because it applies to citizens who are born (excludes fetus) or naturalized (excludes fetus). Local laws in some regions have prohibited abortion for religious reasons (a superstitious belief that the soul/person inhabits the fetus before birth). That mythology did not really address things a woman might do to harm the future newborn (probably because most of those laws date back to a time when women were not likely to use alcohol or tobacco or anything else that might have affected the fetus). I am a firm believer in free will (tempered when it will impact another person) and that is why I only favor punishment in that case if a woman chooses to exercise her free will in a way that will harm the newborn AND chooses to give birth to that damaged newborn (creating an injured person). My concern with research (as with free will) is that I would not want research to cause pain or distress for any creature. If I believed a fetus could actually experience pain, I would be against acts that caused it to experience pain. If I believed the research might cause more pain than gain for the potential newborn, I would only approve of such research with the understanding that the fetus would be terminated before it became an actual person. If the pregnant woman changes her mind (deciding to give birth after all), or some pro-life group kidnaps her and locks her in a basement to "save the baby" from the researchers, then the pain they cause for the newborn is on their account and that is the action (if any) that should be punished.
