anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (02/29/84)
@begin(essay) Is it possible that abortion is an issue which has been created by medical technology and which will be ended by medical technology? Is it possible that the current moral and ethical dilemmas are quite temporary? Some people distinguish infanticide and abortion by the independence of the offspring: a fetus cannot survive without its mother, while an infant can. However, this is no distinction, for neither can survive without someone to provide for its needs. For that matter, most pre-teenagers would be hard pressed to provide for themselves without some adult aid. Because society recognizes that there are dependent human beings, it is illegal for parents to abuse or neglect a child. But neither does society force people to remain parents if they do not wish to be. Therefore, if a child is truly unwanted, it provides institutions so that children can be raised independent of their parents. Unfortunately, society cannot so rescue a fetus, because current medical technology cannot bring to term an embryo or fetus outside the womb. Hence, it must either allow the destruction of the future child or force the woman to bear an unwanted child (which some (I) might construe as cruel and unusual punishment). Consider a medical technology, only slightly more advanced than current limits, in which a fertilized ovum, at any stage of development, could be removed and either transplanted into the uterus of an adoptive mother or brought to term in vitro. This does not seem far-fetched to me. Doctors can already produce conception in vitro and are saving "preemies" at younger and younger ages. I would bet that the technology I propose will exist by the year 2000, and I would not be surprised if it came about by 1990. I suggest that the existence of this technology will abolish the distinction between abortion and infanticide. The moral, ethical, economic, and practical dilemma for the society of 2001 A.D. will be what to do with all these children. I recall estimates that it costs 100,000 dollars to raise a child, not including college. That assumes, of course, unpaid labor in the form of parents. Considering that many of this horde of children will not be adopted, society will have to hire and pay caretakers. And these costs will skyrocket, as more and more education will be necessary to make a productive adult. (Jobs for non-college-grads are few and waning.) Worst of all, these children will already have incurred massive medical expenses by the ripe old age of nine months. The total costs will be staggering. (Here's the part where people run me out of town:) Maybe society can't support this burden. Maybe there just won't be enough money to go around. Maybe society must choose infanticide/abortion as the only means of preventing the destruction of its economic resources. Medicine has given us the ability to abort pregnancies, and medicine will soon obviate the need for aborting pregnancies. The question will remain as to whether or not we should. @end(essay) I think it would be interesting to start a separate discussion as a spin-off of the abortion discussion. Let's assume this medical expertise that allows for "rescuing" unwanted children from their unwilling mothers, without harming either. What then? I don't mean for this new discussion to affect the current abortion one. The fact is that this medical technology does NOT currently exist, so abortion is still a relevant issue. Except that, personally, I think it is an ephemeral one. If you reply by mail, I'll try to respond (barring a huge onslaught). Otherwise, post away! Scott D. Anderson decvax!ittvax!anderson