wh@houxz.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER) (02/28/84)
[]
Advances in science and technology can have a tremendous impact on our
morals and the way we define social roles. The abortion debate is one arena
in which the implications of advances in medicine have not fully been explored.
While the pro-life groups argue that it is obvious that human life begins at
conception, that possible distinction is close to be coming arbitrary as the
previous distinction that human life began at birth. Mechanical or chemical
techniques can induce an ova to begin development without fertilization for a
number of species. (I understand mechanical techniques can successfully be
used with turkeys.) There would appear to be no theoretical reason why such
techniques could not be developed for humans. If this is a real possibility,
then the potential for human life begins before conception! Applying the pro-
life argument that an organism must be considered "human" as soon as it has the
potential to develop into a human to this situation would have a tremendous
impact on women as well as the rest of us.
1. If mechanical/chemical substitutes for fertilization are possible, are we
morally remiss for not developing the techniques that could allow
millions of organisms to fulfill their human potential? In this case,
would we consider an act of ommision to be a crime or a sin?
2. How about menstruation? Could it be considered murder since we would be
denying the lost ovum the opportunity to fulfill its human potential?
Would we need laws requiring women to become pregnant at puberty and
remain pregnant until death or menopause? Wouldn't any other course
interefere with the rights of the ova to enjoy life?
3. Maybe we shouldn't trust pregnancy to the fragile human body. A
substitute uterus for the developing embryo is probably possible. Even
if a woman were to constantly be pregnant, and have multiple births, she
probably could not bring all her ova to term, either because of total
number or because of accidents/sickness/etc. Wouldn't we be morally
required to remove all a woman's ova and develop them in artificial wombs
where all the ova could be guaranteed the opportunity to develop their
human potential in a safe, protected environment? In this case, maybe
natural pregnancy would be considered immoral, because it exposes the
developing fetus to more risk than necessary. How about laws requiring
the removal of a woman's ova and banning natural pregnancies?
4. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH ALL THE PEOPLE!?
I guess the moral is that you should not only consider "today", but "tomorrow"
when you plan policies. Advances in science and medicine can make what sounds
like a reasonable position today, a disaster tomorrow. Not only on the
abortion issue, but other issues as well we must look for solutions that are
not just short range, but long range as well. I'd enjoy seeing discusions
about how other advances in technology might impact human "rights" and
social roles. The auto and birth control pill are claimed to have had a
tremendous impact on social roles and the way men and women relate. What
do you think will be the technology that will most impact social roles for
the next 20 years? What will it change? Why?
Wayne Heinmiller Bell Communications Research
houxz!wh Freehold, NJ